Scottish Parliament, 17 March 2016

348 contributions from 48 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is general questions.

Council Tax Bands (Inverclyde)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how many properties in Inverclyde would be affected by the proposed reforms to the top four council tax bands. (S4O-05676)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Of over 37,000 chargeable dwellings in Inverclyde, as at September 2015, only 6,900 are in the top four council tax bands E to H. Of those, 3,400 are in band E. The proposed reforms would result in a maximum increase of £110 per year, which is £9 per month or £2 per week.

As at March 2015, 200 bands E to H households in Inverclyde were in receipt of council tax reduction. Those households would be unaffected by the multiplier changes. In addition, bands E to H households with a below-net-median income—up to a limit of £25,000 per year—would be able to apply through the CTR scheme for protection from the multiplier changes.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the proposals will result in a net financial income for Inverclyde Council, while protecting people who live in properties in the lower four bands?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The investment will be targeted according to the number of eligible children, not where the money was raised. It will deliver additional education provision over and above what would otherwise have been available. Further details will be confirmed following discussions with local government on how best to implement the programme, but it will apply to children in primary school and secondary 1 to S3. The funding will primarily be calculated based on the number of children who are eligible for free school meals. The funding will go direct to headteachers.

The 75 per cent of Scottish households that live in bands A to D will be unaffected by the reforms to the council tax band system, and a further 54,000 households in bands E to H on low incomes—more than one third of which are pensioner households—will be entitled to an exemption from the changes through the council tax reduction scheme.

Living Wage (Care Workers in Glasgow)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it is helping to support delivery of the living wage to care workers in Glasgow. (S4O-05677)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As part of the 2016-17 budget we have taken action to protect and grow our social care services and deliver our shared priorities by investing a further £250 million in health and social care partnerships. Part of that investment is to enable local authorities to pay a living wage to care workers who support vulnerable adults—including in the independent and third sectors. We have allocated £33.28 million to Glasgow. Given that significant enhancement in resource, we expect the local authority to utilise resources from its allocation to enable it to commission adult social care services on the basis that a living wage is being paid.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Given that the care sector is female dominated, does the cabinet secretary agree that paying the living wage to care staff is also a gender equality issue, and that paying it will raise the status of that very important sector? How will the Scottish Government ensure that the commitment that is being funded by the Scottish Government will be delivered by Glasgow City Council?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with Bob Doris. The Scottish Government is committed to making Scotland a fairer place for all. The allocation of the further investment in social care will enable local authorities to ensure that our care workers—the vast majority of whom are women, as Bob Doris said—receive the living wage. We estimate that, in the city of Glasgow, about 6,000 care workers, and across Scotland, about 40,000 care workers, will benefit. Many of those workers are women.

We are working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local government leaders and third sector and independent sector organisations to ensure that the detail of the delivery is in place for 1 October, when it is due to be implemented.

Fracking (Central Scotland)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what impact fracking would have on Central Scotland. (S4O-05678)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

No fracking is permitted in Scotland as we have a moratorium on unconventional oil and gas developments.

The Scottish Government will take no risks with Scotland’s environment while unanswered questions remain about the potential impacts of unconventional oil and gas. One of the world’s most comprehensive programmes of research into the technology is now under way, and we will also hold an extensive public consultation to let the people of Scotland have their say. That is the only approach that clearly and consistently promises to engage with the evidence and the public on the issue.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

Even with the moratorium in place, people across Central Scotland are concerned about the impact of fracking and want to know that their leaders will fight against it, but Jim Ratcliffe of Ineos has reportedly received assurances that the Scottish National Party Government is not against fracking at all. He says that the Government

“are being quite clear. What they’ve said to us is they’re not against fracking.”

For clarity, has anyone acting on behalf of the Scottish Government ever given such an assurance?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Absolutely not. The position is as I have stated this week, last week and the week before—it remains the same. Unlike the Conservatives—who have now arrived in the chamber—and the Labour Party, we take a sensible approach: we look for the evidence.

I will run through some of the areas in which I think it is absolutely correct that we are looking at the evidence. They include: understanding and mitigating community-level impacts from transportation, including in Central Scotland; decommissioning site restoration and aftercare; understanding and monitoring of undue seismic activity; climate change impacts; economic impacts; and scenario development. For all those areas and more, it is essential that we provide the evidence to stakeholders and the public. What could conceivably be wrong with that approach?

A9 Dualling (Progress)

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made with the dualling of the A9. (S4O-05679)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Construction of the A9 dualling began between Kincraig to Dalraddy in September 2015. The first section is expected to be completed by the summer of next year.

The remaining dualling is on course to meet the Scottish Government’s target of being completed by 2025. The design of remaining projects is progressing well, with one quarter of the preferred routes announced last week and the rest anticipated during 2016 and into early 2017. Exhibitions are currently taking place at which the route options are being displayed to the public for comment.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that as well as creating and retaining jobs during the construction phases, the dualling of the A9 will provide a long-term stimulus to the economy of the Highlands and Islands and improve safety for motorists?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Mike MacKenzie is absolutely right that the construction will have benefits for employment and that dualling will have longer-term benefits in relation to increased productivity and a more efficient transport system. The A9 plays a vital role in supporting the economy not just of the Highlands and Islands but of Scotland, with an estimated £19 billion-worth of goods being transported annually on it.

The journey time and reliability benefits that are associated with the dualling programme will reduce transport costs for businesses. Dualling will also improve connectivity between the Highlands and the central belt, and provide opportunities for the key business sectors, including tourism.

The upgrading of the road itself will also reduce driver stress and frustration and lead to improved safety for the 12 million vehicles per year that travel between Perth and Inverness. I am pleased that the current Scottish Government made the first commitment to dual the A9 and the A96, which will mean that for the first time, all Scotland’s cities are connected by at least a dual carriageway or a motorway.

Steel Industry (Support)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the steel industry. (S4O-05680)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I chair the multi-agency Scottish steel task force, which was convened immediately after Tata Steel’s announcement that it planned to mothball its Scottish steel plants. The task force brings together the company, trade unions, local authorities, Government agencies and local elected representatives. The task force is doing everything within the power of the Scottish Government and its partners to support the continuation of Scotland’s steel industry and a viable future for the steel plants at Dalzell and Clydebridge. We have made significant progress in five key areas—business rates, energy costs, support for staff, environmental matters and procurement—which are all aimed at supporting our ambition to see an alternative operator on those sites.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The minister will be aware that I attended a European Commission conference on fuel-intensive industries and heard the concerns of the industry across Europe in the current economic climate of steel dumping and high fuel costs. Does he share my concern that the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission are taking too long to address the concerns of the industry, and that it is about time they took positive action and provided support such as has been demonstrated by the Scottish Government?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I share Clare Adamson’s concerns. There is a need for urgent action by both the UK Government and the European Union, and we continue to press the UK Government on that. Clare Adamson has pressed all the issues at the meetings of the task force, every one of which she has attended.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Although that is appreciated, the key question is not what the Scottish Government has done but where it is going. It is now more than five months since Tata Steel made its announcement. For the workers, all that has happened is a phased decline with mothballing, and support to help them into other jobs. That was not supposed to be the objective.

When will the Scottish Government look at a plan B to fulfil its guarantee of a future for Scottish steel by whatever means necessary?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

John Pentland also sits on the task force, which is a non-political body, and we have all been working together. I am not sure that I accept his characterisation of the position—for example, several of the key workers who are necessary to restart the plant are currently undertaking a skills course, and their skills are being preserved precisely because there are not many people who know how to operate a steel plate mill. If we had not instituted that pioneering scheme to preserve the key skills that are required to operate a plate mill, it would simply not be practical to reopen the plant. That has been done at the Scottish Government’s behest and at the taxpayers’ expense.

Secondly, our objective remains absolutely resolute: to find an alternative operator to take over the plant and resume steel operations in Scotland. As the First Minister undertook to do, we have left no stone unturned. We continue to do that work, and I am sure that I will engage further next Wednesday with Mr Pentland at the last meeting of the task force prior to purdah.

Speech and Language Therapy

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what it has done to protect the provision of speech and language therapy services. (S4O-05681)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The provision of speech and language therapy services is managed by national health service boards, and it is for individual boards to decide how best to deliver those services to meet the needs of the population.

We have appointed an allied health professional national lead for children and young people who is working with NHS boards across Scotland to support the creation of a network of speech and language therapy leads to enable a joined-up approach to service design and delivery. We have recently published the “Ready to Act” document, which is the first children and young people’s services plan in Scotland, in order to focus on the support that is provided by AHPs, including speech and language therapists.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Scottish Government research has shown that people with unmet communication support needs are more likely to have negative interactions with the law. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has suggested that a speech and language therapy pilot programme could be launched in Scotland’s criminal justice system. Although the Government has made no formal commitments, are there any plans to make that programme a reality?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Richard Lyle raises some important issues. The “Ready to Act” plan recognises that communication difficulties can impact on vulnerable young people at risk of entering the criminal justice system, and in particular highlights the importance of early intervention and prevention in seeking to identify and address behavioural issues that are caused by communication difficulties before they escalate.

We will work collaboratively with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and with education and social care colleagues, on the implementation of “Ready to Act”, and we will consider with them how best to address that issue.

Small Businesses (Jobs)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

7. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the reported 12 per cent increase in small business jobs in five years, what it is doing to ensure that this growth continues. (S4O-05682)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government provides a supportive business environment offering a range of assistance, including the small business bonus scheme, which alone reduces or removes business rates for almost 100,000 premises and delivers an estimated £174 million of savings in 2015-16. Ministers of the Scottish Government have committed to continue the scheme for the duration of the next parliamentary session, if we are re-elected.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

In the past three years, 77 small or medium-sized enterprises in my Cathcart constituency have increased their workforce. Will the minister give me a bit more detail and tell me what role he considers the aforementioned small business bonus scheme has had in achieving those results not only in Cathcart but across Glasgow?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I will. The small business bonus scheme, whereby small businesses—and I used to run one—pay no or low business rates, makes an enormous contribution to the economy and the growth of small businesses in Scotland. Official statistics show that more than 9,000 business properties in Glasgow benefit from the scheme. That is why we, if re-elected, will keep it for the whole five years of the parliamentary session. I hope that Opposition parties will join us in that pledge, so that it goes beyond politics and becomes something that is guaranteed for every small business in Scotland. That would be a truly great thing.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S4O-05683)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the leaked report by health board officials that shows proposals for major service changes at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley.

One local mum, Karen Meikle, has described how important the RAH children’s ward is to her son, who has a severe form of cerebral palsy. She said:

“Every second counts when it comes to getting him treatment.”

Will the cabinet secretary give a cast-iron commitment to worried parents such as Karen that, if her Government is re-elected, the RAH children’s ward will be protected from closure or any downgrading whatsoever?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We recognise that the paediatric service provided from ward 15 at the RAH is a highly valued local service. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde chair, John Brown, confirmed that

“None of the contents”—

of the paper to which Mary Fee referred—

“have been approved by the Board or referred to the Scottish Government for consideration.”

