Scottish Parliament, 17 May 2017

298 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Housing Support for Young People

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The first item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-04643, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on United Kingdom Government restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds accessing financial support for housing. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament expresses concern at its understanding that 18 to 21-year-olds in Edinburgh and across Scotland will face restrictions in accessing financial support for housing from 1 April 2017; notes the calls on the UK Government to reconsider what it believes is its ill-conceived and harmful plans that will increase the likelihood of young people being made homeless and undermine the preventative approach to homelessness taken by local and national government in Scotland; believes that these changes are being imposed while discussions continue between the UK and Scottish governments on how the policy can be fully mitigated within existing powers; notes its disappointment with the UK Government’s short timescale for change despite assurances that options for Scotland would be considered further, which it believes makes it impossible for full mitigation arrangements to be put in place before this change comes into force; acknowledges the report,

The withdrawal of support for housing costs under Universal Credit for young people: more pain for little gain?

, from the homelessness charity Crisis, and Sheffield Hallam University, which suggests that many of those affected are “likely to be made more vulnerable, less secure and less able to rebuild their relationship with their parents or to keep or find a job than they were before”; notes the research of Heriot-Watt University, which estimates that, if more than 140 young people are made homeless, the policy will cost the UK Government more than the estimated and supposed savings, and believes that not all young people have the option of living with their parents and, for those who may be in a desperate or difficult situation and facing homelessness, housing support can provide stability, security and enable them to lead independent and fulfilling lives.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank the Presiding Officer for securing debate time on the important issue of UK Government restrictions for 18 to 21-year-olds accessing financial support for housing.

How we as a country support our young people is fundamental to the prosperity of our society and the strength of our economy. How we nurture the contributions of younger generations will shape the values of our future, the character of our nation, the strength of our commerce and the prospects of our collective wellbeing. That is why we must seek to support and encourage all our young people in their adolescence and on their journey into adulthood.

The UK Government’s decision to abolish access to financial support for housing for 18 to 21-year-olds from 1 April this year is a backward step. It is a detrimental measure that will negatively affect the future of the young people who are affected and the future of our country. Although, at present, the policy applies only to new universal credit claims from single jobseekers in the five areas of Scotland where universal credit has been fully rolled out, in the years ahead, the policy will affect all new claimants in Scotland as the UK Government rolls out universal credit across our country by April 2018. Very soon, therefore, the policy will negatively affect 18 to 21-year-olds across Scotland, in urban and rural areas.

The Tories envisage that the young adults who are affected by the policy will be able to return to their parental home or enter employment, but that will not always be possible or beneficial. As Shelter Scotland has stated, this Tory policy will remove an important “safety net” for young adults.

Although I acknowledge that the UK legislation includes certain exemptions from the policy, the overall policy intent of the cut to support for young people remains both nonsensical and punitive. The young people that it will affect will undoubtedly be impaired as a result, and there is no guarantee that the exemptions in new paragraphs 4B and 4C of schedule 4 to the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 will be administered accurately or appropriately in practice. What will the costs of assessment be? Will all young people have the necessary wherewithal to seek exemptions and advocacy services? How will vulnerability be proved?

As the homelessness charity Crisis has stated,

“Vulnerability is a dynamic, not a fixed, state. It is affected by many factors which make someone’s life more or less difficult over time. Any system of exemptions is going to find it extremely difficult to keep pace with changes in circumstances: young people may have to move in and out of work or training; their relationships with their parents can fluctuate and be prone to sporadic crises or reconciliations; their emotional state and mental health may be fragile. Tracking all of this over time will not only be difficult—it will also be very expensive to administer.”

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am grateful to Mr Macpherson for giving way. Is he giving his speech in favour of the proposition that the Scottish Government should exercise its powers under section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 to create a new benefit to support unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds in pursuit of housing?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I will come on to forward actions in due course.

I have no doubt that some Conservative members of the Scottish Parliament will maintain that the effects of their party’s policy will be negligible, but they should tell that to the several hundred young people who will be affected in Scotland this year, the estimated 1,000 young people who will be affected each year after that and the estimated 11,000 who will be affected each year across the UK—all for a measly supposed cost saving to the Treasury of 0.4 per cent of the total annual spend on housing benefit. What is more, given the history of welfare reform, I predict that the number of those who are affected will rise.

However, even if the estimates are correct and the exemptions work perfectly, the whole ethos of the policy is wrong-headed. Not only does it stem from a misguided and cynical world view and false assertions about the motivations and circumstances of young people in our communities, but this Tory policy has real potential to contradict the stated aims of UK Government welfare reform—namely, to encourage claimants off benefits and into work. That is because, rather than subsidising young people to leave home for “a life on benefits”, as the Tory 2015 manifesto mistakenly asserts, housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-old jobseekers can in fact provide the platform necessary for individuals to move into employment, especially if they are transitioning out of homelessness, as Shelter Scotland has powerfully argued. In other words, the UK Government’s policy not only discriminates against young people but creates barriers to work and diminishes the ability of affected individuals to move forward. It is therefore against the UK Government’s principles of welfare reform and universal credit.

The policy creates difficulties for young people in moving into the private rented sector—we already have reports of PRS landlords avoiding younger tenants as a result of it. It also puts social housing tenants at risk of losing their tenancies. The catch-22 is that, in some cases, the policy will prevent access to a tenancy at all because, to make a claim for universal credit housing costs, an individual must have a tenancy agreement but, to access a tenancy, the individual must provide evidence that they will be able to access help with housing costs if they are not in work. The policy makes no sense.

Although the proposed UK Government initiative of a youth obligation might aid employment support, it will not make housing affordable for those who are affected. Not only is the UK Government’s policy unnecessary and discriminatory against young people, but Scotland does not want it. The Scottish National Party manifesto in 2016 committed to opposing the cuts, and the SNP forms the Scottish Government, so the UK Government should honour the democratic wishes of the Scottish people and facilitate the abolition of the policy in Scotland.

The UK Government’s decision to implement the policy by changing the eligibility criteria in universal credit rather than the calculation means that the Scottish Government cannot use its power under the Scotland Act 2016 to mitigate the changes in a straightforward way. The refusal of the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to enable a geographic exemption for Scotland is an act of preference rather than necessity. Let me be clear: the UK Government can exempt Scotland from the policy if it wants to—all it needs to do is write it down in statute. I encourage the Scottish Government to keep pursuing a geographic exemption with the UK Government. Scottish Conservatives must face up to the fact that that would be a much more expedient process than introducing a new Scottish benefit to plaster over bad Tory UK Government policy.

The policy is not really about reducing expenditure or the number of claimants; instead, this cut by the Tories is about pandering to false assertions about young people and their housing choices and lifestyles. As well as senselessly harming the individuals who are affected, the cuts will put more and more pressure on local services. Ruth Davidson said at the weekend that she wants to talk about Scotland’s young people. Unfortunately, she is not here today but, in a spirit of good faith, I would like to pass on a message to her via her Conservative colleagues who are present. The cuts to financial support for 18 to 21-year-olds will distress and derail the young people who are affected; diminish the prospects for young people to fulfil their potential and flourish; and negatively impact on the society in which young people in Scotland will grow up. Depressingly, the policy panders to cynical and judgmental assertions about young people’s motivations—assertions that politicians should challenge rather than legitimise.

I call on the Tories in the UK Government to abandon the wrong-headed policy of restricting access to financial support for 18 to 21-year-olds. I urge the Scottish Government to keep standing up for Scotland’s young people, to keep opposing the restrictions and to keep pursuing the sustainable removal of the restrictions and of the cuts and hardship that they will cause. The housing system is already stacked against young people, and this Tory policy does not help.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Before I start, let it be recorded in the

Official Report

that there is not a single Labour member of the Scottish Parliament in the chamber to debate this matter, nor is there any Liberal Democrat MSP—there are Green, Conservative and SNP MSPs only.

I turn to the substance of the issue that Ben Macpherson has brought to the chamber. First of all, it is important to understand the scope of the regulations. One thing that Ben Macpherson failed to say in his impassioned speech was that the policy applies not to all 18 to 21-year-olds but only to unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds. It applies only to unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds who are making new claims for universal credit. It applies only to single UC claimants; it does not apply to anyone who is married. Before we go any further, it is important that members understand just how narrow the scope of the regulations is. The policy also applies only—Ben Macpherson said this—where universal credit full service has been rolled out, which is currently only five areas in Scotland, although that will grow in time.

The policy is also one in respect of which there is a large number of exemptions, which have been—in the words of the Scottish Government—co-produced with a range of stakeholders who have been working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop the policy. The policy will not apply to anyone who is responsible for a child, so it will not apply to a parent, carer or guardian. It will not apply to anyone who is in temporary accommodation. It will not apply to anyone who was a care leaver before the age of 18. It will not apply to any victim of domestic violence, and it will not apply to anyone who is unable to return home because of a risk to physical or mental health. Those exemptions ensure that the most vulnerable will continue to have the housing support that they need. The policy will affect only those who have no barriers to work and who are able to return safely to their parental home; that is its justification.

The policy removes what was formerly a perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass the cost of doing so on to the taxpayer. The policy is about stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits—the underlying rationale for it is quite the opposite of the one that Ben Macpherson sought to portray.

Moreover, people who are affected by the policy will be helped by a new youth obligation within the framework of universal credit—a form of intensive employment support, backed by apprenticeships, traineeships and work placements. That is exactly the sort of employment support that I would have thought that all members of this Parliament, whatever their party, would want to support.

