Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the First Minister for her answer. This week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists called on the Scottish Government to

“pull out all the stops”

and explain how it will meet its target for investing in mental health services for our children and young people.

I was contacted by a teacher, who is more than happy to meet the First Minister, and she asked me to ask the First Minister

“to rescind the free bus travel, stop giving out laptops and put some money into mental health provisions for our young people.”

She said:

“What good is a laptop and a free bus pass when you’re in a deep state of anxiety and depression?”

Will the First Minister agree to meet that teacher to find out what CAMHS delays feel like for those who are left to support our young people through the waiting period?

I am very grateful to speak in the debate.

We find ourselves in an unusual position following our departure from the European Union, in which, over decades, regulations and rules were driven by professions across Europe to ensure that recognition of the skills, competencies, honesty and otherwise of various professions was reflected across the European Union. The purpose of that, of course, was that people could ply their trade where they chose to be. That also came at a time when recognition of devolved professions was coming to the fore. With the devolution settlement in Scotland, and even before that, we had a distinct and separate group of professions.

I want to take the short time that I have to discuss two of those professions: the legal profession and the education and schools profession, which is very close to my heart. I had the pleasure of serving on the General Teaching Council for Scotland as a council member a while ago. It is fascinating that, with the bill making its way through the Parliament at Westminster, those two groups came to advocate for their own identity and their own professional competences.

It was interesting to listen to Tess White; I am slightly sad that she was unable to take my intervention. She talked about the assurances that the Westminster Tory Government has given to the devolved nations. It does not seem to be a large step from saying, “We will talk to you, we promise” to putting that in the bill so that the people of the devolved nations can say, “There’s the respect that we are due.” In turn, the devolved Governments would consult the professions that, within the Governments’ ambit, regulate themselves. I am thinking of the Law Society of Scotland and the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

I will turn to some specific issues, in the short time that I have left. On teaching, a consultation was put out by the Government to which the General Teaching Council for Scotland responded. The GTCS has responded to a number of such items in seeking to protect access to the profession for people who are properly qualified, because we in this nation are very proud to have a graduate profession, or graduate-equivalent profession, that empowers people to teach our youngsters. In its own consultation on the matter, The GTCS stated:

“GTC Scotland has actively participated in the discussion of new legislation, including the Internal Market Bill ... and the Professional Qualifications Bill”,

which we are dealing with today. It said:

“GTC Scotland is strongly opposed to any proposal which could erode or dilute the integrity of the Register of Teachers through changes to qualification requirements or similar.”

That is where the fear about the bill lies: a fear that a change that is made in the south without proper and full consultation will affect teachers here. It is for this Parliament and our Government here to represent our independent bodies, such as the GTCS, and to defend their position.

Mention was made of the Law Society of Scotland’s support for the bill. It is right to say that it supports the bill’s provisions in the main, but it drew specific attention to clause 7, which provides for a centre from which information can be sought by people from elsewhere in Europe who want to practice in the United Kingdom, or professionals from the United Kingdom who want to practice abroad. The reason why the Law Society of Scotland took issue with that was not that it is not a good idea, but that it is vitally important that there is proper consultation of the various professional bodies across the United Kingdom so that the correct information is available. I have some concerns that are perhaps on a technical level, about the cost and finance implications of that centre, but they are for another day.

To come to the heart of the matter, I note that we have heard members discuss whether the matter is a constitutional argument about whether this Government and this Parliament should or should not be consulted. It is more fundamental than that. The bill had to be rushed through because of a choice that was made in a referendum. In pursuing its vehicle to implement that choice, the Conservative Government down south was confronted with the problem of how professionals will ply their trades across the European Union. It was an opportunity for Westminster to hold out its hands, listen and discuss, and then to reflect those discussions in the bill, not in side-by-side letters and promises. It is right that in Wales and Scotland there is dismay and disappointment at the approach that has been taken.

I support the Government’s motion and, honestly, I feel that the Westminster Government could have done a lot better.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is a pleasure to speak to the motion, which is in my and Bob Doris’s names. For members who have been unable to digest the third report this year of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, let me give a short synopsis as to why supporting the motion would be beneficial. To draw on the Deputy First Minister’s speech earlier, I say that we need standing orders that are fit for purpose.

The committee’s report proposes an extension to temporary rule 4, which relates to the remit of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, as well as a number of other miscellaneous changes. The remit of the previous committee was altered in session 5, and that would naturally have come to an end, if not for the extension. We were approached by the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee to ask for the extension to be continued throughout session 6 so that, in principle, the committee can mirror the appropriate minister and cabinet secretary, as is its duty and obligation. We propose a temporary change for the remaining period of this session so that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee can properly carry out its work and scrutinise the Scottish Government.

The other amendments are a group of miscellaneous changes to bring the standing orders back into a fit and proper state. They have been occasioned by some drafting errors, errors in sections and changes relating to removal of certain statutes.

I hope that, throughout this session of Parliament, I will continue to entertain members with various amendments to the standing orders. So that we can have full and proper debate, and so that we can have fit and proper standing orders for the Parliament, I urge members to digest our eloquent reports, for which I thank the clerks and my fellow members of the committee.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 3rd Report 2022 (Session 6), Standing Order Rule Changes – Committee name and remit and miscellaneous changes (SP Paper 96), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A of the report be made with effect from 11 February 2022.

Does the member agree that such consideration should take place when the charter comes up for renewal? That would mean that, between charter renewals, the BBC had confidence about what its financial future held.