As Mary Fee knows, any proposal for major service change would be subject to formal public consultation and ultimately require our approval, and we have received no such request.

Royal Alexandra Hospital (Children’s Ward)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport last discussed the future of the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S4O-05684)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have not discussed the future of the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital because, as the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde made clear in his statement on 15 January, there are no formal proposals to change the services delivered from the ward.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

That is a very interesting answer. The cabinet secretary has not discussed this important issue with the health board.

Thousands of people in Paisley, such as Karen Meikle, have made it clear that they do not want the RAH children’s ward to be closed or downgraded. I am also clear that Scotland’s largest town should have its children’s ward protected and that it should not be subject to closure or downgrading. The question remains unanswered. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me? Yes or no.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Perhaps Neil Bibby should have listened to the answer that I gave to Mary Fee: we recognise that the paediatric service that is provided from ward 15 at the RAH is a highly valued local service. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I said to Mary Fee, the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, John Brown, said:

“None of the contents”—

of that paper—

“have been approved by the Board or referred to the Scottish Government for consideration.”

If the contents have not been referred to me for consideration, we will not have considered them. We have had no request to do that. I hope that that is simple enough for Neil Bibby to understand.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Before we move on to the next item of business, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency John Dramani Mahama, the President of the Republic of Ghana, and Her Excellency Mrs Lordina Mahama, the first lady of the Republic of Ghana. [Applause.]

Engagements

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03298)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

After yesterday’s budget, we can start today on a consensual note. Both the First Minister and I agree that George Osborne’s spending plans are bad for Scotland. In fact, it was a typical Tory budget, with tax cuts for the top 15 per cent of earners but spending cuts for everyone else. When our schools are facing cuts and thousands of people are losing their jobs, a tax cut for high earners cannot be the priority. When the powers are devolved next year, Scottish Labour would reverse that tax cut for the top 15 per cent. Can the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish National Party would do the same?

The First Minister

We will set out our detailed income tax proposals early next week, and they will be based on our judgment of what is right for Scotland now and in the long term. However, let me be absolutely clear today: a large tax cut for 10 per cent, actually, of the population—those on the highest incomes—at a time when support for the disabled is being cut and our public services are under pressure is, in my view, the wrong choice. That money should be invested in our public services and in protecting the vulnerable. That is why I was so surprised yesterday to hear Labour’s shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, say that he actually supports these tax cuts.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

People listening will know that that was anything but a clear answer from the First Minister. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Let me explain why. Nicola Sturgeon has said that this is the wrong choice, but she has not said that she would take a different one when she has the power to do so. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let us hear Ms Dugdale.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

This is an important issue about our priorities. Scottish Labour is absolutely resolute and we have been so since October—we would reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent because, when classroom assistants are being cut and teachers are having to buy their own materials, when the gap between the richest and the poorest kids is as stubborn as ever and when thousands of people are losing their jobs because of cuts to councils, a tax cut for the better-off simply cannot be a priority. This Parliament should not be a conveyor belt for Tory austerity. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

The First Minister has spent her entire career arguing that more powers mean fewer cuts. People deserve a clear answer, so I will ask her once again. Will she back Labour’s plans to reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent—yes or no?

The First Minister

If we can just dispense for a moment or two with the mock indignation, we should reflect on the fact that, for any fair-minded person who was actually willing to listen to my answer, it was a very, very clear answer indeed.

I said that the choice of giving a fairly hefty tax cut to 10 per cent of the population—the highest income earners in our country—was the wrong choice. I think that that is fairly clear. I then said that we will set out our plans for income tax early next week. I have always said that we would set them out prior to the dissolution of this Parliament, and that is what we will do. Finally, I said that I thought that we should and would choose to invest that money instead in our public services and protecting the vulnerable. I think that anybody who is fair minded who was listening to what I said will find that a very clear answer indeed.

That is why I say to Kezia Dugdale that, given that I am answering the question very clearly, perhaps she should not waste her energy on trying to persuade me of this argument. Instead, she should use her energy on trying to persuade Labour’s shadow chancellor, who said yesterday that Labour would support the increase in the 40p threshold.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Twice I have asked the First Minister—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Twice I have asked the First Minister whether she will reverse George Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent, and both times she has told me that she does not support the plan. However, she has not yet said whether she would reverse it.

The new tax powers that are coming to Scotland give us a real opportunity to stop George Osborne’s cuts. I have already said that this Parliament is surely not a place that should pass on Tory austerity; instead, it should stop it. Faced with the choice between using the powers of this Parliament to invest and carrying on with the cuts, we can choose to use the powers.

If we cannot get a clear answer about the top 15 per cent, let us see whether we can get one about the very richest few. I believe that the top 1 per cent—or those who earn more than £150,000 a year—should pay more tax so that we can invest in education. Page 5 of last year’s Scottish National Party manifesto says:

“We will also vote for ... the reintroduction of the”

50p top rate of tax. Will this year’s manifesto make the same commitment?

The First Minister

The problem for Kezia Dugdale is that the people who are watching this are starting to laugh not with her but at her as she pointedly refuses to hear what I am saying. Let me try again—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Let us hear the First Minister, Mr Bibby.

The First Minister

—and let me make it as simple as possible: the Scottish Government will set out our detailed income tax proposals early next week, before the dissolution of Parliament, as we have committed to doing.

Secondly, I have said and will say again—now, I think, for the third time—that the chancellor’s decision yesterday, in a budget in which he cut support for the disabled, confirmed that the Scottish Government’s budget between now and 2020 will reduce by £1 billion in real terms and piled more pressure on our public services, to give a large tax cut to the 10 per cent of the population at the highest end of the income spectrum is the wrong choice. Clearly if I think that it is the wrong choice, it is not a choice that I am going to make myself. Perhaps that is simple enough for Kezia Dugdale.

At a time when our services are under pressure, it is important that we protect our public services and, of course, protect the things that taxpayers in Scotland enjoy but which taxpayers in England do not, such as free education for young people going to university, free personal care for our older people and free medicines for people who are sick. I will continue to take decisions that are fair and balanced and which are in the interests of people across our country, in the interests of our public services and in the interests of our economy, and I will leave Labour to its increasingly desperate battle to hang on to second place.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I think that the people watching this at home are wondering why the First Minister of Scotland cannot answer a question with a simple yes or no. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

That answer was a bit like the First Minister’s answer about fracking. She says that she is highly sceptical, but she will not actually spell out how she will do it any differently.

The First Minister tells us that she is against the cuts and opposes Westminster’s austerity agenda, but when faced with a choice between using the powers of this Parliament to invest and carrying on with the cuts, she chooses cuts and refuses to use the powers. She has just stripped £500 million out of school budgets and vital public services; she will not confirm that she will reverse Osborne’s tax cut for the top 15 per cent; and she will not even commit to her manifesto pledge from last year on the 50p tax rate.

The powers of this Parliament mean that we can choose a different path from the Tories. We have a choice: we can either wring our hands and wave the cuts through, as the SNP chooses to do, or we can use the new tax powers to end austerity, which is what Labour argues for.

Is there any power that the First Minister is prepared to use to stop the cuts?

The First Minister

Kezia Dugdale’s line of questioning reminds me of the Labour Party in Scotland in general—it is going absolutely nowhere. When Kezia Dugdale was scripting these questions, you would think that she would have factored in the possibility that I would answer the question at the first time of asking, and that she would have the ability to amend her subsequent questions.

Let me say, for the fourth time, that I think that George Osborne’s decision to cut taxes for the 10 per cent of the population at the highest end of the income spectrum is the wrong choice, and that I will not take the same choice. I have said that four times; surely somebody on the Labour benches must have understood me. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

The First Minister

Unlike Labour, I have also set out what I will do with local taxation. We have not heard Labour comment on that yet. I have set out plans for local taxation and, in a few days, I will set out plans for income tax. Taken together, those plans will be fair, reasonable and balanced, and they will protect our public services and our economy. I will continue to argue in favour of that position, and perhaps that is why trust for this Scottish Government is at an all-time high. Perhaps Kezia Dugdale will want to reflect on that when she continues in opposition, on whatever side of the chamber that might be.

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-03299)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Tonight.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Many of the income tax decisions that were announced in the budget yesterday will not apply to Scotland’s workers. Such decisions will be for this Parliament to make, and they require serious analysis and proper thought. Last year, the Scottish Conservatives brought together an independent commission of experts to study that issue in detail, and their recommendations were published in January.

The First Minister has at her disposal a team of economic advisers, as well as an army of civil servants. What detailed analysis has she published about how we can use the new tax powers to strengthen Scotland’s economy?

The First Minister

As I said to Kezia Dugdale, we will set out our proposals on income tax early next week. When we do that, we will set out the analysis that backs up the decisions that we will take on income tax.

It is interesting that Ruth Davidson says that she appointed a commission to look into how we can best use new income tax powers for Scotland. From what she has said, it seems that she does not propose to use those powers at all and that she will simply mimic George Osborne. That is the wrong choice for Scotland.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is obvious that no analysis or evidence base has been put forward. Incredibly, if we run through the minutes of meetings of the First Minister’s Council of Economic Advisers from any point in the past year, we see that the new tax powers do not even merit discussion. That was evident yesterday, when we saw the Deputy First Minister on the television looking like a rabbit in the headlights as he talked about how those powers will be used.

I do not want to see a sign at the border that says “Higher taxes here”. I think that that is the wrong choice for Scotland, and I am not the only one who thinks that. In this morning’s press, Jack Perry, the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, wrote:

“a further tax grab ... will only weaken our tax base and depress the economy. That will do nothing to help support schools, hospitals and an ageing population.”

Mr Perry ran Scotland’s main enterprise body for five and a half years. He is not a politician. I ask the First Minister: why is he wrong?

The First Minister

As I have said repeatedly, I will set out my proposals on income tax. It is interesting that Ruth Davidson is not proposing to use the income tax powers. Over the past year, how many times has she stood over there and said to me, “The time is soon when we will all have to decide how we will use the income tax powers”? Yet, as she confirmed at her conference, she is not proposing a single iota of difference from George Osborne’s tax proposals.

Ruth Davidson led the troops up to the top of the hill, promising a 30p tax band but, when she got them there, she said that she was going to march them straight back down again. She is going to mimic George Osborne; I am going to take the decisions that are right for Scotland.

If Ruth Davidson wants to talk about differences between Scotland and England, I will give her some. If someone is a taxpayer in Scotland, their children do not pay for a university education, unlike in England. If someone is a taxpayer in Scotland, they do not pay for personal care for their elderly parents, unlike in England. If someone is a taxpayer in Scotland, they get medicines free when they are sick, unlike in England.