Ben Macpherson’s motion talks about the UK Government’s “short timescale” for the introduction of the policy. That is an aspect of the motion that I do not understand. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, first raised the issue as a policy in 2012. It was in the successful Conservative Party manifesto in 2015, as Mr Macpherson said, and it was formally introduced in the summer budget of that year. That was two years ago.

I know that Mr Macpherson supports a Government here that is moving as slowly as it is possible to move in the context of the progress of the devolution of welfare, but the announcement of a policy in 2012, its being made formal in 2015 and its introduction with effect from April 2017 does not constitute a “short timescale”.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the member give way?

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am happy to do so, if I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you a little time.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I am grateful. Does Mr Tomkins acknowledge that the regulations were laid only a month before the implementation of the policy?

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I acknowledge that the regulations were signalled months and months in advance, in the summer budget of 2015. A policy’s announcement in 2012, its becoming formal policy in 2015 and its implementation in 2017 should be regarded as a sensible pace of progress on the part of the Government.

My final point is about the power to create new benefits. The reason why the UK Government could not act under section 11(4) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, as the Scottish Government wanted it to do, is that the secretary of state has legal advice that it is impossible—it is legally inept—for him to act under that power. The only power under which he could act to introduce the regulations is the power to change the eligibility.

I fully accept that that means that the top-up power cannot be used in this instance. That is why we who sat around the Smith commission table agreed on not just a top-up power but a power to create new benefits in devolved areas. That power is in section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016. This is a devolved area—we are talking about housing—and if the Scottish Government wants to introduce a new benefit under section 28, it has all the powers that it needs to do so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must come to a close, please.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

It seems to me that if the Scottish Government wants to introduce a new benefit, it need look no further than Ben Macpherson’s speech for the justification for doing so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I may have to be a bit tighter on the following speeches. I call Maree Todd, to be followed by Andy Wightman.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Ben Macpherson for securing this important members’ business debate.

Yesterday in the Parliament, we debated the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people, and a couple of weeks ago we debated the callous rape clause policy. We have already heard some members in the chamber defend the, frankly, indefensible. Here we are again, discussing another ill-conceived and harmful Tory policy that we know will have a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Homeless charities, including Shelter, Crisis and Centrepoint, have been very clear in voicing their concerns. Cutting housing benefit to 18 to 21-year-olds risks increasing the number of rough sleepers. Why would the UK Conservative Government introduce cuts that are known to have that effect, when it also knows that homelessness is on the rise in England for the sixth year running? Does that not undermine the Government commitment to reducing homelessness?

A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions claimed—and Adam Tomkins has repeated—that the move is intended to

“make sure that 18 to 21-year-olds do not slip straight into a life on benefits”.

The Tories talk about people choosing a life of benefits and choosing to claim housing allowances, but that fundamentally misses the point that, for many people, there is no choice.

The idea that removing entitlement to housing benefit will drive all young people to “earn or learn”, to use David Cameron’s words, misunderstands many of the people who rely on that part of the social security system. The policy fails to take into account the reality of many young people’s lives. The option of living with parents is not a luxury that is open to everyone. I represent a part of the country where youngsters rarely live with their parents beyond school age. Many of us in the Highlands and Islands leave home for work or study at a young age; I was only 17 when I left home, but my family was still able to support me.

These cuts will affect people who find themselves in desperately difficult situations through no fault of their own. For those who leave home abruptly—be it because of an abusive relationship or their sexual or gender identity—social housing is their sanctuary and their sanity. It provides them with much-needed stability.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does Maree Todd not accept that, as I said a few moments ago, there is an exemption for anybody who is at risk of mental or physical harm in the parental home? The policy will not apply to exactly the category of people that she spoke about.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I ask Adam Tomkins: as with the rape clause, how would they prove that? There is no reply.

The policy does not even make sound economic sense. Recent research by Heriot-Watt University found that, once the cost of vital exemptions and the cost to other public services are taken into account, the policy will save a maximum of £3.3 million. It will take only 140 extra young people to become homeless before the policy costs more than it saves. If the UK Government wants to cut the welfare bill, it should address the root cause of the problem and make building homes that people can afford more of a priority.

I am sure that members are aware that universal credit has already been rolled out in Highland, causing huge hardship. Among the concerns that I have heard from constituents who work in housing is that, because 18 to 21-year-olds will seek ways to secure accommodation under the exemptions, this policy will increase pressure on charitable housing associations, local authorities, general practitioners and care providers, all of whom are already working under extreme duress.

I hear that it has always been difficult to get private landlords to take on young people, but this system will, without doubt, put paid to that—that is what constituents who work in housing tell me. Private landlords simply will not take the risk.

The Scottish Government has made it clear that it opposes these cuts. The Scottish welfare fund will mitigate that for now, but the bottom line is that it should not have to.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I thank Ben Macpherson for bringing this debate to the chamber.

It is important to stress at the outset that this withdrawal of support for young people is part of a wider failure in housing policy to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for all. That has led, for example, to the rapid growth in the private rented sector—not a sector of choice for young people, but a sector of necessity.

According to the UK Government’s figures, the housing benefit bill is set to reach £25 billion this year. To my mind, that is the price of failure in the housing market. It is also against a historic shift in public support from housing supply to housing demand—a shift from investment in housing to spending to support demand, which is a regressive move that has led to rising house prices, rising rents and growing inequality. As Maree Todd pointed out—it is also mentioned in Ben Macpherson’s motion—the policy could easily end up costing the Government more money than it is designed to save.

Young people can be forgiven for thinking that housing policy has not only neglected them but is actively working against their interests. As Mhairi Black noted in her maiden speech in the House of Commons:

“In this Budget the Chancellor also abolished any housing benefit for anyone below the age of 21. So we are now in the ridiculous situation whereby because I am an MP, I am not only the youngest, but I am also the only 20-year-old in the whole of the UK that the Chancellor is prepared to help with housing.”—[

Official Report, House of Commons

, 14 July 2015; Vol 598, c 776.]

That is a rather sad pass to come to. Housing in the private rented sector and in the owner-occupied sector is too expensive, and house prices have soared over the past three decades, exacerbating the growing inequality between a property-owning class and a landless class.

Many of the powers to tackle that—to reduce rents and house prices—lie with the Scottish Parliament. We have the power to design an effective system of housing taxation but we have failed to do so. We have the power to capture land values for the public good but we have not done so. We also have the power to repeal planning legislation that rewards landowners for the granting of planning permission but we have failed to do so. Therefore, although I welcome the Government’s commitment to build 35,000 affordable homes, I disagree that those homes will be affordable by any definition that is recognised by young people.

That is the background against which the withdrawal of benefits has taken place. The Scottish Government has now announced that it will provide any affected 18 to 21-year-olds with funding from the Scottish welfare fund on an interim basis. That is welcome, but I ask the minister whether any additional resource will be made available to the fund to meet the extra demand, as opposed to its being met from an existing, already very overstretched, budget. The cost of mitigation is likely to be around £6.5 million over the next three years.

Demand for Scottish welfare fund support rises considerably when universal credit is fully rolled out, as we have seen in Musselburgh. The Social Security Committee heard evidence that the pressure on East Lothian Council’s fund there is unsustainable. The full universal credit service will roll out and the housing cost restrictions will come into play for more and more 18 to 21-year-olds at the same time as there will be a range of other increasing demands for the fund. I hope that ministers have thought about how that will be handled.

Although I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that the Scottish Government has been forced into by the unwillingness of the UK Government to create a better mechanism for mitigating the cut, I stress that doing that through the Scottish welfare fund should be only a temporary measure. It is meeting a statutory entitlement—albeit a de facto one at present—through what is effectively a discretionary fund, and that is not a good precedent to set.

Fundamentally, we in this Parliament need to focus on eliminating the necessity for providing housing support by solving the underlying structural problems in the housing market. The powers over most of those are already devolved to the Parliament, and we should use them.

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

Normally we that say it is a pleasure to take part in a debate, but I take no pleasure in taking part in the debate today—just as I did not take any pleasure in taking part in the debate on food banks last week or in discussing yesterday the impact that cuts to social security have had on those with a disability. Nevertheless, here we are again. Although I do not take pleasure in speaking in today’s debate, I am glad at least to have the opportunity to do so and to highlight yet another Tory policy that will have a devastating impact on a number of young people in our country. To that end, I very much thank Ben Macpherson for lodging his motion and securing the debate.

No matter which way we look at the policy, it is poorly thought out, does not make sense and—as we have heard—has the potential to cost more money than it saves. Although there are exemptions to the policy, they do not go far enough. As Shelter highlighted in its briefing, the impacts “could be catastrophic”.

The draft regulations were laid only one month before the intended implementation date, which did not give organisations and local authorities enough time to prepare for the impact, in spite of what Adam Tomkins would like to admit today.

Although the Scottish Government has committed to mitigating the policy for an interim period through the Scottish welfare fund, the UK Government has refused to delay the policy’s implementation while discussions between the two Governments take place or, as Ben Macpherson highlighted, to give a geographical exemption to Scotland. The Scottish Government estimates that 760 people will be affected by the policy and will not meet the exemptions criteria, so they will have to apply to the Scottish welfare fund. Universal credit is expected to be rolled out from November this year to March 2018 in Aberdeenshire and Angus, the area that I represent, and it is estimated that 23 people in Angus will be affected, while 20 will be affected in Aberdeenshire. That is 43 people too many and 43 people whom we cannot let fall through the net.

