Scottish Parliament, 16 March 2017

262 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Sectarianism

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it will take forward the recommendations of the advisory group on tackling sectarianism. (S5O-00787)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The Scottish Government has been working to take forward the recommendations of the advisory group with relevant organisations since publication in May 2015. I tasked former advisory group chair, Dr Duncan Morrow, with conducting a review of the implementation of the recommendations, and his findings were published on 6 March 2017. Dr Morrow gathered evidence from a wide range of sources, including the Scottish Government and all parties in the chamber, and I would like to thank everyone for their constructive contributions.

It is very clear from the review that work remains to be done and that we all have a responsibility to meet that challenge. The Scottish Government is fully committed to building on Dr Morrow’s work. We have invested £12.5 million over the last five years to tackle sectarianism, including £9.3 million directly invested in community-based projects across Scotland—more than any Government before.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

The minister will be aware that Dr Morrow asks frequently in his report:

“If not strict liability, then what?”

Does the minister agree that the introduction of strict liability on Scottish football clubs would go some considerable way towards reducing not only sectarianism but homophobia, misogyny and other unacceptable behaviours in Scottish football.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am aware of Dr Morrow’s comments in that regard, and I am also aware that Mr Dornan is proposing a member’s bill on strict liability. The consultation period is on-going and I look forward to seeing its results, in due course.

In the meantime, we will continue to work with the Scottish Premier Football League, the Scottish Football Association, clubs and other partners to ensure that the recently revised rules and associated guidelines on unacceptable conduct are robust, transparent and effective. The revised rules and guidelines are welcome, but without a concerted and sustained effort, we will not be able to eradicate offensive behaviour from our national game. There is scope to do more, and I encourage the SPFL and the SFA to work to that end.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my declaration of interest as a football referee for the Scottish FA.

The minister will be aware that the advisory group also recognised the risk that strict liability could have unintended consequences. One of those unintended consequences would be the cost to clubs. A club in my region—Elgin City FC—has submitted a response to Mr Dornan’s member’s bill consultation saying that

“a system of strict liability would leave us open to crippling and business-ending costs”.

What is the minister’s response to that concern.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I hear what the member says. The process of Mr Dornan’s consultation is, of course, on-going. I imagine that Mr Ross would wish to consider making his own representations to it, as well.

The Government will consider and reflect on the results of that consultation when they are presented to us.

Small Business Bonus Scheme (North Ayrshire)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how many businesses in North Ayrshire pay no rates because of the small business bonus scheme, and how many will be exempt in 2017-18. (S5O-00788)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The small business bonus scheme provides 100 per cent relief to around 2,100 properties in North Ayrshire in 2016-17 and is estimated to provide 100 per cent relief to around 2,300 properties in 2017-18.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that positive reply. That clear and concise work to reduce the rates burden for almost half of our small businesses contrasts sharply with the muddled thinking of the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer, who abruptly cancelled his ill-conceived proposed increase in national insurance contributions from self-employed people—who are often the very same folk that this Scottish National Party Government is helping with their business rates.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that UK Tory ineptitude shows that small businesses in Scotland can rely only on the SNP to support and defend their interests.

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I find myself—of course—in agreement with that point. This Government is delivering its manifesto as it relates to small business. It has gone beyond the manifesto in lowering the tax rate to Scotland’s small businesses—indeed to all businesses—through the poundage.

In lifting 100,000 properties out of rates altogether through the small business bonus, lowering the tax rate and delivering that enhanced package, we have responded very well in delivering our mandate and our manifesto commitments.

In this Parliament of minorities, I have to reach out to the other political parties to get support for my budget. It appears that the Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer at Westminster could not even get the support of his own Tory members to support his budget proposition. We will keep delivering for Scotland.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I recently met Morningside Traders Association in my constituency. A number of its members have had relatively small changes to their rateable value, but because their rateable values take them over the £15,000 threshold and because of the removal of the 50 per cent tax band

, they have had large increases in their rates bills. Their point was that removal of the 50 per cent small business bonus band has led to something of a cliff edge. What impact assessment has been made of the removal of that band and of the relatively large increases that businesses can experience from a small change in their rateable value over the £15,000 mark?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I remind Daniel Johnson that the Labour Party opposed all the reliefs and actions that the Government set out to support small businesses and businesses throughout Scotland.

In the budget, I detailed how local authorities could also assist businesses through local rates relief support. Therefore, there is a further opportunity for local authorities to assist, where they think they can go further than the national package.

There will be a full revaluation report that will, of course, be delivered through the actions of the assessors, who are independent of the Scottish Government. That report can set out the picture post revaluation. We have looked at the impacts of revaluation as we have responded through the course of the budget process and beyond, and I will continue to consider them to ensure that we have an excellent business rates regime that is competitive and supports people through revaluation.

Faced with the chaos from the Tory party and the opposition from the Labour Party, people can trust only the SNP to support businesses in this country to be able to respond to the challenges that they face.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

It is interesting to hear the cabinet secretary talk about trusting the SNP. The reality is that official Scottish Government data show that nearly a third of all businesses in North Ayrshire will be hit by business-rate hikes. Because of revaluation, a number of small businesses are concerned that they will be taken out of the small business bonus scheme, and very little clarity has been provided on that. How many businesses in North Ayrshire will be taken out of the small business bonus scheme by the increase in their business rates? What assistance will the Scottish Government provide to those businesses?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

That question ignores the answer that I gave to Mr Gibson. More businesses will benefit from the small business bonus, which the Tory party has opposed, and all businesses will benefit from the reduction in the poundage. That was the right action to take.

We have looked at the package of reliefs. If the Tories and the Labour Party want to look further at enhanced measures for support, maybe they should support local authorities in delivering such schemes.

A number of sectors have welcomed the actions that we have taken. I remind all members that many people have waited for the reduction in their business rates as a consequence of revaluation. More than half of all businesses will pay nothing, and 70 per cent of businesses will pay the same or less than they did before. That is the right package to support businesses throughout Scotland.

The full details of the impact of revaluation will come out as the assessors provide the final information, and I will look in future financial years to see what further support we can provide.

All the actions on business rates in this country have been totally undermined by the Tories and the Labour Party. They have made a lot of noise, but they have made absolutely no difference to supporting businesses in this land.

Town Centre Regeneration

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to local authorities to help with the regeneration of town centres. (S5O-00789)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government agreed the town centre first principle with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and all council leaders. The principle asks that the impact on the town centre be considered in all investment decisions as a starting point. I am pleased that the principle is gathering traction, with local authorities applying it to suit their own local circumstances.

We support local authorities through the measures that are set out in the town centre action plan, which sets the conditions and supports activity across the wider public, private and community sectors to tackle the key issues in town centres across Scotland.

We fund and support the Scottish empty homes partnership, which provides practical assistance to councils and others to help owners bring their empty homes back into use. It has been central to developing Scotland’s network of empty homes officers, and 17 councils now have a dedicated empty homes resource. By April 2016, the empty homes partnership had assisted in bringing over 1,680 properties back into use.

To add to the range of tools that are available to tackle empty homes and property, we are committed to bringing forward provisions for compulsory sale orders as part of on-going land reform measures. However, more work is needed to ensure that any powers that are introduced are effective in tackling the impact of abandoned buildings, particularly those that blight town centres and neighbourhoods.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the Government agree that the United Kingdom Government’s insistence on charging full VAT for the restoration of buildings while new builds are zero rated has a detrimental impact on efforts to regenerate town centres?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

As Ms McAlpine points out, that remains a reserved matter. Regrettably, it is clear that the UK Government is not likely to give us a hearing on that matter.

Although we do not have hard data to support the member’s statement, it is a logical conclusion that zero VAT would help in the regeneration of many of the properties that she has referred to. We are focused on other ways to support the regeneration of our historic town centres, for example through the provision of grant support, such as that disbursed under the conservation area regeneration scheme. That scheme, which is administered on behalf of the Government by Historic Environment Scotland, is aimed at addressing repair works to town centres and high streets where appropriate, bringing local vacant or at-risk buildings back into use.

I recognise that the member has a major interest in the topic and I intend to visit Dumfries, where I know she has been asking numerous questions on the issue.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Question 4 was not lodged.

Anti-Semitism

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what the outcome was of the discussions between it and the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities regarding the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism. (S5O-00791)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Scottish Government officials are due to meet the Scottish Council for Jewish Communities and the Community Security Trust on 23 March 2017 to discuss these issues. I refer the member to my written answer S5W-05829, which indicated that the Scottish Government agrees with the definition that has been adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I still receive regular inquiries from constituents in Eastwood, which is where the largest Jewish community in Scotland resides, and they are very grateful for the personal support of the First Minister, who recently attended an event in the community. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for what she has said. I hope that we can achieve an early outcome in which Scotland can join the other Governments that have adopted the resolution.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am grateful to Mr Carlaw for the tone and tenor of his supplementary point. I also point out that, just a few days ago, in a written answer to Ross Thomson on the same issue, I replied:

“We agree with the definition produced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and consider the resolution they have adopted to be a helpful guide to the different manifestations of anti-Semitism.”—[

Written Answers

, 14 March 2017; S5W-07668.]

Donald Trump (Possible Visit to Scotland)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what communication it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding a possible visit to Scotland by Donald Trump. (S5O-00792)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The UK Government has not communicated with us regarding a possible visit by the United States President. The Scottish Government wants to build a constructive relationship with the US Administration based on the shared fundamental values of equality, tolerance, diversity and human rights for all regardless of faith, race, gender or sexual orientation. However, the First Minister has made it clear that we would not support a state visit while the current travel ban is in place.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am a little surprised that the cabinet secretary thinks that those values are shared by the US Administration. However, it has been widely reported that the UK Government is considering moving the state visit to Scotland, partly in order—apparently—to avoid public protest.

Both Governments must surely be aware that millions of people around the world, and certainly many thousands in this country, stand ready to oppose the Trump regime and everything that it represents, and that, if there was such a visit to Scotland, it would be met with the biggest public protest seen in many years.

Can the Scottish Government assure us that Police Scotland will do nothing to limit or suppress that legitimate public protest, including non-violent direct action where appropriate? Can the cabinet secretary also confirm that the Scottish Government will not follow the UK Government’s line of instructing its employees not to criticise Trump on their personal social media accounts?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member raises a number of issues. In relation to solidarity with the values that I set out, I think that many people in the United States reflect those values, and we should respect those people. The member might be aware that, only a few hours ago, a judge in Hawaii placed a block on the current travel arrangements. I think that that will be supported by many people, not just in the US but internationally.

On the member’s point about potential protests, I think that the people of Scotland have already made clear their intention to stand in solidarity with people who face a negative reception from the current US Administration. On his point about Police Scotland, we have a good record in this country of making sure that we support freedom of expression and protest that is done in a peaceful way, which should be policed accordingly.

On the member’s final point, freedom of speech must exist in lots of forms and fashions, and it is regrettable if the UK Government is seeking to gag its own members of staff.

Airbnb (Business Rates)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether the business rates review will consider the potential of charging properties marketed through platforms such as Airbnb. (S5O-00793)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Barclay review group has a wide remit to consider all aspects of the business rates system, including properties that do not currently pay rates, such as Airbnb lets. The group will make recommendations to the Government in July.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the cabinet secretary update the Parliament on the work that is being undertaken by the regulatory review group on the regulatory environment in Scotland for key sectors that are affected by digital disruption?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I understand that the review group has scoped research on impacts in the housing sector, which I hope will help to inform the review. All those matters can be taken into consideration as we respond to the Barclay review.

Equal Pay (Local Authorities)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what measures are in place to ensure that there is equal pay for local authority staff across Scotland. (S5O-00794)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Equality Act 2010 requires that women should be paid the same as men for doing the same or equivalent work. Local authorities, as employers, are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the 2010 act, and we expect all Scottish local authorities to comply with their legal obligations.

I urge councils that still have to settle outstanding equal pay cases to do so quickly, so that people are not waiting even longer following their loss of income.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The minister will know that the dispute on equal pay with 5,000 employees of Glasgow City Council has moved to the Court of Session on appeal, after the Employment Appeal Tribunal found in favour of the claimants. Does she agree that the council must stand by its promise to reach agreement over post-job evaluation pay arrangements and deliver pay equality for all those people?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am sure that the member understands that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases or an on-going legal matter.

Let me say very plainly that equal pay is not a matter of choice. It is a legal requirement for all employers, including local authorities.

The Government and I have been consistently robust and public in our criticism of local authorities that are taking excessive time to settle equal pay claims. Some cases go back more than a decade, and the excessive delays are entirely unacceptable. We are right to expect local authorities and all public authorities to lead by example on something as fundamental as equal pay. I reiterate that local authorities must settle their claims and that they must do so soon.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, when it comes to equal pay claims, the pension contributions should also be included when an equal pay settlement takes place?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I support that. It is important that anyone who has an outstanding equal pay claim, particularly women, gets what is due to them. We have to be clear in our expectations of that.

Engagements

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S5F-01028)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Following yesterday’s launch of the East Africa crisis appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee, the Scottish Government will donate £200,000 to the appeal. The funds will support agencies to provide vital food and water supplies and medical treatment to those who are affected by the famine in South Sudan that was declared by the United Nations on 20 February.

Later today, I will have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

On behalf of my party and myself, I thank the First Minister for that answer and welcome the Scottish Government’s contribution.

How can the First Minister divert this country into another unwanted, divisive referendum when she cannot sort out issues in our local schools?

The First Minister

The education secretary and I work to raise standards and close the attainment gap in our schools each and every single day. That will continue to be our priority.

On the wider issues, the reality here is quite simple: I want to give people in Scotland a choice over their own future. We know that change is coming; the European Union referendum last year made that change inevitable. We know that the Tories want to lead us off a hard Brexit cliff edge. The people of Scotland should not have to simply accept being told what their future should be by a Conservative Government that we do not support. Instead, we should have the chance to choose a better future, and that is a choice that I intend to give the people of Scotland.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the First Minister for her answer to my question, but I wonder whether it would have been delivered in quite the same tone had she known that the question was not actually mine but was a question that was put to one of my MSPs earlier this week by a parent who contacted our office. That parent, like all parents at Deputy First Minister John Swinney’s local high school in Blairgowrie, received a letter from the school head earlier this week to see whether a relative could fill in to teach maths because of a lack of cover. The parent was furious to see, on the very same day, the First Minister of Scotland standing in Bute house, putting her job to one side and threatening to take Scotland back into another divisive referendum on independence.

When the First Minister meets parents who are frustrated with the decline in standards in schools, how does she explain to them that another referendum will help their child?

The First Minister

Let me address the situation at Blairgowrie high school. As the education secretary has said many times in the chamber and outwith it, a number of different parts of the country and specific subjects are facing challenges with teacher recruitment. That is why we have increased the intake of students to initial teacher education and why we have expanded the range of routes into teaching to make the process faster for those individuals.

