Chamber and committees

I have already, in answer to previous questions, set out the range of measures that we are taking to directly support vulnerable households across this winter. More generally, we are engaging with people and businesses across the country. We have been engaging with industry and consumer groups, including fuel poverty organisations, to develop plans for what we can reasonably do to further support those in vulnerable circumstances.

The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, Michael Matheson, met the United Kingdom secretary of state on Monday and pressed for further UK Government action on skills, industry and support for the most vulnerable, and we intend to keep making that case.

Yes. Obviously, as part of the cut and thrust of democracy and political debate, I disagree with and oppose many of the UK Government’s policies, just as the Conservatives will oppose many of the policies of this Government. However, I do not think that there has been anything quite so morally indefensible as the cut to universal credit that is planned to take effect in a week’s time. Taking—at this time, in particular—£20 a week away from the most vulnerable, lowest-income households across the country simply cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

I ask the Conservatives in the chamber—if Douglas Ross wants to get off his phone for a moment while we are talking about this really serious issue—to please, over the next few days, try to persuade their UK Government colleagues not to do this. It is their constituents, just as it is mine and those of every member in the chamber, who are going to find it difficult to feed their children, pay their energy bills and live with dignity if the cut goes ahead. For goodness’ sake, let all of us unite to say to the UK Government, “Do not do this.”

No, I do not agree with that. Perhaps understandably, from his perspective, Douglas Ross wants simply to gloss over this morning’s decision by the Court of Session, which rejected the application for interim interdict. Therefore, let me summarise and paraphrase the reasons that were given for that rejection: the scheme had been consulted on; there had been an opportunity to take part in the consultation; the scheme that was introduced was not “disproportionate, irrational or unreasonable”; it was reasonable to bring in the phased approach; there was no discrimination; and, in summary, the scheme attempted to address legitimate concerns in a reasonable and “balanced way”.

All along, I have been very candid and clear. None of us wants to be in this position and none of us wants to take any of the steps that we have had to take over 18 months, in order to seek to contain the virus, keep people safe and limit the damage to health and other damage that the virus does. However, we are still in the pandemic; there are around 1,000 people in our hospitals with the virus or because of it and, of course, we face what might be the most difficult winter that any of us can imagine. The vaccination passport scheme is a targeted and proportionate way to try to reduce the harm that the virus will do over the winter months, while keeping our economy fully open, functioning and trading. The judgment from the court this morning recognises both those reasons and the way in which the Government has gone about that.

The legal obligation for the passport scheme comes into force tomorrow, and we will continue to engage with business, not just in the run-up to the enforcement, which comes into place on 18 October, but afterwards, to make sure that we are listening and understanding and that all of us work collectively to keep the country as safe as possible, as we go through the winter months.

We have consulted with a range of stakeholders. I do not have the regulations in front of me right now. I am very happy to come back afterwards and go through every particular regulation and say who precisely we have consulted with.

Let us come back to the heart of the matter here. There is one point that I agree with Douglas Ross on: if I had listened to him and the Conservatives, many of the steps that we have taken to try to get Covid cases back under control would not have been taken. I am afraid that the consequence of that might well have been that Covid cases would still be rising. Just a few weeks ago, Douglas Ross was complaining about the continued legal requirement to wear face coverings. He has opposed, literally, almost everything that we have done. I think that this is just part of a pattern, and it will probably leave most people to think that it is a good thing that Douglas Ross is not standing here, facing the need to take these decisions.

I was going to address the points about evidence, because evidence is important. Douglas Ross likes, quite legitimately, to quote different people in the chamber. With regard to the scrutiny of the regulations that took place in a meeting of the Covid-19 Recovery Committee just this morning, let me reflect on the comments of Professor Christopher Dye, who is professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford, in which he commended the evidence paper and said that, with one of two comments or queries, he would

“broadly agree with its recommendations.”

He also said:

“I think that it is a very good report, actually, and I agree with its basic recommendations, which is that vaccination certification is a useful device and approach to support the vaccination programme in Scotland.”

That takes us back to the heart of the matter. We have an infectious virus circulating that has taken far too many lives. It is still doing too much damage: 1,000 people are in our hospitals with Covid right now, as we speak. It is incumbent on Government to take responsible, reasonable and targeted measures to keep the country safe as we go into a potentially very difficult winter. That is a responsibility that I am going to continue to treat and discharge with the utmost seriousness.