The policy will also cost more than it saves if it results in an increase in homelessness. Maree Todd made a vital point that we should remember: only 140 young people need to become homeless for the costs of the policy to outweigh any potential savings identified. The latest cuts to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds are simply part of a wider attack that the Tories have launched against young people across the UK. Thankfully, under the Scottish Government, there has been some protection in Scotland against the worst effects of the policy.

We can look at the overall picture of what the Tories have done for young people since they came to power. They have denied young people aged 16 and 17 the right to vote that exists in Scotland. That means that young people here who had the chance to have a say in the council elections two weeks ago are now in the bizarre position of not being able to vote in the general election five weeks later; and no doubt the result of that election will punish their generation for another generation to come. Further, a young person in the UK can do the same job as someone older than them but not be entitled to the same pay because of their age—they are not entitled to the living wage.

Young people also have to pay tuition fees to attend university. As of autumn this year, they can be charged up to £9,250 to attend university in England, with degree debt in England the highest in the English-speaking world. Those who graduate do so with an average debt of around £44,000 and those from the poorest backgrounds can expect to graduate with in excess of £50,000-worth of debt because the Tories, while increasing tuition fees, also saw fit to scrap the education maintenance allowance, which 620,000 young people were dependent on.

The amount of debt that is taken on by students in England has more than doubled in the past 10 years because of a Tory policy that is burdening an entire generation and forcing them to begin their lives saddled with debt. The housing benefit policy is the latest in a long line of Tory policies that are ill-conceived and will ultimately cause harm. The policy is nothing more than another assault on young people, which we in Scotland are again forced to mitigate. The picture for young people in the UK is pretty bleak and I urge all young people to remember all the points that have been raised about that when they walk into the polling booth on 8 June.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It

is strange that we have debates on welfare in this Parliament that regard changes to the welfare system as bolts from the blue that are last-minute, nasty Tory broadsides designed to catch out the needy. [

Interruption

.] I thought that some members would like that one.

That is the narrative, but it is entirely wrong. We need to have more considered discussions on such issues in this Parliament.

Before I turn to the issue at hand, raised by Ben Macpherson, who omits to say in his motion that the change concerned applies only to job seekers, I will establish some facts. The removal from last month of entitlement to the housing element of universal credit from young people aged 18 to 21, with some exceptions, was first trailed by David Cameron in 2012 and announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, in his summer 2015 budget. Therefore, we have known for nearly two years that this removal of entitlement was definitely going to happen.

The policy’s stated rationale is to

“ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home.”

David Cameron said in 2014:

“I want us to end the idea that aged 18 you leave school, go and leave home, claim unemployment benefit and claim housing benefit. We should not be offering that choice to young people. We should be saying to people you should be earning or learning.”

Those are laudable aims, because nobody benefits long term from a life on benefits.

Of course, there will be exemptions from the policy, as there should be. The regulations specify the categories of young people who will be exempt, including those who might not be able to return home to live with their parents, certain claimants who have been in work for six months prior to making a claim and young people who are parents. Those in temporary accommodation are also exempt.

Nobody who is currently in receipt of payments will lose out; this relates only to new entrants into the system. The aim is to ensure that young people do not slip straight from school into a life on benefits. If any member thinks that that would be a positive destination, they should stick their hand up now—nobody has done so.

Young adults who are affected by the policy will be expected to return to the parental home or to enter employment. The UK Government envisages that the new youth obligation will help young people into work, as Adam Tomkins mentioned. In the first year, about a thousand people will be affected UK-wide and only a few hundred will be affected in Scotland.

Earlier, I called for a considered discussion, which means all of us retreating from knee-jerk, partisan positions of the sort that are espoused by the Ben Macphersons of this world—I see Ben Macpherson smiling, which is good.

I want homelessness to be reduced or even eradicated.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

No, I will not.

As the Scottish Conservatives’ housing spokesman, I feel passionately about the issue. As a party, we signed up to Shelter’s call for a national homelessness strategy earlier this year. The SNP is the only major party not to have done so, so SNP members should not lecture us on homelessness.

I am involved in the Local Government and Communities Committee’s inquiry into homelessness. The causes of homelessness are complex and there are no easy solutions.

I was at a conference this week in Glasgow that was organised by Crisis, which was formed 50 years ago by the Conservative MP lain Macleod. It behoves us all to retreat from the kind of hysterical language that is used in the motion and to deal with the subject in a serious and considered way, so that organisations such as Crisis do not exist in another 50 years.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Jeane Freeman to respond to the debate. We have a bit of time, so I could give extra time for interventions.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I thank Ben Macpherson for bringing the motion for debate. I am happy for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Government.

Like Mr Tomkins—on what will probably be our only point of agreement in the debate—I record my disappointment that neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat colleagues chose to join us for what is an important discussion. That was it, Mr Tomkins—it will not get any better than that.

The Scottish Government shares many of the concerns that have been raised by members today about the removal of support for housing costs from 18 to 21-year-olds. In the manifesto on which we were elected to be the Government in Scotland, we made it clear that we wished to retain housing benefit for those in that age group and who are affected by the UK Government’s policy—I will come to that in a moment. I assure Mr Macpherson that we will continue to pursue the manifesto commitment on which we were elected and, in particular, to pursue the UK Government on its requirement to honour the Smith agreement, as we do.

I absolutely refute the notion, which we have heard from Conservative colleagues, that a life on benefits is somehow a choice that young people consciously, deliberately and willingly make at the age of 18, as all the evidence points in the other direction. If any Tory member took the time and trouble to talk to young people who are affected, they would know that those young people—like young people the length and breadth of Scotland—have ability and talent but face many challenges. They want to be able to live an independent life, which, in my world, a Government should assist them to do, not actively try to prevent them from doing.

What a contradictory policy we have here—a policy under which the DWP will not allow an individual support to sustain their current tenancy, but if that individual then becomes homeless and, under our legislation, is protected with temporary accommodation, they get that support back. There is no sense in that in terms of either logic or cost.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

In a moment.

I cannot understand what the point of the policy is. Mr Tomkins said that we should remember the narrow scope of the policy and the long list of exemptions. I remember both, and I am forced to wonder what the point of the policy is.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

rose—

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Just a second.

Is the policy based on the notion not that the benefit system is there for all of us in times of need and is something that we all collectively contribute to—something that is part of a social contract between Government and people, like the national health service—which is this Government’s view, but, rather, is something from which we should ensure that scroungers, the workshy and those who want to live off the state, and of whom we must be suspicious, get as little as possible, and so we must curtail their benefit? Is that the ideology? I think so—is that right, Mr Tomkins?

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the minister think that the taxpayer should pay the rent of an unemployed 18 to 21-year-old? If she does, when will she use her powers under section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998

to introduce such a benefit into Scots law?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I do not accept for one second the binary notion that there is one bunch of taxpayers who are working hard, contributing and gaining little while looking after, shoring up and, in some charitable way, looking after another lot of people who are scroungers and workshy. I do not buy into that notion at all. If Mr Tomkins had listened for one moment to yesterday’s debate on disability, he would understand that it is that very fundamental ideological difference between us that produces people who feel stigmatised, vulnerable and afraid to go and ask for what they are entitled to.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Should the taxpayer pay the rent or not?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am getting to that. I go back to my point, which is that social security is an investment that we make, collectively, in ourselves and each other.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will you answer my question?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Neither you nor I, Mr Tomkins, know the day when we might need that financial support, so I do not accept what the member says. On the point about when we will deal with the matter in Scotland, let me say this: do not come here and quote legal advice when there is no reason at all why the UK Government could not have introduced the changes that it seeks in a manner that would have allowed us to retain the benefit for those 18 to 21-year-olds.

The two Governments, both with manifesto commitments, came at the matter from opposing sides. We were prepared to honour and respect the UK Government’s

democratic right; unfortunately, it did not do that for us. As Mr Wightman said, we have been forced into using an interim, not person-centred, unnecessarily bureaucratic solution called the Scottish welfare fund. I give Mr Wightman an assurance that there will be additional funds to support that, because we are determined that, while we argue with the UK Government about its approach and the intransigence with which it has dealt with us, we will not see any young person in Scotland suffer.

I can also assure members that, unlike the UK Government, we do not walk away when do not get our own way; we stay and come up with alternatives. We suggested other person-centred solutions, only to be met with a Westminster version of what has just been shown—contempt, ignorance and a failure to recognise the democratic mandate of this Parliament and this Government to do the job that we are here to do. We will keep going with the argument and we have put mitigation in place, but let me be clear: the current UK Government’s position in relation to 18 to 21-year-olds is not acceptable.

I am grateful to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and officials for the work that they have done to ensure that we have an interim solution. Draft guidance has been written and will be consulted on in the coming weeks. After the election in June, we will continue to engage with whichever UK Government is there to pursue this and other specific areas around the benefit cap, in relation to which the current UK Government continues to set its face against the democratic powers of this Parliament and this Government to pursue its agenda.

We will use the powers that we have at our disposal. As we use the Scottish welfare fund, we will make sure that we learn the lessons that we need to learn. If we cannot enact our manifesto commitment through universal credit, we will consider the alternatives, which might include using our powers for a new benefit.