Blairgowrie high school is seeking to identify properly registered teachers to come in and teach maths; of course, the law says that teachers have to be properly registered.

We will continue to address the challenges in our education system, as we will continue to address challenges that exist in health, education or any other area. It is because the people of Scotland see us addressing those challenges that they continue to have confidence in this Government to run this country.

On the wider issue, I see it as part of my job to protect Scotland’s interests and to protect Scotland from the prospect of a hard Tory Brexit. The reality is that Ruth Davidson knows that Brexit will be a disaster. We know that because she told us that Brexit would be a disaster, but now she tells us that we simply have to accept Brexit—a hard Brexit—regardless of the consequences. Yesterday, we saw David Davis saying that the Tories have not even bothered to do an analysis of the costs of a hard Brexit. Luckily, analyses have been done by others, and we know that the path that the Tories are trying to take this country down could cost every household in the country more than £5,000.

The answer to Ruth Davidson’s questions about the impact on young people in our country is that the impact of Brexit on everybody in our country is going to be disastrous. That is why I have a duty to allow people the choice to opt for something better.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

The truth is that a referendum will not help pupils in Scotland, it will not help patients to come off waiting lists, it will not help to solve the general practitioner crisis, and it will not cut violent crime; it will just take this Government away from the day job, which is supposed to be its focus.

Something else that parents are asking is how independence will help their school. This morning, we read that an independent Scotland would be £11 billion in the red and would need higher taxes, lower spending and increased borrowing just to fill the gap. The same warnings were given before 2014—warnings that the First Minister chose to ignore. Is it her policy to ignore the evidence once again and carry on regardless?

The First Minister

Scotland has a deficit like the United Kingdom has a deficit. That is a deficit created on Westminster’s watch.

It is about time we had the tools and the ability to work our way out of deficits that Tory and Labour Governments have created in Scotland. [

Interruption

.]

Let us look at the alternative to independence, which is more Tory austerity, extending well into the next decade. Cuts to Scotland’s budget by the Tories by the end of this decade will be 10 per cent in real terms. Ruth Davidson talks about “the day job”. Yesterday, we saw the biggest U-turn from the Tories in decades, blowing a £2 billion hole in their budget. Because of Brexit, every household in the country could be facing a bill of £5,000.

I think that Scotland deserves a choice, and the choice is this: either to take control of our own finances to build, grow and innovate our way to a better future, or to allow the Tories to continue to make the same mistakes over and over again and make the situation worse.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

Earlier this week, the First Minister chose not to come before this Parliament to spell out her views on a referendum. I choose to put this Parliament first. [

Interruption

.]

The Scottish Conservatives reject the proposals that were set out by the First Minister on Monday. A referendum cannot happen when the people of Scotland have not been given the opportunity to see how our new relationship with the European Union is working, and should not take place when there is no clear political or public consent for it.

Our country does not want to go back to the divisions and uncertainty of the past few years. Another referendum campaign will not solve the challenges that this country will face. We do not want it; we do not need it. Why will she not listen? [

Interruption

.]

The First Minister

I was elected as First Minister less than a year ago. [

Interruption

.]

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

That is enough, please. Order.

The First Minister

They do not want to hear this, Presiding Officer.

I was elected as First Minister a year ago with the highest share of the constituency vote in the history of devolution, on a manifesto commitment that said that this Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if the Tories tried to drag us out of Europe against our will. That 46 per cent share of the vote is 10 percentage points higher than the 36 per cent share that the Tories used to have the EU referendum in the first place. We hear from the Electoral Commission this morning that the vote share that they got in the 2015 election was rather dodgy. [

Interruption

.]

This Parliament has an independence majority in it. Ruth Davidson says that she wants to put this Parliament first. I issue a direct challenge to Ruth Davidson and to the Conservative Party: if, on Wednesday next week, this Parliament votes for an independence referendum to give the people of Scotland a choice over their own future, will the Conservatives respect the will of this Parliament, or are they running scared?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

2. To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the week. (S5F-01027)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

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

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Andrew Wilson is responsible for rebuilding the Scottish National Party’s battered economic case for leaving the United Kingdom. This week, it was reported that he told Nicola Sturgeon that it could take up to 10 years for Scotland’s economy to recover if we left the UK. Does the First Minister think that a lost decade is a price worth paying to drag Scotland out of the United Kingdom?

The First Minister

The reports that appeared this week about the work of the growth commission were 100 per cent wrong—plain and simple—as Andrew Wilson has said. Contrary to what was reported, the growth commission is looking at how we get from the position that we are in right now—saddled with a deficit that has been created by Labour and Conservative Governments down the generations—to a stronger and more sustainable future.

The question for Kezia Dugdale is this—is she happy to see Scotland locked into Tory austerity, not just for the rest of this decade but into the next one? Is she happy to see Scotland at the mercy of Tory cut after Tory cut after Tory cut or, this time, will she stand up for the right of this country to choose a better future for itself?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

If the First Minister is so confident of the contents of the work of the growth commission, she should publish its work, but

of course, we have been here before—SNP ministers assert one thing in public and admit another in private. We all remember John Swinney’s leaked paper, which warned of cuts to our public services and to our pensions. Now, Andrew Wilson has revealed in private what Nicola Sturgeon refuses to admit publicly—that leaving the UK would be devastating for Scotland’s economy. It would mean even more cuts for schools, hospitals and those who are most in need.

The First Minister said this week that she did not want a fact-free debate, so let us start with one fact that she cannot deny. Is it not the case that, according to her Government statistics, leaving the UK would mean £15 billion-worth of extra cuts?

The First Minister

The band is well and truly back together, is it not? Tory and Labour are combining again to talk this country down. Here is the reality—Scotland has a deficit that was created on Westminster’s watch and we have to deal with that deficit whether or not we are independent. Is it not much better to have the tools and powers of independence to deal with that deficit in a way that is consistent with our values and not Tory values?

If we are not independent, we face years and years and years of Tory austerity. I do not want that for my country and I think that it is shameful that Labour now backs that for this country. However, Labour is all over the place on this; it cannot even get its own story straight. We have Kezia Dugdale telling us that Labour will vote against another referendum and we have Jeremy Corbyn telling us that UK Labour will not vote against another referendum—it is no wonder that Labour’s new slogan is, “We are divided enough”.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

This matters because it is about the money that we have to spend on our public services. The First Minister used to say that education was the defining priority of her Government. Now even she laughs when journalists ask her if that is still the case.

The reality is that the Government will once again grind to a halt for years. Closing the attainment gap is not the priority any more; fixing the mess that the First Minister made of the national health service will be on the back burner; and investing in the care of the elderly can wait, too. Can the First Minister tell us this? Does she plan to spend the next few years leading a Government or a campaign?

The First Minister

As First Minister, I will continue to lead a Government that is focused on making sure that we raise standards in our schools and continue to improve the NHS, but do you know what? All those things get more difficult if we are subjected year after year to Tory cuts, which will be made worse by the hard Brexit that the Tories are pursuing and which Labour seems willing to support. It is absolutely shameful that, instead of standing up for Scotland, Labour simply supports the Conservatives and whatever they want to do.

I want this country to take charge of our own future, so that we can build a better country than Labour and the Tories have managed to. When people have a choice—as I am determined that they will have—to say what kind of future they want, I will be arguing for this country to be in charge of its own finances and future and of building a fairer society and a stronger economy. Kezia Dugdale will be on the side of Ruth Davidson and Theresa May yet again, and her party will continue to die as a result.

The Presiding Officer

We have three constituency questions.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The First Minister will be aware that NHS Shetland has decided that Shetlanders with medical appointments in Aberdeen must now use the 14-hour overnight ferry service rather than take a 45-minute flight south. That policy will mean two days away from home and work for Shetlanders. There has been no consultation, and Loganair’s managing director tells me that there has been no formal negotiation with the national health service on reducing flight costs to make savings.

NHS Shetland said last night that it could consider closing general practice surgeries or the maternity unit in Lerwick. If I suggested such a course of action, the First Minister would accuse me of scaremongering.

I ask the First Minister to tell her appointed board to reverse its decision until there have been commercial negotiations with Loganair and until there is a public consultation and a full understanding of what any change to the existing travel policy would mean for islanders from Unst to Fair Isle.

The First Minister

NHS Shetland has already provided assurance that decisions about travel arrangements will continue to be clinically led, and patients for whom ferry transport is not suitable will continue to be offered air travel. It is vital that the board ensures that it continues to provide high-quality direct patient care for the people of Shetland, and we will continue to work with it to reduce the number of patients who need to travel at all, for appointments or treatment, by expanding the use of video consultations on Shetland, for example. I will ensure that Tavish Scott’s comments are conveyed to NHS Shetland, and I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will be happy to meet him to discuss the issues in more detail.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

As politicians get all flustered about constitutional politics, back in the real world 400 workers face losing their jobs at Ethicon in Livingston, as Johnson & Johnson threatens to close a plant that has been profitable for three decades. Will the First Minister agree to meet me and representatives from Unite the union, which represents the workforce, so that we can all see what we can do to retain jobs at Livingston?

The First Minister

Of course we will always be more than happy to meet unions and representatives of the workforce. We are already engaging with Johnson & Johnson; I and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work have engaged directly with the company, as have our enterprise agencies, and we are exploring every possible support for the site. Detailed and intensive work has been done so far to look at what we can do to help to address immediate business challenges and to maximise the site’s future potential. We will continue that engagement and continue to give as much support as we can to the workforce. As I said at the outset, we will be happy to meet representatives of the workforce at any time.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In light of the recent traffic incidents on the Forth road bridge and the serious effect that they have had on residents and businesses in Mid Scotland and Fife and in the Lothians, will the Scottish Government undertake to have urgent talks with Transport Scotland to put in place measures in addition to the tougher penalties that the police are imposing on offending drivers, so that more is done to prevent the blatant disregard of traffic restrictions in the first instance?

The First Minister

This was another very regrettable incident on the Forth road bridge. A multi-agency response was quickly put in place to respond to the closure and people worked effectively to manage the associated travel impacts and to get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible. I thank everybody who worked hard to make sure that that happened.

Transport Scotland will shortly host a stakeholder conference to discuss what more can be done to prevent such incidents from happening and it will involve the office of the traffic commissioner for Scotland, Police Scotland, the Forth road bridge operating company, local authorities and industry representatives from the freight sector. We are also committed to the largest road investment programme ever, which includes the £1.35 billion Queensferry crossing project. As part of that investment, wind shielding is being fitted to reduce any wind-related closures on the new bridge. However, for the existing bridge, it is important that we continue to explore what we can do to avoid people flouting advice, which results in closures that should be completely avoidable.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S5F-01025)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Is it possible that an independent Scotland could be outside not only the United Kingdom single market but the European single market?

The First Minister

I want Scotland to be in the European Union and I want Scotland to be in the single market. That is why I think that it is important to give people in Scotland that choice. However, what we know right now—beyond any doubt—is that if Scotland does not become independent, we will be out of not only the EU but the single market. By considering independence, we of course give ourselves the ability to secure a relationship with Europe and to secure the jobs, the investment and the collaborations that depend on that. That is why giving people in Scotland the choice is so important.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The First Minister dodged the question. It was a simple question: could we be out of both single markets? The answer is yes. The reason is this: it is just as difficult to get into the European single market as it is to get full EU membership, because all 27 EU members would need to agree.

We heard from the Spanish Government again yesterday on that. Her route guarantees nothing; it is exactly the same hurdle. That is why her plans could leave us outside both the UK and EU single markets. If she thought that a Conservative hard Brexit was going to be damaging, just wait for that. It is absurd to use the EU as an excuse for another referendum when there is no guarantee that Scotland could get back into the EU. She is sooking up to the Eurosceptics on her side while cynically selling out the pro-Europeans on the sly. Why cannot she just admit that?

The First Minister

Of course, Willie Rennie spends most of his time sooking up to the Tories, so I will take no lessons from him. However, I really cannot believe the brass neck with which Willie Rennie has just asked that question. We should remember that Willie Rennie is one of the politicians—Ruth Davidson and Kezia Dugdale are another two—who in 2014 looked the people of Scotland in the eye and said, “If you vote no in the referendum, your membership of the European Union is secure; and if you vote yes, Scotland will not be allowed in.” Two and a half years later, when that unionist alliance has contrived to make sure that we face being taken out of the European Union against our will, they have the absolute temerity to stand up again and try to scaremonger that independence is putting our EU membership at risk. That is absolutely breathtaking in its hypocrisy, and the people of Scotland will simply not fall for it again.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We know that the more the First Minister blusters, the more she hides the truth. I ask the question again. Will Scotland be guaranteed to be a full member of the European Union, or not? Can she guarantee that? If she cannot, it is all just bluster again.

The First Minister

Independence gives us the ability to be in the EU to secure a relationship with Europe. Not being independent guarantees that we are out of the EU and out of the single market.

Willie Rennie—who, I think, has a PhD in bluster—has a position here that is completely incoherent. He wants there to be a second referendum across the UK to give the people of the whole UK a choice even though he knows that there is not a chance of that happening, yet here in Scotland, where there is the opportunity for people to have a choice, he is completely opposed to that. According to Willie Rennie, we just have to accept a Tory hard Brexit come what may.

I think that it is about time people in Scotland had a choice so that we can take the future of our own country into our own hands.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the First Minister tell us whether discussions were held with the Treasury ahead of the planned national insurance tax hike, or at the point when the Conservatives realised that they had broken their manifesto promise, or before they decided to U-turn, or even after yesterday’s embarrassing climbdown, given the impact that it would have on many self-employed people across Scotland?

The First Minister

There were no discussions with the Treasury either about the original policy or about the embarrassing U-turn yesterday. The Tories are in complete and utter chaos. We have had lectures—have we not?—week after week after week from the Tories here about tax, yet it was a Tory Government that was going to hike up taxes on self-employed people and then, of course, in a screeching U-turn, changed its mind.

We will get on with doing our best to deliver for the people of Scotland while the Tories continue to descend into utter chaos.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

This week, I learned in a response to a written question that, among 120 secondments into the Scottish Government, which come almost universally from other bodies in the public sector, was one from the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards. That comes on the back of a previous answer that revealed that the director of policy at NFU Scotland has been embedded within the Scottish Government since November 2016. Three days a week, he works lobbying the Scottish Government on behalf of his organisation, and for two days he works at the heart of Government, developing policy.

Does the First Minister believe that that is a healthy development? Will she explain the purpose of having those representatives of the landed class at the heart of Government? Does she agree that there is an obvious conflict of interest?

The First Minister

No, I do not. I know that it is not fashionable these days to consider the views of experts as being worth listening to, but I think it is right that, in Government, we have expertise from a range of different areas helping to inform and develop Government policy. We have that from a range of different interests so that a broad spectrum of expertise is feeding into Government policy.