Those are some of the benefits that taxpayers in Scotland get—unlike those in England—but which Ruth Davidson wants to take away. Perhaps she will answer this: how much do the Tories think that people should pay for a university education and how much would she have the prescription charge return to? Let us have some answers from her before she has the nerve to stand here and lecture anyone else.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We have some constituency questions.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Earlier today, I received notification that Z Hinchliffe & Sons, which is a textile company with a factory in Dalry in my constituency, began this morning to issue 90-day redundancy notices to its 86 employees, although the factory has been in full operation throughout an initial 30-day consultation period. The company claims to be in negotiations with a potential buyer but has refused to name that buyer or allow Scottish Enterprise to help find another. The management, which is based in Huddersfield, has also refused to let the partnership action for continuing employment team into the factory to speak to the workers. Given those circumstances, what pressure can be put on Z Hinchliffe to ensure that the workforce is given the assistance that it needs and deserves at this difficult time?

The First Minister

I am aware of the developing situation at Z Hinchliffe in Dalry and I was concerned when I learned about it. This is an anxious time for the company’s employees, their families and the local community. Fergus Ewing will be engaging directly with the business and I assure Kenny Gibson that we will do everything that we can to ensure that the workforce is given the assistance that it needs and deserves at this difficult time. I undertake today to ensure that Fergus Ewing keeps the member fully updated about those discussions.

Cara Hilton (Labour, Dunfermline)

The First Minister will be aware that Longannet power station in my constituency will close at the end of the month, with the loss of 236 jobs locally and more than 1,000 jobs across central Scotland in the supply chain. A £9 million economic recovery plan has been drawn up by Fife Council, Clackmannanshire Council and Falkirk Council. The plan is vital to the long-term economic regeneration of the area, as it will enable recovery from what will be a devastating blow to Kincardine and surrounding communities.

I was disappointed to hear this week from Fife Council leader David Ross that the plan is not going to be funded by the Scottish Government. Will the First Minister please reconsider that decision before Longannet closes on 31 March, to ensure that the communities that I represent have a fighting chance of recovery?

The First Minister

We established the multiagency, multipartner task force to consider such issues when the decision about Longannet’s future was announced. We continue to engage with Fife Council about proposals to support economic regeneration and recovery in the area. We have also been working through the task force and our PACE organisation to help individuals into alternative employment, and I understand that many of the individuals who were employed in Longannet have been able to move into alternative employment. We will continue to engage with the local council through the task force, and with members who represent the area, to ensure that we are doing everything possible and appropriate to help individuals and the local economy.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

The First Minister will be aware of the announcement by ClydeUnion Pumps, which is part of the SPX group and is based in my constituency, that consultations have begun with unions on the prospect of the company making 114 workers redundant. If that comes to pass, it will mean that more than one third of the workforce has gone in the past 12 months, after the loss of 90 jobs last year.

Given the company’s importance to my constituency—for example, my mother and my brother worked in it—and the fact that, starting as Weir Pumps, the plant has stood on Newlands Road since 1886, will the First Minister tell me what the Scottish Government can do to help the workers who are threatened with redundancy and to help the company through the temporary downturn in the oil and gas industry?

The First Minister

I am acutely aware of the situation and of the impact that it will have on those who work there, their families and the local area. Indeed, as the MSP for the neighbouring constituency, I know the importance of the employer and how long-standing its presence has been in the south side of Glasgow.

I can tell James Dornan that Scottish Enterprise met the company yesterday to explore all possible options for supporting the business and retaining its highly skilled employees. Our PACE team has also been in contact with the company and is offering support for affected employees. It will remain in contact with the company and employees throughout the consultation period. We will do everything possible to ensure that all options are explored and that the workforce is given all the support that it expects and deserves at this time.

Commission on Widening Access (Response)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the final report of the commission on widening access. (S4F-03307)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I warmly welcome the report from the commission on widening access, which was published on Monday. Let me take the opportunity to thank Dame Ruth Silver, the chair of the commission, and all the commission members for the very good work that they have done.

I have repeatedly made clear my personal commitment and ambition—indeed, the commitment and ambition of this Government—that every young person, no matter their background, will have an equal chance of going to university, if that is what they choose to do. That is why we immediately accepted the commission’s recommended targets—to maintain the urgency and focus that are needed so that by 2030 students from the 20 per cent most deprived backgrounds should represent 20 per cent of entrants to higher education. We will now consider the other findings and recommendations carefully. If we are re-elected, we will bring forward a full response very early in the next session of Parliament.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Widening access must be tackled right from the start of schooling. Having seemingly abandoned the area-based approach to raising attainment in schools, which ignored the needs of too many children in too many parts of the country, will the First Minister now accept that our idea of a pupil premium is the best approach for the whole of Scotland?

Given how important colleges are as a gateway to learning, and having rejected our penny for education proposal, how will the First Minister prevent her damaging cuts to council education budgets and colleges from undermining efforts to meet her new university targets?

The First Minister

First, Liam McArthur is right to say that dealing with the issue of access to university does not just require the efforts and inputs of universities; it requires all of us, right across the system, to play a part. That is why the commission was right to call it a “whole system problem” that needs a whole-system solution.

As for the rest of Liam McArthur’s question, we have not abandoned anything. Our attainment fund, which was doubled by the Deputy First Minister in the budget, will continue to provide dedicated support to primary schools in our most deprived communities. It is already providing support to more than 300 primary schools across the country. In addition, we will extend the reach of our attainment fund, using the £100 million that is going to be raised every year through reforms that we have announced to local taxation. That money will be allocated to schools on the basis of eligibility for free school meals. It will go directly to schools—directly to headteachers—on the basis of greatest need. Taking together what the Deputy First Minister announced in the budget and what I announced at the weekend, if we are re-elected, over the life of the next Parliament there will be an additional three quarters of a billion pounds spent specifically on attainment in our schools.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

One of the commission’s recommendations was that care-experienced young people who find their way to university should be supported by a full grant while they are there. That recommendation will certainly be part of Scottish Labour’s manifesto. Will the First Minister commit to it too?

The First Minister

It is a good recommendation, and I will set out our response to it over the next few weeks of the election campaign. Actually, Iain Gray is not describing the recommendation as fully as he could have. It does not just talk about grants versus loans for students with care experience; It also says that where students with an experience of care meet minimum access requirements, they should be guaranteed a place at university. I think that those are sensible recommendations that can have an impact on our goal of making sure that there is equal access to university. We will consider them very carefully.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One concern that the report expressed was that some schools do not have a sufficient number of teachers to be able to offer some highers and some advanced highers. What is the Scottish Government doing about that situation?

The First Minister

Many suggestions have been made by many different people about how we make sure that, as part of ensuring equal access to university, all young people have access to the subjects when they are at school. One suggestion that I think has particular merit—not just because it helps ensure equal access but for other reasons as well—is schools working much more in clusters, so that when a particular subject might not be offered in one school, it can be accessed in another school.

The commission and others that have an interest are doing a lot of serious work. The output of all the work will certainly be reflected in my party’s manifesto. As I said, if we are re-elected, we will introduce a full and comprehensive response to the commission’s report early in the next session of Parliament.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

One of the report’s recommendations is that those who compile key university rankings should

“ensure greater priority is given to socioeconomic diversity within the rankings”

and that the institutions that take those actions should not be penalised. What is the Government’s view on that? How can we allay universities’ concerns about the ranking implications?

The First Minister

I strongly agree with what the report says on that issue. It is essential that university rankings are not compiled in such a way that universities find themselves penalised for doing the right things to widen access to students from our more deprived areas.

Our world-class higher education system is—rightly—a source of great pride to us. Rankings are, understandably, important to institutions’ reputation and income. The report makes it clear that a strong and growing body of evidence suggests that socioeconomic diversity improves standards and the education experience of all students. Therefore, universities should be credited not penalised if they make their student body more diverse in that respect. That strong recommendation is backed by strong analysis. It will form part of our response to the report early in the next session of Parliament should we be re-elected.

United Kingdom Budget (Response)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the United Kingdom budget. (S4F-03309)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As a result of yesterday’s budget, between now and 2020 Scotland will see a £1 billion real-terms cut from the day-to-day budget that pays for our public services. That is before the impact of the hidden £3.5 billion cuts in the budget is fully understood. Yesterday’s budget statement delivers very little for Scotland. The modest consequentials that we receive are almost certainly wiped out by the increase in public sector employer pension contribution costs from 2019.

Presiding Officer, as you will have heard me say in earlier stages of these exchanges, we will continue to do everything in our powers to protect the most vulnerable from austerity measures and to protect our public services and our economy.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that this budget will hammer society’s poorest and disabled while helping higher earners? Cutting the employment and support allowance by £30, and changing the eligibility to personal independence payments, which will slash £130 million-worth of support to disabled people in Scotland, will have a hugely damaging impact on those affected. It is a typical Tory action by a savage Tory chancellor.

The First Minister

Yes, I agree. The changes to personal independence payments are cruel on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In Scotland, they will result in about 40,000 disabled people being made worse off. Of that 40,000, two thirds could be worse off by almost £3,000 a year; the remainder could be worse off by almost £1,500 a year.

When the changes were first proposed in January, the Scottish Government, alongside disabled people and a range of charities for the disabled, made clear to the UK Government that we were fundamentally opposed to the changes, which would narrow the eligibility for benefits that support disabled people in their daily lives. We will continue to press that case. As power over disability benefits comes to this Parliament, we build a social security system that treats people, particularly our disabled people, with the dignity and the respect that they deserve.

Cancer Patients (Access to Diagnostic Tests)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that all cancer patients have timely access to diagnostic tests. (S4F-03303)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Our new £100 million cancer strategy was published by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport on Tuesday. It aims to improve prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment and after care for those affected by that devastating disease.

Of the funding, £50 million will be used to deliver an additional 2,000 diagnostic scopes a year and to fund additional diagnostic capacity to ensure that people who are suspected of having cancer receive swift access to the diagnostic tests that they urgently need.

I believe that this might be Malcolm Chisholm’s last appearance at First Minister’s question time, unless he has questions planned for me next week. Just in case he has not, if you will allow me, Presiding Officer, I would like to recognise his service not just to this Parliament, but to the national health service.

When Malcolm Chisholm was health minister, among his other achievements, he abolished trusts in Scotland and he brought the Golden Jubilee hospital back into public ownership. Those are landmark achievements. I thank him for his service and take the opportunity to wish him well for the future. [Applause.]

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank the First Minister for her very kind words. I was going to say as a preamble that I think that there has been great progress in cancer care during the years of the Scottish Parliament under this and the previous Administration.

Today, I want to highlight Cancer Research UK’s campaign, Scotland vs cancer, and ask whether the First Minister agrees that it has been right to highlight the long waits that some people have for diagnostic tests. I welcome the measures that she referred to and the cancer strategy that was published this week, but will she give us a bit more detail on the timescale for the proposed changes and the effect that she thinks they will have?

The First Minister

I do agree with Cancer Research UK. Obviously we need to make sure that we have first-class care and treatment of people who are diagnosed with cancer. However, what we need to do most is to make sure that we maximise our efforts to prevent it and to diagnose it as quickly as possible, so that people get access to the best care as quickly as possible. That is why our detect cancer early programme is so vitally important.