I am certain that whatever long-term solution we come up with will be less adequate than our being able simply to use the flexibilities in universal credit and the UK Government accepting the better, more person-centred approach of allowing the Scottish Government to meet its manifesto commitment and retain the policy for 18 to 21-year-olds—rather than continuing to penalise and stigmatise young people in our country, whom we should be giving the best possible start.

13:56 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Social Security Agency

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it reached its estimate of £150 million annual running costs for the new social security agency. (S5O-00979)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The executive summary of the outline business case for the social security agency Scotland, which was published on the Scottish Government website on 27 April 2017, contains a full explanation. Further detail is also contained in the main content of the document at chapters 2, 5 and 9, and in technical annexe B.

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

I forgot to say my usual mantra calling for short questions and short answers. I accept that that is required.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In the Finance and Constitution Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution conceded that the cost of the delivery of the 11 devolved benefits will be greater than the present cost. When quizzed by my colleague Adam Tomkins on the matter, Derek Mackay was unable to elaborate on the increased cost.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Quickly, please.

Ross Thomson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Has the Scottish Government quantified exactly what the increased cost will be?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Constitution conceded no such thing. Of course, what he did and did not say in that committee is in the

Official Report

.

The agency’s running costs will be around 5 per cent of what we spend on the benefits. The comparable figure for the Department for Work and Pensions is 6.3 per cent. The running costs are estimates from a cost model using activity-based information from the DWP. In a recent statement, Jeane Freeman, the Minister for Social Security, said that the figures would of course be further refined in relation to the nuanced and detailed design of the system, any policy choices that we choose to make and the location of the agency.

The fact that our running costs are estimated at around 5 per cent shows that our figures are credible, that they are compatible with similar United Kingdom Government figures and that they represent value for money.

Dangerous Buildings (Guidance)

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review the guidance on what constitutes a dangerous building. (S5O-00980)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government does not provide guidance on what constitutes a dangerous building. Local authorities are responsible, under the Buildings (Scotland) Act 2003, for dealing with buildings that they consider to be dangerous. Local authorities also have powers to deal with buildings that they consider to be defective.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Has the Scottish Government made any consideration with regard to buildings that, although they are not deemed to be dangerous, are derelict and in a state of major disrepair, and need security monitoring to, for example, keep out children who are putting themselves at risk? Although I appreciate—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is fine; you have asked your question.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

As I said in my initial answer, it is up to local authorities to decide whether a building is dangerous or defective and to take the actions that they feel are necessary, using the legislation that is in place to enable them to do so.

Devolved Benefits (Uptake)

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it will encourage the uptake of all of the devolved benefits to which people might be entitled. (S5O-00981)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Social security is a human right, and we are determined to support everyone to claim all the benefits to which they are entitled. There is a range of reasons why people do not claim such support. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that the United Kingdom Government has taken no recent action to improve take-up. Ensuring that everyone receives the financial support to which they are entitled is one of the first steps towards putting dignity and respect at the heart of social security in Scotland.

We have made a clear commitment to do all that we can to maximise family income, which is a key method of tackling poverty. As part of that commitment, over the course of this parliamentary session, we will deliver a programme of activity to increase the uptake of social security by encouraging people to exercise their rights and claim the benefits that they are due.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Adam Tomkins is next.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

W

hat assessment has the Government made of the effectiveness of the—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I beg your pardon—I am whizzing on. Alison Johnstone is quite right to frown at me. You can see that I am out of practice at this. Alison Johnstone has the next question.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Today, the Scottish Parliament becomes responsible for a range of benefits, including the disability living allowance and the carers allowance. Many of the benefits have complicated interactions with one another, making it even more difficult for people to understand their entitlement. When someone does not—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, no—let us have a question.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

What work is under way to review how the benefits that are being devolved interact with one another, and what steps are being taken to make this complicated system easier to navigate?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We know that the current system is complex. It is important for the Scottish Government to help people to navigate their way through that complexity. That includes ensuring that our new social security agency has a duty to maximise incomes. The role of the Scottish Government experience panels is very important, as it will help us to know and evaluate what works in encouraging people to take up the benefits to which they are entitled, whether those are reserved or devolved benefits.

As I said in my closing remarks in yesterday’s debate, we will have a round-table discussion with our partners in local government to ensure that the work that we do over the piece in this parliamentary session is consistent and that it is both broad brush and targeted at people who need advice.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Yesterday, I was confused with Jeremy Balfour and now I have been confused with Alison Johnstone—that is probably progress.

What assessment has the Government made of the effectiveness of the campaign that it ran in March, which involved a week-long series of radio and press adverts to highlight the range of support that is available to claimants?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

That is a fair question. As the member will know, the campaign in March was just phase 1. It was a broad-brush campaign to support the general take-up of benefits. The press activity had the potential to reach more than a million people and the radio activity had the potential to reach 1.3 million people. We know that Citizens Advice Scotland has had an increase in casework inquiries and website activity. Work to produce a more detailed, nuanced analysis of the campaign’s impact is still going on.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

What is the value of the unclaimed devolved benefits that the UK Government has failed to encourage the take-up of?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is quite difficult to get accurate information in relation to benefits that will be devolved. However, for benefits over the piece—for income replacement benefits and child tax benefits in particular—we know that more than half a million individuals and families are not claiming what they are entitled to. That puts an onus on the Scottish Government to do more, but it also begs big questions about what the UK Government is doing to increase the uptake of the benefits that it oversees and about the tax system.

Carers Allowance (Disability Poverty)

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been made of the impact that an increased carers allowance would have on disability poverty. (S5O-00982)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The aim of the increased carers allowance, as the member knows, is to recognise the vital contributions that carers make to society. We are currently assessing the impact of the policy on other groups, including disabled people—along with other policies—through our equality impact assessments.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Now that both the powers of top-up and the powers to make changes to disability benefits have been devolved and indeed have commenced, we have the power to legislate to improve the lives of carers across Scotland. I take a keen interest in the issue as a co-convener of the cross-party group for carers. Before we get to—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, no—before you go on, I want a question.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Right. Before we get to carers, we—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, I want a question.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Can the minister give carers in Scotland greater clarity about the payment of the increased carers allowance, including when and how it will be paid and whether she has considered the possibility of backdating it to September to reflect when the powers of top-up were devolved?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As the member rightly says, we have to bring the legislation to Parliament to give us the legal framework on which to make those additional payments in this area and in others. We will do so before the summer recess.

We are considering how we will make those additional top-up payments. If possible, we will do that sooner than we are due to take on full responsibility for the whole carers allowance. In that consideration, we will use the views of our experience panels and our expert group. Of course, if the cross-party group has additional comments that it wants to draw to my attention, I would be happy to receive them.

Benefits Uptake Campaign

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

5. To ask the Scottish Government by what date the next phase of its benefit uptake campaign will begin, how long the phase will run, and who the target audience will be. (S5O-00983)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We will have a rolling programme of activity over the course of the parliamentary session. The next phase will focus on young carers. During carers week, which runs from 12 to 18 June, we will take action to ensure that young carers are aware of the benefits available to them, and to encourage take-up. We are also working in partnership with Young Scot, Carers Trust Scotland and a wide range of stakeholders that will support that activity.

We all know that carers and young carers play a crucial role in our society, so it is vital that we support them in looking after the people for whom they care, which can often be in challenging circumstances.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about young carers. She will be aware of my disappointment about the level of investment in the previous benefits uptake campaign, which I recently raised with the Minister for Social Security.

Across Scotland, up to £2 billion in benefits are going unclaimed, including half a billion pounds-worth of tax credits for more than 100,000 Scots. Has the cabinet secretary considered options for co-location of benefits services? For every pound that is spent advising, it is estimated that £39 is delivered in additional benefits. Will she use the general practice contract process to consider general practices as places for possible co-location of benefits advice services?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Mr Sarwar is, of course, aware that in phase 1 of the campaign we made a modest value-for-money investment. Our investment in benefit take-up campaigns will increase over this session of Parliament and will amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Co-location is an important issue. We could pick up that topic in our round-table discussions with our partners from local government and elsewhere on how we can work together to increase take-up. Some of the issues that Anas Sarwar raises are for health ministers, whom we could ask to discuss the matter with people who engage with general practitioners.

The member’s point on co-location and people being able to get advice where they access other public services was well made. That features in the work that we are doing in and around social security, as well as in our advice services review.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm how much benefit uptake campaigns have cost thus far? What has the Scottish Government done to ensure value for money in their delivery?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We are working hard to ensure delivery and value for money. There was a modest investment of £6,000 in the broad-brush phase 1 of the campaign. As I said in my answer to Mr Sarwar, that investment will increase to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Scottish Government is prepared to invest in benefit take-up campaigns because we have half a million households and families that are not getting what they are entitled to, which begs the question why there is no activity from the United Kingdom Government.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

What work is the cabinet secretary aware of that the UK Government is carrying out to increase uptake of benefits to which people are entitled but are not claiming?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am not aware of any recent work that has been undertaken by the UK Government to increase benefit uptake. That is disappointing but, perhaps, not unsurprising.

Planning Appeals

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many planning appeals determined under ministerial direction in the last year have been contrary to local development plans. (S5O-00984)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

In the past year, nine planning appeals were determined under ministerial direction. Seven of the appeals determined were for development contrary to the relevant development plan and, of those, two were approved.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I hope that the minister acknowledges that public confidence in the planning system will be low where communities have spent years working on local development plans only to have decisions that were in line with those plans overturned. Why has it taken so long to determine the controversial appeal on the Park of Keir development, given that it has been nine months since the public inquiry concluded and nearly five months since the report landed on the minister’s desk?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

That is a complex planning application to which ministers are giving full and proper consideration. Every effort is being made to issue a decision as soon as possible.