I am happy to correspond with Andy Wightman if he has particular concerns but, in general, for the Government to use the expertise that exists across our country is a good thing that should be welcomed.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

How will people be given the opportunity to shape Scotland’s new social security system?

The First Minister

Key to the design of our social security system, as we have said, is working alongside people who have direct personal experience of the current social security system. We want to hear directly from them about what works, what needs improved and what our new system can do to better support them.

From today, people across Scotland will begin to receive letters inviting them to join the experience panels that will shape our new social security system. The invitations have been sent to 18,000 people who have recent or current experience of the system. I hope that people will take the time to look at the invitation and join the panels and will take the opportunity to be part of building a new social security system in Scotland that will have fairness, dignity and respect at its heart—all principles that are missing from the social security system that is currently under Westminster’s control.

Pupil Equity Fund

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

4. To ask the First Minister what guidance the Scottish Government has issued regarding the use of the pupil equity fund. (S5F-01032)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

On 1 February, the Deputy First Minister announced the pupil equity funding school-level allocations for 2017-18. Draft national operational guidance was published on the same day and was issued to local authorities and direct to schools. The guidance sets out clear principles to support schools and local authorities to work in partnership and to plan how to effectively invest the additional £120 million in order to raise attainment and close the attainment gap. I have been absolutely clear—as has the Deputy First Minister—that that funding must be used at the discretion of headteachers; it must be additional to existing provision; and it cannot be top-sliced for other purposes. It must be used to improve the educational outcomes of children most affected by poverty.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The First Minister will be aware of reports that North Lanarkshire Council has proposed that headteachers return a considerable proportion of the pupil equity fund to the general education fund. The pupil equity fund is intended to go direct to headteachers for the benefit of the most deprived children in Scotland, to help to address the attainment gap. Does the First Minister share my concern that that is an abhorrent proposal from a Labour council?

The First Minister

I am indeed aware of the issues raised in relation to North Lanarkshire’s pupil equity funding. I am particularly disappointed that the Labour council has chosen to cut classroom assistants. It made that decision on 23 February despite the options open to it to avoid that. The expectation that headteachers should then subsidise that cut with their pupil equity funding is simply unacceptable. Those issues have been raised with the council and discussions are continuing. I very much hope that the council will reconsider its approach.

It is important to be very clear. The Scottish Government will release that funding only if the council agrees that it goes to the schools, as intended, and that it is not used by it to pay for existing resources. Anything else would, quite frankly, be a betrayal of the disadvantaged children of North Lanarkshire.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

North Lanarkshire Council is facing a £27 million cut to its core budget. It is trying to protect and enhance the jobs of over 200 classroom assistants—precisely to raise attainment and close that gap. It is supported by the Educational Institute of Scotland, by Unison and by its headteachers, 77 of whom have written to the Deputy First Minister to say so.

In response, the Scottish Government is threatening to cut almost £9 million more from the council’s budget. Will the First Minister explain how that politically motivated blackmail is supposed to help schoolchildren in North Lanarkshire?

The First Minister

Interestingly, Iain Gray omitted to tell us about something else that North Lanarkshire Council is choosing to do, which is to freeze its council tax next year. Clearly, having asked the Scottish Government for the ability to put its council tax up, the council has decided that it does not need that money and that, instead, it will try to pilfer resources from the pupil equity fund.

This Parliament was very clear that the

pupil equity fund

ing—£120 million of it—was money to go direct to schools, to be used at the discretion of headteachers. Iain Gray tells us that, apparently, there are people who support the council’s approach. As I understand it, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland does not support it. The issue is quite simple: that is money that we want to give direct to headteachers and direct to schools, but North Lanarkshire Council wants to use it for something else. We are determined that that money will go direct to schools. It is utterly shameful that the Labour Party is defending an approach that would see the money used by North Lanarkshire Council to fund things that are its responsibility to fund.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In light of that controversy, I ask the First Minister what measures will be put in place to assess whether the key principles behind the pupil equity fund—namely, that headteachers will have access to the full amount and that spending must be on additional activities to those currently employed—will be adhered to?

The First Minister

The guidance that I referred to in my first answer is there to ensure that there are clear principles to guide how the money is used and our monitoring and assessment of the benefits of the money.

Let us get back to the core issue. Week after week—rightly and understandably; I have no complaint about this—members of the Opposition come to this chamber and raise the issue of the attainment gap. I have said repeatedly that closing that gap is my priority. That is why we set up a pupil equity fund of £120 million, which is being directed to schools to help, in particular, young people living in disadvantaged circumstances. That is what the fund is all about and why it is so deeply concerning that we have a local authority that sees the opportunity to make a cut in its budget and substitute that cut with money from the pupil equity fund. That is not what it is for; that is not what it is about. If that approach is allowed to continue, frankly, that would be a betrayal of the most disadvantaged pupils in North Lanarkshire who are meant to benefit from the fund. As First Minister, I am not prepared to allow that to happen.

Gun Crime

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle gun crime. (S5F-01034)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The number of recorded crimes and offences in Scotland involving firearms has fallen by nearly three quarters in 10 years. Firearms crimes where a person was killed or injured fell by more than 25 per cent between 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The Scottish Government has taken action. We have some of the strongest firearms legislation in the world, which we have strengthened further with our new air weapon licensing regime. Police Scotland is committed to tackling gun crime and clear-up rates for those offences remain high.

There is no room for any complacency. Recent incidents show that we must keep the situation under review and continue to address gun crime wherever it occurs in our communities.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

That response will be of little consolation to the people of Glasgow, a city that has seen five separate incidents of serious gun crime in the past 12 months alone. We know that, between 2014-15 and 2015-16, cases of attempted murder or serious assault increased in Scotland by 27 per cent. We know that, despite the attacks mostly being targeted, the crimes are taking place on the streets. One crime in Glasgow happened outside a primary school. What conversation will the First Minister have with Police Scotland to ensure that such crimes do not take place on our streets and that innocent bystanders are not put at risk?

The First Minister

Those are really important issues. Let me be clear: both I and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice are periodically updated and briefed by the police on the types of incident to which the member refers; we are also updated on the police’s work to try to combat such offences.

It is important to reiterate that gun crime, generally, is falling. As I said, it has fallen by nearly three quarters in the past 10 years and crimes where a person was killed or injured by a firearm fell by 25 per cent between 2014-15 and 2015-16.

The incidents to which Annie Wells refers in Glasgow—the part of the country that I represent—are deeply concerning. One of the incidents was in my constituency. According to the police, those are targeted incidents linked to serious and organised crime. That makes it very important that the police continue to use the resources and the intelligence that they have to deal properly with the offences and to bring to justice those who are responsible.

The police will continue to update the justice secretary and me on those important issues, but we should not allow them to take away from the fact that gun crime generally is falling. Although we should not be complacent, that is a good thing and it should give reassurance to communities all over the country.

Unit Assessments (Changes)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

6. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will ensure that changes to unit assessments will not increase teacher workload, in light of reports that 63 per cent of teachers believe that they will. (S5F-01060)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Deputy First Minister announced the changes to the qualifications following discussions with the working group on assessment and national qualifications and the curriculum for excellence management board. The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, whose survey is being referred to, is represented on both groups.

The changes mean that teachers and young people will not have to undertake formal unit assessments during the year, which teachers and others had told us were significantly contributing to workload. Indeed, the moves were welcomed by teacher unions last year.

We continue to work with partners, including the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Education Scotland and teacher unions, to ensure that workload is reduced as a result of the changes. The assessment and national qualifications group is meeting this afternoon and will continue to discuss the implementation of the changes.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

John Swinney came into his new job promising to slash teacher workload and burden, but this survey reveals that teachers think that the changes to unit assessments will increase, not decrease, their workload, especially in science. What work has been done and assessment made to ensure that these measures have a positive impact on teacher workload? Can the First Minister reassure the chamber that this will not lead to yet another embarrassing setback and delay arising from the Deputy First Minister’s ill-thought-through reforms?

The First Minister

I am not sure that Daniel Johnson listened to my first answer, because he would have found there the answer to the question that he has just asked me.

First, the reforms that Mr Johnson has talked about as being ill judged and rushed were actually reforms that teacher unions wanted. They are not the only changes that have been made to reduce teacher workload and the unnecessary bureaucracy that teachers have to deal with, but they play an important part in that, and that is their intention.

Clearly, it is important to take steps to ensure that the integrity of the exams system is not undermined and, in response to the member’s previous question about what we are doing, I referred to a meeting this very day of the assessment and national qualifications group in order to ensure that the concerns that have been highlighted in the survey that he referred to do not materialise and that these changes, which have the intention that I have just outlined, turn out to deliver in reality.

We will continue to work with teachers and others to make sure that that is the case, and I would have thought that Daniel Johnson would have welcomed that.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The fact that this Government has listened to teachers’ concerns about workload is welcome both for them and for children and young people. Will the First Minister advise the chamber on the other measures that are being taken to free up time for teachers to teach?

The First Minister

As I said to Daniel Johnson, addressing the issue of workload has been a priority for the Deputy First Minister. Literally thousands of pages of guidance have already been stripped away, and a teacher panel was established to test proposals to reduce workload that go beyond those that are the subject of this particular question.

Last year, every teacher in Scotland was sent a clear and concise statement on curriculum for excellence along with benchmark guidance on literacy and numeracy, and that definitive guidance makes it clear what teachers should and should not be required to do.

We are determined to take the actions that will free teachers from unnecessary bureaucracy and workload. Indeed, we are determined to free them to do what they do best: raise the bar for all and close the attainment gap in our schools.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

We have heard today from the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association about the crisis in recruiting headteachers because of workload. With regard to the Scottish Government’s claim to be committed to reducing teacher and headteacher workload, does the First Minister agree that that is absolutely not happening and that there is now a real threat of a lack of leadership in schools because people simply will not apply to become headteachers?

The First Minister

No, I do not agree; actually, I fundamentally disagree. We have listened to teachers, including headteachers, and we have taken steps, some of which I have outlined today, that will reduce unnecessary—and I stress the word “unnecessary”—workload for teachers. We are doing that in partnership with teachers.

I understand that, as we go through the process, we will hear the kind of scepticism that we have heard from the SSTA about the effect of these changes, and it is our job to make sure that the changes are implemented in a way that will have the desired effect. We are listening; we are introducing these changes; and, as I have said in previous answers, we are getting on with implementing them to ensure that we make an appreciable difference to the workload of teachers in our schools across the country.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. During question time, the First Minister made it clear that it was important to listen to the will of Parliament. Last week, the Government lost a vote in Parliament and the week before, it lost two votes in Parliament. On those occasions, Presiding Officer, you said from the chair that those votes were non-binding, and I would like to hear another ruling from you on whether the votes after the debate next Tuesday and Wednesday will be non-binding, too.

The Presiding Officer

As the member knows, motions of this Parliament are not binding, and that was not a point of order.

Non-domestic Rates (North East Scotland)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-03651, in the name of Ross Thomson, on the impact on north-east businesses of the hike in non-domestic rates. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament understands that, as a result of the 2015 revaluation, businesses across the North East Scotland region are facing enormous increases in their non-domestic rates; believes that this impacts on companies across a range of sectors, including hospitality, oil and gas, engineering and retail, with some being subjected to increases in excess of 200%; considers that this represents a substantial hike in charges that will render it extremely difficult for some to avoid liquidation; welcomes the Press & Journal campaign, which, it understands, aims to highlight a number of compelling examples of businesses that will be adversely affected by the increase, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to take expedient and meaningful action to address this issue and to seek a solution to ease the impact of this.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am delighted to have secured this members’ business debate, and I thank members for the cross-party support that has enabled it to take place.

Businesses right across the north-east have been desperately crying out for help with their business rates revaluation. Business owners warned of the devastating impact that it would have on their business and their community if nothing was done to help. I launched a petition that called for support and which accumulated more than 2,000 signatures in the space of only 48 hours. Businesses told me time and again that they risk going to the wall, which would result in the loss of jobs, if something is not done. I am proud to speak for each and every one of those businesses this afternoon.

Sadly, the Scottish Government simply tried to pass the buck. From the outset, we were told that the Government would not intervene because this is a matter for the independent assessor and local councils to deal with. To give credit to Derek Mackay, he came to Aberdeen to hear for himself the very real concerns of local businesses. However, the Government’s attempt to dress up “extra” funding for all Scottish councils as income that could be used to mitigate business rates rises fooled no one in the north-east business community. Aside from the fact that every council in Scotland received a top-up, with only Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council being expected to spend that income on rates relief, Mr Mackay and the Scottish National Party declined to mention the fact that the overall budgets for all local authorities were still being slashed. A cut is still a cut.

Only now, after the criticism of his Government hit the national press and Mr Mackay faced calls to make a statement to Parliament, are we seeing action. The cabinet secretary made a “screeching, embarrassing U-turn”, to quote an Angus Robertson phrase. That followed hot on the heels of the reversal of the ill-thought-out plan to raid north-east council budgets and send the income to the central belt.

A 12.5 per cent cap will be welcomed by the hospitality sector and will make a difference to the hefty bills that have been levied on office premises in the north-east. However, based on the Scottish Government’s own figures, it appears that around 8,000 businesses in the region will not benefit from the changes. Furthermore, the cap will be in place for only one year. Businesses say that they need certainty over at least three years. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce hit the nail on the head when it said that the Government’s so-called bespoke solution for the north-east will not deal with the root of the problem. It is nothing more than a sticking plaster.

It is crystal clear to everyone in the north-east that a fundamental re-examination of the whole business rates system is essential, so I hope that the recommendations of the Barclay review will provide much-needed relief and support for businesses in the north-east.

However, the cabinet secretary is right about one thing: the north-east is facing “exceptional circumstances”. But what is he going to do about it? Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have identified sums of money to help to alleviate the problem, in the face of savage cuts to their budgets from the Government.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Thomson rightly identifies that local authorities have the ability, under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, to put in their own rates relief schemes. Why is it that Tory councillors in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen have voted against such schemes, and has Ross Thomson told businesses across Scotland when he has been going out and about that that is what his Tory colleagues have done on both councils?

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Mr Stewart obviously spends more time in Edinburgh than he does in the north-east. If he had allowed me to continue, he would have heard what I am about to say, which is that I am pleased with the role that I have played in securing £3 million in local funding for rates relief in Aberdeen.

If Derek Mackay is true to his word that the north-east faces “exceptional circumstances” and that he is willing to work with local councils, I am sure that he will match that funding and will happily accept Aberdeen City Council’s invitation to him to meet and discuss that programme. Match-funding such a scheme could allow councils to support the businesses and sectors that are currently not being helped by the Scottish Government cap.

