Chamber and committees

As an experienced member of the Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee, and as somebody who knows his way around the issues in our courts and our judicial system, Mr Findlay knows that the Lord Advocate is independent in the prosecutorial decisions that are taken. I have said to Parliament that I will convey to the Lord Advocate the issues—

Suicide prevention is a key priority for the Scottish Government, and it will be a priority for me, as First Minister. In September 2022, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we published our 10-year suicide prevention strategy, “Creating Hope Together”, and an associated first three-year action plan. Those are backed by a commitment to double annual funding for suicide prevention to £2.8 million by 2026. We are tailoring our approach to ensure that we reach people across Scotland who are most at risk of suicide, which includes placing a strong emphasis on reaching men.

If Mr Stewart will allow me, I will look into the question that he has asked me about funding for the men’s shed movement, with which I have many happy associations. Indeed, I had the great pleasure of opening the men’s shed in the village of Stanley, in my constituency, which emerged from a collaboration with Historic Environment Scotland. That was an example of how Government facilities can be used to create a men’s shed and support it without direct funding being made available.

As I said earlier in answer to Mr Ross, funding is under enormous pressure, but I recognise the contribution of the men’s shed movement. I also recognise that, just last week, my colleague Jim Fairlie hosted a gathering in the Parliament for a variety of organisations that support men who face difficulty. I welcome all efforts to support that aim.

I do not think that Mr Lumsden’s language is appropriate in the Parliament. It is not for me to police language—I am just giving my observation; it is a matter for the Presiding Officer. However, in the spirit of trying to get us to a position in which we respect one another’s opinions—[Interruption.]

I disagree fundamentally with Mr Lumsden on more issues than I care to imagine, but he will be treated with courtesy by me, and I think that others should be treated with courtesy in the chamber, too.

Presiding Officer, please allow me to say that I was not trying to intrude on your responsibilities. I just think that, in general, the public expect us to be quite civilised to one another, and it would be nice if we could be.

On the substantive point of the question, I want to ensure that we have a just transition for the oil and gas sector. We have a climate crisis, and we have to take careful and appropriate steps to respond to it. That response must involve a just transition for the oil and gas sector, and that is what the Government will deliver.

I am greatly honoured to be a nominee for First Minister of Scotland.

This year is a year of anniversaries for our new democracy. It is 25 years, as colleagues have said, since the establishment of this Parliament, and it is 10 years since the referendum on Scottish independence. It is a time to reflect but, more important, it is a time to look to the future. Both those democratic events were a result of growing demand from many people in Scotland for self-government. The extent of that self-government journey is still a matter of debate, but we are all sitting here today because a sizable majority believe that, in key aspects of Scottish life, it is better that decisions about Scotland be made here in Scotland.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats should take pride in having governed Scotland through the difficult early years of devolution, when much of the debate was about the cost of this building, rather than about what we could do with the powers that are invested in it. The Conservatives, under the leadership of Annabel—now Baroness—Goldie, can look back with great credit on the constructive way in which they often approached Opposition; they certainly helped me with a budget or two. The Scottish Greens have brought a distinctive voice to our politics, and they became the first Greens to serve in a Government in the United Kingdom.

My party, the SNP, has used the powers of this Parliament to abolish tuition fees and prescription charges. We have brought in a more progressive income tax system and we are, through the Scottish child payment, lifting children out of poverty. Indeed, the Scottish child payment has been hailed as the most significant measure to tackle child poverty anywhere in Europe in 40 years. In our national health service we have, despite its challenges, the best-performing core accident and emergency departments in the United Kingdom.

Policy and record are, of course, a matter of debate and contest, but there is something that I hope we can all agree on. I am proud that it was an SNP Government that was led by the first woman First Minister and then by the first Muslim First Minister. I pay tribute to Humza Yousaf—a man of unfailing courtesy who served my party, but also served this Parliament and his country, with distinction. When Humza Yousaf announced his resignation, he said this:

“To my colleagues in the opposition, regardless of political party, I genuinely do wish you well. I bear no ill-will and certainly bear no grudge against anyone.”