Scottish Church Census 2016

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish church census 2016, which estimates that the number of churchgoers will have more than halved between 2000 and 2025. (S5O-00985)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Freedom of religion and of the choice to worship is an important right in our society. The S

cottish church census paints a useful picture of how that right is being exercised. Although it is not for the Scottish Government to express a view on how individuals choose to exercise their faith, we will continue to engage with Scotland’s different faith communities to understand their issues and to listen to their concerns. In relation to that, we would be very happy to meet the church and society council of the Church of Scotland and others to discuss the particular issues raised by the Scottish church census.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. She will be aware that the report suggests that Christian denominations are seeing falling church attendances. Given the importance of all faiths to the wellbeing of people and society, what support can the Scottish Government offer to all faith groups at this time?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Scotland is a country with a strong sense of social justice. All faith communities in Scotland, including Christian ones, play a key part in that. On the support that we give to faith communities, we support interfaith work, in which Scotland is a world leader. Interfaith dialogue and relations are crucially important to ensuring that we continue to have good community cohesion. Given the challenges that our society faces collectively, it is imperative that there is mutual understanding and respect, which we know have become more important in recent times.

Our promoting equality and cohesion fund supports interfaith work, but our broader third sector work also supports some of the social justice issues on which our faith communities are very active—a good example of which is the work that all faiths have been doing in food justice.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind everyone that I would quite like shorter answers and shorter questions. That was not a rebuke to you, Mr Gibson.

Welfare Reforms (North Ayrshire)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact of its welfare reforms on communities in North Ayrshire. (S5O-00986)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Scottish Government has repeatedly called

on the UK Government to halt its welfare reform programme. More specifically, we have called for an immediate stop to the roll-out of both personal independence payments and universal credit, as well as an end to the sanctions regime, until the issues of hardship and stress that are caused by those policies are dealt with.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

It would have been good to have had a more specific answer on North Ayrshire. However, does the minister agree with the evidence that was given to Parliament by Professor Steve Fothergill of

Sheffield Hallam University,

that Tory social security cuts have

“no relationship with employment growth”

and that the evidence

“provides little support for the view that welfare reform is having important and positive impacts on the labour market in Scotland”?

Does she acknowledge that £540 per working-age adult is being taken from the North Ayrshire economy as a result of those reforms?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was a very long question.

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I acknowledge that figure. The figures that I have seen range from £380 per person to £540 per person in North Ayrshire being removed as a result of the welfare reforms. That is, of course, part of the £1 billion that has been removed by the UK Government from people in Scotland in the welfare reforms that have been and will be introduced between 2015 and 2020, on top of the £1.4 billion that had already been taken up to 2015. I agree with Kenneth Gibson that there is no sustainable evidence that any of the welfare reforms are reducing the national debt—which is increasing—or assisting more people into employment.

Whitehill Incinerator (Planning Consent)

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

9. I draw members’ attention to my registered interests as a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and as a former South Lanarkshire councillor.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will withdraw the planning consent that it issued in August 2015 for an incinerator facility at Whitehill in Hamilton. (S5O-00987)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish ministers do not propose to use their revocation powers in that case.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for his short answer, but it will come as no surprise to him that I am disappointed by it and that my constituents will also be disappointed, and very angry. Given that the Presiding Officer wants short questions, I simply ask the minister this: why?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

When I met Ms Lennon last year, I pointed out that revocation of planning permission would in the first instance be a matter for South Lanarkshire Council. Ms Lennon has already pointed out that she was a member of the council at that point, so I wonder whether during her tenure there she moved for revocation of the planning application.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

Incinerator capacity is projected to increase 12 times in the next five years, which means that councils might be contracted to burn and recycle the same waste. Clearly that cannot happen, so will the Scottish Government consider a moratorium on new incinerator construction?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

As Maurice Golden is well aware, it would be ill considered for me as planning minister to talk about applications that might be forthcoming. As for the general policy on energy from waste, his question would be best directed to the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform.

Access to Elected Office Fund (General Election)

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

11. To ask the Scottish Government whether there are plans for the access to elected office fund Scotland to be open to disabled people wishing to be nominated for the 2017 general election. (S5O-00989)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Because all aspects of election to the House of Commons are reserved, the Scotland Act 2016 prohibits us from using our fund to assist disabled candidates in the general election. The United Kingdom equivalent of the fund ended in 2015 when the Conservative Party came to power, and repeated calls to reopen it have gone unheeded.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Given the fund’s success at the most recent local elections in helping 39 disabled people to take part, 12 of whom were ultimately elected, does the minister agree that such funding levels the playing field between disabled and non-disabled candidates? Will she join me in calling on the UK Government to reopen the equivalent UK fund?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

More important than what Mr Beattie or I might say is the fact that candidates who used our fund to stand in the most recent local council elections and organisations including Inclusion Scotland, which monitors and delivers the fund on our behalf, say that the fund significantly levels the playing field. It is proving to be successful, and we will continue it for the Holyrood elections. As we said yesterday, we are looking at how we might use the fund and its approach in other areas of public life, and I am happy to continue calling on the UK Government to follow our example.

Building Works (Community Protection)

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

12. To ask the Scottish Government what safeguards are in place to protect communities that are in close proximity to extensive building works. (S5O-00990)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

A range of safeguards is in place to protect communities from the impact of extensive building works in their vicinity, including planning, environmental health, building standards and environmental protection regulations.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

I have been contacted by a constituent in Edinburgh who lives in close proximity to the former Donaldson’s school, which is undergoing extensive building works, with regard to concerns about dust pollution and adverse effects on people’s health in the surrounding area. Will the minister commit to looking into the issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport and those in other Government departments to find a solution to the problem?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I suggest that Mr Lindhurst should contact the City of Edinburgh Council and get it to check what is going on at the site. I imagine that that would help his constituent, given that the council has the ability to take action if anything improper is going on at the site.

Affordable Housing (North-east Scotland)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

13. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to increase the availability of affordable housing in the north-east. (S5O-00991)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We continue to make significant increases to our investment in building more affordable housing in the north-east. In 2017-18, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council were allocated £12 million and £19 million respectively for their affordable housing programmes, which in itself equates to approximately double the resources that were allocated in 2015-16. Moreover, the Aberdeen city deal includes a £20 million infrastructure funding commitment from the Scottish Government to unlock housing sites and five-year certainty on £130 million of affordable housing grant.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As the minister knows, high house prices in the north-east have an impact on whether vacant posts in the public sector can be filled. Are there any on-going schemes to prioritise the availability of affordable homes for those who work in the public sector?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government has provided an additional £8 million to support a 124-unit key worker housing project on surplus public sector land at the former Craiginches prison site in Aberdeen. That project is due for completion in March 2018, and public sector workers who provide an essential service—national health service staff and teachers in particular—will benefit from that offer.

The Scottish Government-funded 100-unit housing project at Burnside in Aberdeen is also in the pipeline, and NHS staff will also be prioritised there.

I am sure that Ms Martin was heartened—as I was—to see in Inverurie last week the new social housing development by Grampian Housing Association, which I think was welcomed by all the new tenants.

Benefits Assessments (Third Sector)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

14. To ask the Scottish Government what response it has received from the third sector to the comment by the Minister for Social Security that “the private sector should not be involved in assessments for Scotland’s benefits”. (S5O-00992)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

We have received positive responses from bodies across the third sector, including the Poverty Alliance, the Child Poverty Action Group, Inclusion Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, and a number of positive responses directly from individuals with disabilities. Our statement was also welcomed by the Public and Commercial Services Union.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the minister believe that the model of assessment that the Scottish Government will set up will be better able to deal with claimants’ mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions than the reserved United Kingdom system currently does?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

That is certainly our intention. We are working with the disability and carers benefits expert advisory group, with the assistance in particular of Dr Alan McDevitt, who chairs the British Medical Association’s Scottish general practitioners committee, to work with other health professionals and those in the social care sector to devise a much quicker and fairer assessment process that will allow better decisions to be made first time and will allow us to use those with the relevant clinical, medical or social care experience to conduct any assessments that might be required that are relevant to the individual’s condition. Our intention is that that will address the particular deficiencies in the current system, particularly in relation to mental health, fluctuating conditions and other areas in which people from the expert and experienced panels and in our consultation made it clear to us that they wanted improvements.

Scottish Welfare Fund

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

15. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent figures that suggest the Scottish welfare fund has supported more than 241,000 households, with awards totalling £124 million. (S5O-00993)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

It is correct that, since 2013-14, we have invested £190 million in the Scottish welfare fund and helped more than 241,000 individual households, a third of which include children. Providing that vital lifeline for people in Scotland is the right thing to do for any caring and compassionate Government. However, it is wrong that people in Scotland and the Scottish Government have to continue to use our resources to paper over the increasing levels of hardship and crisis that people in Scotland face as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s ideologically driven welfare agenda.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Does the minister share my concern that that number of households and amount of money will rise because of the six-week minimum built-in delay in first payments under the UK Government’s universal credit system?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

There is growing evidence that the built-in minimum six-week delay in the first payment of universal credit is producing additional hardship. I know that my colleague Maree Todd from the Highlands has raised that on a number of occasions.