Mr Mackay has the money to do it, because he can use some of the £320 million extra from the United Kingdom Government to put in place funding for councils to support businesses that are affected by rates rises. The UK Government has announced a £300 million relief fund for local authorities for business rates relief in England. I tell the Scottish Government today that business rates rises and increases are not something that it can ignore and hope will go away. More must be done.

Mr Mackay says that local councils keep every penny of business rates that they raise; it has recently come to our attention that Aberdeenshire Council will raise £23 million more than was allocated by the Scottish Government in its local government settlement. Will the Scottish Government provide a cast-iron assurance—it likes those—that those missing millions will stay in the local area and will not be swallowed up here in Edinburgh?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have seen the “missing millions” catchphrase

in the local press. I am surprised that Ross Thomson, as a sitting councillor, does not understand how council budgets work. I have not been a councillor, but I understand that money is allocated to councils over a five-year period, and that budgets are not based on the tax take of one year.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As a sitting councillor, I can tell Gillian Martin that last year, just as this year, we had to set a one-year budget. The Government is giving us no clarity on our future. We have to set our budget looking into the future without knowing what that future is going to be. We keep getting told that we keep every single penny of non-domestic rates, but we do not. That is the evidence that was presented to Aberdeenshire Council and it is the evidence that I am providing to Gillian Martin this afternoon.

It is our duty to do all that we can to help businesses, particularly those in the north-east that have endured difficult times due to the downturn in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Scottish National Party tax policy on non-domestic rates, the large business supplement, council tax, income tax and stamp duty are hindering economic growth and hammering our region. It is time to do more.

Mairi Evans (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities, and that I am also a sitting councillor.

I thank Ross Thomson for lodging the motion and for allowing us to discuss a vital issue in the chamber today. It is an issue that I am sure has dominated other members’ mailboxes in recent times, as it has mine.

I was initially contacted by the Belvedere hotel in Stonehaven, whose proprietors raised concerns about the increases affecting businesses in the town—hospitality businesses, in particular—and I met them and many others. The Belvedere hotel faced a 106.6 per cent increase in rates. It was by no means alone. One guesthouse was facing a 250 per cent increase in its rates, which was substantially above the 37 per cent average increase nationally. The business owners whom I met in Stonehaven had compiled a list of all businesses, highlighting those that would be affected. Of 355 businesses, 87 were affected by the revaluation. A number of those were hospitality businesses, but there were other problem areas.

I was contacted about another case by a landlord on behalf of the tenant, regarding a building for agricultural use. The use was queried by the assessor’s office, which has yet to make a final decision. In the meantime, the tenant is being asked to pay £130,000 worth of rates as well as an extra £13,200 surcharge for the writ they received demanding the payment.

Then there are retail premises. I recently met the owners of the hardware store in Laurencekirk, who told me about the 100 per cent increase in their business rates. That is a business that has not made alterations or grown in size and that has, over the past few years, seen its footfall and takings drop. The decline in footfall for that business started when the banks pulled out of town. The people from the surrounding areas who went to Laurencekirk to use a bank would frequent the shop. That is a slight side point, but one that highlights the impact that such closures have on our rural communities. Had the rates not increased there, the business would now be eligible for the extension of the small business bonus, although it may well still be if it is successful on appeal.

It is not just the actual increases themselves that are the problem. Those individual cases highlight the fundamental problems that there are with the current rates system: how the rates are determined, how the valuations are reached, their frequency and the appeals process. Businesses can appeal, but although they have six months to lodge an appeal, the problem lies, as the Belvedere pointed out to me, in that they have potentially to wait another two years for the appeal to be heard, during which time the higher rates have to be paid. That is enough to force some businesses under.

The Barclay review, which is expected in the summer, will be of fundamental importance. I sincerely hope that it will address some of the concerns that have been raised with by local businesses in my constituency, and across the region. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland, among many others, have called for changes to the system to address the problems, and have asked for a reduction in bureaucracy, more transparent processes, more frequent valuations and a system that is more adaptable to our changing economy, which is of fundamental importance in the north-east. They also call for a system that incentivises business creation and investment.

While all of us eagerly anticipate the outcome of the Barclay review in the summer, we also need to recognise the good news in all this: tens of thousands of businesses have been lifted out of business rates altogether by the measures that have been taken by the Government.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mairi Evans (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am sorry, but I am in my closing seconds. I will happily discuss the point with the member after.

Of the businesses in Stonehaven that I mentioned earlier, 54 have benefited from the new threshold, which has lifted them out of rates altogether, while the remainder of the 355 pay no rates at all. Extra relief packages have been introduced by Aberdeenshire Council, over and above the support that was announced by the Government a few weeks ago, which have helped many of the businesses that contacted me initially. I would have hoped that there would have been more support for that from Mr Thomson, but given his party’s actions or—should I say?—lack of action in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, I suppose that I cannot be surprised at some of his comments.

One thing is for sure: while the Tories will continue to carp from the sidelines, the SNP will be the party that continues to work for our communities, and for all the businesses in our communities.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Ross Thomson for bringing this issue to the chamber. It is without doubt one of the biggest issues that we face in the north-east right now.

I want to highlight the impact on a sector that has had little mention in the chamber but which, according to Gary Walton of businessratesadvice.com,

“has been particularly hard hit”.

That sector is our nurseries. Nurseries in the north-east are facing an increase of, on average, 50 per cent in their rates.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It may be handy for Liam Kerr to know that not one nursery in Aberdeenshire will not be assisted by the new business rates relief schemes that have been put forward by the administration of Aberdeenshire Council.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank Gillian Martin for her incorrect intervention because—as I will go on to talk about—I have a particular example. Perhaps she should have given me longer to develop the argument.

Nurseries in the north-east are, on average, facing an increase of 50 per cent in their rates, with the highest increase being a staggering 177 per cent. More than one faces the prospect of closing its doors completely in the face of such increases. All that, of course, is in the context of the Scottish Government’s aim to increase free childcare from 600 to 1200 hours per year. Councils across the country already face a dilemma about where to put children because there are not enough nursery spaces—a problem that will only be exacerbated if nurseries close.

Last week, in response to a huge number of emails from many nurseries and their clients on that issue, I visited a Croft Nurseries Ltd nursery in Stonehaven. That nursery and Croft’s two other sites in Stonehaven and Chapelton are excellent establishments. They are exemplars of good practice with good facilities and have used innovative thinking to build the best environment for children. They were built over 25 years by entrepreneur Linda Pirie. Linda’s three nurseries now face rates increases of 54 per cent, 28 per cent and a staggering 82 per cent. She faces a choice: she can hike prices to parents, many of whom cannot pay, because north-east unemployment is rising and pay freezes are biting—it therefore makes more sense for parents, especially women, to stay off work and provide the care themselves—or she can close. Linda began to cry as she told me that. This is real—real people, real families, real businesses and real jobs are involved.

Three weeks ago in Laurencekirk, I sat with a number of local businesses that had got together after receiving no responses to their letters to the SNP. They asked me to go down and see them in a town that has lost key facilities that draw people in, including its petrol station and its bank, in the context of an oil sector downturn and reduced footfall across the board.

I was particularly concerned about Mearns Hardware Ltd—I believe that Mairi Evans visited it this week. It is a small retail hardware shop on the High Street whose rates are going up by 100 per cent. At best, it might have to cut the hours of its staff; at worst, it will close its doors completely. That would be yet another empty property on one of our high streets, more redundancies in the local economy and another loss to Laurencekirk.

Thanks to Scottish Conservative pressure and the excellent campaign by

The Press and Journal

, we secured a 12.5 per cent cap for the hospitality sector and office space. However, as I have frequently pointed out in the chamber, more than 10,000 businesses in the north-east still face increases in their bills and getting no relief at all from the Government.

At general question time today, Derek Mackay trotted out his line that the councils might help if people like Linda Pirie beg them. However, as we all know, Aberdeenshire Council is one of the lowest-funded councils in Scotland and faces further swingeing cuts. The Government will say that people should appeal. However, as Linda told me just yesterday, retaining an expert to do that on their behalf is another cost, and people are expected to pay until an appeal can be heard—in two years, at least.

Those businesses say, “I see you and the north-east Conservatives trying hard. I see the P and J

campaigning to try to save us. I have not heard anything from the SNP constituency MSPs.” They are right. When the people of the north-east need their MSPs to stand up to the Scottish Government on this, as on so many other issues, they are met with stony silence. Linda Pirie has written again to the First Minister. She did not get a reply last time. Will the First Minister bother to respond this time? We shall see.

I commend Ross Thomson’s motion for the dangers that it highlights and for highlighting the terrible consequences for the north-east if the Government does nothing, and I fully congratulate

The Press and Journal

and thank it for its effective campaign.

Earlier today, Derek Mackay said that the Government will support people through revaluation, and he asked us to trust him to support businesses. Okay—now is the time to deliver and help our businesses, before it is too late.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I, too, congratulate Ross Thomson on bringing the debate to Parliament.

All members who represent the north-east should know just how tough times have been for the Aberdeen city region in the past two years. However, for many people who run businesses, the rates revaluation has seemed to be the final straw. Part of the problem is that the new values that have been placed on their premises are not based on their rental value now, two years into the downturn; instead, they are based on a tone date of 1 April 2015, when the impact of the falling oil prices had not yet worked its way through the supply chain or the regional economy.

All the trend statistics over the past two years confirm that Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have been hardest hit by the downturn, whether through the increase in unemployment or the fall in property prices and values. None of that is reflected in the rates revaluation.

This is not about appeals by individual businesses. Ministers have responded to questions that I have asked by standing

up in Parliament and saying that any business can appeal and that the issue is therefore not for the Government. That simply insults the intelligence of ratepayers.

If everyone whom a person knows is in the same situation and the person knows that the whole of their sector across their city region has been overvalued, they will know that the issue is not the individual assessment, but the overall approach. Ministers have recognised that that is true—if only for some sectors. The fact that they have recognised it at all is welcome, but the problem is that capping two sectors without addressing the root problem of assessments in Grampian has only exacerbated the problem for everybody else.

Ministers have not explained why they accept that there is a sectoral problem in office accommodation and hotels, but do not recognise the same need for action for nurseries and childcare. The Bridges Pre-School Nurseries—in Westhill and Bridge of Don—is facing an increase in rateable value for its premises that is equivalent to more than the cost of an additional member of staff. I am sure that the same is true for Linda Pirie, whose business in Stonehaven and Chapelton was mentioned by Liam Kerr.

Ministers accept that the downturn in the price of oil and gas has hurt the Aberdeen city region’s economy, but with the selective caps they have done nothing to mitigate the impact of the revaluation on companies in the oil and gas supply chain. North Sea Compactors is a specialist engineering company that designs and manufactures heavy-duty waste compactors for offshore platforms and drilling rigs. It is facing a 100 per cent increase in rates. Graham Dawson Body and Paint Shop Ltd faces a revaluation that has taken it over the threshold, so that it no longer benefits from any rates relief as a small business, but the amount of business that it does has not increased at this difficult time. Like others, Graham and Linda Dawson fear that the increase that they face could put them out of business.

Ministers have implicitly accepted that there is a structural problem with the revaluation in the Grampian area, given regional economic circumstances, but they still respond to questions as if appeals by individual companies are the only solution.

Precision Oil Tools may well appeal against its 60 per cent increase in rates. Its previous rating bill was calculated in March 2015, only weeks before the nominal date of the current revaluation, yet its bill has gone up by 60 per cent. Even if Precision Oil Tools decides to appeal, it knows that it will have to pay the new rates in full in the meantime, and it is deeply concerned by what that may mean for its loyal and hard-working staff in the next few weeks.

The Scottish Government must act to sort out the problem. It is the Government’s responsibility and it must provide local councils with additional resources to let them take the action that is so urgently required, not just in hospitality and office accommodation, but in nurseries and child care, the oil and gas supply chain and across the economy. Only if all businesses are treated fairly in these tough times will all business owners believe that their voices are being heard. I urge ministers to act now, before businesses have to lay off workers to pay their bills, or go to the wall altogether.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests and especially to the interests that concern the business sector.

I speak from my experience in the business sector and I am grateful to my colleague Ross Thomson for lodging the motion. It is vital that businesses feel that they are represented in Parliament, although it is clear that SNP members regard business and businesspeople with disdain and as a block in their never-ending quest for separation. The SNP does not understand business and, with Alex Salmond gone, it has given up all pretence of trying to understand.

The SNP needs to remember that it is businesses that

power our economy, employ people, create jobs and—importantly—pay the taxes that are necessary to support our public services. When businesses say that they are in trouble, the Scottish Government needs to listen.

It is no wonder that I have been contacted by so many businesses in my area about the crippling hike in business rates. From nurseries to restaurants and from oil companies to those in renewables, no one is falling for the sticking plaster of a 12.5 per cent cap that will last only a year.

The Scottish Retail Consortium has gone so far as to say that the sticking plaster only adds

“even further complexity to an already fiendishly complicated system”.

Others have labelled the plaster a half-baked, back-of-a-fag-packet fix.

In my constituency, a local nursery still faces the maximum 12.5 per cent hike for the coming year. That is certainly an improvement on the 65 per cent rise that it was facing a month ago, before I flagged the issue at First Minister’s question time. However, the cap does not address the main problem, which is that the nursery has no choice but to pass the extra charges on. That means that parents will be able to afford less nursery time, which will disproportionately prevent mothers from returning to work.

The SNP is not only strangling the north-east but simultaneously destroying the balance sheet of Scotland. With no money for further relief, empty-property rates will lead to capital value being destroyed, in a return to the days of the window and roof taxes.

Derek Mackay is still trying to plaster over his mistakes. At the Finance and Constitution Committee, he said:

“it is true to say that every local authority area keeps every penny of non-domestic rates ... every council area will still keep every penny that it raises.”—[

Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee

, 8 February 2017; c 4, 5.]

That position was repeated by Gillian Martin and Paul Wheelhouse at an Inverurie business association event only weeks ago. However, it is simply not true.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

No, thanks.

The total money that Aberdeenshire Council raises will be £116 million, but the total money that will be available to the council is £93 million. I would like to ask the finance secretary where our missing £23 million is. Will he keep his word and make sure that rates that are raised locally are spent locally? Perhaps we will find out, following the Conservative amendment that has forced SNP members to find the backbone to represent their constituents and write to the finance secretary.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

No, thanks.

It is clear that only the Scottish Conservatives will stand up for the north-east and that the SNP is prepared to cripple Scotland’s economy at any cost.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I congratulate Ross Thomson on securing the debate. It is extremely important, and I acknowledge his work over past months to bring the matter to everyone’s attention.

I have to say that I get a little fed up with Conservative members saying that only they stand up for the north-east, which is blatantly not true. I make an appeal to the Conservatives. Ross Thomson said that we should do all that we can and I agree entirely with him—I was going to say that I agreed with every word that Conservative members had said, until the previous speaker made his speech.