It is a great pleasure to follow Clare Adamson and her memories of David Attenborough all those years ago. In 1975, he presented “Fabulous Animals”, a series for children about extraordinary animals, and I had the great pleasure of discovering that a book accompanied the series.

I, too, thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for bringing this important motion to the chamber. In particular, I thank him for mentioning educational resources, and, in the time that I have, I will concentrate on the educational role that the BBC has played.

Of course, we hope that we are coming to the end of Covid, but during the first lockdown, we witnessed the BBC at its very best when BBC Bitesize provided education to children who sometimes struggled to speak to their class teacher. During the second lockdown, the BBC stepped up by using CBBC, CBeebies and BBC Two to transmit programmes that were aimed at primary and high school children in the morning and afternoon, not only to give support with the difficult maths questions that we have heard about but, in a much wider way, to remind young people of what was happening around the world, and tying that in to why they are educated in the way that they are. The programmes looked at history, invited authors to come into the studio or to join remotely by Zoom to talk about their books, and provided something that children found very difficult to achieve—a bit of fun, because learning should be fun.

From its original mission, the BBC has had a requirement to educate. I remind those who talk about a change in funding—so that only people who take things from the BBC should contribute to it—that children are not in a position to contribute financially to the BBC. However, as a representation of our community and the culture of the United Kingdom, the BBC is able to give those children a great start in their lives—perhaps not in the way that their boring teachers do, but in colourful pictures of sperm whales and blue whales. I still remember the first time that—again, through David Attenborough—I saw moving pictures of a blue whale. I remember how enormous that creature was and being told that it was possibly the largest living creature that has ever been on earth.

Education is one of the pillars of the BBC. Everyone deserves a bit of a history lesson, so I will explain that it all goes back to 1924, when special broadcasts for schools went out on the wireless, before moving to television in 1957. That allows me to mention one of my great heroes, Mary Somerville. As the first director of schools broadcasting, she was a woman at the heart of the BBC, defining what education should be for the children outside. She also happens to be the woman who forced the BBC to make maternity payments—so that she could return to work after the birth of her first child.

I celebrate the transmissions on CBBC and BBC Two and the work of the BBC education department in delivering that public purpose to promote education. They are central to fulfilling the BBC’s mission to inform, educate and entertain; one of the great pillars of our BBC is its ability to do that, not just for children but for adults. At a moment when we are being asked to think about what the future holds for the BBC and how it should be funded, we need to consider all that it did for us when we were young, all that it is doing for the young of today and all that it will do for the young of tomorrow. For that, it deserves certainty of funding, independence and our support.

Would the cabinet secretary consider extending the 2019 recording so that instances of bullying using cyber methods, whether mobile phones or laptops, can be identified and centrally collated?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives from the nuclear energy sector, and what was discussed. (S6O-00704)

Hunterston B has shown what nuclear power can provide for Scotland—clean and reliable power to keep the lights on and prices low. As our nation is in the midst of an energy crisis, will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Scottish Government will invite official representation from the nuclear sector to be part of the just transition energy commission?

It is a pleasure to close for Labour and, with my other hat on, as the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. It is a great pleasure to follow Stephanie Callaghan’s speech. I reiterate her point about the risk of marginalising further those who exist at the edge of our society—the very people who need this place, the very people who need Westminster and the very people who are at risk of being excluded.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s motion, particularly the confirmation that a consultation on electoral reforms will start at the end of this year, which I hope will see legislation come before this place towards the end of the parliamentary session.

I am grateful to my committee for its report on the LCM for the Elections Bill. Given the nature of this debate, I urge everyone within and outwith the Parliament to read the report, because it deals in detail with a complex piece of legislation that, at times, strays across the devolved authorities but also deals with reserved matters.

I would like to deal with two aspects of that. The first relates to the introduction of a strategy and policy statement and the Electoral Commission’s duty in that regard. Representatives of the commission who came before the committee talked about the risk that that poses not only to the genuine independence of the commission, but—this is perhaps more frightening—to the view that those outwith might hold as to the independence of the commission. It is vital that the organisation that monitors and oversees elections sits outwith the political parties and the Executive, in order to reassure people who might be disappointed with an election result that it was fair.

One aspect of the strategy and policy statement relates to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and, indeed, on the make-up of that Westminster committee. This is a tiny, nerdy point, but I find the fact that there is an attempt to alter the make-up of that committee extremely concerning. The change is hidden in the bill, and to a number of people who have looked at it, including those from whom the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard evidence, it is of great concern.

The other aspect relates to the consultative nature of bodies in Scotland. The Scottish Elections (Reform) Act 2020

“transferred financial responsibility from Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.”

There is a question about how relevantly and frequently the SPCB is consulted, and my personal view is that it is important that the SPCB has a role in that, because of its overriding role with regard to the financial aspects of Scottish elections.

The second point that I want to raise, in the short time that I have, relates to digital imprints—the phrases that are stamped on electronic advertising, comments and quotes to point out where they originate from. The bill proposes that the imprint should exist at all times, rather than just during election periods. That is dealt with in the committee’s report, which I urge people to read, but there is a serious question about why that matter is included in the bill. The power to take something down from the internet is reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but the power to deal with imprints is devolved. There is, indeed, Scottish legislation to deal with imprints in election periods. It would be beneficial for people at Westminster to look with more clarity at what is, and is not, devolved.

Finally, as we have heard from the deputy convener, the committee was in agreement with the proposal. However, some members of the committee dissented from the agreement. That information is contained in the report, and I urge people to read it. On the substance of what we have heard today, the bill is an appalling piece of legislation and it needs to be looked at again.