On Monday, I will talk to folks in Inverness about precisely that problem.

The delay produces additional pressures on our welfare fund, and we have allocated specific additional resource to assist in addressing that. However, the bottom line remains that the problem lies at the source. That is the UK Government’s welfare agenda and its cuts, which it tells us are there to help with the sound management of public finances, although the public debt continues to rise and I believe that it is now about £1.8 trillion.

Child Tax Credit Changes

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

16. To ask the Scottish Government how many households in Scotland will be affected by the changes to child tax credits that were introduced on 6 April 2017. (S5O-00994)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government remains deeply opposed to the United Kingdom Government’s two-child tax credits cap. By 2020-21, around 50,000 Scottish households will be negatively affected, and the impact will fall on those who can least afford it, thereby pushing more and more families into poverty.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

What response, if any, has the Scottish Government had from the UK Government to the Scottish Parliament’s decisive vote opposing the two-child cap and the rape clause?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I have to advise members that we have had no response at all from the UK Government. As we all know, the rape clause is a fundamental violation of human rights. It is disgraceful that, despite serious concerns being raised in the chamber and by a wide range of organisations, including Rape Crisis Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and the Royal College of Nursing, the UK Government refuses to reverse that shameful policy.

Universal Credit Roll-out

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

17. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has received a response from the United Kingdom Government to its request to halt the roll-out of universal credit in Scotland following reports that the new system is pushing more people into hardship and debt. (S5O-00995)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Regrettably,

the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not respond directly to the request by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities to halt the roll-out of universal credit. He sent a five-page report extolling the virtues of universal credit, which confirmed that the United Kingdom Government has no intention of halting the roll-out.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister will be aware, universal credit is causing real hardship to individuals in the Highlands. In addition, arrears are causing real hardship to the local council, and housing associations find themselves in the unenviable position of pursuing tenants through the courts for debt that is not of their own making.

Does the minister agree that the situation is completely unacceptable and must be halted?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Yes, I do. The evidence is stacking up by the day that the roll-out of universal credit, and in particular the built-in six-week delay—for which I cannot yet find any reasonable or credible explanation—is causing additional hardship for individuals.

We will aim, with the support of the Department for Work and Pensions, to apply our particular flexibilities, which will allow for the direct payment of rent to landlords and the choice to make twice-weekly payments. However, even those measures will not get us over the six-week delay.

Again, we ask the UK Government to seriously consider halting the roll-out of universal credit until the serious hardship issues that it is imposing on families in Scotland are considered properly.

Atos Healthcare (Meetings)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

18. To ask the Scottish Government when its officials last met Atos Healthcare. (S5O-00996)

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Scottish Government

social security officials met with Atos Healthcare on 5 April this year to obtain an understanding of how Atos views the personal independence payment assessment process as it currently operates in Scotland. There are no plans to meet with Atos again.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will the Scottish Government at this stage rule out any involvement—

any involvement—with Atos in the design and delivery of the new Scottish social security system?

Jeane Freeman (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I believe that I have already done so in my statement to Parliament on the new social security agency. The Government made it very clear in that statement that we see no place for private sector companies in the assessment of benefits.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I come to question 19. The member is not in the chamber, but a good reason for her absence will no doubt be given to the Presiding Officer.

Question 20 is from John Mason.

Local Government Elections

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

20. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the outcome of the local government elections. (S5O-00998)

I congratulate you on getting to question 20, Presiding Officer. I was not particularly anticipating that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

One thing that you must never do in here is take things for granted, Mr Mason.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Absolutely right.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish ministers congratulate all the councillors who were elected and welcome the role that they fulfil for their communities. We are delighted that the local government elections were conducted successfully and that the turnout, at 46.9 per cent, was higher than the 39.6 per cent turnout in 2012. We look forward to working with Scotland’s democratically elected councils to take forward our priorities for the people of Scotland.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Considerable effort was put in to encourage people to mark their ballot papers 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on. However, on looking at a

number of papers that were spoiled, it appeared to me that a lot of them had either two or three Xs on them for the parties that had put up multiple candidates. Does the minister have any suggestions on how we can tackle that problem through education or in some other way?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Electoral Commission already runs information campaigns to inform voters about how to cast their vote. In particular, before any election, a leaflet is delivered to every household that gives people detailed guidance on how to cast their vote at that particular poll. In addition, an explanation of how to vote is sent out with every postal ballot pack, and large-print explanatory notices are exhibited in every polling station, so information on how to vote is available wherever a ballot paper is being completed, whether that is in the home or at a polling station.

Anyone who is unsure about how to vote can contact the returning officer’s office to ask for advice, and polling station staff are also available to help if necessary.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The SNP got 32 per cent of the vote—the same as in 2012. It has flatlined. Labour was down on vote share and number of seats, but—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would like a question rather than a party political broadcast.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that, with an extra 161 seats—up 12 per cent—the real winners were the Scottish Conservatives?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that I can guess your answer, Mr Stewart, but go ahead.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

No, I do not agree. [

Laughter

.] There was only one winner in last week’s Scottish council elections, and that was the SNP. We had the largest number of votes cast and the largest number of councillors and, of course, we are the largest party in 16 councils and joint largest in three others. We won in the four main cities.

Let us be honest. There can only be one winner in elections. Last week, the winner was not the Scottish Conservative Party and it was certainly not the Scottish Labour Party. The party that polled the most was the SNP.

Fisheries

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-05603, in the name of Peter Chapman, on fisheries.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this significant topic and

highlight that we in the Conservative Party in this Parliament have a positive, forward-looking plan for a more prosperous United Kingdom and Scottish fishing industry following our departure from the European Union. Our positive and optimistic plan is in stark contrast to that of the Scottish National Party, which, once more, has adopted its standard pessimistic and defeatist approach. We are the party that understands the wishes and aspirations of the vast majority of the people in the fishing industry in Scotland, be they skippers, deck hands, processors or merchants, and we have a positive vision of a prosperous, sustainable, expanding and environmentally friendly industry going forward.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at this time.

The SNP, on the other hand, has nothing to offer other than more of the same. Under its plans, we would remain shackled to the common fisheries policy—

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

No, no.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

—which is seen by our fishermen as nothing short of a total disaster. The SNP wants to continue to tie us to a system that has been in force for decades—

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

No.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is a system that has resulted—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Just a minute, Mr Chapman. Mr Stevenson, you will be speaking later, and you will have every opportunity to make your views known.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

It is a system that has resulted in persistent failure and has caused nothing but frustration, resentment and distress for those involved.

Let us be clear about what the industry wants and expects from our politicians. I voted to remain in the European Union in the referendum, and I have made no secret of that fact. Indeed, I took some criticism from skippers in the north-east for my stance because, almost to a man, they voted to come out of the EU. They want out of the EU and the CFP, and they want control over our exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles from our shores.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Given that the EU single market has 500 million people in it and is a key export market for our seafood, with seafood exports being worth £601 million, does Mr Chapman believe that we should continue to have access to that market?

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I totally agree. We will have access to it. Our fish is in huge demand in Europe, and the buyers want that to continue.

Skippers want out of the EU and the CFP, and they want control over our exclusive economic zone out to 200 miles from our shores. Those are three very clear and simple elements that we in the Conservative party intend to deliver. What can the SNP deliver for our fishing communities? We know that it is desperately trying to engineer a second independence referendum—

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

Oh, come on. The Tories are obsessed with independence.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member give way?

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment.

SNP members seem to be denying that they want another independence referendum. Thankfully, it looks increasingly unlikely that the SNP would win that but, should that happen, the SNP would immediately reapply to join the European Union, taking us straight back into the detested CFP. However, the SNP has failed to make that clear in its amendment. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Right—that is enough banging on tables and barracking. I want to hear a debate, not a rammy.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Out of touch though the SNP is with fishing communities, even it knows that rejoining the CFP would be hugely unpopular, so what does it do? It spins a line that, on the way in, it would renegotiate the CFP and somehow get a better and fairer deal. Not a chance. I have a letter from the EU fishing commissioner Karmenu Vella, which clearly states that any new country accessing the EU must accept the CFP in its entirety. There is no way that the SNP will be able to influence or opt out of that treaty—no ifs, no buts, no renegotiation.

Where does the SNP go from here? All that it can do now is smear and scaremonger and suggest that the UK Government will sell out the fishing industry during exit negotiations. The First Minister tried that tactic just last week. After getting her hands on a private letter from Andrea Leadsom to the leader of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, Bertie Armstrong, she deliberately tried to confuse and misconstrue the content of the letter, tweeting joyfully that here was the evidence of a sell-out. Of course, it backfired spectacularly when the man the letter was written to—the said Bertie Armstrong—retorted that he was perfectly satisfied with the UK’s negotiating stance and indeed believed that the letter, if read in its entirety, was very robust and explicit in stating that the UK will come out of the CFP and will have control out to 200 miles. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, Mr Chapman, but Mr Ross and the cabinet secretary are having a private debate while you are trying to speak. That is not appropriate.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I totally agree.

That was game, set and match to Ms Leadsom, and it left Nicola Sturgeon looking desperate, misleading and downright wrong. The way forward is clear. As an independent country out of the EU, the UK, under international law passed in 1982 and backed by a United Nations convention, can take control of its waters out to 200 miles.

Now, that does not mean that foreign boats will never fish our waters again. However, it means that they will fish under our rules and regulations, and that we will be in control—and that is a huge prize.