Waiting times at all stages of the cancer journey are much shorter than they have been in previous years, but, particularly in relation to diagnosis, we are determined to go further. That is why the actions that I outlined in my earlier answer are so important.

On timescales, this is a cancer strategy that we will start to implement immediately. As well as the additional diagnostic capacity that I spoke about, we will also invest to increase the capacity for radiotherapy treatment. As technology develops, that becomes more and more important in the treatment of cancer.

Whether on prevention, diagnosis or world-class treatment, we have to make sure that we are doing everything possible to continue to reduce deaths from cancer. There can be few things that are more important to any Parliament, anywhere.

Film Studio

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government expects a new film studio for Scotland to be delivered. (S4F-03319)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government, with Scottish Enterprise and Creative Scotland, is firmly committed to supporting the growth of the screen sector in Scotland. That is underlined by the record £24.1 million awarded to support the sector in 2014-15 and the extra £4.75 million that we announced last year across three new funds.

I am pleased to say that proposals from Wardpark Studios Ltd for a permanent film studio in Cumbernauld are now progressing well, and a planning application for extensive development of facilities was submitted to North Lanarkshire Council on 11 March. We hope and expect that the new studio will be operational no later than the end of 2017.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister will be aware that the film industry in Scotland has made very clear its dismay at the non-delivery of a long-awaited film studio. Last week the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs told us that the Scottish Government would be supporting an extension to the Wardpark facility in Cumbernauld by 30,000 square feet, but we do not know when, or indeed if, that will actually be delivered. In the meantime the Scottish Government is sitting on a planning application for a 230,000 square feet facility at Straiton.

What confidence can we have in the Scottish Government that something will actually and eventually be delivered that meets the industry’s needs?

The First Minister

It is certainly true that Murdo Fraser did not know when it would be delivered before I answered his first question, but he should know now—no later than the end of 2017.

Everybody else is hearing me today, are they not?

Members: Yes.

Because Kezia Dugdale certainly did not appear to be, and now Murdo Fraser does not appear to be hearing me either.

Look, the issue is seriously important. I represent the south side of Glasgow, which is home to places such as Film City. I understand absolutely, and plenty of people remind me—rightly—of the importance of the film industry and the screen sector in Scotland. I am not going to comment on Pentland studios for the reason that Murdo Fraser cited; it is subject to a planning application at the moment and it would be wrong for me to comment on that.

We think that the progress around Cumbernauld is very positive and I hope that we continue to see that move forward, so that we have a fully operational film studio—let me say this again—no later than the end of 2017.

Food

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-15826, in the name of Alison Johnstone, on Scotland’s food future. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible, please. I also invite MSPs and members of the public who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly, please.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament believes that everyone in Scotland should have financial and geographical access to nutritious food both as a right and with dignity; welcomes the work of the Scottish Food Coalition and its report, PLENTY: Food, Farming and Health in a New Scotland; applauds efforts to strengthen community-based food networks and end food poverty, and commends the work of Granton Community Gardens, Edinburgh Community Food, Broomhouse Health Strategy Group, Pilton Health Project, Leith Community Crops in Pots, Edinburgh Food Belt, Nourish, the Cyrenians and groups providing emergency food relief to people across the Lothians.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I welcome the opportunity to debate in Parliament Scotland’s food future, and I thank colleagues who have made that possible by supporting my motion.

My motion highlights the work of the Scottish food coalition and its report “PLENTY: Food, Farming and Health in a New Scotland”. The coalition is made up of several organisations whose contribution to improving the health and wellbeing of people in Scotland is widely recognised, and deservedly so. The report is a landmark report that should be discussed far and wide, and steps should be taken to implement it. It begins with the statement:

“We have plenty of land in Scotland, and plenty of sea, and plenty of skilled people, scientists and innovators. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have plenty of good food for everyone.”

Hear, hear.

It is absolutely the case that, as the report states,

“At the moment, our food system is characterised by inequalities and exploitation.”

Given the importance of food—it really is one of the few things that we cannot live without—our food system should be founded on the principles of social and environmental justice. A food system that is founded on those principles would enable us to address inequality, climate change, declining wildlife, animal welfare and poor health.

Some people may be of the view that business as usual is “Just grand, thank you very much”, but if we are what we eat, many people in Scotland are clearly not eating well. In a country with

“plenty of land ... and ... sea”,

why is that the case? Why are 65 per cent of people in Scotland overweight or obese, and why is it that in 2014-15 almost 120,000 people required emergency food aid and almost a third of those were children? That reliance on food aid exists in a country that rightly celebrates its food and drink sector. However, the focus is very much export based, with much ado about whisky and salmon—despite the environmental damage that fish farms create in Scotland—to boost the profits of companies, many of which are based outside Scotland. I would like to see more focus on an agroecology approach and more investment in growing our organic sector.

Fifteen per cent of Scottish households do not own cutlery. Such is the concern about our food culture, which is impacting terribly on our health, that leading consultants have coined the new term “diabesity”, which reflects the relationship between obesity and diabetes. That epidemic, which has a global reach and impact, also has a very local one. It costs health and happiness and, like demographic change and population increase, puts our national health service budget under increasing pressure.

Corporations can and do make huge profits from dominating the food market, often with unhealthy food and unsustainable ways of growing and producing the food that we eat. However, the public purse pays for the pollution and ill health. Lobbying at the highest levels of Government has created the perverse logic that is needed for our leaders to think that international deals such as the transatlantic trade and investment partnership deal are a good idea for our food system.

It does not have to be that way. We are all aware of amazing projects in our communities; there is in the Lothians region a fantastic collection of those projects and community energy, which connect people to Scotland’s true food future. Community gardeners are taking over Granton’s street corners to create mini gardens, vegetable plots and communal meals. The Broomhouse Health Strategy Group and the Pilton Community Health Project work with people on budgeting, cooking skills, getting them more active in their daily lives and much more. Leith Community Crops in Pots is building a more rural feeling from concrete patches in Leith. We can grow almost anywhere. The Cyrenians at the Royal Edinburgh hospital and its Leith FareShare depot and kitchen are doing an excellent job helping people to learn to cook, enjoy food together and appreciate all the wondrous things that food can do.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On Monday, I visited a fantastic project in Balfron in my constituency. It is a Food Connections project, the aim of which is to encourage pupils to understand where their food comes from and how to cook it. A polytunnel has been established, in which food is being grown for the kids to use. Does Alison Johnstone think that we should have such exemplary projects throughout Scotland?

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I thank Bruce Crawford for mentioning that project because it is a fantastic example of making the best use of land everywhere. If we can engage pupils in our playgrounds from the earliest age, what better use of space can we make? There is so much space that is unused when it could be productive.

Musselburgh Transition Toun is another example. It is working wonders with a wee community garden by the river. Edinburgh Community Food is building a network across the city, and many other groups are doing fantastic jobs providing emergency food relief. I want to mention two of them: Transition Edinburgh South and the wonderful walled garden at Gracemount. There are undoubtedly many more that I have failed to mention, and they are all working wonders.

Food should help us to grow and to get well when we are not well; it should make us feel good. Really nutritious food helps us to keep well and gives us the ability to deal with busy lives, no matter how old we are. It gives us personal resilience. Local food networks are vital to the development of resilience at community level. We need to think about the future and about our ability to produce the food that we need closer to home.

In yesterday’s stage 3 proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, I spoke about the situation of the smallholder Jim Telfer, who is a tenant farmer who fears losing both the land that he rents and his livelihood, because his land is where the film studio that was discussed at First Minister’s question time, which is the subject of a speculative proposal, would be located. Is his farm on poor-quality land? No—it is on prime agricultural land. I hope that that will be recognised and valued, and that the film studio will be built elsewhere. Cumbernauld has been discussed as a possible location, but Shawfair, which is nearby, has excellent transport links and a school that focuses on the creative industries. Members of the local Damhead community have rallied round Jim and have campaigned hard. The vision that they have for the land where they live is for it to be formally recognised as Edinburgh’s food belt. We need to think about the idea of urban crofts. Green-belt land has never faced such development pressures, but we need to think about where the food that citizens within and outwith Edinburgh’s green belt eat comes from.

The food belt is a compelling idea—it represents a much better way of thinking about the value of our green belt and its benefits. Land in the food belt is a way of connecting us to our food. Land here could have many more local businesses providing employment to people in cities and in more rural areas. For too many people, the green belt is a patch of land that they commute through without giving it much thought. We can rethink that land.

I hope that the minister understands not just the power of ideas, but the power of money. Yesterday, I learned that the funding that allowed the Scottish food coalition to form has been cut—in fact, it has been completely removed: Nourish Scotland’s funding has gone from £90,000 to nothing.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must draw to a close, please.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I will.

Nourish Scotland would like to tender for work, but it turns out that the only tender that is available to it is one that wraps up a massive amount of work on local food in a £3 million contract, which is inappropriate for small and medium-sized enterprise bidders.

I congratulate and thank all those who are working to make us a better food nation, from our school dinner ladies to the Soil Association. Let us make sure that we are not just a well fed but a properly nourished population.

I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could address the funding situation that I outlined when he closes the debate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Many thanks.

We are tight for time today, so speeches should be of four minutes.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I congratulate Alison Johnstone on her motion and I congratulate all the local groups that are mentioned in it, especially those that are based in my constituency, which I will talk about shortly. I also congratulate the Scottish food coalition on its excellent report, which rightly emphasises the need to have the right to food in legislation. I hope that that will be taken on board in the next session of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish food coalition report also emphasises that the core principles of environmental awareness and sustainability should be at the heart of production.

Unfortunately, the reality is very different. Instead of a right to food, we have an increasing number of food banks and unacceptable food poverty, which has been highlighted in a recent report by the Pilton Community Health Project, which is mentioned in the motion. Its report, “Good Food for All”, found that poverty and food poverty are intrinsically linked, and that securing a fairer food system is very difficult in the light of very deeply rooted and persistent poverty. That is why that excellent project, which I have known for more than a quarter of a century, has always emphasised the importance of dealing with the broader determinants of poor health and health inequalities. It has also had excellent initiatives specifically on food and other lifestyle factors.

The Pilton Community Health Project’s report, which is certainly worth reading, also notes the rise in voluntary activity to help people to eat, and to eat well. I want to highlight two excellent projects in my constituency that do precisely that. The Granton community gardeners, to whom Alison Johnstone referred, work in north Edinburgh, not far from the Pilton Community Health Project. They are local residents who are growing fruit and vegetables in several garden plots, some of which are on street corners in Granton.

The Scottish food coalition makes an interesting point in its report, to which Alison Johnstone’s motion refers, when it highlights the power of planning to ensure that vacant land is safeguarded for growing crops. That is an important part of the subject.

A great many positives are coming out of the food-growing project in Granton. There is an educational dimension, with many people learning how to grow food and acquiring information about food. Indeed, the group ran a 10-week course for local people to encourage such knowledge. There is the opportunity to taste new fruit and vegetables, and the project builds community cohesion, as people talk to neighbours to whom they might not have talked before, as they garden—which, of course, is an intrinsically healthy activity. Meals are made from the produce and are then shared and distributed to a large number of families and volunteers. The project also has a strong environmental dimension, which is crucial. Its aims include encouraging care for the environment and an awareness of local wildlife and biodiversity.

