Chamber and committees

The Government has fulfilled all its commitments in the 100 days programme, but there will, of course, be other things in the Government’s manifesto that we are determined to take forward. We will do that as part of the measures that we are taking, for example, on transport decarbonisation with the bus decarbonisation task force, the steps to remove fossil fuels from public transport, where we are making £50 million available in 2021 to help drive a green recovery, and the successful completion of the extensive woodland creation programme, which includes 12,000 hectares of woodland planting. Those are just some of the measures that we have taken in relation to tackling climate change.

We met extensively before the summer recess, and I think that we are meeting later this week, if my diary is correct. We will therefore continue the discussions that Jackie Baillie helpfully contributes to at all times, of course. I welcome her contribution in that process.

Within the 100 days commitments, we took steps to ensure that children and young people in Scotland will have the best start in life and that families will be supported to recover from the difficult period that all families have faced. We provided £20 million for a summer offer of activities for those children and young people most affected by Covid to reconnect, have fun and learn, and we introduced free school lunches for primary 4 children as the first step to delivering free school breakfasts and lunches for all primary school pupils. I am grateful to local authority leaders for their agreement to the approach that we have taken, which has meant that, at the start of the school year, primary 4 children have been able to benefit from that support. We have also made available funding to local authorities to increase teacher numbers by 1,000 and classroom assistants by 500 as part of our commitment to 3,500 additional teachers and 500 more pupil support assistants over the parliamentary session.

Since the start of term, on 18 August, we have supported all local authorities to offer 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare to all eligible children. Perhaps that is the most significant contribution that we could make to enhancing the nurture and support of our youngest citizens at the most critical time in their lives.

On the first part of Mr Cole-Hamilton’s intervention, my strong view is that it would not be satisfactory for the type of options that he suggested to be made available in all circumstances, because it is clear that that would not be appropriate. For the same reason, the latter part of Mr Cole-Hamilton’s question is a difficult point for me to commit to, because clinical judgment will be applied in that respect. However, I accept and recognise it as vital that any young person who is in need of specific mental health assistance is able to receive that. That is the commitment that the Government is making in relation to the NHS recovery plan that has been published.

Oh, I cannot resist. [Laughter.]

I do not find that comment at all relevant. It is clear that Patrick Harvie, Lorna Slater and I will never agree on certain issues, but we have agreed to co-operate in the spirit of the new politics. There has been a lot of discussion of the new politics today. Douglas Ross, Oliver Mundell and Murdo Fraser will not get anywhere on the subject of the new politics with the language that they have used to describe fellow members of Parliament today. Their language has been fundamentally disrespectful.

That is also relevant to the question whether the debate has been about 100 days or 5,234 days. Stephen Kerr marshalled the argument that we have had 5,234 days. That has obviously been part of the Tory script: they have all used it—Dean Lockhart, Murdo Fraser, Oliver Mundell and Douglas Ross all churned it out. The inconvenient fact that they miss is that this Government has been elected to serve the people on four occasions during that time.

The language, style, rhetoric and argument that have been piled upon us by the Conservatives today have been the same bile that they put out in 2011, 2016 and 2021, but they are over there in opposition and we are over here in government for the fourth time.

I gently advise the Conservatives that their approach to the debate gets them nowhere. They piled out this argument in 2021. It was to be the end of this Government. They threw absolutely everything at us in the run-up to the 2021 election but gained not one seat in this Parliament. We gained a seat and came back with 64 members and our colleagues in the Green Party gained three seats in Parliament. My advice to Oliver Mundell, before I accept his next intervention, is to point out that the vile strategy that he and his party have pursued has got them absolutely nowhere and they must think again.[Interruption.]

I think that everybody in the Parliament believes in a just transition in the oil and gas sector. We all recognise that there has to be a move away from hydrocarbons. That is the way that we have to tackle climate change. The difference between this Government, of which my colleagues are members, and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives were prepared to throw people on a scrap heap of industrial decline in the 1980s and this Government will not do that.

The final thing that I want to mention is that Douglas Ross made a big thing of the fact that the debate had to focus on the reality of the day. I have tried to do that with my comments—in my earlier speech and this one—about Covid recovery, about some of the challenges that we face and about the accomplishments that the Government has delivered. However, in his entire speech to Parliament earlier today, Douglas Ross made not a single mention of the havoc that has being created and inflicted on our society by Brexit. Farmers in my constituency are unable to harvest their product or take it to market because there is not the capacity in the supply chain to handle it. Fish producers cannot take their product to market because of the ludicrous—

I understand that he has given notice. In accordance with parliamentary protocol, I would not normally refer to a member if they were not here, but I feel that I must do so because he opened the debate. I want my intentions to be clear in his absence.

