Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 9 February 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 4 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament

Keeping the Promise

Meeting date: 6 November 2024

Nicola Sturgeon

Few, if any, issues matter more to me than this one. I know that that is true for the minister, too, and I commend her for her leadership on this mission.

The Promise is not just another Government policy; it is much more fundamental than that. It is of a “different character”, as Oliver Mundell said. We all made a solemn commitment to some of the most vulnerable children and young people in our country—a Promise to care-experienced children and young people that they will grow up loved and valued, with the same life chances as their non-care-experienced peers.

As the person who, when I was First Minister, metaphorically—and, in many cases, literally—looked young people in the eye and made the Promise, I feel a heavy responsibility to see it delivered in full. Indeed, some of the young people whom I met in the early stages of this work are in the public gallery today, and I want them to know that I will always stand with them and with their peers across the country.

I also pay tribute to the Promise organisation—Fiona Duncan, Fraser McKinlay and the oversight board. I believe that they are doing vital and very good work.

However, it is not just down to the Promise organisation—it is down to all of us. I feel this responsibility no less heavily today than I did when I was in the Government. I feel it even though I no longer have Government responsibilities, and I think that that is appropriate, because the Promise will not be delivered by Government action alone. Of course, the Government must inspire, provide leadership and funding—a topic that I will return to—and hold public services to account, but delivery is down to each and every one of us. It requires a whole-system, whole-society approach.

As we approach the midway point to 2030, by when the Promise must be delivered—I say “must be delivered” deliberately—there is much to be positive about. For example, the care-experienced student bursary, ending the incarceration of young people in Polmont, progress towards the care leaver payment and the new allowance for foster and kinship carers are all important.

What is perhaps more important than any individual initiative is to challenge ourselves to make sure that those measures add up to more than the sum of their parts. It is the plethora of tactical interventions, vital though they might be, that are delivering the strategic change that we need to see and the transformation for care-experienced young people that the Promise is all about. That is a question that we must always have at the forefront of our minds.

I am optimistic. I firmly believe that, with the right strategy, leadership and funding in place, the Promise is deliverable by 2030, but—and this is a significant but—believing that it is deliverable is not the same as being convinced that it will be delivered. At this stage, that is a much more open question, which is why it is so vital in this moment that we significantly increase the scale and pace of change. I agree with many of the more challenging points that have been made across the chamber today. We must decide collectively, as one Parliament, that the breaking of the Promise is not an option that we are willing to countenance.

There are many issues that I could focus on today, but in the time that I have, I want to mention three. The first is prevention. Delivering on the Promise depends on significantly reducing the number of young people who are going into care and building on the progress that has already been made. That means supporting families to stay together, helping them to overcome the challenges that often force them apart and addressing the long-term drivers of family breakdown in a preventative way that is real, meaningful and accessible, not just as a response to crisis. Central and critical to that is the whole-family wellbeing fund.

The down payments that have been made are welcome. The money is already supporting positive change, but it is profoundly disappointing and it potentially jeopardises delivery of the Promise that the full £500 million will not be delivered by the end of the current parliamentary session. I understand more than most the financial challenges that the Government is facing, but I very much hope that the forthcoming budget significantly increases the amount that is available in the next financial year, so that as much as possible is delivered in the current parliamentary session, and that we have a clear deadline for delivery in full. To be blunt, the commitment must be delivered in full well enough in advance of 2030 for it to have sufficient impact by 2030.

My second point is about the need to radically improve the experience of those young people for whom state care is unavoidable and to listen to their lived experience as we do so. We know what needs to be done—ending sibling separation—because, at one in four, there are still far too many separations, and ending, not redefining, the use of restraint and reducing school exclusions are some other examples.

A number of parliamentary questions that I asked recently confirmed that we still do not have clear enough data to know how much progress is or is not being made to hold public authorities to account. I agree with Oliver Mundell, Willie Rennie and others that it is simply not acceptable for any local authority not to be able to answer those questions. I believe that that particular aspect is urgent so that we can hold ourselves and others to account.

My final point is that, whatever disagreements there are in this Parliament—let us face it, there are many—or, indeed, in council chambers across the country, the mission of keeping the Promise should and must unite us all. As I know more than most, it is always easier to make a promise than it is to deliver on it. However, we will be much more likely, as a nation, to deliver on the Promise if we approach it on a genuine cross-party basis, as I believe that we have done so far. I agree with those who have said that that cannot be done in a lowest-common-denominator way or a not-rocking-the-boat way. It must be done in a way that provides the constructive challenge that will drive delivery.

The Promise has so much support outside the Parliament—indeed, it has massive support, and is the subject of massive interest, across the world. There are countless Governments that are looking to Scotland to see what we achieve. That support and commitment must be replicated here in Parliament.

To be blunt, we must not let the care community down. It would be unconscionable for us to do so. Today, let us recommit to keeping the Promise but, more importantly, let us recommit to doing whatever it takes to keep the Promise in full.