The environmental dimension is also extremely important for Leith Community Crops in Pots, which is also mentioned in the motion. Crops in Pots educates people about the interaction between food and the environment and, more important, puts environmental sustainability into practice by growing food, planting trees, helping to reduce food waste and encouraging dietary change in order to reduce environmental impacts and improve health. The charity is grateful for the climate challenge funding that it received in the most recent round—and, I think, the previous round—which has enabled it to build up a great team, to establish infrastructure including raised beds, sheds and a tree nursery, and to build close relationships with the community. Crops in Pots has put in another bid, and I hope that the minister will look favourably on it, because funding is crucial to the next stage of the charity’s development, if it is to expand its community outreach, create habitats and, of course, continue to save carbon. The charity works in local schools, holds community events and is involving more and more local people, but it needs a further round of climate challenge funding if it is to keep its excellent work going.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I did not sign the motion, because although I read the report and thought that it was very good, I think that something is missing: it needs a stronger emphasis on where people buy their food every day. People buy their food from the major retailers. We need to take a stronger approach with the major retailers, not just by having better legislation and regulation as in other countries, but by ensuring that the major retailers sell local produce. To my mind, that should be at the centre of everything that we do when we consider food. I very much enjoyed the report, but it does not have enough on that.

I am delighted that Alison Johnstone secured the debate. The “PLENTY” report starts with a statement that begins:

“We have plenty of land in Scotland”.

We do, and because Parliament backed the Scottish Government’s Land Reform (Scotland) Bill yesterday, as Alison Johnstone said, more of our land will be used to grow food. That is really the heart of the issue.

The statement goes on to say that Scotland has “plenty of sea”. We do. Scottish fish are back. I have been saying that for a long time—I worked in the fishing industry for 30 years before I entered Parliament—but now the fish are back in terms of quantity and size, after the fantastic efforts of our fishermen over the past 10 years, and the fantastic efforts of this Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment in backing our fishermen. That is good news.

The statement goes on to say that we also have

“plenty of skilled people”.

It is important to realise that our food industry in Scotland is part of our culture and is a subject of research in our universities, for example. We are able to produce food for export and for local consumption. We have fantastic experts in food production in this country, from farmers and fishermen to scientists and innovators.

I agree with the end of the statement, which says:

“There’s no reason why we shouldn’t have plenty of good food for everyone.”

The solution is always easy: people are always the solution, so we need to talk about people and understand more about food insecurity.

I have met a lot of people in my region, including Dave Simmers, who is the chief executive of Community Food Initiatives North East—CFINE. He has a fantastic organisation that has developed more and more. He used to work for the Cyrenians and has been working in the area for the past 40 years, so he knows the food issues and how they are linked to poverty. CFINE has had its Fruit Mart shop in Peterhead since October last year. Previously, it was in the village of Longside. It also has a charity shop that not only provides local produce but employs 17 people and offers support and employment guidance to adults with learning difficulties. A lot is happening in the countryside and in our cities. We need to welcome that.

Scientists are important. Many members will know Dr Flora Douglas from the University of Aberdeen who often comes to Parliament. She is passionate about what food represents. It is more than food: it is about our culture, our society and how we see ourselves.

On Tuesday night, Rob Gibson MSP hosted the fantastic food for thought event, at which another expert—Shirley Spear, the chair of the Scottish Food Commission—talked about the work and outcomes involved in the school programme. I recommend that members read the Food Commission’s interim report. It is a very interesting read.

We need a different approach. It must involve everybody, including businesses and our food producers. We need to buy local, buy Scottish and trust our farmers, fishermen, food producers and experts. That way, we will ensure that we have plenty of good food of everyone.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I come to the debate from a slightly different point of view, having spent most of my life in the food production industry or the farming industry prior to becoming involved in politics.

In the opening speech, Alison Johnstone said that, in Scotland, there should be

“plenty of good food for everyone.”

I could not agree more. Scotland’s farming industry is one of the most efficient and productive to be found anywhere in the world. The intensive methods that it uses are high output and low impact and we have the highest standards of animal welfare to be found anywhere on the planet. We have a great deal to be proud of.

I have no wish to offend or to cause discord when other members talk about organic methods. I do not object to organic farming, but I object to the idea that that method is somehow better, more appropriate or worthy of greater support than the traditional Scottish methods than many Scottish farmers use to produce high-quality food. I will always defend those farmers.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I am sure that Alex Johnstone will agree that organic farming is traditional and that it could do with greater support in Scotland than it receives.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is important to realise that, if a particular method is productive and worthwhile, it should compete in a competitive environment with other methods of farming. We should demonstrate what is more effective by seeing what we achieve at the end of the day.

The truth is that there is a problem with food production and supply in Scotland but it is not at the farming end. Although there are problems with the returns that are gained from the marketplace—we must work to achieve more on that front—we are extremely good at producing food. In spite of the fact that many of us can criticise the supermarkets for much of what they do, the supermarkets have an efficient method of distributing high-quality food to the marketplace.

John Finnie (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

Will Alex Johnstone give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I ask Mr Finnie to let me carry on. I have only four minutes.

Food is produced and it gets to the shops where people can buy it. The problem is that not all people can afford to buy it. That is not caused by the cost of food. The truth is that, in terms of family income, food costs are about a 10th of what they were in the 1950s. Food costs are not the problem—the problem is the other costs to the family that cause distortions. Food is a relatively insignificant cost, but housing costs are higher than ever. Fuel and transport costs are high. As a natural result of that, food often becomes a low priority, although it has a low cost. That is why so many of the organisations that have been mentioned today are so important to ensuring that food is made available to those who find that food is the thing that drops off the table at the end of the day.

As I said, we have a good system in place and it does not need radical reform from the bottom up. However, it needs to be adapted to cater for the demands of the small minority who are currently suffering. The charitable sector does an enormous amount of good work, but we all know that the sector should not be required to achieve those objectives. Although we praise the charitable sector for the good work that it does, let us find a way to ensure that, in the future, the best of Scotland’s produce ends up in the hands of those who currently can least afford it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome the Scottish food coalition’s important set of policy asks in advance of the Scottish Parliament elections. The fact that the group is a coalition of environmental campaigners, anti-poverty campaigners, trade unions, farming and food producers gives us the impetus to think across the political agenda about food poverty, food quality and accessibility to food. That means that we can think about all the key policy levers that we need to put into place and pull.

On a side note, I thank Alison Johnstone for getting the issue on our agenda. I whole-heartedly agree with her about the funding for the project work that Nourish has been doing. That work is cutting edge and crucial in setting the agenda for the Scottish Government. I am interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s response on that in his closing remarks.

I am tempted to get sidetracked by responding to all of Alex Johnstone’s points, but I am not going to go there because it would get me too annoyed and I have only four minutes for my speech.

The agenda is important because it brings together fairness and social justice, applying that to the food chain and right across our communities. It is appropriate that we are at the end of Fairtrade fortnight. There are so many interconnections that we could be making. Focusing on the rights of workers and food growers in some of the most disadvantaged countries on the fair trade agenda and bringing that closer to home, we need to be thinking about the value that we give to food and the principles of fairness and social justice. Those things need to apply in Scotland, too. That theme runs through Alison Johnstone’s motion.

It is good to see the Scottish food coalition arguing for fair pay for those who work in our Scottish agriculture and horticulture industries; they are some of the lowest paid workers across the country.

Christian Allard (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

That is why Scottish Labour has campaigned so strongly for the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board to be retained. The board is crucial to preventing the exploitation of vulnerable workers, whether that is for isolated workers in our rural communities, or in the particular challenge of protecting migrant workers. It has also been important in focusing on health and safety because workers in our rural communities can be isolated.

It is significant that Nourish and Unite have argued together the importance not just of retaining the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board, but of having a real living wage.

In yesterday’s debate on land reform, we were delighted to see the Scottish Government pick up the issue of human rights and food security. That chimes very well with the motion that we are considering. We should consider food security as part of human rights. We have adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and now have the voluntary guidelines on responsible tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. That brings a new dimension to our food policy for the future. That is our challenge.

I welcome the work that is being done by Nourish and the food coalition to put food policy in a national context. I argue very strongly that we also need to make the connections at a local level. I want to celebrate the work that is being done by those local groups. In the Lothians, we have the back greens initiative in Gorgie and Dalry, which has transformed people’s back greens and brought residents in tenements together.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you draw to a close, please?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I also welcome the sustainable food cities initiative and I want to link in the work that is being done by our allotment-growing networks. Let us look at challenging what is being done for the future. A lot of work needs to be done. I would like to see food growing in our schools and in our hospitals, linking in to the eco schools movement and the community orchards movement.

We need to think about how we use our urban land but we also need to think about empowering people to be able to grow food. The allotments and gardens movement is a key way in which we can do that and we need to tie that in to community empowerment, health, and that wider food-growing movement, which I think will help us to address the issue of affordable food and accessibility to food.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close, please.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It is the interconnection between that range of issues that will deliver on the fantastic work that is being done by the food coalition.

John Wilson (Independent, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Alison Johnstone on bringing this important debate to the chamber. I spoke recently in the chamber about the amount of food that is wasted and I questioned the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body about food waste in the Parliament. We know that much food is being wasted throughout the country and, although some of that food could be given to individuals and families, there are clearly other issues that need to be dealt with. It is not just about giving leftovers to charities to patch up a failing system; it is about making sure that the system works for everyone in society.

As others have mentioned, Scotland is a resource-rich nation. According to the Scottish Government, Scotland’s current farmable land amounts to roughly 5.6 million hectares, which equates to around 71 per cent of Scotland’s total land area. As an island nation, we are surrounded by the sea, as others have mentioned, and we have large rivers and lochs that could provide plentiful food if we were to use those opportunities. Like Sarah Boyack, I do not want to challenge Alex Johnstone now, but clearly there are issues with what he said in his speech.

As well as the projects that Alison Johnstone identified in her motion, people are working hard on a number of other projects throughout Scotland not only to make people aware of where the food on their plate comes from, but to encourage them to start growing their own food. I recently visited a small project in Kirkshaws that has a few raised beds and one polytunnel. It is bringing in schoolchildren and unemployed people to give them an opportunity to start growing their own healthy food and showing them where that food comes from.

We also have the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which this Parliament passed and which states a desire to see an increase in the availability of land for allotments. That is one way of taking forward the debate, with people being able not only to access food but to access their own food, grow it, and be actively involved in understanding the production methods.

There is another issue: procurement policies in Scotland. I met a group on Tuesday who told me that they still find it difficult to get their produce on to the procurement agenda because of how the system works. If we can get local producers engaged in the procurement process so that they can supply schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings, that would give encouragement to that sector to develop and allow it to be actively involved in providing locally produced, locally sourced, nutritious food.