Words are important, but they are easier than actions. I gently say to my Conservative colleagues from the north-east in particular that last week we had an opportunity to do something about the issue when we debated the local government finance order, which distributes money from the Scottish Government to councils. We all know that Aberdeen City Council receives the worst handout from the Scottish Government and that Aberdeenshire Council receives the third worst. That has been the case for many years under this Administration.

I have long given up on asking SNP members from the north-east to stand up for the north-east. They just do not do it.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

No—just hear me out.

Three Aberdeen city members are members of the Government. I would not ask them to resign from the Government, which they would have to do if they voted against the local government finance order. However, that restriction does not apply to Conservative north-east members.

I do not want to sound patronising—I am not trying to be—but there are five new Conservative MSPs from the north-east. They obviously listened to the advice of their finance spokesperson, who told them to abstain in the vote on the finance order, but that is not the way to stand up for the north-east’s interests. I urge Conservative members from the north-east not to listen to such advice next year and the following year. At the very least, I urge them to try to persuade their finance spokesperson, behind the scenes, to let them represent the interests of the people of the north-east and vote against the SNP Government when they think that what it is doing is wrong.

This is the Parliament. It is not just about standing up and saying the right thing, which Conservative north-east members are doing; it is about using the vote that people send us here to use, in the right circumstances. I have never been afraid to do that, and I am still here—I disappeared, but I am back again. That has done me no harm, despite difficulties in my party when I did that. We need a little more independence of mind and the freedom to do the right thing.

My comments are directed at my Conservative colleagues. The nation will face bigger issues over the next couple of years, on which I hope that we can all speak with the same voice. However, we also need to speak up for the north-east, not just by speaking but by using our voting buttons.

I give credit where it is due. I have given credit to Ross Thomson and the efforts of my north-east Conservative colleagues, but Conservatives are not the only people who are standing up for the north-east. It is much better to call for change in a cross-party way than in an entirely partisan way. As I said, I have given up on the SNP. At least I have a hope of the Conservatives.

The Presiding Officer

I suggest that, given that there is a great deal of interest in the debate, members might want to extend the debate under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders. I invite Ross Thomson to move a motion to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes, as necessary.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Ross Thomson

]

Motion agreed to.

Bill Bowman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Usually my script refers to the Deputy Presiding Officer, but it is nice to be before you today, Presiding Officer.

As a bit of a new boy, I thank Mike Rumbles for his words of advice, which I will note. As an accountant, I was just doing some arithmetic, and I note that there are more Conservative members in the chamber right now than there are members of all the other parties combined. I might be wrong about that, but it shows that we are taking an interest in our region, even if it is not quite in the way that Mike Rumbles would like us to. We are trying.

I join colleagues in thanking Ross Thomson for bringing forward the debate. Like colleagues, I am aware of a number of businesses in my region that have been hit with significant increases in their business rates. Businesses the length and breadth of Scotland are genuinely concerned about the critical effect that the increases will have on the future of their business and, ultimately, their workforce.

Many examples have been cited during the debate, and I add that of Dundee Football Club. The club will be presented with a bill for business rates that is 63 per cent more than what it has paid until now. That increase represents the biggest percentage rise in business rates to affect any football club in the Scottish premiership. That is a prime example of a business that will not benefit from any relief or from the cap that the finance secretary announced last month.

The truth is that the fans will bear the brunt of the increase. As we all know, the market determines what people pay for a product and, even if it is only an extra pound or two at the turnstiles, or an increase in the price of a match-day or season ticket, it is a cost that fans and the clubs could well do without.

Sadly, as we have heard time and again today, Dundee Football Club does not stand alone when it comes to such increases. In Dundee, 20 per cent of rateable properties will see an increase in their bill. As was put to me by one constituent who got in touch, more than 1,100 businesses will have to find the money from somewhere to pay the additional cost.

I fear—as has been expressed already today—that that will result in job losses and in some businesses, particularly small businesses, questioning whether they can afford to survive. That is desperate news for our economy and the economies of our local communities.

A steady flow of businesses has come out against the increases and called on the Government to do something. The chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association said that the rates could be

“the last straw for many pubs”,

while the owner of Taypark house hotel in Dundee said that the rate rises

“were a threat to smaller businesses.”

I completely accept that the assessors are independent of Government, but it is within the Scottish Government’s powers to offer support to those who are most affected. Instead, what we got was dither and denial before the announcement of some relief measures. I welcome them and they will undoubtedly help some affected businesses, but why were Scottish businesses left waiting in the lurch for so long?

The head of policy for the Scottish Retail Consortium described Mr Mackay’s measures as “yet another sticking plaster”, while the Federation of Small Businesses said that

“The furore associated with this year's revaluation shows why the system is long overdue for reform”.

That remark chimes with those of a ratings expert from Ryden’s commercial property services in Dundee, who described the rates as “all over the place”.

It is clear that this debacle has left many businesses worried about their future and with no confidence in the valuation system. It is time that the Scottish Government listened to such concerns and acted to address them.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Ahead of the budget last month, an additional £160 million was pledged to local authorities by the finance secretary. That additional local funding was part of a budget that is designed to grow the economy and fund our public services in north-east Scotland.

Aberdeenshire Council got one of the largest shares of that £160 million, at £8 million, and it was the first council to pledge that it would use the bulk of that funding for business support. Not only that, but the Scottish Government will reduce the rate poundage—the core tax that applies to the rateable value of business properties—by 3.7 per cent.

That is all in addition to the small business bonus scheme, which has already saved businesses more than £1 billion across Scotland, and which will be expanded from April to lift 100,000 businesses out of paying rates completely. In towns such as Ellon and Turriff in Aberdeenshire East, which is my constituency, that means the difference between vibrant high streets and empty high streets. In Inverurie, which is one of the areas of Scotland that have had particularly high property and rental values for a long time, many high street businesses have rateable values that are above that threshold.

Aberdeenshire Council has decided that businesses with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £18,000 will have their relief from the Scottish Government increased to 50 per cent, which is an extra 25 per cent. The scheme also includes approximately £208,000 for economic development support and about £105,500 for an extension of empty property relief. The Scotland-wide rates cap for hospitality businesses and particular provisions for the north-east for office space have already been mentioned. In Aberdeenshire, those measures will assist 150 hospitality premises and 159 offices.

The Aberdeenshire Council administration, which is a coalition between the SNP, Labour and Green parties and independent councillors, committed funding to give a 50 per cent reduction in rates increases to businesses with a rateable value of £120,000 or under.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I would like to finish the point, and then I will take your intervention.

Only 217 businesses in Aberdeenshire have a rateable value of more than £120,000. Not one nursery has a rateable value that is above that threshold, so all nurseries will be eligible for the rates relief scheme. It is disingenuous that nurseries are being mentioned. I take the point that nurseries need assistance, but they are getting it from the council.

I was slightly surprised at the bravado of Mr Thomson’s motion, but I thank him from the bottom of my heart for allowing us to have this members’ business debate, because it gives me the chance to point out that his Conservative colleagues on Aberdeenshire Council not only voted against such a relief system but, in their alternative budget, did not include any mention of a rates relief scheme for any businesses at all.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree with Linda Pirie of the Croft Nurseries in Stonehaven and Chapelton that the increase in rates that is affecting her nursery business in Aberdeenshire is unfair and extortionate?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is why the Barclay review is taking place. Businesses whose rates are being hiked and which are working with the assessors but are not getting any change in their valuation should contact the Government and put their views to the Barclay review. That is the kind of thing that the review will address.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have just taken an intervention and would like to get on.

On the missing millions that members have been talking about, I will quote from the Scottish Parliament information centre on how local finance works. It has said:

“Non-domestic rates income ... is currently the single largest source of revenue under the control of the Scottish Government. The administration of business rates and relief schemes is a matter for each Local Authority”.

This is what I particularly want to say:

“Each council, having collected its taxes, reports the Non-Domestic Rates collected to the Scottish Government to be included in the central pool. The amount to be re-distributed from the pool is known as the Distributable Amount ... and is set by the Scottish Government ... It is based upon a forecast of the NDR income and prior year adjustments”.

That is how the system works. How can someone say that, because of what will be collected in non-domestic rates this year, they have planned something for the year before? That does not make sense.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes.

The Presiding Officer

We are tight for time.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

If Gillian Martin looked through the rest of that SPICe briefing, she would see that the total NDR take and the distributable amount, which is NDRI, will be 6 per cent down in real terms for 2017-18 in Aberdeen and down by 4.1 per cent in Aberdeenshire.

The Presiding Officer

It is time to wind up, Ms Martin.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The non-domestic rates take goes into the pool and is then provided to local authorities in future years, based on the spend that they are asking for.

It has always been a treat for fans of slapstick to behold the Tories in Aberdeenshire speaking in the press about some kind of fantasy that money has been withheld from my area. The vast majority of businesses in Aberdeenshire are being lifted out of paying rates. Let us take Ellon as an example.

The Presiding Officer

You need to wind up, Ms Martin.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am winding up. I want to say a last thing before I sit down.

Council tax payers deserve a little more respect than the Tories are giving them. They cannot expect people not to notice that, despite all their wailing in the press, the Tories tried to vote down a budget that included a business rates relief scheme that is worth more than £3 million. In the same way, they cannot put forward a council budget that specifies taking more than £8 million away from education and then stand up in this place to criticise school staff shortages. People’s heads do not zip up the back. We can all see behind the bluster.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I, too, thank my colleague Ross Thomson for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Back in budget season, which seems so long ago now with all that has happened since, I asked our local SNP MSPs whether they would stand up for businesses against the rate rises. Needless to say, they did no such thing. Instead, Gillian Martin stood up at a business breakfast in Inverurie and offered no support to owners who were facing hikes in business rates that were putting the very future of their businesses at risk. She even had the gall to suggest that Westminster was to blame, for not supporting the oil and gas industry enough. Ladies and gentlemen, that was absolutely disgraceful.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Since I have been mentioned, will the member take an intervention?

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Of course.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The point that I was making at that business breakfast was that we should be supporting all businesses; I was concerned about some of the rhetoric around small businesses. Someone—not Mr Chapman—said that small businesses should be ashamed not to be paying rates. I take issue with that, because there are an awful lot of struggling small businesses that populate our high streets.

With regard to Westminster, the member has a bit of a cheek—

The Presiding Officer

Get to the question, please, Ms Martin.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Westminster is not supporting the oil industry with any of the tax concessions or loan guarantees that have been asked for repeatedly by Oil & Gas UK.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I reiterate—we have heard it again. It is an absolute disgrace.

We are talking about £2.3 billion in tax cuts—the most beneficial tax regime anywhere in the world. If we had an independent Scotland, there would be none of that support for the oil and gas industry.

Even Gillian Martin’s predecessor, Alex Salmond MP, did not think that that line of argument would work, so he set our finance secretary on the straight and narrow. He dropped a wee hint to Nicola and chums—sorry, I should say to the SNP Cabinet—in a video blog that he was not happy about what he described as these “legitimate” concerns being ignored by the SNP Government. That is what he said.

It is a shame that the once-great double act of Salmond and Sturgeon has been so reduced that the former First Minister has to communicate with the SNP Government through social media and the local paper. I guess that Nicola Sturgeon and Derek Mackay were too feart to take his calls. The finance secretary was humbled by the Conservative Opposition when he was dragged before this chamber after the grown-ups had told him where to get off. He was chastised by parties across the chamber for not going far enough, but he had kept the party leader happy—sorry, the former party leader. However, problems remained on the ground. Aberdeenshire councillors were not playing the game of being grateful for the crumbs off Mr Mackay’s table. They rounded on him for having the gall to say that he was boosting their funding, as he gave with one hand and took away much more with the other. In other words, it was a second-rate deal from a second-rate finance secretary.

That little story, ladies and gentlemen, takes us up to the present day, except that all is not said and done on the matter. To return to the finance secretary’s role in all this, he still has some explaining to do. I suspect that we will receive no answer on the matter because his boss—the MP for Gordon—has not asked him the question yet, but I hope that he will see the value in explaining his thinking.

When Mr Mackay spoke to Aberdeenshire Council on this matter, he made it abundantly clear that any money raised locally would be for the local authority to spend. However, Aberdeenshire Council—as we have heard—will collect £116 million in business rates and receive only £93 million back, so despite what everyone on the SNP side of the chamber says, £23 million has vanished. Maybe Mr Mackay was distracted by setting up a fundraising website for a second divisive independence referendum when he should have been looking after taxpayers’ money, or else it is another example of the SNP’s inability to understand deficits. Maybe the money is down the back of Mr Mackay’s sofa for a rainy day, but I think that the people of Aberdeenshire deserve an answer from the cabinet secretary, because he promised that any money raised locally would stay local; he needs to explain why he is now breaking that promise.

Businesses in my part of the world expect politicians to do what they say. When rate rises hit local businesses such as the Spotty Bag shop in Banff and the Tufted Duck hotel, or even international powerhouses such as Score, they need to know that that increase will go to help their local community. If the finance secretary does not believe in local taxes being spent locally, he should just say so. Anything less is an insult to the business owners of the north-east who will be left paying for the SNP’s next vanity project.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I congratulate Ross Thomson on securing the debate. It is of critical importance to the business community, particularly in the north-east of Scotland where the impact is more significant than in any other area of Scotland.

Four minutes is not a great deal of time, Presiding Officer, so I will not test your patience, and I am sure that members will forgive me if I simply cut to the chase.

The Scottish Government has delayed the revaluation of business rates, which I believe is why the increase is so high for so many businesses. As Lewis Macdonald rightly said, the current revaluation is based on property values before the decline in oil prices, when the economy was performing better than it is today. Businesses tell us that they want revaluations to be done more often so that there are no more dramatic increases. I note that the rest of the UK is moving to three-year revaluations—the Scottish Government should do at least the same.

We have heard stories of the impact that the increases will have. There is a hotel in my area that was going to be subject to something like a 200 per cent rise in its rates bill. That would have had a direct impact on jobs. Members can imagine how hard that is in a small rural area where the hotel is a significant local employer.

There is also the hydro project. It used to be zero rated; then it had a rates bill of £36,000; now it expects the rates bill to soar to £160,000. That is quite simply huge, unforeseen and unplanned. The Scottish Government says that it shares a desire to develop renewables. Let me say this as gently as I can—it will not find many people pursuing hydro projects in the future, when margins are already tight, if those are the rates increases that they will face.

I acknowledge that the Scottish Government, under pressure, has provided some welcome relief, but it is only in place for one year. What will happen next year is anybody’s guess. Rates bills will show a net increase for 31 per cent of businesses, and with 100,000 small businesses now exempt from rates because of the small business bonus, 56 per cent of non-small businesses will see their rates rise. As we warned earlier in the month, key sectors will see increases—of 27.1 per for universities and 11.6 per cent for hospitals—when there are significant public sector funding challenges.