It was interesting that, as Gillian Mackay was asking that very pertinent question, the Tories were getting very twitchy. They do not like to hear or to listen to the reality of the damage that their policies are doing to people the length and breadth of Scotland. They will not be able to hide from that damage in the weeks and months to come.

Regarding immigration, in the run-up to the Brexit referendum and since, the Conservatives have given the impression that people from other countries are not welcome to work here. Now, they want people to come here for three months to help the UK Government out of its self-imposed crisis, only to send them back again on Christmas eve. That is absolutely disgraceful.

Across a range of issues today, we have heard the power of the argument for this country to be independent, so that we can take such decisions ourselves and are no longer dependent on the decisions of a UK Government, and so that we can respond to the needs of people throughout this country here, in the democratically elected Parliament of our nation.

I continue to believe, and intend, that that will be the case and that people across the country will have the opportunity to choose independence in a referendum within this session of Parliament and, I hope, within the first half of the session.

First, the £41 million to which Anas Sarwar refers is, I assume, what will flow from this morning’s UK Government announcement of a UK-wide £500 million fund for low-income families. I am surprised to hear Anas Sarwar talk about that fund positively. It was announced by a Tory Government that is taking £6 billion out of the pockets of the lowest-income families through the universal credit cut and expecting praise—which it seems to have got from Anas Sarwar—for putting £500 million back. It is an absolute disgrace and an insult.

I give the absolute commitment that every penny of consequentials that we get from that fund will go to support low-income families. That will be in addition to the support that I have already talked about—a £130 support payment by the end of October that will go to every household that receives council tax reduction, supporting more than 500,000 households across the country.

We are also doubling the carers allowance supplement in December to try to help carers with the cost of living increase and, as I have already said, we have introduced the Scottish child payment. Only yesterday, I visited Social Security Scotland in Dundee, which is delivering 11 benefits already, seven of which do not exist anywhere else. That is how seriously we are taking the obligation to help those most in need.

I come back to the point that our resources are finite. Anas Sarwar is asking me to find money from within a devolved budget that has already been allocated in order to mitigate—again—the impact of reserved policies. Would it not make more sense for us to have the powers here, in this Parliament, with the accompanying resources, so that we can take different decisions?

I make Anas Sarwar two open offers. First, I ask him to back the Scottish Government in its call to devolve all, and not just some, of social security to this Parliament. Secondly, if he wants us to make another payment, he can, by all means, tell me from where in the already allocated Scottish budget he wants me to take over and above the £41 million that he has mentioned, which, as I have already said, will be fully allocated. If he wants anything over and above that, he should come and tell me where from within the Scottish budget he wants me to take that money. I am happy to listen to him if he is prepared to do that.

We discuss such matters with the UK Government on an on-going basis. The Scottish Government has on many occasions made clear its opposition to the UK Government’s immigration policies—in particular, the ending of free movement. We welcome anything that enables more people to come here to work.

However, to describe the changes to the visa rules that were announced last week as a sticking plaster would be an exaggeration, because I do not think that they even amount to that. They are woefully inadequate.

I am afraid that the price of those policies will be paid and felt by people across the country for some time to come.

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly. I am a very strong believer in a woman’s right to choose on abortion. I am, if it is possible, an even stronger advocate—as everybody should be, regardless of the fact that people have different views on abortion—of the position that any woman who has an abortion should be able to do so without fear of, and without actual abuse or harassment. There is work to be done to make sure that that is the case.

My party’s election manifesto had things to say on the matter, as did the manifestos of other parties, and we will consider steps that we can take to ensure that women can exercise that right in reality.

All of us understand how vital those services are to many people, and I understand the concern that any changes to the operation of such services brings. The Glasgow health and social care partnership has sought to assure the Government that the suspension of services is temporary. The situation will be regularly reviewed and services will be reinstated as quickly as possible.

We have been working, and we will continue to work, closely with all local areas, including Glasgow, to ensure that services are delivered safely. That has included introducing measures to address recruitment and retention issues, such as working with the Scottish Social Services Council and key partners to promote opportunities and encourage take-up of vacant posts, which includes work on training and developing the workforce. In addition, we are running a campaign to attract more people to the sector, and we are accelerating routes into the sector in recruitment processes.