Comments must be made about the other people who are working in the food production sector. I pay tribute to John Hancox, who is involved in the Commonwealth Orchard and cosponsors the Parliament’s apple day every September. He has attempted on a number of occasions to get fruit trees grown in common space, in schools and in other areas. The aim was to show children and adults that food production could take place at a local level, and that planting fruit trees in common space could enable people to go along and help themselves to nutritious fruit rather than eating fruit that had travelled halfway around the world.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member should draw to a close, please.

John Wilson (Independent, Central Scotland)

We must be bolder in delivering opportunities for communities to have the resources to produce food locally. We need to work together to ensure that that works for the benefit of Scotland as a whole, and to end the food poverty that exists in Scotland.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I congratulate Alison Johnstone on bringing the debate to the chamber. It is a welcome, topical and timely debate, and it illustrates the growing importance that we all attach to Scotland’s food culture and systems, and the need to improve in those areas.

The report on which Alison Johnstone’s motion focuses, which is entitled “PLENTY: Food, Farming and Health in a New Scotland” and is published by the Scottish food coalition for a socially and environmentally just food system, is also timely, and it is another sign of the momentum behind the food debate in Scotland. I say to the authors of the report that it is first class, although I do not necessarily agree with absolutely everything in it. It discusses the ways in which we can change Scotland’s food culture and systems; that will not happen overnight, but the report certainly gives us many ideas for how we can get to a much better place in the future, and I support much of what is in it.

At my party’s conference at the weekend, I spoke at a meeting that was hosted by the RSPB and Nourish Scotland. There were a lot of common themes expressed by all the speakers at that very well-attended event.

As a country, we celebrate our food and drink industry and resources. Scotland has a fantastic wealth of natural resources, and the natural environment allows us to produce the raw materials. We have our seas, our fertile land—at a time when the rest of the planet is running out of fertile land—and we have the men and women with the skills to take the raw materials and turn them into fantastic produce that people in this country and overseas want to enjoy.

That brings an important economic benefit, and exports are an important part of that success. However, it would be unfair—in response to what Alison Johnstone said at one point—to say that Scottish food policy is all about exports and big business, and salmon and whisky. Those industries are immensely successful, and after all we want people to be able to afford to buy food, so they need jobs. We have those economic strengths and we should make the most of them in Scotland.

However, Scottish food policy has placed a huge emphasis over the past few years on the other dimensions of food policy, such as the environmental impact, particularly in the context of wanting to achieve our climate change targets. It has also focused on tackling the ironic situation in which we are able to produce so much nutritious food on our own doorstep and yet we have record-breaking diabetes and obesity statistics, which we wish was not the case. We have all that healthy food, but people are not enjoying it.

In addition, we have food poverty in Scotland, which is a mark of shame. The UK’s austerity agenda is largely responsible for where we are with that at present. I, like many other members, congratulate the many community initiatives and charitable efforts that are taking place across Scotland to ensure that people can access food at their time of need. The answer is clearly to ensure that people can afford to buy their own food in the first place, and the Scottish Government is bringing forward funding to help such initiatives.

Local food is undergoing a revolution in Scotland just now. Again, that has been supported by the Scottish Government, which gave more than £2 million between 2013 and 2016 to support many local initiatives across the country. Indeed, 140 initiatives have been supported through that funding, ranging from community food initiatives, to ensure that people can access food that is grown locally, to food festivals and other food events, which are important in supporting the local food revolution that is taking place in Scotland.

John Finnie (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary mentions all those small community projects; they are tremendous, and the aggregate effect can be very impressive. However, what part should planning policy play in food production? For instance, should the Government decide not to allow good agricultural land to be used for building?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Planning policy should play a role. I welcomed the fact that many of the initiatives that members mentioned in the debate originated from and have been supported by the Scottish Government. For instance, the issue of planning policy and allotments came out of a meeting that I had a few years ago with a Fife Council official, who told me the difficulties of securing land for allotments in Fife. We have now managed to change the legislation in Scotland to deal with those sorts of issues, and planning policy is at the heart of that.

Before I close I will touch on two or three other issues that members raised, the first of which is food waste. One of the ironies is that there are people who cannot afford or access good quality food at a time when, as a society, we waste a lot of food. That is a crazy place to be, given the impact that it has on our pockets, households and budgets, as well as the fact that it is bad for the environment and that it simply is a waste of a valuable resource. The Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012, which this Parliament passed, mean that measures are in place to stop food waste going to landfill, and the Scottish Government has set Europe’s most ambitious food waste target: to cut food waste in Scotland by a third by 2025. We are leading Europe on tackling food waste.

Food waste is also a global issue. People talk about genetically modified food—which this Government does not support—as a way to produce more food and feed more mouths around the world. However, the United Nations reports that, as a planet, we waste around a third of the food that is produced in the world. About 28 per cent—if I remember the statistic correctly—of our agricultural land is used to grow food that is wasted. Clearly, to tackle food poverty and malnutrition around the world, we must tackle food waste at a global level as well as a Scottish level.

On tackling the issues at a European level, I agree that the common agricultural policy needs to be reformed. Indeed, if it was up to me I would rename it the “European food policy”, and there would be other dimensions within it.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary is in his last minute.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Food education, which some members mentioned, is also crucial. It is not good enough that our young people do not know where the food on their plate comes from, how it was grown, the impact that it has on the environment or, most important, the impact that it has on their health. Only last week, at Holyrood high school in Edinburgh I announced about £870,000 of new money for food education initiatives in Scotland. Over the next year, that cash will support food education initiatives working with teachers, staff and pupils in many of our schools. More than 300,000 pupils have already benefited from Scottish Government food education money over the past few years.

Food education is key to changing Scotland’s food systems and food culture, and it is key to creating a good food nation in this country.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank you all for taking part in this important debate.

13:12 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Business Motion

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is consideration of business motion S4M-15968, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 5: 30 minutes

Groups 6 to 12: 1 hour 25 minutes

Groups 13 to 16: 2 hours 20 minutes

Groups 17 to 20: 3 hours.—[Joe FitzPatrick.]

Motion agreed to.

Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP Bill 79A, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. I would be grateful if members would now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

After section 2

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We turn to group 1. Amendment 5, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Amendment 5 is a technical amendment that ensures that formal writing is not required to create a private residential tenancy.

Under section 8 of the bill, a landlord is required to set out in writing all the terms of the tenancy and to provide the tenant with a written tenancy agreement. However, if a landlord fails to do that, a private residential tenancy will still exist if the property is let to an individual as a separate dwelling, the tenant occupies all or part of it as their principal home, and the tenancy is not one that is excluded under schedule 1.

I move amendment 5.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have concerns about amendment 5. I understand what the minister said and the amendment’s purpose, but I am concerned that it may have unforeseen circumstances. I ask the minister to explain a couple of key things in order for me to not oppose the amendment.

First, has the amendment been properly thought through to ensure that there are no potential unforeseen circumstances or potential grounds for dispute?

Secondly, has there been any attempt to consult more broadly on the potential unforeseen circumstances that the amendment may bring about? I am gravely concerned that the amendment could open up a situation in which existing arrangements may be pursued as tenancies that were never intended to be tenancies.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

As I said, amendment 5 is a technical amendment that ensures that, if someone is operating as a landlord, there is someone in the premises and the landlord has not provided the appropriate documents, they cannot use that as an excuse to say that the person does not have a private residential tenancy. We have thought the amendment out very carefully to ensure that it cannot be abused, and we are very satisfied that it is the appropriate way to take the matter forward.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

As Parliament is not agreed, there will be a division. Before I call the division, I suspend the meeting for five minutes.

14:34 Meeting suspended.

14:39 On resuming—

We will now proceed with the division on amendment 5.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 85, Against 10, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Section 3—Power to modify schedule 1

We move on to group 2, Amendment 6, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 28 to 31, 33, 34, 93, 45, 46, 50, 51, and 69.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Amendments 6, 45 and 69 are minor tidying amendments that will have no impact on the policy or operation of the new tenancy.

At stage 2, the bill was amended so that the default notice period that tenants must give to end a tenancy is 28 days, irrespective of the tenancy’s duration. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can we have order in the chamber, please?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The bill as introduced specified a 56-day default notice period for tenancies that had lasted more than six months. Amendments 28 and 29 simply tidy up section 39 in consequence of the amendments at stage 2 and do not in any way change the substance of the provision.

Amendment 30 splits section 41 into two sections. That does not change the effect of the section; the purpose is simply to improve the readability of the bill. The first new section will set out what an eviction order is, and the second will provide further detail about the circumstances in which such an order can be made. Amendment 93 is a consequential amendment.

Where a wrongful-termination order is granted against joint landlords, the first-tier tribunal can specify that each landlord is liable for a particular amount as a penalty. That allows the tribunal to reflect the fact that one of the landlords is more culpable than the others in relation to the wrongful termination. The cumulative total of individual amounts is capped so that the total penalty payable to the tenant will not be more than it would have been if there was one landlord, rather than joint landlords.

At stage 2, the maximum amount payable by a landlord under a wrongful-termination order was increased from three months’ rent to six months’ rent. Amendments 31, 33 and 34 therefore update the total amount recoverable from joint landlords, so that that is also set at six months’ rent.

Schedule 1 sets out the types of tenancy that cannot be private residential tenancies and includes tenancies of agricultural land that meet the conditions that are set out in the schedule. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill creates two new types of tenancy: the modern limited duration tenancy and the repairing tenancy. Amendment 46 inserts the new tenancies into schedule 1, so that they are excluded on the same basis as the existing types of agricultural tenancy are excluded.

Amendment 50 ensures that the provision relating to trust ownership applies only where a person is acting as landlord in his or her capacity as a trustee. If the landlord happens to be a trustee under a trust, but that is unrelated to the let property, amendment 50 ensures that the trust provisions do not apply.

Amendment 51 replaces an existing reference to particular types of trust beneficiary with one overarching reference to trust beneficiaries. The amendment in no way widens the scope of the provisions but simply uses more modern language.

I move amendment 6.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Alex Johnstone, to be followed by Jim Hume.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will pass on this group, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Jim Hume?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Oh, hi there. [Laughter.] Thanks very much, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was an unusual form of address, Mr Hume, but there we go.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

Well, we have known each other for about nine years, and it is about time we got a bit less formal in this Parliament. I look forward to being part of a less formal Parliament after being returned in May. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I appreciate the minister’s point about the new tenancies that are created by the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which we passed only yesterday. Will she say whether she has considered giving tenanted houses in the agriculture sector the protection that we accord to normal tenancies?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

We have not done so in this bill, but we are discussing with the environment minister how we can address agricultural tenancies, in the context of repairs, in the next parliamentary session.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

After section 4

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That brings us to group 3. Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 52, 71, 110, 72 to 76, 78 and 79.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Amendment 7 is a technical amendment that extends the meaning of tenancy and connected expressions in other enactments to include a private residential tenancy.