I believe that the SNP Government can, and should, do more. We have heard lots of talk; I want to see practical action. I want to set out exactly what Scottish Labour would do, and I encourage the SNP to take our idea—to steal it, although I would be happy to give it to them—and implement it. Let us see that practical action.

As a result of the recent UK budget statement and changes to business rates provision in England, Scotland will receive some £36 million of additional money over the next three years. Labour’s proposal is to take all that money and apply it to business rates relief, in addition to what is being provided by the Scottish Government.

We want to see that money being given directly to local authorities, because they know best what is needed on the ground for their local businesses. We would base the allocation to local authorities on those areas that are worst affected, which would see the north-east receiving the most and other authorities receiving amounts proportionate to the scale of their problem. Aberdeen, which has seen an increase in business rates bills of 62 per cent, Edinburgh, which has seen an increase of 38 per cent, Glasgow, where the increase is 27 per cent, and Dundee, at the other end of the scale with an increase of 20 per cent, would all receive support.

Derek Mackay and the SNP cannot hoover up that extra cash coming to Scotland; it needs to go straight to the communities that need it the most. Councils should decide where the relief goes, based on the needs of their local economy. They have the power to deliver, but they do not have the necessary resources to help businesses.

Scottish Labour’s proposal would provide practical help at a local level. I commend it to the minister, because this must not be a nationalist cash grab. Labour has a plan for a fair deal for business.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, thank Ross Thomson for bringing the debate to the chamber. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a councillor on Moray Council.

I asked to speak in the debate because—rightly—it focuses on the north-east of Scotland, and a small chunk of the Moray Council area, namely Buckie, comes into the North East Scotland region for the Scottish Parliament. Moray Council and Moray businesses face similar struggles to those faced throughout the north-east and, as I am the only member who represents Moray who has sat through the debate, I think that it is important for me to put on the record some of the issues that we have locally.

A SPICe briefing that was released today confirms that, out of 4,540 business properties in Moray, 1,590—43 per cent—will not be included in any of the SNP’s rates relief proposals and will continue to face crippling increases in their business rates with no support from the SNP Government. If we compare that with the 77 per cent of businesses in Fife that will benefit from the proposals that have been put forward, we have to ask why the north-east and areas such as Moray are being made to suffer by the SNP Government.

As I have done in the past, I put on record that I welcome the move by the SNP Government, after a continued campaign by those of us on the Conservative benches and

The Press and Journal,

to cap the increases for the hotel industry at 12.5 per cent. That was welcomed by the Cluny Bank Hotel in Forres, by the Beach Bar and the Stotfield Hotel in Lossiemouth and by many other businesses but, as the chief executive officer of Moray Chamber of Commerce said,

“Although the short-term help is welcomed, we need to not take our foot off the gas and work with partners for a long-term solution.”

There was some welcome in Moray for the proposals that the SNP has put forward but, as Alexander Burnett said, they are nothing more than a sticking plaster, and we have to look for more.

I also want to mention briefly the discussion that we have heard from SNP members today about the support of SNP councillors for their local businesses. I ask the SNP members, and perhaps the minister will indulge me with his response, whether they agree that, if SNP councillors such as those in Moray put forward a proposal that they expect other elected members to back, it should contain some detail, some costings and a budget? In Moray Council, we were asked to support a proposal by the SNP that was so vacuous it had none of that information. It came from the same SNP group that was able to do some research and find £1,000 for town centre clock face upgrades. It made that a priority but not our businesses, and that is shameful.

On appeals, which several speakers have mentioned, the 43 per cent of businesses in Moray that will not benefit from the rates relief that the SNP Government has put forward will want to appeal to the Grampian assessor. We have heard from members on all benches that appeals can take up to two years. That is unacceptable, as businesses continue to pay the higher prices during the two years. What reassurance can the Scottish Government and the minister give us that such appeals will be fast tracked to ensure that businesses are not out of pocket while they are appealing?

Businesses in Moray and across Scotland that face these huge increases need the help of the Parliament and the Government. We need assistance and a new system that provides the clarity, fairness and reassurances that our businesses are looking for and expect, rather than a one-year sticking-plaster approach that allows some short-term benefits but no long-term gain.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I welcome this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Scottish Government on the important issue of the outcome of the business rates revaluation for businesses in the north-east of Scotland, which will come into force on 1 April 2017. The revaluation, which is undertaken by independent assessors who are appointed by local government, is the first to take place since 2010, and it broadly spans the recovery from the last economic downturn.

Our overarching priority has been to maintain a competitive rates regime, and we have engaged directly with a range of businesses and their representative organisations—including those in the north-east—to respond to their concerns.

The Government acted early to deliver a competitive business rates package, alongside an improved funding settlement for local government. As we recognised that the revaluation could lead to increased costs, the draft budget for 2017-18 that was published in December set out a highly competitive package. Notably, it reduced the rates poundage by 3.7 per cent, expanded the small business bonus scheme so that it will lift 100,000 properties out of rates completely, and limited the application of the large business supplement so that 8,000 fewer properties will pay it. Together those measures were already set to reduce the overall rates burden by £155 million and ensure that 70 per cent of businesses will pay less than, or the same as, they paid this year, and more than half of them will pay nothing at all.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Would it not be better for the minister to respond to the debate and the issues that have been raised by individuals, rather than reading out a pretyped script? It would be very helpful if the minister would do that.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I fully intend to go through a lot of the stuff that folk have gone through today. However, I am laying out what was in the original draft budget. It is important that we lay the ground with that.

We also recognised the particular challenges that are faced by the north-east economy and the fact that both central and local government have a role to play in ensuring that local issues are addressed.

Having continued to engage with and listen to businesses since the publication of the draft budget, we have acted to provide further support where it is most needed in light of the revaluation. Accordingly, we will ensure that, across Scotland, restaurants, pubs, hotels and cafes will see their bills increase by no more than 12.5 per cent on 1 April. Additional support is being injected into the north-east economy to recognise the impact of the oil and gas downturn, and the reliefs for the renewables sector are being expanded. Those measures amount to an additional £44.6 million of support, which offers proportionately double the total relief package that was announced by the UK Government on 8 March.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Can the minister explain today why the Government made the judgment that there should be additional support for the cost of office accommodation in Aberdeen but no additional support for businesses in the oil and gas supply chain, which have been hit by substantial increases in their rateable values?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Macdonald is probably well aware that Mr Mackay and others have spoken to stakeholders in the north-east, including the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. That is why our overall package for the north-east will mean that around 13,700 properties will pay no rates at all, as a result of the small business bonus scheme. It is why we are capping the increases at 12.5 per cent for hotels, pubs, restaurants and cafes, which will benefit almost 1,100 properties and will provide an additional £5.7 million. Capping bill increases at 12.5 per cent also for offices in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire will benefit around a further 1,100 properties and provide additional relief that is worth an estimated £4.8 million.

In his speech earlier, Mr Macdonald stated that it will take years for an appeal to be heard. I clarify for all members that, under the legislation, businesses that appeal can request that their appeal be heard within 70 days. Let us not go around telling businesses that it will take years to appeal, when it can be done within 70 days.

Let us look at some of the other things that have been said in the debate. Both Ross Thomson and Alexander Burnett said that Aberdeen City Council is not getting to retain its business rates. All business rates that are collected are, in accounting terms, paid into a central pot. They are then returned to local authorities. Prior to 2011-12, that was done on the basis of population. Since 1 April 2011, each council has retained every penny of business rates that it collects. As a result, there is no need for redistribution. Those speakers have shown that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of local government finance in suggesting that councils do not retain all the business rates that they collect.

There seem to be quite a few fundamental misunderstandings. Mr Thomson, who is also a councillor on Aberdeen City Council, had the opportunity to vote for a local rates relief package in the city, but he did not even turn up for the budget to support an SNP proposal that outlined £4 million of support.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I will take it in a moment. That proposal would have seen rate rises capped at 12.5 per cent for the retail and manufacturing sectors and at 3 per cent for the hospitality sector. Maybe Mr Thomson will tell the businesses that he has been around why he did not agree with the measures that were put forward by the SNP group in Aberdeen City Council.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am happy to intervene, Presiding Officer. First, Mr Stewart is right that I did not attend the budget meeting. I was here, voting against his Government’s awful budget that gave an awful deal to Aberdeen. Also, if we looked at the minutes of previous committee meetings, we would see that Kevin Stewart did the same thing at the time of the 2011-12 budget.

It is true that the SNP put forward a proposal of £4 million to help the hospitality sector. What Aberdeen City Council has now put on the table is £3 million to devise a scheme with the chamber of commerce to help all the other sectors that are not getting help. The matched funding would take that to £6 million, which is far better than the £4 million that the SNP is trying to put on the table.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

As I pointed out, the proposals were not just for the hospitality sector but for the retail and manufacturing sectors, too. Mr Thomson should have paid more attention to that.

Tory councillors in Aberdeenshire voted down a similar package.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am sorry, but I am closing.

We have heard lots and lots of noise from the Conservatives. We heard from Mr Thomson about all the things that he has been doing, but there has been no correspondence from him to the Government on the issue. At the very least, one would have thought that there would have been.

We have taken cognisance of and have responded to the situation in the north-east. Looking forward, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution has already given an undertaking in evidence to the Local Government and Communities Committee that he will engage fully with the Parliament and its committees on any increased scrutiny of non-domestic rates. I agree with Mr Mackay that the time to do that is following the external review that is being led by Ken Barclay, which is currently engaging businesses to explore how rates might better reflect economic conditions and support investment. [

Interruption

.] Perhaps it would be better for Ms Baillie to listen to what I say, rather than shouting from the sidelines. The Scottish Government will look to support that investment in growth and will respond swiftly when the review concludes this summer.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, P

residing Officer. I ask for your clarification. The minister made it very clear to every member who raised an issue about the appeals process that businesses are able to ask for an appeal to be heard within 70 days. Will you ask the minister whether he will confirm to Parliament that the SNP Government has resourced the local assessors to deal with every appeal in the next 70 days? That is the message that I will put out to my constituents in Moray, and I just want to make sure that the Scottish Government is prepared for that.

The Presiding Officer

That might be a point for the minister, but it is not a point of order.

13:48 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Draft Climate Change Plan

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

Good afternoon. The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-04534, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, on reports on the “Draft Climate Change Plan: The draft third report on policies and proposals 2017-2032”.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I feel privileged, as the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, to open a debate of this importance. It is a privilege for us all to be able to contribute meaningfully, through the scrutiny process, to the production of a final plan that we can all have confidence will deliver Scotland’s emissions targets.

The role that today represents in that process is summed up by Friends of the Earth’s comment in the covering note for its briefing for the debate:

“This is an important opportunity to reflect upon the undoubted strengths of the draft Plan, and to take forward the improvements to the draft that could turn it into a truly credible and ambitious blueprint for a low-carbon Scotland.”

My role in this debate, as will be the case with the conveners of the other committees that have scrutinised the plan, will be to lay out the principal findings and recommendations of our unanimously agreed report. I look forward to hearing committee members expand on that and hearing the thoughts of the other committees.

The process undertaken by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee has produced a number of clear recommendations for improving the draft plan. Given that the Government aided the scrutiny process by delaying publication of the draft plan to maximise the time available to committees, and given that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform is on record as saying that she will not only engage “further and deeper”, but consider carefully the best time to finalise the plan to ensure that all the views resulting from the whole of the parliamentary scrutiny process can be taken on board, we look forward to those views being given appropriate consideration. We are also looking for the Government to seek advice from the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change in moving to the plan’s final iteration.

I will reflect further on the committee’s overall thinking

and identify specific areas where we believe changes are required.

The committee is concerned that the method of development of the carbon envelopes was inconsistent. A number of sectors—transport, agriculture, waste and land use—were modelled outwith the TIMES framework. Furthermore, the TIMES model does not consider wider benefits and the draft plan is unclear on the extent to which abatement potential has influenced the inclusion of policies.

Although the committee broadly welcomes the principle of a whole-system approach, it does not consider the TIMES model and the development of the carbon envelopes to have been sufficiently structured, formalised or consistent to deliver that.

The draft plan lacks clarity and transparency on the information that was fed into and produced by the TIMES model, which means that committee members were constrained in their ability to scrutinise fully and to express confidence in the policies and proposals that have been advocated.

The committee’s view is that the agriculture and transport sectors—the sectors that have made least progress in cutting emissions—are not being asked to make the significant leaps anticipated by the UKCCC and stakeholders. We believe that the emission reductions required of each sector should be equally challenging. That is not the case with those two sectors, so we recommend that the Scottish Government revise the carbon envelopes for transport and agriculture to show greater ambition.

Although a monitoring and evaluation framework is described in the draft plan, the committee does not consider that the suite of policies and proposals are, as presented and given the lack of accompanying detail and data, capable of SMART analysis and proposes that the Scottish Government should include further specific and consistent information across all policies and proposals in the final plan, to ensure clarity in the pathways to delivery. That would increase confidence in the robustness and the achievability of the plan and lay a clear way for committees to scrutinise progress by means of the intended annual updates on progress, an approach that the committee very much welcomes. It is our hope that all relevant successor committees will see it as part of their work programme to look at the update reports each year.

The committee, while recognising the impact of the electoral cycle, believes that in future the Scottish Government should be mindful of the problems of drafting the climate change plan in tandem with consultations on strategies that affect the plan, because of the difficulty of determining how those strategies might ultimately impact the plan.

In this instance, it was unavoidable that the consultation on the draft Scottish energy strategy took place in parallel with drafting the climate change plan, but that was not ideal. We look for the final RPP3 to state explicitly how the results of the Scottish energy strategy consultation have contributed to the plan and to clarify the relationship between the plan and all other relevant national strategies.

The committee further considered that it is unclear in the plan whether assumptions such as the development and implementation of carbon capture and storage are supported by alternatives, should the assumptions that have been made prove to be overly optimistic. It is our view that the final plan should, through remodelling, set out an alternative plan B.

The committee also believes that the final climate change plan should be accompanied by information on the output of an additional TIMES model run that emphasises alternative car traffic growth assumptions and which has a greater emphasis on modal shift. Although behaviour change has been considered and included in the draft plan, its application in policies and proposals either has been omitted or is inconsistent. That, too, should be addressed in the final plan.

Unfortunately it was only after the committee had agreed its report that it finally secured clarity of the position on soil testing and the Government’s intentions with regard to taking that strand of the plan forward. The committee’s view is that soil testing, of improved land only, must be compulsory and the plan should be amended to reflect that. That said, compulsory testing should be introduced in a phased way and supported by guidance and advice not only on testing, but on how the information gleaned should best be deployed. Soil testing itself will not make a contribution to tackling climate change—it is how the results are deployed that has that potential.

Having dealt with the land, I will turn—briefly—to the sea and highlight a further call from the committee for the final climate change plan to contain policies and proposals on blue carbon.