Meeting of the Parliament

Ukraine

Meeting date: 26 September 2024

Nicola Sturgeon

I am pleased to speak in the debate. I associate myself with the opening remarks of the cabinet secretary and, indeed, with those of members across the chamber. How good it is to see representatives of our Scots-Ukrainian community here with us in the public gallery. I am sure that all of us here welcome them warmly.

The debate comes at a vital time for Ukraine and for the prospects of its victory against Russian aggression. That is essential for democracy not only in Ukraine but across Europe. First and foremost, Ukraine is fighting for its own survival. However, we must never forget that this is a battle waged on behalf of all of us. If Vladimir Putin were to emerge victorious in Ukraine—an unthinkable prospect—the threat that he would then pose to Russia’s neighbours, and to peace across Europe, would be grave indeed. That is why solidarity in deeds as well as in words—in fact, in deeds more than in words—matters so much.

On that front, the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the whole country can be proud. As others have said, more than 26,000 Ukrainians have sought refuge here in Scotland, most of them under the supersponsor scheme that I was proud to establish during my time as First Minister. Earlier in the debate, I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary confirm that reopening that scheme remains under consideration. It is also worth mentioning, albeit as an aside, that the process of getting it up and running was an example of excellent co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments—one from which lessons could perhaps be learned.

I agree with Patrick Harvie that it is our moral obligation as a country—indeed, as human beings—to welcome refugees and not to demonise them. That should apply to all people who seek refuge, from wherever in the world they come. The supersponsor scheme is vital, but of course it is not the only support shown by the Scottish Government. There has also been significant humanitarian aid, consignments of medical supplies and support for the crucial work of the Halo Trust. Our support also encompasses strong backing for effective sanctions. As other members have noted, right now it is open to question how effective the sanctions regime is. That must now be reinforced.

As President Zelenskyy is in the United States presenting his plan for victory, the point that I want to make, and which other members made earlier in the debate, is about the wider situation and the importance of not only maintaining solidarity with Ukraine but stepping it up. In the past few days, we have reached a critical juncture. Despite Ukraine’s military successes in recent times, Russian forces have made significant territorial gains in the east of the country. They are now bearing down on further targets, which, if they succeed, would threaten Ukraine’s supply routes into the eastern region of Donetsk.

That is happening right now, and at a time when, whether we like it or not—and we in the chamber do not like it—the attention of the world is drifting. The focus on the developing horror in the middle east is both understandable and right. Indeed, as Patrick Harvie rightly said, our principled support of Ukraine should apply just as strongly now to the people of Palestine and, indeed, to others who are being threatened with aggression across our world. However, that should not, and must not, be at the expense of Ukraine.

It is also a hard but inescapable fact that political turmoil and instability are threatening the solidity of the coalition that has supported Ukraine over the past two years—for example, we have the rise of the far right in parts of Germany and, of course, the possible outcome of the US election. I will be far from the only one in the chamber who is fervently hoping for a Kamala Harris victory in November but, unfortunately, the threat of a second Trump presidency cannot be dismissed. One of the many dire consequences of such an outcome could be for Ukraine. The risk of Trump forcing a so-called peace that rewards Putin’s aggression would be real.

Stephen Kerr rightly talked about the disgrace of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving the people—particularly the women—of that country to a terrible fate. However, we should remember that that had its roots in decisions that were taken by Donald Trump to do deals with the Taliban. That should stand as a very clear warning now. This, then, is a time for all those, including Scotland and the UK as a whole, who have stood steadfastly with Ukraine to step up and renew our solidarity. This Parliament is not responsible for decisions on military assistance, but we can and must raise our voices.

The full detail of President Zelenskyy’s plan is not in the public domain, but the key strands, including NATO membership and security guarantees for Ukraine, are known. Aspects of it—in particular, the proposal to allow Western-supplied long-range Storm Shadow missiles to be used against targets in Russia—need careful consideration of the possible consequences. However, as that consideration is being given, we must also remember that Ukraine not winning this war has grave consequences.

Those consequences would be felt most of all by the people of that country, but the hard fact is that we would all pay a price. Ten years ago, when Putin’s assault on Ukraine started with the annexation of Crimea, the world did not act. The hard lesson from that time—that appeasement of brutal narcissists such as Vladimir Putin emboldens them—needs to be learned. Decisions that will help Ukraine to decisively win this war, for the sake of us all, need to be taken, and they need to be taken quickly. As well as continuing with our own acts of support and solidarity, that is a message that this Parliament can and should send very loudly and very strongly today.

I support the motion. Slava Ukraini!

Meeting of the Parliament

Decision Time

Meeting date: 17 January 2024

Nicola Sturgeon

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect, but I would have voted yes.

Meeting of the Parliament

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 11 January 2024

Nicola Sturgeon

Does the First Minister agree that, if we are to keep the Promise, the significant progress that has already been made needs to continue and now intensify? In particular, does he agree that the whole family wellbeing fund is absolutely essential to providing the funding to transform services so that families are better supported and fewer young people need to enter care in the first place? To that end, will he give a commitment that the fund will be delivered in full and that it will be fully invested in to improve the lives of the young people—present and future—to whom the Promise has been made?