Various statutes lay down rules in relation to tenancies. When the word “tenancy” is used in a statute, it ordinarily picks up the common-law meaning. At common law, a fundamental feature of a tenancy is that it has an ish, or a termination date. A private residential tenancy does not have an ish. Therefore, in enactments passed before or after the bill, references to tenancies would not ordinarily catch private residential tenancies. Amendment 7 ensures that they do, where appropriate.

Amendment 52 is being made simply to flag up in the bill the effect of the amendment made by amendment 75 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, which will prevent a sublet or other private transfer of a social rented house from creating a private residential tenancy over the social rented house.

Amendments 71 to 74, 76, 78 and 79 make changes to various other pieces of legislation in consequence of the bill. I do not propose to go through each amendment in detail but, in brief, the other pieces of legislation affected by the consequential amendments are being altered so that they will, in future, apply in the same way in relation to private residential tenancies and tenants as they presently apply in relation to existing types of statutorily protected tenancies and tenants.

Amendment 110 is not required, as paragraph 7 of schedule 1 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014 will, once it has been brought into force, make the change that the amendment would make. Therefore, the amendment duplicates existing statutory provisions and I cannot support it. Accordingly, I ask David Stewart not to press amendment 110.

I move amendment 7.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

My amendment 110 would amend the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to ensure that the offence of illegal eviction references the requirement for landlords to go to the first-tier tribunal to secure an eviction to remove a tenant from the property. The amendment is essential to make it crystal clear that the provisions of the 1984 act apply to the new private residential tenancy.

I am aware that the minister is committed to making that change via the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014 and, therefore, I will not move the amendment. I thank the minister for meeting me and taking the time to consider the issue in detail.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Section 14—First-tier Tribunal’s power to sanction failure to provide information

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That brings us to group 4. Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 9 to 11.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The bill requires landlords to provide tenants with certain things. Section 8 imposes an obligation in relation to the written terms of the tenancy, while section 9 imposes a separate obligation in relation to other information that may be specified by regulations. Where those are not supplied, the tenant can apply to the tribunal for a payment order against the landlord.

Amendment 8 provides that, where there are separate failures under sections 8 and 9, the maximum financial penalty available will increase accordingly. That is, the tribunal will now have the ability to award an amount not exceeding three months’ rent for each breach, rather than a maximum of three months’ rent for both breaches. That recognises that the sections impose two distinct obligations and ensures that a landlord who has already breached one of the sections cannot then disregard the other with impunity.

At the same time, amendment 8 avoids the penalty being increased for every individual breach of section 9 that is cited in an application. It recognises that any section 9 failure is, in essence, one of not providing the package of any additional material to which the tenant is entitled under section 9. If that breach consists of a number of different failings, the tribunal can take account of that fact when deciding whether to award the maximum amount for a breach of section 9, rather than a lesser sum.

Amendment 9 prevents a tenant from increasing the amount he or she can be awarded by bringing separate applications for each individual item not provided under section 9. This means that there is no second opportunity to make a claim under section 9 if it could have been included in an earlier section 9 claim. That will ensure that the tribunal’s time and resources are not wasted by having to consider separately later something that it could have taken into account in its consideration of the earlier application.

I move amendment 8.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I support amendment 8, and I will explain briefly why. During the evidence that was taken on the bill, it appeared that the three months’ rent penalty that was stipulated in the bill at stage 1 was inadequate as an appropriate punishment for some of the actions that may be taken by landlords. That evidence supported a stiffer penalty, so the six months’ rent penalty that will now be available in some circumstances is appropriate.

I said at an earlier stage that I would accept that change in order to ensure that we had a balanced bill. Sadly, that balance will not be in the final bill today. Nevertheless, as I said that I would support the change, amendment 8 has my support.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendments 9 to 11 moved—[Margaret Burgess]—and agreed to.

After section 22

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That brings us to group 5. Amendment 12, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13 to 18.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The bill provides that when a landlord’s proposed rent increase is referred by a tenant, a rent officer can set the tenant’s rent at what he or she judges to be the open-market value. Amendment 12 allows a rent officer to correct an error in an order that he or she has issued, which means that time and resources need not be spent on an appeal against the order to deal with a simple mistake that can easily be fixed by the rent officer issuing a corrected order.

Amendments 13, 14, 16 and 17 rephrase the open-market rent calculation, which is carried out when a tenant disputes the landlord’s proposed rent increase. That does not alter the effect of the provision, but simply makes it clearer—that is in response to feedback that was received from stakeholders.

It continues to be the case that the calculation is based on a hypothetical new letting of the property by a willing landlord to a willing tenant. The current tenant is relevant to the calculation only if his or her actions would, for better or worse, change the open-market rent that could be achieved on a hypothetical new letting.

It also continues to be the case that the landlord is not to benefit from a higher rent due to the tenant having carried out any improvements voluntarily, and the tenant is not to benefit from his or her failure to comply with tenancy terms where that has a direct impact on the open-market rent, for example, because the furnishings have been ruined. However, those are now the only two exceptions which need to be stated.

In addition, the scope of the exception has been extended to cover all work that is voluntarily paid for or carried out by the tenant for maintenance as well as improvements, and work that is paid for by the tenant but carried out by someone else.

In calculating the open-market rent rate, one of the criteria is the start date of the new hypothetical open-market let. The underlying principle is that that ought to be the date on which the rent increase would have taken effect had it not been contested. At stage 2, the mechanism by which a rent increase notice takes effect was amended. Amendment 15 updates the open-market rent calculation in order to reflect the amended rule, so that it is always tied to the date on which the increase should have taken effect.

Where a landlord’s proposed rent increase is disputed, the rent officer to whom the dispute is referred must issue a provisional order before issuing a final order setting the new rent. That gives the parties a chance to contest the rent officer’s proposal before it is finalised.

Section 28 deals with the case where the parties have settled the dispute themselves before the rent officer has made a decision. It requires the rent officer to make an order simply giving effect to whatever agreement the parties have reached. Amendment 18 removes the requirement for a rent officer to issue a provisional order in those circumstances. That is in recognition of the fact that the order reflects the parties’ agreement, so there is no need to give them an opportunity to contest it.

I move amendment 12.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Section 27—Determination of open market rent

Amendments 13 to 17 moved—[Margaret Burgess]—and agreed to.

Section 28—Withdrawal of referral or appeal

Amendment 18 moved—[Margaret Burgess]—and agreed to.

Before section 30

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to group 6. Amendment 19, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is grouped with amendments 20 to 24, 80 to 82, 43 and 44.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It has been clear to me for some considerable time that some rent control is necessary if we are to ensure that private rented accommodation is affordable for people who need it. As has been made clear in debate after debate in the chamber, far too many people have been left knowing that owner occupation is unaffordable to them and social rented housing is unavailable to them.

That being the case, we cannot afford to allow private rented housing to be seen merely as a market commodity. The provision of housing is not like any other transaction; it is a serious responsibility to take on and, if the private rented sector is going to continue to do more and to provide more housing for people who have no other option, we need such housing to be provided on a basis that they can afford and which does not leave people—as too many are today—being fleeced for poor-quality accommodation.

The Government’s acknowledgement that some form of rent control mechanism is necessary—although it took some time to get there—was welcome. It is welcome that we have something in the bill on the issue. However, I have argued consistently that the bill could be improved. It appears that the Scottish National Party’s membership agrees that a stronger and bolder national form of rent controls would be a good idea and I commend it for making that decision at the SNP conference.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does Mr Harvie agree that to be unduly harsh with rent capping might deter investment and prevent the provision of new homes in the very areas where they are scarce and that a proportionate intervention, as suggested by the Scottish Government in the bill, is the appropriate way forward?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

“Unduly harsh”? I do not think that we should be unduly harsh; I think that we need to be just harsh enough.

Having the ability to ensure that the sector provides affordable, high-quality accommodation should be our priority. In other countries that have a full national form of rent control, there is good evidence to show that it does not deter investment from responsible landlords who want to provide accommodation at the level that it should be provided at.

The arguments about how far we should go in the bill will rumble on. Although I would prefer a system that simply gave local authorities the ability to designate a rent pressure zone themselves—I am not sure that I see why they need to ask permission from central Government to do that—I acknowledge that we will not get to that point in the bill.

At stage 2, I sought to introduce a time limit within which the Government had to respond to such an application. Let us be clear that, by the time a local authority reaches the point of applying for a rent pressure zone, that will be on the back of months, and possibly even years, of sustained pressure and campaigning from those who are at the hard end of the debate—those who are being fleeced for accommodation that they ultimately cannot afford.

By the time the application comes through, it must be dealt with rapidly. The Government was unwilling to accept my stage 2 amendment to set what I thought was a reasonable limit. I have been willing to compromise with the Government, and I lodged amendment 20 because I gather that the Government is willing to accept the idea of an 18-week period.

I ask the minister to tell us, in responding to the group of amendments, what requirements she has in mind in specifying that the Scottish Government can set out requirements that an application must meet in order to be valid. I recognise that the Government is willing to accept a compromise that goes some way towards what I had been hoping for. However, if the Government is able to specify the requirements that define a valid application, why will it still be necessary to have a period of 18 weeks in which to consider whether an application should proceed? Can the minister tell us what the requirements will be? I look forward to hearing her response to that question and to hearing responses on the wider aspects of the group of amendments from the minister and other members.

I move amendment 19.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like clarification. My console is showing the number 85. That does not refer to the amendment that we are discussing, does it?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are discussing amendment 19. If we come to a vote, the console should show the right number.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Oh, right—it is the seat number. [Laughter.] I did not know that I had a seat number.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I hope that the consoles will show the amendment numbers when we come to vote. I invite the minister to speak to amendment 43 and the other amendments in the group, and I ask members to settle down, please.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Okay, Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I will speak to amendments 19 to 24, 80 to 82, 43 and 44. I thank Patrick Harvie for his contribution and I am pleased to support his amendments 19 to 24.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, I will stop you for a moment. Could we have order in the chamber, please? One or two members have requested to speak on the group so, if members have to conduct conversations, I ask them not to do so in the chamber.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Patrick Harvie may feel that he might have gone further with amendments 19 to 24, but I believe that he has managed to strike a good balance, which is why the Government is happy to support them. However, his amendments 80 to 82 seek to broaden the scope of the criteria for a rent pressure zone to include rents that are “too high”. At stage 2, he lodged a broadly similar amendment to amendment 80 and the committee members rejected it by seven votes to zero.

I appreciate that Mr Harvie’s concern may relate in part to the affordability of rents in the private rented sector, but I cannot support amendments 80 to 82, for two reasons. First, the bill provides that any rent caps that ministers set in a rent pressure zone must be at least at the level of the consumer prices index plus 1 per cent. Accepting Mr Harvie’s amendment 80 would mean that, in an area where rents were considered to be too high but were not currently increasing by too much, a rent cap could be imposed that was more than the amount by which rents were increasing. That could encourage landlords to increase rents further, by the full amount of the cap, which would leave tenants worse off.