That is the dignified mark of a man whom I am proud to call a colleague and friend.

Throughout all the 25 years of the Parliament, I have been privileged to serve my constituents and the people of Scotland. Indeed, I was a little perturbed to see the following statement against my entry on the Parliament website this morning, under the heading “Previous roles”:

“John has had 22 previous roles”.

The old joke about giving a busy man more to do seems to be relevant at this moment. Under the heading “Parliamentary and Government Roles” the web page says, as of this morning:

“John does not have any parliamentary or government roles”.

It is that entry that I would like to change after this afternoon’s vote.

I hope that we can all recognise that, despite our political differences, we are all here because we want the best for Scotland, whatever our specific role happens to be. For me, it is with all my experience—but with much more than that—and with my burning ambition for a better future for this country that I am seeking to become First Minister.

The idea of ambition brings me to the second of this year’s anniversaries: the independence referendum of 2014. Both those who are against independence and those who are in favour of it deserve to be heard. Through dialogue, debate and deliberations, I believe that it is possible to argue our different positions respectfully.

For my part, I look at the years since 2014 and I see the impact of Brexit, the policy of UK austerity, the economic damage of the mini-budget, and the fact that wages in the UK have stagnated, that productivity is too low and that inequality is far too high. I look at the independent countries that are comparable to Scotland but are wealthier and are more equal than the UK, and it reinforces my core belief that Scottish self-government is the right way forward for Scotland.

Those of us who believe in independence do so because we believe that it will equip this Parliament with the powers that it needs to match the success of those comparable independent states. That, in turn, will mean more resources for our national health service and our public services, the opportunity to grow our economy free from a broken Westminster economic model, and the prospect of rejoining the European Union and escaping the damage of Brexit.

I recognise that, in all this, it is essential for a First Minister to listen to other people’s perspectives. That will, of course, be what I will do. That includes listening to the people who voted for a pro-independence Parliament in 2021 and to those who take a different view, and then engaging in the lifeblood of our democracy—persuasion that is based on evidence while respecting honest and honourable differences.

In that spirit—building on the achievements in Government, with a focus on the economy, our national health service and the public services, and on a drive to lift children out of poverty, through patient dialogue—I ask for the support of Parliament to become Scotland’s next First Minister.

I am very grateful to Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar, Lorna Slater and Alex Cole-Hamilton for their kind comments this afternoon, especially in relation to the support of my family.

When I stood down as Deputy First Minister in March last year, I believed that that would be the last senior office that I would hold in politics. Having then served as a senior minister for 16 years, I felt that I had, to coin a phrase, done my bit. To find myself accepting office as First Minister of Scotland today is, therefore—to utter a classic understatement—something of a surprise. It is, however, an extraordinary privilege and it is my honour to accept the office of First Minister, committing myself to doing the best that I can for Scotland.

As I navigated my way through the media pack in the corridors of this Parliament last week, prior to announcing my candidacy for the SNP leadership, I tried to explain that I was taking my time to decide whether to stand because I had to be certain that the decision was right for my family. For me, my answers to the media were not a stalling tactic or an evasive answer from an experienced politician. For me, it was the truth.

Members will know that my wife, Elizabeth, has multiple sclerosis. She is indefatigable in trying to make sure that MS does not get in the way of her living life to the full but, much to her frustration, she often has to rely on her husband for support and assistance. I could not just commit myself to becoming First Minister without being able to properly work out with my family how we would be able to manage as a family. We have talked that through and we will manage, but I cannot let this moment pass without making clear to Elizabeth my profound, eternal gratitude for the sacrifices that she is prepared to make to enable her husband to serve our country as First Minister. [Applause.]

I am so pleased that my father, my wife and children, members of my family and our dearest friends are able to be here today to see this moment. My only regret is that my beloved mother did not live long enough to see this day. As her parish minister wrote to me yesterday,

“Your mum would have been—quietly—proud.”