That is the sea of opportunity that our fishermen welcome. It will address the unjust situation that exists at the moment, whereby 60 per cent of the fish that are caught in UK waters are caught by foreign vessels. Some 650,000 tonnes of fish, worth £400 million, are caught by EU boats in our waters every year. In comparison, our boats catch only 90,000 tonnes of fish in other EU waters, worth a mere £100 million. To put it another way, between 2012 and 2014, EU boats caught half the demersal fish, two thirds of the pelagic fish and almost all the industrial fish that were caught in our 200-mile exclusive zone. No one can argue that that is a fair division.

The other strand of the disaster story that the SNP tries to spin is that we will lose the EU markets for our fish. We have heard it already. Yes, the EU market is important, and we obviously want to keep it. However, I have spoken to numerous fish processors in Peterhead and Fraserburgh who are very relaxed about keeping their markets. They argue, quite rightly, that their fish are in great demand in Europe—indeed, buyers are queueing up to get the top-quality fish that we supply, which is often unavailable elsewhere.

It is also a fact that our stance in the Brexit negotiations is to get a comprehensive free trade deal. Why should we not get a free trade deal, given that such a deal is as much to the Europeans’ benefit as it is to ours?

Iceland applied to join the EU in 2009 but withdrew its application in 2015, mainly because it would have had to join the CFP and it did not like what it saw. In June 2016, just a year ago, the Icelandic fisheries minister said:

“I would never join the European Union ... There is a life outside it, as we have proven. We have one of the biggest and one of the strongest fisheries in the world that is sustainable without any subsidies from the state. We don’t have to share this decision-making with anyone else. It would be difficult for Icelanders to control their economic and fisheries sector having the obligation to discuss it with 27 or 28 other countries.”

That is the kind of future that awaits our fishing industry when we leave the outdated, bureaucratic and unreformable European common fisheries policy. I, for one, welcome that future. [

Interruption

.]

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish fishing industry is vital to Scotland’s culture and economy, and is a bedrock of many communities across the country; recognises the opportunity that leaving the EU offers to create a fit-for-purpose and tailor-made fisheries management regime that better suits the needs of Scottish fishing; acknowledges the potential to restore control of access to UK waters, enabling a fairer distribution of fishing opportunities in the future, and believes that Scotland must not return to the common fisheries policy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not like all this banging on desks. Just stop doing it.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

When we joined the EU, a Scottish Office paper was written, which remained hidden for 30 years under the UK Official Secrets Act. What the paper said was:

“‘in the wider UK context they’—the fishermen—‘must be regarded as expendable.’”—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 25 January 2001; Vol 361, c 1138.]

That remark was first referred to in Parliament in Westminster by Alex Salmond in 2001. I was quoting from

Hansard

.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In a moment, after I have made this point. That was the true view of the UK Government when we joined the EU: that the interests of Scotland’s fishermen were expendable. It was never intended that that view would be made public, because the document was an official secret, which became public only 30 years later.

I give way to Mr Chapman, but will he apologise now, on behalf of the Scottish Tories, for that betrayal, when we were taken into the EU?

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have heard about something that happened 47 years ago, and it was not even a Government minister who said it. It is far more effective to look at what is going on now: Andrea Leadsom’s letter says that we will take back all of our waters to 200 miles. That is much more significant than quoting something that was said 47 years ago by a junior official.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I move on to what happened after that. Let us move forward into the 1980s when, under Margaret Thatcher—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry; please sit down for a minute, cabinet secretary. I had people be quiet for Mr Chapman, and people will be quiet for the cabinet secretary. I do not want to hear banging on desks; members can applaud, which is much more reasonable, if they wish—although I certainly do not expect you all to be applauding the cabinet secretary.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

They can bang on the desks, but they cannot undo history. They do not have the guts to apologise for something that they must know was wrong—that is the interesting thing.

Let us move forward and provide a little bit of rudimentary education. Under Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, the UK Government signed us up to the original doomed common fisheries policy. It was the Conservatives’ heroine who took us into the common fisheries policy. [

Interruption

.] Perhaps she is not their heroine? If she is not, let me know. The Conservatives say that she is—we have that clear, then.

That was the first thing in the history lesson. John Major’s Tories then signed us up to a revised CFP in the 1990s. What did it have at its heart? It scrapped vessels and decimated livelihoods, destroying the economy and wellbeing in many of our coastal communities. Those facts are why feeling about the CFP is so strong. It is not what happened yesterday, last year or the year before—it is what has happened for decades.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Was Mrs Thatcher wrong when she took us in, and was John Major wrong when he took us into a revised policy? This is another chance for Mr Chapman to apologise—a second opportunity.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary makes the point very well that the Conservatives want to be out of the CFP. It is the SNP that wants to keep us in there. [

Applause

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Do not overdo it, please, just to make a point. I know what members are up to. I have been there, seen it and got the T-shirt.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

At least they have stopped banging the desks.

In this century, the Tories have attempted to enshrine the CFP in the European treaties. That is the fourth adminicle of evidence, which shows that the Tories, time and again, have not only supported the CFP, but taken us into it, kept us in it and then had it enshrined in the law. That is what the record is.

Let us move forward to the current time, during my period as cabinet secretary over the past year, and look at the monkfish swap issue. Last year, the UK authorities blocked for three months an international swap that would have brought in 200 tonnes—a significant amount of monkfish quota that was worth millions of pounds to many Scottish fishermen. The deal was blocked under instruction from George Eustice, a reasonable and intelligent man, because it swapped out a tiny amount of skate quota targeted by some inshore vessels in England. It took months and my personal intervention to get it through. A deal that should have taken two days took three months, during which fishermen had no choice but to dump high-value catches of monkfish.

In the EU-Norway negotiations, the UK has regularly voted for a swap package that has disadvantaged Scotland, because Scottish blue whiting quota is primarily used to secure an inward transfer of Arctic cod from Norway, of which the UK receives 47 per cent but Scotland receives zero. In 2017, for example, Scotland forfeited more than 20,000 tonnes of blue whiting to swaps worth around £4 million at 2016 prices, but gained no benefit—not even a single kilo of the Arctic cod came back.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary has used a large part of his speech to explain why the common fisheries policy is so bad. Will he now explain why his party wants to remain inside the common fisheries policy rather than respect the view of the people in coastal communities who voted to leave it and who want to stay out of it?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

That is a political assertion; it is not the reality of the matter. I have just described two examples of how, over the past year—not 30 or 40 years ago—I have sought to negotiate with George Eustice, who is a not unreasonable guy with whom I try to have a constructive relationship. On each occasion, Scotland’s interests have been betrayed. Those deals were nothing to do with the EU; they were matters entirely within the UK Government’s control.

The UK Government says that this will all change once we are outwith the EU. The Conservatives say that we will have total control, but what did George Eustice say? Back in April 2016, he said that everything would be put back on the table for discussion, including access rights. Let me quote Mr Mundell. I presume that the Conservatives support what Mr Mundell says, but I will check. He said:

“I would say the idea we would go back to a position where we were entirely in control of our own fishing is not one that is realistic.”

That is the guy whom the Conservatives want to be the secretary of state, and he says that controlling our own fishing is not a realistic scenario.

I think that my time is coming to an end. Is it too much to ask that, during the debate—if it is to be more than just knockabout—one of the Conservatives will say whether David Mundell is right? Or are they devoting this episode to the same political rhetoric and the same treachery of their track record over the past decades, which proves that they cannot be trusted with the future of Scotland?

I move amendment S5M-05603.3, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“notes that the present common fisheries policy is not delivering a sustainable fishing industry in Scotland; is disappointed at the lack of clarity from the UK Government on future funding to replace the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), its failure to guarantee tariff and customs-free exports to the EU single market and to provide assurances that EU nationals and their families working in the fishing sector may remain in Scotland; regrets that the UK Government’s White Paper makes clear its intention to allow EU boats access to Scotland's waters as of right, which would be detrimental to Scottish fishing interests; recognises the need to put sustainable development and a science-led, ecosystem approach at the heart of all marine and fisheries policies to create a viable future for fishing in Scottish waters to enable coastal communities and the marine environment to thrive, whatever the future holds; notes that fisheries are best managed at a level closest to citizens and communities, and agrees that all powers on fisheries should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament to enable the design of a management framework best suited to Scottish needs and the interests of Scotland’s fishing industry and sector, including through the commitment to a Fisheries Bill.”

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is the word “treachery” parliamentary language in the context?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

In the circumstances of this very heated debate, we should all be mindful of the language that we use and of our behaviour. For the public outside who are watching this debate on a serious issue, it behoves nobody in the chamber to have a rammy going on, with shouting, thumping of desks and so on. That does members no credit and it is often reported to me when I am out and about. I give you all that caution regarding your language and behaviour. I know that you are all passionate, but that does not excuse bad behaviour.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The motion acknowledges that the fishing community see Brexit as providing them with an opportunity. The common fisheries policy has always been a bone of contention for them, with annual negotiations based on horse trading rather than on sensible policies to manage our fishery for future generations. There is now the opportunity to devise a policy to do that. However, fishing is still a political football, as we have seen this afternoon.

The SNP are looking both ways at once, promising to rejoin the EU but come out of the CFP. That is nonsense. If we were ever to rejoin the European Union, either as part of the UK or as a separate Scotland, we would not get a pick-and-mix membership; we would be told to take it or leave it. It has proved impossible to negotiate a better CFP from within the EU, and it would be foolish to think that we could do that while begging to get back in. It is also wrong for the Conservatives to say that a hard Brexit would lead to a free trade agreement with the EU—that simply would not be the case.