Secondly, we are working hard to encourage institutional investors to enter the private rented sector and contribute to the supply of new housing.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

If the minister is not able to accept amendments 80 to 82, what does the bill have to offer for those for whom rents have been spiralling out of control before the legislation comes into force? What disincentive will there be that leads landlords not to hike up their rents before the rent control system comes into being?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I have debated that issue previously with Patrick Harvie. We said that we would consult on increasing rents in rent hot-spot areas, and that is what we are doing.

What Patrick Harvie proposes would not help the very people whom he suggests would be helped. In areas where rents were deemed to be “too high”—as he describes them—his proposal could encourage landlords to put up rents by CPI plus 1 per cent year on year, which might not happen if rents were not subject to the amendments that Patrick Harvie lodged.

We have in the bill a proportionate approach to rent controls, which involves areas that have been identified as hot spots that are impacting on the wider housing system. At the same time as we are passing the bill, the Government is committing to increasing the supply of housing across all tenures, because we know that increasing supply will ultimately bring rents down. There would be unintended consequences to Patrick Harvie’s amendments 80 to 82, which I certainly wish to avoid.

I want to be absolutely clear. We will make landlords and tenants fully aware of the tenant’s right to challenge a rent increase through a rent officer and then the tribunal. In addition, the rent increase notice, which will be prescribed by ministers, will contain sources of support and money advice, as will all the prescribed notices under the new tenancy.

The provisions in the bill on rent pressure zones address the problem of rents rising by too much in hot-spot areas. As I said, Patrick Harvie’s amendments 80 to 82 could lead to higher rents, so I cannot support them and I ask members not to support them, either.

I turn to my amendments 43 and 44. The bill provides that a local authority may apply to the Scottish ministers to request that all or part of its area be designated as a rent pressure zone. After receiving an application from an authority, ministers may make regulations to designate an area as a rent pressure zone.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments that provide that regulations to amend or revoke any designation will be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. After stage 2, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee asked that I consider again whether that procedure was appropriate for regulations to amend or revoke a zone. I have reconsidered, and amendments 43 and 44 will make regulations that amend or revoke a zone subject to the affirmative procedure, just as regulations to designate a zone are. I thank the committee for its input on the subject.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging his amendments and I offer Labour’s support for not just the amendments but his comments on the operation of rent pressure zones. As the minister will know, although Labour supports the introduction of rent pressure zones, we have concerns and we are not entirely convinced that they are the best way to take action on rent rises. We remain concerned about how the zones will work in practice. We are particularly concerned about their effectiveness in addressing affordability in the private rented sector.

Patrick Harvie’s amendments would offer improvements to the proposals in that they would not only introduce an 18-week timeframe in which to act but help tenants in areas where rents are already too high—not just areas where rents are rising too fast. For those reasons, we will support his amendments.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The inclusion in the bill of rent pressure zones is one reason why I will oppose the bill at decision time. It is a fact that Patrick Harvie and I will never agree on how market forces operate in a marketplace. I believe strongly that, if a rent pressure zone is designated, it will create an investment vacuum in an area where we can least afford it. As a consequence, I oppose the zones per se. The provisions in Patrick Harvie’s amendments in the group would make rent pressure zones not better but worse, so I will oppose the amendments in his name.

Although amendments 43 and 44, in the minister’s name, relate to the rent pressure zone provisions, they relate particularly to the change from the use of the negative procedure to the use of the affirmative procedure. I have always been a fan of the negative procedure. I have spoken up in many committees and in the chamber more than once to defend its use in many circumstances, and I do not have the prejudice against it that those who prefer the affirmative procedure have. However, if the Government wants it that way, it can have it that way, so I will support amendments 43 and 44.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

One of the few things that Mr Johnstone and I might agree on this afternoon is that the bill is intended to be a balanced bill. The proposals on rent pressure zones represent a balance between the pressures on tenants and investment in the area, and I believe that they will benefit tenants who find themselves in such situations.

We will not, for reasons that the minster outlined, support amendments 80 to 82. I also say to Patrick Harvie that we are not at the SNP conference today—we are at the final stage of a bill that has been through committee deliberations. The committee unanimously—including Labour members—voted against the same proposals at stage 2 because we did not feel at that time, and I do not agree now, that they would bring any benefit to the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and say whether he intends to press or to seek to withdraw amendment 19.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I whole-heartedly support Alex Johnstone’s comment that he and I will never agree on the operation of market forces. That is an unquestionable truth. Our society has failed people who have been left with no alternative but the private rented sector. They are left at the mercy of those market forces, and the market is not operating in their interests.

The imperative is for a house to be a home and not a speculative investment. Although there is good evidence from other European countries that a rent control system is entirely compatible with continued investment in the provision of private rented housing—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Without that basic level of rent control, we will continue to see too many of our constituents being fleeced for poor-quality housing.

I thank Ken Macintosh for his supportive comments. On the minister’s view that amendments 80 to 82 could have unintended consequences that I might not have thought of, I note that if the amendments are not agreed to and we pass a bill that looks only to address future rent increases but fails to address historical rent increases, this debate will remain open. There will be unintended consequences if we pass the bill without the measure, because without it we will still have continual demands from our constituents to address the historical unfair and exploitative rents that too many of them are being forced to pay.

I say again that I welcome the fact that the minister supports amendments 19 to 24, although it will be important to ensure that the Government responds quickly and straightforwardly to local authorities that want to have rent pressure zones. However, as I will also say in relation to the next group of amendments, I fear that we will pass a bill that will not be as effective as it could be and which will not provide what is genuinely needed. I feel that we have made a compromise between those who want nothing and those who want something that is genuinely workable. I am glad that we are taking a small step forward, but I am quite sure that it will not be the last one.

I will press amendment 19.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 18, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Section 30—Power to designate a zone

Amendment 21 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 82, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 32—Limits on power to designate a zone

Amendment 23 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 82, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 17, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Section 33—Procedure for designating a zone: consultation and information

Amendment 80 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 80 disagreed to.

Amendment 81 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 81 disagreed to.

Amendment 82 moved—[Patrick Harvie].

The question is, that amendment 82 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 28, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 82 disagreed to.

After section 34B

We move to group 7. Amendment 83, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is the only amendment in the group.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Amendment 83 is fairly simple. It requires ministers to conduct a review of the bill within three years of it being passed. The report of that assessment should take account of the impact that rent control provisions have on the affordability, availability and quality of private rented housing during that period.

If Alex Johnstone’s worst dreams come true and the bill has a terrible impact on the availability of housing, we will be able to assess that outcome. However, I suspect that that will not happen. Rather, I suspect—particularly on account of the votes on some of the amendments in the previous group—that the bill will introduce a rent control measure that is a small step in the right direction but which does not do enough. After that three-year period, I doubt that many rent pressure zones will have been declared, and I doubt that we will have helped many tenants in the private rented sector.

I do not for a moment regret the fact that the Government has taken this much of a step, but it is going to have to go further. The demand from within the political spectrum and beyond—from the people we represent and the organisations that work to support people in relation to housing, and the private rented sector specifically—will continue to build the call for a more coherent, bolder and more national form of rent control mechanism. As I have mentioned, the evidence from other European countries shows that that can be achieved and that we can ensure that the private rented sector, whether it is a small or a large part of the housing mix, provides a value-for-money, affordable and high-quality offer to its tenants. That is what we should all be looking to achieve, and we will be in a stronger position to achieve that if we conduct the kind of review that amendment 83 calls for. Given that we are implementing a new measure, it is reasonable and proportionate to spend a few years seeing how it works, shake out any flaws and then figure out whether we can build on it and go forward with something stronger.

The Government indicated in the debate on the previous group that it would accept some of my amendments. I have no idea whether it will accept this one, but I encourage the minister to recognise that this kind of exercise will have great value with regard to taking forward the rent control system and ensuring that it is as good as it needs to be.

I move amendment 83.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are tight for time over the whole afternoon, so I ask members to keep their remarks as brief as possible.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Today’s bill offers extra protection, flexibility and security to private renters in Scotland. However, on the issue of affordability, it remains to be seen how much support it will offer tenants who are exploited by rip-off rate rises. As the living rent campaign highlighted just last week, the proposals fall far short of a credible strategy to tackle the spiralling and unaffordable cost of renting. Similarly, it is difficult to predict at this stage what the effect of the bill will be on the quality and availability of private rented housing. I intend to move an amendment on that very point later today.

Amendment 83 proposes that the Government review the operation and impact of the legislation on the affordability, quality and availability of private rented accommodation within the next three years. My Labour colleagues and I believe that that is not only sensible, reasonable and proportionate, as Mr Harvie pointed out, but very much required.

On affordability in particular, the proposals in the bill on rent pressure zones feel as if they have been designed almost never to be used. They offer no protection to those whose rents are already unaffordable, and there is a chance that they could drive up rents for those vulnerable tenants who have to move frequently. I point out to the minister that the living rent campaign and Shelter, with its make renting right campaign, are supportive of the amendment. I urge the minister also to support amendment 83.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On hearing Patrick Harvie describe the way in which his amendment might function, I was almost—but not quite—tempted to support the idea. The ground on which I do not support it involve the fact that we have a Government that conducted two detailed consultations with the industry and, in the end, saw only what it wanted to see. I suspect that the requirement for the Government to report on the outcome of the legislation would just be one more opportunity for the Government to see what it wants to see.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I do not support the amendment, but not on the ground that Alex Johnstone has just outlined—I want to be absolutely clear about that.

I have concerns about the amendment in relation to its timescale, which involves conducting a review three years after the bill receives royal assent. The new tenancy is expected to commence in late 2017, to tie in with the commencement of the new private rented sector tribunal, as that is an essential part of its operation. That will also allow us time to develop the supporting secondary legislation, including the model tenancy agreement, and raise awareness among tenants and landlords. Therefore, the new tenancy would commence approximately halfway through the review period. That means that, by the review date, the new tenancy would have been operational for only approximately 18 months, and I do not think that that is a sufficient amount of time to allow us to undertake a full and comprehensive assessment of how the new tenancy is impacting on the sector. Further, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary, as I have already committed to reviewing the new tenancy within five years of its commencement. The proposal would therefore place an unnecessary duty on the Government and an additional burden on the Government’s resources. Therefore, I ask Mr Harvie not to press amendment 83.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I invite Patrick Harvie to wind up and to indicate whether he intends to press or withdraw his amendment.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I was a wee bit anxious that Alex Johnstone was going to throw his weight behind this amendment and scupper it, but it seems that the minister had already decided not to support it anyway. Maybe I dodged a bullet.

In winding up, I reinforce the argument that, whoever is in the next Parliament representing the citizens we represent today, we should not be willing to let that Parliament go through another five-year period before we look at whether legislation that we are passing today does the job that we require of it. If this legislation is going to have a positive impact in making private rented housing more affordable and preventing the absurd rent rises that we have seen in recent years, we should start to see that effect happen during the next session of Parliament. Reviewing it at the three-year mark is a reasonable course of action. Leaving a review until after five years—which means until after the end of the next session of Parliament—would close off the opportunity that that Parliament should take to ensure that the system works as well as it needs to.

I will press amendment 83 to a vote.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a one-minute division.