My mother’s love of literature and poetry, which rubbed off on her two sons, would have prompted her to find some words to sum up this moment. Yesterday, I was asked what the single most important policy objective would be for my Government. I made it clear that it would be the eradication of child poverty. In searching for words to sum up this occasion, therefore, perhaps my mother would have chosen these, which are from one of Scotland’s greatest poets: Hamish Henderson, who was born in Blairgowrie, in the very beating heart of my Perthshire North constituency. In his epic anthem, “The Freedom Come-All-Ye”, which I heard him sing in the early 1990s from an open-top bus in the Meadows of our great capital city, during a rally that demanded the establishment of this very Parliament, Hamish Henderson wrote:

“So come all ye at hame wi’ Freedom,
Never heed whit the hoodies croak for doom.
In your hoose a’ the bairns o’ Adam
Can find breid, barley-bree and painted room.”

If there was ever an anthem that railed against child poverty, those words from Hamish Henderson echo through the straths and streets of our diverse country as a call for us to act. I will therefore be unapologetic about bringing to the Parliament measures that we can take to eradicate child poverty, and I look forward to seeking the support of others to achieve that aim, because I recognise that that is how it is going to have to work. I am leading a minority Government and I will need to reach out to others to make things happen—to pass legislation and to agree a budget. To “pass legislation” and “agree a budget” sound like dry and technical parliamentary terms. However, in reality, they mean that, to fund our schools and hospitals, give our businesses a competitive edge, take climate action, eradicate child poverty and change people’s lives for the better, we will have to work together.

As colleagues have—fairly—recognised, the Parliament is intensely polarised at this time. I accept my part in creating that environment, whether by shouting put-downs from the front bench or heckling from a sedentary position. I promise that that will all stop. I have changed. [Laughter.] Perhaps time will tell on that one.

This is not the collaborative place that it has been in the past—a collaborative place that has done so much good to improve the lives of people in Scotland. As the Parliament marks its 25-year anniversary and as one of the relatively small group of members who have been here from the start, I reflect on the major developments that have taken place through collaborative work and agreement over that time: for example, the ban on smoking in public places, which was taken forward by the Labour and Liberal Executive; minimum unit pricing, by the SNP Government; and the introduction of free bus travel for the under-22s, by the SNP-Green partnership. I commit my Government to working to create such agreement across the chamber. I hope that there is space and willingness for that to happen, in the interests of the people who sent us here.

It is hardly a surprise to anyone in the chamber that I believe that this country could do more if we had the powers of a normal, independent nation. Others in the chamber take the opposite view. That is the essence of democracy—that people are free to hold, express and pursue different opinions. The question that we face in the Parliament today, however, is the more practical one of whether our disagreement on the constitution prevents us from working collaboratively within the existing powers of the Parliament to eradicate child poverty, build the economy, support jobs, address the cost of living crisis, improve the health service and tackle the climate crisis. I will give all my energy and willingness to engage and listen in order to ensure that that is not the case, and I invite others to do the same.

When I pitched up at Forrester high school in this city in 1979 at the age of 15 wearing my SNP badge, and my friends and teachers wondered why I had become involved in this fringe party, I could scarcely have imagined that my journey would involve becoming the First Minister of Scotland. It is an extraordinary privilege to hold this office, and I thank Parliament warmly for the honour that has been given to me.

To the people of Scotland, I say simply this: I offer myself to be the First Minister for everyone in Scotland. I am here to serve you. I will give everything that I have to build the best future for our country. [Applause.]

The speech by Jackson Carlaw, the convener of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, was, in two respects, an outstanding one with which to open the debate.

First, it explained something that does not get nearly enough airtime: the significance and effectiveness of the public petitions process, which is one of the jewels in the crown of the identity of this Parliament.