Douglas Ross and Murdo Fraser were on opposite sides in the debate. Douglas Ross led the charge in saying that the debate should not be happening; Murdo Fraser led the charge in saying that it was an opportunity to scrutinise the Government. In the opening debate of a new year of Parliament, the Conservatives are facing in opposite directions. According to Murdo Fraser, the debate is an opportunity to scrutinise the Government; according to his leader, it is a debate that should not be happening.

I will give way to Mr Carson.

It is injured pride. In that respect, Mr Fraser is absolutely correct.

Let me turn to the substance of the debate. Ariane Burgess made a number of comments about the limited scope of the bill and the fact that there is a debate to be had about the nature and character of our recovery from Covid. Indeed, in his latter contribution to the debate, Mr Sweeney made the point that out of most moments of crisis comes a substantial reform of public policy. I agree with that. There has to be a substantial reform of public policy to ensure that we address many of the legitimate issues that he raised. He might not have been using the right vehicle to advance his arguments today—vehicles have been very much a subject of today’s debate—but he will be able to get on a Borders bus with a clear conscience after his gallant response to Christine Grahame.

The point of substance is that, as a Parliament, we must engage on the route to recovery. I look forward to doing that in the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, which is convened by Siobhian Brown and will bring together representation from across the Parliament. We must have substantive debate about how we recover from Covid. That goes beyond the operational provisions of the bill, which do not chart new ground but simply extend the provisions on which the Parliament has already legislated. Although that has attracted some criticism, it was the right judgment for the Government to make.

Mark Griffin and Jackie Baillie raised issues about the tenant hardship fund. Yesterday, I indicated that the fund will be launched later in the year. We will consult extensively with stakeholders to establish the details and the criteria, and on the question of the conversion of any loans.

I want to put on record the good work that has been done by a range of stakeholders, including registered social landlords, local authorities and the housing association movement, in collaboration with the Government, in trying to avoid evictions in the first place. It is right for us to focus on the tenant hardship fund, but it is also right for me to put on record the really good work that many stakeholders have undertaken to ensure that we support tenants through difficult times, given the fact that the coronavirus is disrupting the economy and livelihoods and, as a consequence, might disrupt tenancies. We must try to avoid that disruption for individuals, because they deserve our support.

I thank members for their forbearance over the past three days. I want to scotch the rumour that the bill was an early exercise in continuing professional development for new members of Parliament—a crash course in legislation over a three-day period. That was not my intention. I thank members for the way in which they have engaged in the process to enhance the legislation, to advance issues of importance to them and to ensure that we have the correct statutory framework in place to deal with the continuing threat that we face from the coronavirus.

We hope that we are moving into more optimistic times in relation to the management of the virus due to the success of the vaccination programme. However, the data that we are receiving this week demonstrates that the problem has not deserted us in any shape or form.

I assure the Conservatives that the legislation will not be maintained for a moment longer than we think it is required. We will faithfully engage in the reporting and accountability arrangements, which Parliament has strengthened today. We have followed all those since the legislation was introduced, last spring, and we will continue to do that as well as cover new ground as a consequence of the amendments that have been passed today. I look forward to the midnight oil being burned in producing the reports to satisfy the requirements of statute.

I encourage Parliament to support the bill at decision time.

It sounds almost as if there is some dancing going on at the back of the chamber. Who am I to interrupt the fun of my colleagues at the back?

The issues that Pauline McNeill raised are being explored. The First Minister said that at First Minister’s question time today. We are trying to be as helpful as we possibly can, if there is any way in which we can exercise some degree of pragmatic action. Jackie Baillie talked yesterday about the relaxation of requirements around some of the arrangements when people are in pubs for some of the football games that might go to penalties. We have taken pragmatic action on that to avoid situations that could be disruptive. We are able to take such action, and those issues are being actively explored.

I come now to the controversial—if I might call it that—part of the debate, which is Mr Sweeney’s contribution. He raised absolutely legitimate issues of debate; they are completely legitimate issues and I do not in any way whatsoever dismiss them. However, the amendments should not be agreed to for a number of reasons.

The first is that a number of the issues that Mr Sweeney raised are already provided for in existing statute. To go back to my argument about not causing confusion in statute, if there is already provision in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, I do not see the necessity for us to expand that provision in a bill of this character, which has a narrow scope.

Secondly, I want to counter the view that funds have been allocated to transportation companies on an “ad hoc” basis—Mr Sweeney used that phrase. Funds have been allocated to try to sustain public transport services in Scotland. If the Government had not expended the money in the way that it has, we would not have public transport services available to us in the post-pandemic situation. It is as simple as that. Those were emergency distributions of funds to try to sustain a sector that, through the impact of the pandemic, was unable to take in any fares.