Chamber and committees

I would expect the SQA and all bodies, whether they are Government agencies or otherwise, to have equality at the heart of everything that they do. That has been impressed on the SQA, as I said in my opening answer. As I also said, the EHRC’s finding refers to historical omissions. Over the last period—indeed, since the current chief executive was appointed—any new SQA policy or practice that has been introduced has been subject to an equality impact assessment in line with duties under the Equality Act 2010. The SQA is right, now, to go back and make sure that that applies to all current policies and practices, and the Government expects it fully to do so in line with its action plan.

Libraries week is an opportunity to celebrate the contribution that libraries make to our communities. A small number of libraries across the country have not yet reopened after the Covid closures. I understand that there are a number of reasons for that, including the fact that some are still being used as Covid test centres and some are co-located within schools, and in some cases there is a requirement for refurbishment before reopening. However, I hope that most of the others will reopen soon.

Of the 481 libraries across Scotland, 432 are open as of Monday, and a further 24 have announced reopening dates that will be forthcoming. Therefore, well over 90 per cent of all libraries across the country are already open, and I think that we should welcome that.

In the programme for government, we announced a £1.25 million public library Covid support fund, which is intended to give local authorities and libraries support in getting open again and staying open, because libraries are a vital and integral part of communities across our country.

I am genuinely trying to be helpful and to build some agreement here. I have said twice that I understand the process that Douglas Ross is going through. My comments are not meant to be a criticism. I would simply ask him, in return, to understand the proper and due process that any responsible Government has to go through in considering legislation. I cannot engage with a bill that does not yet exist, for the reasons that we have heard. We will engage with the proposals in the consultation. There is one that, having looked at it briefly already this morning, I would immediately welcome. For example, when it comes to treatment, the consultation document seems to recognise that we need a range of different interventions and services and that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach.

That is a welcome step forward from the Conservatives, who previously have appeared to suggest that the only solution was residential rehabilitation. Already, I see the emergence of some common ground and I genuinely want to treat the consultation with the respect that it deserves. However, equally, Douglas Ross must know that I cannot stand here and say that I will vote for a bill—giving it carte blanche—when, by his own admission and for understandable reasons, that bill does not yet exist. Therefore, let us try and move forward with a genuine determination to build consensus where we can.

My final point is one that I made earlier: there is a real need to move forward at pace with this work. With the best will in the world—as we are demonstrating today—legislation takes time and it does so for good reason. I do not want to wait for legislation, however merited or otherwise it might turn out to be. We have set out a very detailed plan of action, which is backed by significant additional resources and has, at its heart, guaranteed standards of treatment, including access to same-day treatment. We will get on with that plan and if, as a Parliament, we think that legislation can help to underpin it in the future, I am open minded about that, as I have said many times. However, if we want to build consensus, let us both understand the processes that we have to go through, in order that—hopefully, in the interests of people across the country—we can get there.

I think that Douglas Ross has accepted that I am genuinely trying not to make this exchange politically divisive, because, although we do not agree on all the detail or the background, we all agree that this Parliament and Government have much work to do.

I will try and make some progress here. I cannot agree to vote for a bill that does not yet exist, because I do not know what the bill will say in detail. I received the consultation only this morning and I will study it in more detail later, but I have had a chance to have a brief look at it and, if its broad proposals translate into the general principles of a bill, it is likely that we will want to give that bill a fair wind through Parliament, in order to see whether we can reach consensus on the detail. Given that we are talking about a bill that is not yet in existence, any reasonable person would think that that is a reasonable response from a First Minister who has a duty to make sure that we go through all the right processes. I hope that we can agree that that is a reasonable starting point.

With regard to the fact that we have a duty—which I feel very strongly—to make sure that what has not worked well in our drug treatment services in the past is rectified for the future, we also have an obligation to make sure that we listen to lived experience and use it to drive proposals. My condolences and sympathies are with Vicky on the loss of Stewart and with every other family who has lost someone to drugs. They are the ones we must keep in mind, but part of keeping them in mind and living up to our responsibility to them is making sure that we think seriously about what has to be done. We are demonstrating today the time that it takes, understandably, even to get a draft bill before Parliament so, while we consider that legislation, we are moving on with various measures now. That is the commitment that the Government has given and will continue to take forward.

I have the greatest respect for whistleblowers, and I have the greatest respect and the greatest sympathy for the families. I do not hesitate to say that.

I go again to the point that I made earlier: it was the Government, through the previous health secretary Jeane Freeman, who commissioned and established the public inquiry. The public inquiry is now under way. There are criminal investigations under way. It is, rightly, not up to me which cases are investigated from a criminal perspective and which are not. It is up to the police and the Crown Office.

As I said in my previous answer, it is important to try not to divide on such issues, but to recognise the actions of, in this case, Anas Sarwar. I know that he cares deeply about the families involved. That is why I also know, or at least hope, that he will recognise that the worst thing I could do, standing here as First Minister, in light of the independent processes that are under way—a statutory public inquiry and criminal investigations—would be to in any way inadvertently prejudice either of those processes by getting further into the detail right now.