The committee notes the practice of presenting the final plan prior to the summer recess of the parliamentary year. However, given the issues that have been identified by stakeholders and the various committees, we concur with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform that the priority should be the consideration of matters raised by the scrutiny process, instead of any immediate deadline, and we commit to working with the Government to ensure that the plan realises its potential.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the reports of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee on the Scottish Government document,

Draft Climate Change Plan - the Draft Third Report on Policies and Proposals 2017-2032

.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Gordon Lindhurst to speak on behalf of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work committee.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The whole world is waking up to climate change and its impact on the way we will live our lives in the future. It is not only the environment that is at risk if we do not face up to this issue, but the world economy as we know it. Some of the most promising growth markets across the globe are grappling with the fact that they are also some of the most at-risk areas when it comes to the consequences of global warming. If action is not taken, they might literally see profits washed away by the forces of nature.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Will the member give way?

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

I am sorry, but not at the moment.

“Climate change increasingly poses one of the biggest long-term threats to ... investments and the wealth of the global economy.”

That was the view of Christiana Figueres, the then executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who was instrumental in forming the Paris climate agreement.

So it is that the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee takes part in today’s debate; in fact, many aspects of the draft climate change plan fall within our committee’s remit. Given that it also includes energy, our remit

covers quite a lot of ground and

I cannot hope to address everything in a few minutes today. However, I will touch on a few issues that the committee considered, including transparency, timescale and behaviour change.

Although we welcome the whole-system approach of the TIMES model, it cannot be at the expense of the level of detail included in previous climate plans. Do not take just our word for it—we defer to the authority of the Stern review of the economics of climate change, which encouraged caution and humility in all modelling and reminded us that results are always specific to the model and its assumptions. The evidence that we heard was that even a whole-system approach offers only a partial insight, and ambition should not be confused with wishful thinking.

A snazzier title is one thing, but the information fed into the model has not been proffered, nor has the weighting afforded to delivery, costs and disruption. The plan should detail budgets, targets and timelines as well as policies, not only for our benefit but for those tasked with the plan’s delivery. It would be helpful to know the inputs for certain sectors and how they were formulated. What, for some, are lesser targets put pressure on other aspects such as electricity, services and housing. They have been told to cut emissions by 120, 96 and 76 per cent respectively, while transport and agriculture have been asked to make cuts of 31 and 12 per cent, despite the fact that, together, those two produce 28 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Suffice it to say that the Scottish Government has not shown its workings, nor has it given much of a clue as to the content of Scotland’s energy efficiency programme, which is called SEEP by its friends. It is said to be key to ministerial thinking on climate change, but according to Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, much of the plan’s success

“relies on a programme which does not yet exist”.

One wonders whether androids dream of an energy-efficient future. That is something that the committee will return to in our scrutiny of the draft energy strategy—SEEP that is, not the androids; at least, not yet.

Timescale is my next theme. The Stern review said that climate change was

“the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen”,

and that delay would be costly and dangerous. In that regard, the committee supports the move towards low-carbon heat, but we are concerned by the pace of change, given that so little is to happen before 2025. We appreciate that technologies are evolving, but can we transform our housing stock and the public and commercial sectors in the space of seven years? Surely more can be done to front-load some of that work.

My final theme is behaviour change. It is a case not of altering, attuning or adjusting behaviour, but of making major non-marginal change in how we consume energy. Again, I am afraid that we found detail in short supply. Scottish Renewables underscored the need for buy-in of support from individuals and institutions alike. It said that it is unclear how we can achieve that without “clear and concise messages”. The final plan must deliver those messages. More than a decade ago, the Stern review said:

“Governments can be a catalyst for dialogue through evidence, education, persuasion and discussion.”

I will end where I began. Our economies and the necessities of life—access to water, production of food and the very air that we breathe—are under threat. The next chapter of the story is for us to write, and write it we must.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Bob Doris to speak on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I welcome the opportunity to talk on behalf of the Local Government and Communities Committee about the draft climate change plan. As members would expect, the focus of the committee’s scrutiny was planning and the residential sector.

I pay tribute to the work of the fellow committees that scrutinised the plan. Together, we have ensured proper scrutiny of this important plan to help Scotland to reach its world-leading climate change targets, despite having a very challenging 60-day timetable. In that regard, I thank my committee’s clerking team and all those who gave us written or oral evidence.

It is a challenging time for local government. Given the competing priorities that exist, we highlight that the Scottish Government must work with councils to ensure that they are properly resourced to develop climate change leadership. It should also support local government to embed climate change considerations into procurement procedures and practices, because it is clear that there is a significant opportunity there.

We heard concerns from the community sector that there was a lack of focus on how communities and the community empowerment agenda could contribute to climate change abatement. We also felt that there should be more of an emphasis on how the Scottish Government will drive behaviour change in those communities in which climate change is a lower priority—that is another opportunity. Both those issues should be addressed in the final version of the plan.

Although the plan recognises the vital contribution that the spatial planning process can play in climate change abatement, the lack of information on specific policies on how the planning sector will contribute to the meeting of targets made it slightly difficult to scrutinise the Government’s plans in relation to planning. However, we note that further detail will be provided following the Scottish Government’s consultation on the planning process.

We highlight that the Scottish Government should consider strengthening the final version of the plan to show how it will use the planning system to encourage more active and sustainable modes of travel and to protect green-space land by directing development on to brownfield sites.

On a more general point, we were concerned to hear of resourcing issues in the planning system. We have asked for further information on how the Scottish Government will work with local authorities to ensure that planners and key decision makers have the right skill sets to ensure that climate change impact is properly considered in all decisions relating to planning.

We welcome the ambitious targets for the residential sector, although many of the policies and proposals are still out for consultation, making it difficult for us to scrutinise plans for that sector in detail. That includes the Scottish energy efficiency plan, which will underpin most of the measures in the housing sector. Its consultation is due to close in spring, alongside consultations on the draft energy strategy and regulation of district heating. Given their importance to Scotland meeting its targets, it was disappointing that those policies were not consulted on and finalised for the publication of the plan itself, but we have requested that those strategic documents be linked strategically across future iterations of the plan.

We also heard evidence on the accuracy and consistency of the energy performance certificate rating system. We are aware that the Scottish Government and the UK Government are reviewing the process, and we expect to receive regular updates on progress in that area.

One of the issues raised with the committee was the slow progress in transferring regulation in the private residential sector from a proposal to a policy since the previous climate change plan. The minister has confirmed that the Government will begin a consultation on regulation in the private rented sector this month, and will bring forward a timescale for consulting on the owner-occupier sector when the plan launches. We welcome that commitment, but would like an explanation as to why progress has been slow.

That leads me to the committee’s concerns around how the ambitious targets for decarbonisation of the household heating network will be met. We heard how meeting the targets will rely largely on changing technologies, on decisions of the UK Government, and on policies and procedures that will drive behaviour change, as well as potential regulatory measures.

Finally, we heard about how successful the Scottish area-based approach to the home energy efficiency programme has been. It has been a success story. The programme has allowed local authorities to maximise their share of UK funding to install home external and internal wall insulation on a large-scale basis. Such measures are known to benefit health and assist in alleviating fuel poverty, so it was concerning to hear that some felt there was a lack of emphasis on that programme in the plan, particularly given the ambitious figures presented for future installations. We have asked the minister for comments on how the programme will be funded and delivered post 2021.

The ambitious targets highlight the Scottish Government’s intention to be a world leader in reducing climate change, and that is to be welcomed. The committee intends to play a substantial role in holding the Government to account for its performance, while working in partnership with it, and we will continue to closely follow the Scottish Government’s progress towards meeting targets in areas within its remit.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I thank everyone

who gave evidence to the committee, and also committee members and our clerks for all their hard work in scrutinising the plan.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee struggled to scrutinise the draft climate change plan within the 60 days that are allowed. We concluded that the time allowed is too short and that a minimum of 120 days would allow better and proper scrutiny. Given the tight timescale, we looked at three specific areas: agriculture, transport and forestry.

It is worth noting that, as Mr Dey said, those areas do not fall within the TIMES energy model. The emissions envelopes for agriculture, forestry and transport were developed separately and added into the model, which is less than ideal. That raises additional issues. First, there is no baseline data or details of the specific emissions reductions attributable to each policy or proposal. Secondly, there is a significant lack of financial information provided in the draft plan. Thirdly, the plan lacks a monitoring and evaluation framework and SMART targets.

Given the short time that is available for debate, I would like to look at some of the key findings in each area. First, agriculture contributes 23 per cent of total emissions and is the third largest contributor in Scotland. The committee heard that agriculture is a difficult sector to decarbonise, which is why it has the lowest reduction target. Some said that that target was not ambitious enough and lacked detail. We accepted as a committee that

“in order to achieve climate change targets the goodwill of farmers and land managers”

was and is important. We also accepted that much of the historical good work undertaken by farmers has not been acknowledged or quantified.

I pick up on the particular issue of soil fertility. Much is often made of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash use, but the committee also heard about the importance of soil structure and the fact that it needs long-term management and investment. The committee accepted the need to encourage all farmers to test the soils on improved land in rotation. We also heard that, to ensure investment by tenant farmers, they need to be compensated at waygo for the extra work that they put in to keep soils in good condition. The committee believes that, to ensure a positive contribution to climate change and to increase production, we need to take farmers with us. During our scrutiny, there was discussion about whether soil testing should be voluntary or mandatory. We agreed that voluntary measures were appropriate at this stage.

Transport, which is the second largest contributor, accounts for 28 per cent of Scotland’s total emissions. The committee welcomed the Scottish Government’s goal to be free from harmful tailpipe emissions by 2050. However, it recognised that, since 1990, progress in emissions reductions from the transport sector has been largely offset by increases in demand. Therefore, the committee recommends that greater consideration is given to policies that will control demand and encourage modal shift away from the use of private cars.

The draft climate change plan focuses on the ways in which technological developments will reduce transport emissions, including incentivising more rapid uptake of electric and ultra-low-emission cars, enhancing the electric vehicle charging networks and electrification of the rail network. Witnesses raised concerns that the plan is overly reliant on the uptake of low-emission vehicles, and that there are a number of assumptions about technological improvements. For example, the plan assumes that battery costs will reduce and that there will be only 27 per cent traffic growth by 2030. The committee was not convinced that those were right; if they are not right, the transport targets are unlikely to be achieved.

We heard that little progress has been made on active travel, with Scottish transport statistics showing that, in 2015, only 1 per cent of journeys were by bike, which is well below the 2020 Government ambition of 10 per cent. That figure has remained stubbornly at 1 per cent since 2003. The committee believes that walking and cycling have an important contribution to make in reducing carbon emissions and the Government needs now to set out clearly how it intends to meet by 2020 the target that it has set itself.

I turn briefly to forestry. Approximately 1.44 million hectares of Scotland is in woodland—that is 18 per cent of the total land area, which is less than the EU average of 40 per cent. While 70 per cent of that woodland is populated by conifers, which can be used for production, the remainder is broadleaves.

Progress since the last climate change plan in 2013 has been painfully slow, and the Scottish Government has failed to meet its forestry targets every year. Last year, for example, 4,500 hectares were planted against a target of 10,000 hectares. We heard that some of those failures are attributable to the grant structure and application process. The committee heard that the Mackinnon report may well streamline the forestry industry to help achieve those planting targets, and it hopes that that is the case. It will be up to the Government to ensure that the targets are met.

There were other issues relating to the use of timber and getting the right tree in the right place, but I will leave that for people to read in the report.

In conclusion, the committee looks forward to the Government’s response to its report and to the points that it has raised, and to seeing how those will feature in the final climate change plan.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Roseanna Cunningham to open for the Government. You have eight minutes, cabinet secretary.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I thank the conveners and members of the four committees for all the work that was done in their scrutiny of the draft climate change plan. I also thank all those who provided evidence to the committees and helped them in their work.

The plan is, of course, a draft plan that is to be turned into a final plan. I will give an update on progress on that before the summer recess, albeit that the final plan will not come until later than that.

The draft plan builds on strong foundations. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 set a target of 42 per cent emissions reductions by 2020. By 2014, emissions had already been reduced by 45.8 per cent, which means that we exceeded the original target six years early. That is second only to Sweden’s record of success. We should be immensely proud of that achievement and should not forget it, but we are not resting on our laurels. The draft plan sets out how we will continue to drive down emissions by the equivalent of 66 per cent by 2032. We will, of course, introduce a new climate change bill to raise that ambition even further in light of the Paris agreement.

As well as maintaining our high ambition and preparing for increased ambition in the future, the draft plan builds on our success so far. I went through its contents in the chamber eight weeks ago, so I will not attempt to do so again; it is action on the ground that matters.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the Government’s proposed air passenger duty reduction help? It has been estimated that an extra 60,000 tonnes of carbon will be pumped into the atmosphere.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

That is built into the plan’s overall targets. That question has been asked and answered so many times that I am beginning to wonder whether Mike Rumbles needs to see somebody about his hearing.

I return to action on the ground. Yesterday, I visited the red moss of Balerno to see an example of peatland restoration not far from Edinburgh. I also opened applications for the Government’s £8 million action fund, which will help us to deliver on the climate change plan’s commitment to restore 250,000 hectares of peatlands by 2032. I am glad that that commitment was welcomed in the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s report.

I will deal with the committee reports in more detail. Broad support was expressed for the whole-system approach that we took to developing the draft climate change plan. That is important, because the draft plan was developed using an approach that differs from that which was used for the previous two plans or reports on proposals and policies. I know that that model and our use of it was a theme in at least one committee’s scrutiny of the draft plan. Using the TIMES model represents a significant step forward in the Government’s carbon planning. It has allowed us to get a real handle on the costs of emissions reductions and allowed us for the first time to make consistent judgments about where best to focus our efforts. We may be the first Government to have used that internationally recognised modelling framework to develop a carbon plan in a live political setting.

There has been a steep learning curve as we have worked through the plan’s development—the committees have been on the same learning curve, of course. The new approach differs from that which was used in the previous two reports. That might be frustrating, particularly when the information that is produced by the modelling is different from what was produced before, but that does not mean that the approach is wrong and that we should not persevere with it.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I am sorry, but I have a minute less than I was originally told that I had, so I must press on.

Some committees expressed concern about lack of information on alternative scenarios in the draft plan. Given the political and technological uncertainties that we face, looking even 15 years into the future is not easy. The committee reports contain a number of recommendations on including different scenarios in the final plan, and some additional scenarios may be helpful, but we would need to choose carefully to avoid turning the plan into a think tank report.

Throughout the development of the plan, I have been clear that I have envisaged that all sectors would play their part. That does not mean equal reductions across the board; it means that we must balance the relative costs of reductions in each sector against other benefits of the policies, such as improvements in health, as well as the need to take full advantage of the business opportunities that are offered by the plan and the economic importance of each sector.

