Chamber and committees

This chamber feels far too quiet without Christina’s infectious laugh. It is impossible, in three minutes, to encapsulate the remarkable human being that she was, but let me share these fundamental truths about a woman I was privileged to call my friend.

First, she was a truly exceptional politician, with abilities that are all too rare in places like this. The connection that she made with people came from her heart—a heart that she always wore proudly on her sleeve, and which burned with a passion for social justice and equality.

When I made Christina a minister, I knew that she would do a good job, but I did not anticipate the strength of the impact that she made. As First Minister, whenever I encountered someone who worked in her policy field, they would invariably tell me that they loved her. No disrespect to my other ministers, but that was not normal.

Secondly, she was the beating heart of her family. Forgive me, Presiding Officer, if I address them directly.

Keith, you were her soul mate. I do not think you will ever know how much happiness you brought her. I know that she made you deeply happy, too.

Lewis and Jack, she was so very, very proud of you. Rare was the conversation with your mum that did not involve accounts of what one or both of you were up to. A little-known fact is that Jack and I share a birthday, which meant that Christina was always one of the first people I would hear from on my birthday every year. I will so miss those texts. However, from now on, Jack, whether you like it or not, in my little mark of remembrance, I am going to be the first person you hear from on your birthday every single year.

Finally, Christina McKelvie was an absolutely incredible friend. Over the past couple of years, in particular, when she must so often have had the weight of the world on her own shoulders, she was always concerned to know how I was. On St Andrew’s day last year, we were both at Janey Godley’s funeral. I could tell that day that Christina was not feeling well, so I forced her to let me drive her home. I will gloss over her assessment of my driving, but I am deeply grateful to have had that time with Christina. It was probably the most profound conversation that we ever had. She opened up about her fears of what lay ahead and for the loved ones she knew she would leave behind far too soon. We reflected together on how short life is and how important it is to live every single day of it to the full and, even in the darkest of times, to find reasons to laugh. It is that, ultimately—her laugh and her unfailing ability, no matter what, to lift my spirits—that I will remember most about the beautiful, funny, wise woman that was Christina McKelvie.

Christina, I loved you. We all loved you. And I am going to miss you so very much. [Applause.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise—I could not get the app to connect; I would have voted yes.

I commend the minister on the continued commitment to the Promise and the significant progress that has been made. However, the oversight board is clear that delivery by 2030 needs increased pace and renewed purpose, so I would like to press her on that point. What in her statement will increase the pace of delivery, rather than simply continue it at a pace that we all agree is not sufficient at this stage?

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

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

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.

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!

I think it can be squared pretty easily, actually, drawing on what I have just said. I do not know how many of the papers you would have seen personally at the time, but at that point, we were not in a position where we had decided whether we would definitely use private finance, because we did not have a clear private finance route, or opt for publicly funded straight capital provision.

The situation at that point was that, had we gone down a private finance route, the 2025 target would not have been capable of being met, but we had not closed the door to the design build capital funded option. If memory serves me correctly, it was only at the end of 2022 or thereabouts that it became clear that there was no route to a 2025 target being met. With any kind of target, as you get closer to it, there is a diminishing prospect of it being met, but, until that point, there was, at least in theory, a route to meeting the 2025 target. That closed off around the end of 2022 or 2023. Clearly, there were other factors at play around then as well.

Let me try to answer that as best I can, perhaps in a general sense. On any particular points, I am more than happy to look at the paperwork after this meeting and come back with specific answers in writing, if that would be helpful to the committee.

I will say two things in general. First, it is not the case that the issues with the A9 were down to the Greens’ involvement in the Government. People can read the Bute house agreement for themselves to see that the commitment to the A9 was not affected by that agreement. As First Minister during that time, I can say that that was not the case.

With the caveat that I will look again to see whether I can throw some light on other issues, my second point is that we are talking about a period when our revenue and capital budgets were under significant and growing pressure. Members of the Parliament have heard statements that various finance secretaries have made during recent times about the need for savings and the need to reprioritise. We all know the reasons for that. The overarching reason is the funding challenges that we have been confronted with in relation to the on-going work to try to find ways to make progress on sections of the road through either direct capital or a private finance model. In my view, the funding challenges are the overarching reason. However, as I said, I am happy to go away to see whether there are further comments that might be helpful.

I will do my best to respond to that question and, in the course of today’s session, to answer questions as fully as I can.

My starting point is to agree with your starting point: I do not think there is any smoking gun or anything deeply sinister for the committee to uncover. Clearly this is from my perspective, but I do not agree that there was a diminution of focus and drive behind the A9 project. During my time as First Minister, the two sections of dualling that have now been completed were completed, and there was, and there continues to be, an incredible amount of work to progress things.

In preparing for this session, I have had the opportunity to go back and read all the relevant paperwork—I thought that I had left behind reading Government papers when I stood down from Government. When the 2025 target was set back in 2011, we were absolutely committed to it, in good faith. The question in my mind now—this will undoubtedly also be a question in the committee’s mind—is whether there was sufficient rigour and openness about just how challenging a target it was. When I look at it now, it is clear that, for the target to have been met, we would have to have had a fair wind on every aspect of the project that we were embarking on. Of course, we did not have a fair wind on every aspect of it. I have no doubt that we will come on to some of the issues, but, for example, the 2014 change of classification of the non-profit distributing model, austerity, Brexit and the pandemic all had an impact.

We encountered a situation of great complexity. We talk about the A9 being a single project, but it is actually 11 major projects in one. A lot of effort went into some of the preparatory stages. One example is public consultation. I do not want to sound as though I am underplaying the challenges, but I think that one of the achievements is that, unlike the situation with the Aberdeen bypass, we have not ended up getting caught up in endless legal processes through challenges and public inquiries.

That is my observation. With any such project that has not been delivered in the timescale that was initially set, it would be appropriate to look back, at an appropriate time—this committee’s deliberations will be part of that process—to see whether there were stages or points at which things could have gone quicker than they did. However, I think that we have progressed the A9 with drive and determination; it is simply that we have encountered significant challenges along the way. Although some of those challenges were foreseeable in a project of such a scale, many of the others that were encountered were not foreseeable at the time that the 2025 target was set.