We have done what I think is the right thing in establishing the independent inquiry. It is entirely for the police and the Crown Office to determine what criminal investigations are undertaken. It is incumbent on all of us who take the issues seriously and want to get to the answers that we allow those processes to take their course. Of course, when we have the findings from them, the Parliament will have not just the opportunity but the duty to reflect on any further action that is necessary.

I appreciate that the member was not in the Parliament on 3 February 2021, when the August 2023 implementation date was agreed. Unless I am mistaken, it was supported by all Conservative members at that time. There is a pragmatic reason for that date: we have to work with COSLA to ensure that that date is achievable and deliverable. That was the consensus that was reached and backed by the Parliament.

Along the way, as I said, we are piloting the approach in a number of local authorities to deliver on that commitment and to support the wider roll-out. I understand that parents want that to happen straight away and I understand their reasons for that, but we are doing this in the proper way so that it is deliverable and is properly delivered, so that when we get to that implementation date, should parents want to defer their child’s entry to primary school, they will have that right.

I will certainly repeat what I said before. We will look at any bill very carefully. I received the consultation this morning, and I have an open mind on it. As a point of fact, unless I am mistaken, I understand that Douglas Ross did not publish a bill this morning; indeed, the consultation that was sent to my office stated that, at this stage, there is no bill but only a draft proposal. I am not criticising that; it is important that legislation is properly consulted on. We will consider the proposals in the consultation and, as and when that develops into actual proposed legislation, we will consider that in detail.

I think—perhaps this is a point of agreement—that speed of action now is essential. We all know that legislation takes time to go through the proper processes. I looked briefly at the document that was sent to me this morning and, on the face of it, it does not appear to suggest anything that goes beyond what we are already doing, although it suggests that those things should be enshrined in legislation. I will take funding as an example. Part of the consultation is in regard to the establishment of a new national funding scheme that is separate from alcohol and drug partnerships, but it does not appear to suggest additional funding. For example, it says that what is proposed is

“well within £50 million annual spending”

that is already being delivered.

We will continue with the action that we have set out. I do not think that it is right to wait for legislation, but I repeat that we remain open minded to looking at the details of legislation when it comes from the consultation that has been published today.

Before I go on to that question, I apologise for not addressing the point about the efforts to trace the second family. Last time Anas Sarwar asked about that, I set out the steps that the health board had taken to try to locate the family. As I understand it, the board has not located the family. As I understand it, that is not for the want of trying and effort, and appropriate steps will continue to be taken.

On the issue of criminal investigations, it is a fundamental point of constitutional democracy that it is not up to the First Minister of the country—at any time, whoever he or she may be—to determine what cases are and are not subject to criminal investigation. It would be deeply improper if that was the case.

On the question that Anas Sarwar has just posed to me again, a Government that has established a full, independent, statutory public inquiry cannot be said to be trying to hide away from getting to the truth. We want the answers so that, if there are issues to be addressed with the health board or in Government policy, they can be addressed, and, fundamentally, so that the families, the most important thing of all, get the answers that they want.

However, It is not credible for Anas Sarwar to say that a public inquiry was fought for and campaigned for—I accept that, although the Government did establish the inquiry—and then in the next breath say that the inquiry does not matter, we cannot wait for it and we have to do something different. It is an independent statutory public inquiry. Those who have a genuine interest in getting to the answers and the truth now have a duty to allow that inquiry to properly do its work. That is what the Government will do and I would suggest that that is what Anas Sarwar needs to do, as well.

First, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to Rhona Malone and to say how deeply troubling the findings of the tribunal are. I commend her bravery in taking her case to it. The findings paint a picture that should trouble us all.

In confronting the issues—as we all must—it is important that, first, we do not assume that any such case is necessarily an isolated incident, and secondly, that we do not assume that any organisation in our society, however well respected it is by us all, is somehow immune from the misogynistic culture that pervades our whole society.

The findings of the tribunal must be taken seriously, so I welcome the response of Police Scotland in accepting the findings and expressing how serious it is about addressing the issues.

More generally, the case is another reminder—there have been too many painful reminders of this in recent weeks—that behind the spectrum of unacceptable experiences that women have, which goes from inappropriate comments to discrimination in the workplace to violence and serious sexual assault, lies unacceptable behaviour on the part of men. That is the problem that must be addressed and rectified.

I am old enough to have seen and experienced some parts of that spectrum over the years. It has taken too long to get to this point so I do not say this lightly, but I hope that we are finally at a watershed moment and a turning point at which we stop expecting women to fix the problems and instead put the full glare where it belongs—on men who behave in deeply unacceptable and misogynist ways.

I say to all the men in the chamber and across the country that they should challenge such behaviour when they see it in other men that they know, and that they should challenge their own behaviour. Then let us, as a society, turn the page and turn the corner so that women can live free of fear of harassment, abuse, intimidation, violence and—in the worst cases—death.

Tuesday.