Although I do not agree with Brexit, I understand the wishes of the fishing community to come out of the EU. Nevertheless, it would be wrong not to highlight the risks of leaving as well as the potential benefits. Being in the EU means that our fish can be sold in Europe without any trade tariffs or red tape. That means that it can be sold fresh in EU markets. We know that the blockades at Calais meant delays and huge losses of fish that was no longer marketable. Any delay in exporting fresh fish puts the market at risk, and I sincerely hope that such delays will not happen with Brexit.

It is clear from the Prime Minister’s statements that she understands that the EU will want access to UK fishing grounds as part of our future relationship with the EU. Our fishing grounds will become one element of a negotiation that will have lasting ramifications for the fishing industry. The future holds dangers for our fishing community, so while we talk up the opportunities, we must be alive to the risks.

We believe that, after the UK leaves the EU, repatriated responsibility for fisheries should be devolved to Scotland. That will mean negotiating fishing rights and the management of fishing stocks with other countries. Fish do not recognise borders, so we need to work collaboratively to ensure that we have a sustainable fishery. We will still be subject to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which demands the use of quotas and sustainable management. That will require us to negotiate with the EU just as we currently negotiate with non-EU countries.

Access to the single market is also necessary. The fishing community fears bureaucracy more than it fears trade tariffs because bureaucracy could delay exports, meaning that the fresh-fish market could become unreliable. That is an issue for not only our catching sector but our fish farm sector, which is often overlooked when we talk about fish supplies.

When we consider fisheries and Brexit, we would be wrong to consider the catching sector alone; we also need to consider the onshore jobs that depend on a vibrant fishing industry. Many of those jobs are in rural Scotland, where they contribute to fragile local economies. The jobs range from fish sellers and processors throughout the food chain to jobs that provide services to fishing communities—in chandleries and port infrastructure, for example. Not only are those jobs essential to local economies but they provide services to our growing sea-going tourism industry, and, without fishing, those services would disappear from our ports, making catering for the growing leisure boat market more difficult.

It is not just rural communities that will be affected. Many of our fish processing jobs—especially those that add value—are based in more urban communities that are often in areas of high deprivation. Losing that source of employment would be devastating for those communities, too.

Those urban and rural communities also need inward migration to help staff the food processing industry and keep it alive. Migrant labour is also essential for the parts of the industry that are seasonal, and being out of the EU will impact on the supply of that workforce. If it becomes onerous for those workers to gain work permits, they might go where they are more welcome, which again would impact on our industry.

We need to stop the political posturing that turns our fishing communities into pawns in a game. We need politicians to listen to the concerns of fishing communities and seize opportunities from Brexit. We need to make sure that the opportunities are realised, but we also need to guard against the pitfalls.

I move amendment S5M-05603.2, to insert at end:

“; believes that there are challenges to be overcome in order to allow Scotland's fish to be sold in European markets, including the need to ensure that import controls are not bureaucratic in order to allow them to be sold fresh into that market; understands that Scotland must also continue to negotiate management of its seas with the EU, Norway, the Faroes and Iceland to ensure that the whole of the fishery is managed sustainably, as fish know no borders, and believes that repatriated powers should be devolved.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I call Finlay Carson, to be followed by Stewart Stevenson.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The fishing industry is vital to our culture and our economy, and it is the bedrock of many communities across the country. The United Kingdom leaving the European Union offers us a real opportunity to get fishing right and to create a fisheries management regime that better suits the needs of fishermen in the UK and in Scotland. We have the opportunity to level the playing field so that more of the fish that are caught in Scottish waters are caught by Scottish fishing vessels and processed in Scottish factories, benefiting our rural communities and the wider economy.

We can stop the endless bureaucracy from Brussels and start to work more closely with our fishermen and processors towards a successful and prosperous industry that is fit for purpose and fit for the future. As elected representatives, it is our responsibility

to recognise and take hold of those opportunities and use the levers of government to create an environment that works in the best interests of the fishing industry.

What is wrong with the CFP? The fishermen are absolutely right to want out of the CFP, because it lacks any proper regional control and fails to take local factors into account when policy is determined. Its excessive bureaucracy and red tape make fishing an increasingly difficult industry to be a part of. Most important, the way in which quota is calculated is fundamentally unfair because it is based on historical catch figures that do not represent the current situation.

A recent report by Ian Napier

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please sit down, Mr Ewing.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Is the SNP standing up for the interests of Scottish fishermen? I do not think so.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the member give way?

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I will.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Is the member aware that, at the negotiations that I attended in Brussels in December, all the leaders of the Scottish fishing representative organisations recognised that, thanks to our excellent team of negotiators and our hard work, the Scottish Government achieved a very good deal? What would the Scottish Conservatives do post-Brexit to replace the £33 million from the European maritime and fisheries fund, which has been so invaluable to our fishing communities?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Carson, I will give you time back as that was a long intervention.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Thank you.

Even though that funding is very welcome, it is only worth 4 per cent of total landings at Scottish ports, and the Scottish fishing industry does not rely on handouts.

Just last month, I met a group of concerned pelagic fishermen. They are worried that Fergus Ewing has held back 12 per cent of the 2017 mackerel quota in a dispute with fishermen over the number of landings at Scotland’s ports. At 30 per cent of the total value of Scottish landings, mackerel is the most valuable fishery to Scotland.

I fully support the ambition to see more fish landed and processed in Scotland. However, holding fishermen to ransom is not the way to achieve that. Instead, the Government should look at why so many fish are landed abroad and at how we can work with the industry to increase landings in Scotland. All that we have seen from this SNP Government is bully-boy tactics.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in his final 30 seconds.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

There has been more flip-flopping from the SNP on its fishing position than from a North Sea haddock. It could be compared to a dog’s dinner or, more appropriately, a fish supper. It is misleading, disingenuous and—frankly—insulting to everybody in Scotland with an interest in seeing our fisheries prosper.

I was extremely disappointed that in its amendment the SNP refused to back a commitment to keep fishermen out of the CFP. That will be noted by our fishing communities.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but you must conclude now.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I urge every MSP to support our motion today—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Now means now. Please sit down.

Because of members’ bad behaviour, we have lost a lot of time. Speeches will all have to be kept to a very tight four minutes, but that is all members’ own fault.

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

The industry of catching

wild fish has been consistently let down by Tory policy and practice over the decades. The contrast with this SNP Government could not be more stark—then, as now. In paragraph 14a, a 1970s SNP policy leaflet talks about

“the right to impose an exclusive 100 mile limit”.

The only change that we have made has been to make it a 200-mile limit.

We are the only party to have consistently, always and invariably opposed the common fisheries policy. Donald Stewart, the then leader of the SNP, spoke in the House of Commons in 1983 against the common fisheries policy when it was a matter for debate. Alan McCartney wrote an excellent paper in the 1990s on the precise point that Finlay Carson addressed—regional control. The SNP has been engaged in those issues from the outset, and it remains engaged.

On 17 January I brought a members’ business debate to the chamber supporting the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s sea of opportunity campaign. The motion said, among other things, that it

“considers that full control over fishing in the offshore economic zone represents an opportunity to reinvigorate coastal communities”.

Two Tory actions on that day showed them once again in all their ambivalence towards our fishermen: no Tory signed the motion supporting the campaign, and Tory Prime Minister May made a speech entitled “The government’s negotiating objectives for exiting the EU”. It contained only a single reference to fishing—a reference to Spanish fishermen. There was nothing about our fishermen and nothing about our fishing industries.

On 2 February, the Tories’ white paper stated at paragraph 8.16 that it is

“in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and the EU’s fishing communities.”

That is a signal in the most unambiguous language possible that there is a deal for fishermen from other jurisdictions: we are being sold out again. At six minutes and 27 seconds into his speech, Peter Chapman confirmed that it is Tory policy that foreign vessels will continue to fish in our waters. The clear opportunity that is available, as we leave the CFP, to reclaim fishing rights in our waters is being traded away again.

If an advantage is being denied to our fishermen, there is an even graver and more disadvantageous impact looming for our processors, much of which Rhoda Grant very eloquently articulated. I will simply quote from the UK Government’s Treasury analysis of 23 May 2016, which says, at paragraph 1.15, that

“businesses that trade with the EU would be uncertain about the UK’s access to the Single Market, not knowing what restrictions could be put on their ability to trade, including tariffs, customs costs or non-tariff barriers”.

Crucially, it goes on to say that

“those that currently benefit from EU funding would not know what support if any they would receive after the UK left ... This includes ... fishermen”.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member take an intervention?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The member is in his last 30 seconds.

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

That is important for small communities around Scotland.

Just when we thought that we had escaped from the CFP, we will be hit by a Tory Government that trades away our advantage and sees trade and fiscal barriers erected. Ms Leadsom’s letter does not take any opportunity to rebut what has previously been said.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close.

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

Finally,

Boris Johnson wrote on 26 June 2016:

“The only change—and it will not come in any great rush—is that the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Stevenson—you must close.

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

That says nothing about leaving the single market.

Abandon isolation. It does not work.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are running way behind time and it will affect the other speakers within your groups if you take extra time. I call Claudia Beamish, to be followed by John Finnie, who does not have another member in his group.