The carbon envelope for transport is a good case in point. Our judgment differed from that of the Committee on Climate Change. Our approach has been developed using robust external research that has been published in full by Transport Scotland. The message of that research was that reducing emissions from transport is a long-term project. We have said that since the publication of the original delivery plan in 2009.

It is important to recognise that the demand for transport is shaped by the operation of the economy—by commerce, rather than commuting. Accommodating that demand is an important plank in strengthening our economy and has been an important consideration in setting the transport envelope in the draft plan. Important though behaviour change is, it cannot offer anywhere near the same level of abatement as can advances in vehicle technology. Our view is that the emphasis on technology is correct.

That said, the Government is committed to delivering our manifesto commitment to low emission zones, for both their impact on emissions and their health benefits from improved air quality. We will also continue to explore other approaches to behaviour change. The draft plan sets out our plans to encourage a switch to active travel and public transport.

Agriculture is another area in which we have been encouraged to look again at our ambition. We will consider that recommendation alongside all those made by the committees. However, we cannot simply ignore the point made by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee that

“in order to achieve climate change targets the goodwill of farmers and land managers must be ensured.”

We know that emissions from agriculture are more difficult to reduce than those in other sectors. That is because the vast bulk of those emissions are from biological sources that are fundamental to food production and only a small proportion result from energy use.

We have touched upon technology already and I would like to return to the wider issue of the draft plan’s reliance on what some people have called technical fixes. It is pretty obvious that a plan stretching 15 years forward and involving a number of decisions that will have infrastructure implications that are far longer lasting than a decade and a half cannot avoid considering new technologies. I have already committed the Government to seriously considering the recommendations on alternative technological scenarios as we develop the final plan.

I will also consider how we can add more transparency to our plan by being explicit about when key decisions on infrastructure, such as the future of the gas network in Scotland, are anticipated. A similar approach can be taken to key milestones in the development of technologies such as carbon capture and storage and at what stage we would need to activate fallback plans if milestones were missed.

It is obvious that we need a clear monitoring framework. I have committed to developing that and to reporting every year on progress. I have already told my officials to seek to agree a common approach with the Committee on Climate Change and to ensure that engagement continues.

Our draft plan has given us a clear vision of the nature of the changes that will need to happen across Scotland in order to deliver our ambitious targets. We now need to consider Parliament’s recommendations, produce the final version of the plan and, most important, work together to reduce emissions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Well done, cabinet secretary. Ms Cunningham had been misinformed about timing, but not by our office.

Alexander Burnett will open on behalf of the Conservatives. You have seven minutes, Mr Burnett.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would agree, but perhaps the timing communications were not sent out to us correctly.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Indeed?

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Indeed. I will endeavour to keep my speech to time.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests and particularly to the interests that relate to renewable energy.

This has been my first time going through the process of producing a committee response to a Government paper and I have been most encouraged. The committees’ unanimity in their criticism of the Scottish Government’s climate change plan has made a refreshing change.

According to the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, the plan lacks transparency.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member give way?

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I will not be taking any interventions as I did not know that my speaking time would be reduced.

According to our Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, the plan lacks credibility. According to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, the plan lacks accountability and, according to the Local Government and Communities Committee, it places an overreliance on technology.

We have seen where the Scottish Government wants to go on climate change and we support that ambition, but the lack of a credible plan for achieving that ambition is more than a cause for concern.

We support the TIMES model, which has been used to inform the strategy. We agree that it is excellent, but it is unfortunate that the Scottish Government has chosen not to use it properly. Although 50 per cent of carbon comes from transport and agriculture, those two sectors were decided on outside the model, which skewed the assessment for those sectors and denigrates the model as a whole as a result. We can only hope that such omissions will be corrected in future uses of the model.

We look forward to the release of the model to universities to allow open-source examination of the data inputs and outputs. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee repeatedly requested that and deemed it necessary to allow the strategy to be properly transparent. That point was also noted by Friends of the Earth.

The climate change strategy’s lack of transparency is not the only problem from which it suffers. It is also clear that it is too dependent on technology and factors that are beyond the Scottish Government’s control. Transform Scotland supports that view.

When I put that to the cabinet secretary at committee a few weeks ago, she was dismissive and spoke of great advances in technology that will save the plan. Such a view might be applicable when we are talking about mobile phones, but I contend that technological changes are not as easily made in the context of large infrastructure projects such as installing district heating, repurposing the gas grid and insulating Scotland’s hard-to-treat homes. The requirement for technological improvements does not inspire confidence and makes the strategy unreliable.

Let us consider, for example, the Scottish Government’s emissions reduction pathway for residential property. It is estimated that the residential sector will account for 15 per cent of Scotland’s total emissions this year, and its share is growing, so it is vital that we get our approach right. According to the strategy, the target is to decrease emissions by 84 per cent by 2032. However, that is back-loaded; only 16 per cent of the decrease is sought in the first eight years, which leaves the remaining 84 per cent to be achieved in the second half of the period. That proposed trajectory is so tainted in its formation that one can only assume that its architects do not plan on being around for the policy’s inevitable failure.

It should therefore come as no surprise that Scottish Renewables questioned the target to supply 80 per cent of domestic properties with low-carbon heat technologies by 2025, which would require a leap from 18 per cent in just eight years. Given that almost 80 per cent of homes are currently supplied with mains gas, achieving that target will require a huge step change in delivery. I initially thought that the ambition would be achieved through district heating, but the other week, the cabinet secretary was more focused on repurposing the existing gas grid.

For members who are not familiar with what that entails, it means substituting the current methane gas with hydrogen. That is both technically feasible and desirable, but it will require huge volumes of hydrogen to be produced. If it is to come from electrolysis with electricity from renewables, that is neither clear nor, currently, economically efficient. If it is to come from conventional gas from the North Sea, with the resulting carbon returned through carbon capture and storage, that places a heavy reliance on a developing technology. Far be it from me to be cynical about such an approach but, with the Scottish Government placing all its target eggs in one basket, it is not hard to guess who it will blame for its failure.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government has not matched the Scottish Conservatives’ call for a transformational change in energy efficiency. It has failed to set a target for all homes to reach EPC band C by the end of the next decade. It is only right that I remind the Parliament of our manifesto commitment to spend 10 per cent of the capital budget on making homes energy efficient, which would have involved spending £1 billion cumulatively over this parliamentary session; the Scottish Government’s programme for government commits only £500 million to SEEP over the next four years.

The EPC system also needs reform. It is evident that the market has had no confidence in the system since its inception in 2009. The same house can receive three different EPC ratings, depending on who comes to survey it. A tick sheet is not enough to establish whether a house has proper insulation. We should be using EPC ratings as a springboard for green mortgages and encouraging investors to buy energy-efficient homes.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I have said that I will not take any interventions, given the time allowed.

We have promised to support district heating schemes. The Government has a responsibility to lead and not be led, but the strategy has no such plans. How can we expect companies to invest in district heating when the Scottish Government cannot even be bothered to deploy the system in its Victoria Quay buildings, which are in a location that has been primed for district heating?

It is clear to stakeholders and to cross-party committees that the Scottish Government has made massive assumptions on technological externalities over which it has no control. We simply cannot rely on someone to reinvent the wheel to enable us to hit our climate change targets.

The majority of the goals in the strategy are infested with backdated targets and biblical-scale reductions that come decades away. We need a clearer plan.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I get any more signals from members about the timings, let me say that members have five minutes for speeches in the open debate. The revised timings were agreed at the Parliamentary Bureau on Tuesday and conveyed to the business managers, including the Minister for Parliamentary Business. So there you go—no one else should ask me how long they have got. It is five minutes in the open debate. Claudia Beamish, who is opening for Labour, knows that she has six minutes.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I recognise the significance of the draft climate change plan, which builds on the work done by all parties, from the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and through the first two reports on proposals and policies to our proposed new climate change bill.

The debate is an essential contribution to focusing the Scottish Government’s collective mind on the changes that are recommended in the four committee reports. The fact that there is direct reporting to our Parliament is testament to the mainstreaming of climate change.

Scottish Labour recognises the robust advice and support that the UK Committee on Climate Change has given to our Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Our committee’s responsibility for scrutinising the governance and future monitoring and evaluation of the plan is weighty. I thank our clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for fulfilling the challenging role of supporting us so effectively. I thank all those who gave us written submissions and contributed to oral evidence sessions, which helped the committee to hone its thoughts.

If the final CCP is to be truly at the core of all policies and proposals across the Government, our committee’s recommendation that it should

“state explicitly how the results of the draft Energy Strategy consultation will contribute to the final Plan”

must be acted on.

There are synergies between the plan and the energy strategy—there is also my proposed member’s bill to place a ban, for climate change reasons, on onshore fracking. Job opportunities in renewables and energy efficiency, related manufacturing and the circular economy must be underpinned by a just transition for workers and communities.

The committee recommends that

“the Scottish Government make the relationship between the Climate Change Plan and other strategies, such as the National Planning Framework, the Infrastructure Investment Plan and the Land Use Strategy, more explicit.”

The committee has serious concerns and there are unanswered questions about the TIMES model. Only after persistent questioning of the Scottish Government did it emerge that as much as 40 per cent—if not more—of the sectoral assessment was not done through the whole system model.

As our convener, Graeme Dey, highlighted, the committee also states that

“There is a lack of clarity and transparency in the draft Plan surrounding the information that was fed into and produced by the TIMES Model”,

which has meant that carrying out scrutiny has been challenging.

The committee recommends that

“the Scottish Government revise the carbon envelopes for transport and agriculture to show greater ambition”,

given that those sectors are two of our heaviest emitters.

As I understand it, whatever policy is put into the TIMES model, the model pushes out the costings for it. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider carefully whether social inclusion and the pathway that is, to use her words,

“most beneficial to the people of Scotland”

have been adequately accounted for in the assessment of every sector.

In transport, a stark example of a techie approach being fed in is from the shift to low-emission vehicles, and the arguments for it, to tackle projected increases in road traffic of 27 per cent by 2030. Why is there no complementary modelling to assess the costs of planning more infrastructure for walking and cycling, with the associated support for behaviour change? That would produce healthy options and cut congestion, so there would be multiple benefits. While of course we need to shift to low-carbon vehicles for commercial reasons and for the economy, we also need a modal shift to active travel, and I ask the cabinet secretary to rethink that approach.

Our committee also has a sectoral focus on land use, peatlands, marine issues, the public sector and waste. Graeme Dey emphasised the importance of peatlands to the picture and we now have an understanding of that, which has developed since the marker in RPP1 through international and domestic research collaborations, which have led to specific funded policies from the Scottish Government.

That is in stark contrast to the failure to push forward on the contribution of blue carbon, which was in RPP2 and is—shockingly—omitted from the draft plan. Under questioning, Scottish Government officials acknowledged that that would be remedied in the final plan, and that is one of the committee’s recommendations.

We stress the importance of the circular economy. In contrast to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, we recommend a staged move to compulsory soil testing on improved land, which must be supported by clear criteria and must follow the advice to be incremental. That is a means to an end.

I highlight the importance of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s calls for consideration of organic farming, and I strongly support that as a biological contribution.

The public sector’s contribution is also vital. With mandatory reporting duties, leadership and peer support will be key, and the contribution that part of the sector already makes is to be lauded. The letter from Stephen Hagan of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to the cabinet secretary is most encouraging.

Children who are now in primary 1 will be in their early 20s when the final policies and proposals under the plan are actioned. The vision that we create now for the way forward will need to be checked regularly against the development of technologies that have not even been invented yet. As those children move towards and settle down into adult life in an utterly changed world of work and leisure, the plan must prove to be just for our society here in Scotland. If those people are to live in a Scotland in which our communities are protected from flooding, with warm housing, good green surroundings and connectivity, there must be robust monitoring and evaluation.

The framework has been eight years in the making. I listened to what the cabinet secretary said, but the CCP must be the foundation of policy making, and it is vital to have clarity in the pathways to delivery as we go forward with it.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I start by thanking the clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, witnesses and members of all four committees that have contributed to the scrutiny. I am particularly proud to be associated with the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee report, which was crafted under the strong journalistic guidance of our convener.

I am left with a strong sense of frustration with the climate plan. In many ways, it is a plan that could join us up, break us out of silo thinking and allow shared action across Government and society. However, the lack of transparency about what individual policies will achieve for carbon reduction and the uncertainty about what steps are needed to deliver those policies means that it feels disconnected from practical action. There is welcome clarity about the contribution that forestry and peatland restoration will make and about what effort will be needed each year to achieve that, but the plan is far more opaque in other areas.

In the committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform commented that we will know what carbon reductions electric vehicles, for example, will deliver only when they are on the roads. Whether these are the best policy choices at this stage remains a mystery.

Agriculture and transport were modelled outside TIMES, so they were fixed at the outset, while other sectors got plugged into the model to work through what was left and ended up in many cases with more challenging targets. I am not saying that carbon targets should necessarily be equal across all sectors, but they must be equally challenging, and that is where we have some problems with the plan.

I turn to agriculture. We were warned by the UK Committee on Climate Change that agriculture could overtake energy as a carbon emitter. A compulsory soil testing regime was recommended as a simple but effective action to lower fertiliser wastage. In the chamber, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform promised me that soil testing would be compulsory when the plan was launched, but the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity clarified that that would not be the case. The fear seems to be that it would be burdensome for farmers and, in the words of Fergus Ewing, the view is that we must not jeopardise the good will of the custodians of the countryside.

What exactly is the concern? The cost of soil testing on a five-year cycle is just 22p per hectare per year, which is a bargain price for a stable climate.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have time, unfortunately. I have only five minutes, unless I get time back at the end. Will I, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You can have 30 seconds if you want to let Mr Mountain in.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I understand the need for soil testing, and most farmers are doing it, but the issue is about the soil structure and what is done with the results of soil testing. There is no point in forcing soil testing if nothing is done with the results.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Exactly—it is a starting point. If we understand the structure and the quality of our soils, we can take action.

I will tell members about the type of action that we need. Far

mers are spending about £70 per hectare per year on arable fertiliser, so delivering efficiency savings—we reckon that tackling pH levels would deliver efficiency savings of 20 per cent—will save them money. Applying lime to meet a target pH would involve only the most basic invoice record keeping, which any farmer could manage as part of a regime of cross-compliance. Such fruit is so low hanging that it is rotting on the ground. We just need to get on and deliver soil testing, as any knowledgeable farmer in the chamber will know.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Why are you on your feet, Mr Mountain?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have a point of order—I did not hear that.

Let me hear it, Mr Mountain.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do not mind being called a lot of things, but by implying that I am not a responsible farmer, Mr Ruskell is verging on being rude.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Would you care to modify what you said, Mr Ruskell?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will if I get another 20 seconds.