The second element of the importance of Mr Carlaw’s speech was the recognition of the seriousness of the issue that has been raised by Nicola Murray, who is one of my constituents. One point that I have tried to explain to Nicola is an understanding of the significance of the fact that we are gathered here this afternoon, in this chamber, to devote our entire afternoon’s business to the consideration of her petition. If ever there was an example of the triumph of the design of our parliamentary system, it is that one member of the public, who has had an absolutely harrowing experience, is able to find some—I stress the word “some”—solace in the fact that her Parliament is able to respond to the suffering that she has endured. It has provided the opportunity for the Government to be challenged by the petition that has come to the committee. The committee has considered the petition, which has overcome the necessary process of scrutiny, given that many petitions come to the Parliament, and has decided that the petition is of such importance that the Government should be challenged about it, the minister should respond to it, and we should debate it all afternoon.

That is a triumph not only for the design of our parliamentary system but for my constituent Nicola Murray, who has endured inexplicable suffering and has brought this issue to us. The issue is very significant, because Ms Murray challenges us to think about whether the existing arrangements—which all of us, in good faith, have put in place—are adequate to deal with the circumstances that people face.

As I have discussed with Ms Murray, the events in her case took place before the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 was in force, and, when I think through some of the issues that are involved, I wonder whether things would have been different had it been in force. Would that have given more protection to my constituent than our pre-existing system did?

That brings me to a wider experience, which has come from spending a large part of the past year sitting on the Criminal Justice Committee—in particular, over the past few months, as it has been scrutinising the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the committee and which Parliament has approved at stage 1. The evidence that the committee took about the experience of victims was, again, harrowing. We have—I think—strong legislative frameworks in place just now, but we have taken from members of the public testimony that was, in some cases and at some times, impossible to listen to.

As a Parliament—and I encourage the Government to do likewise—we must remain open to exploring in our minds the question that is at the heart of Nicola Murray’s petition, which is whether our current arrangements are adequate and fit for purpose.

I very much take the point that Maggie Chapman and Maurice Golden made. Nicola Murray’s exact proposition might not be perfect. However, as all members know, as we scrutinise legislation, a proposal made at stage 2 might not be perfect, but the Government will take it away, work with the relevant member and come back at stage 3 with a refined proposition that everybody agrees will work. I hope that we can leave today’s debate with members of Parliament and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs feeling able to consider that, although my constituent’s proposal might not be the perfect solution, a solution needs to be found to address the circumstances that she has experienced.

Having listened to the debate, and in particular to Jamie Greene’s intervention on the cabinet secretary, I am left questioning whether the answer lies in sentencing guidelines or in a new offence. I understand exactly where the cabinet secretary is coming from on the point that we have judicial independence and operational independence for the police and for the Crown.

Going back to what Mr Carlaw said, though, I do not think that any of us can look at my constituent’s experience and say that a £300 fine feels appropriate. The question that the petition forces us to encounter and consider is: what is the right approach? Is it a new offence, or is it to recognise that sentencing guidelines are not appropriate?

My plea to the Government would be not to close the door on this case, but to leave it open for further consideration of the appropriate way to address my constituent’s unquestionable suffering. We should address that by commending her courage and doing something about it.

Before Mr Carlaw leaves his point about the comparison between different petitions systems, I note that the Scottish Parliament’s development of what has been an effective parliamentary petitions system should be recognised. In my experience in the House of Commons, petitions arrived and went nowhere. In this Parliament, however—as is obvious—petitions are lodged and can end up occupying the afternoon business in the parliamentary chamber. That is a commendation of the strength of the parliamentary rules here and of the work of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Will the member take an intervention?

Thank you. My final question follows up on your earlier point about the importance of independence in the process. You said a moment ago that you do not have much experience of or engagement with the PIRC, but would you see the PIRC as a body that could undertake independent handling and scrutiny of complaints, as you conceive of that process, or are you suggesting that we should consider a body that is even further removed from the existing structures of policing in Scotland for handling such complaints?