Scottish Parliament, 6 March 2019

270 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Business Motions

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-16150, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 12 March 2019

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by

Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by

Ministerial Statement: Managing Scotland’s Fisheries in the Future

followed by

Scottish Government Debate: Fair Work Action Plan

followed by

Committee Announcements

followed by

Business Motions

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by

Members’ Business

Wednesday 13 March 2019

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:

Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity;

Justice and the Law Officers

followed by

Scottish Government Debate: Year of Young People 2018: A Celebration, a Chance and a Change

followed by

Business Motions

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by

Members’ Business

Thursday 14 March 2019

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister's Questions

followed by

Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Government Business and Constitutional Relations

followed by

Ministerial Statement: Update on the Impact of Brexit on the Scottish Further and Higher Education Sectors

followed by

Scottish Government Debate: Building on Scotland’s Strengths in Technology and Engineering to Become Europe’s Leading Space Nation

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

Tuesday 19 March 2019

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by

Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by

Stage 3 Proceedings: Damages (Investment Returns and Periodical Payments) (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Committee Announcements

followed by

Business Motions

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by

Members’ Business

Wednesday 20 March 2019

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:

Culture, Tourism and External Affairs;

Education and Skills

followed by

Scottish Government Business

followed by

Business Motions

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by

Members’ Business

Thursday 21 March 2019

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister's Questions

followed by

Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Health and Sport

followed by

Scottish Government Business

5.00 pm Decision Time

(b) that, in relation to any debate on a business motion setting out a business programme taken on Wednesday 13 March 2019, the second sentence of rule 8.11.3 is suspended and replaced with “Any Member may speak on the motion at the discretion of the Presiding Officer”;

(c) that, in relation to First Minister’s Questions on Thursday 14 March 2019, in rule 13.6.2, insert at end “and may provide an opportunity for Party Leaders or their representatives to question the First Minister”; and

(d) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 11 March 2019, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The next item of business is consideration of business motions S5M-16151 and S5M-16152, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the stage 2 timetables for two bills.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 be completed by 3 May 2019.

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 be completed by 22 March 2019.—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motions agreed to.

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of eight Parliamentary Bureau motions: S5M-16153 to S5M-16159 on the approval of Scottish statutory instruments, and S5M-16160 on a committee meeting at the same time as Parliament.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Asset Transfer Request (Designation of Relevant Authority) (Scotland) Order 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Continuing Care (Scotland) Amendment Order 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Early Years Assistance (Best Start Grants) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 1) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Early Years Assistance (Best Start Grants) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Funeral Expense Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Insolvency (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the INSPIRE (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that, under Rule 12.3.3B of Standing Orders, the Equalities and Human Rights Committee can meet, if necessary, at the same time as a meeting of the Parliament from 1.00pm to 1.45pm on Thursday 21 March 2019 for the purpose of taking evidence from Robert E Larzelere PhD, Professor of Parenting Research, Oklahoma State University, on the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill.—[

Graeme Dey

]

The Presiding Officer

The question on the motions will be put at decision time.

Decision Time

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of John Swinney is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Iain Gray will fall.

The first question is, that amendment S5M-16122.2, in the name of John Swinney, which seeks to amend motion S5M-16122, in the name of Alison Harris, on early years, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

Finance, Economy and Fair Work

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I advise members that the Presiding Officer has selected an urgent question, which will be taken after portfolio questions. As a consequence, decision time will be at 10 minutes past 5. A revised business programme has been issued to all members.

The first portfolio area is finance, economy and fair work. I advise members that questions 3 and 7 will be grouped together. In order to get in as many people as possible, questions and answers should be short and succinct, please.

Future of the Economy

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its assessment is of the future of the economy. (S5O-02939)

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

Scotland’s economy has continued to grow in 2018, carrying on the pattern of stronger growth over the past 18 months alongside record low levels of unemployment. The Scottish Fiscal Commission forecast that Scotland’s gross domestic product would grow further in 2019, by 1.2 per cent, assuming a relatively smooth and orderly Brexit process. However, a no-deal Brexit would put future growth at risk.

Analysis by the Scottish Government shows that a disorderly, no-deal Brexit has the potential to generate a significant economic shock that could tip the Scottish economy into recession. Depending on the scenario, there is potential for GDP to contract by between 2.5 and 7 per cent in 2019, and for the level of unemployment to increase by 100,000 people. As a responsible Government, we are continuing—and, indeed, intensifying—our work to prepare as best we can for all outcomes. We will do everything possible to prepare, but we will not be able to mitigate all the impacts of the United Kingdom Government’s approach to Brexit.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

In view of his response, I expect that the cabinet secretary

will agree that a no-deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster for the Scottish economy. Does he also agree that the Prime Minister’s deal would cause significant damage to businesses, jobs and the social fabric of Scotland—and my constituency of Stirling—and that the only way to safeguard our economy and social fabric is to remain in the single market and the customs union, or, preferably, to stay in the European Union, as 68 per cent of my constituents voted to do?

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

That was a fair analysis. On several occasions, the Prime Minister has announced in Downing Street that the choices were her deal, no deal or no Brexit. We would take no Brexit, thank you very much. Her deal is damaging to the Scottish economy, partly for the reasons that Bruce Crawford has stated, and a no-deal scenario would be particularly catastrophic. Both her deal and a no-deal exit would negatively impact the economy; the only question is to what extent and scale.

That is a further reminder that a no-deal Brexit would lead to recession. The United Kingdom Government would take us into

a recession with its eyes wide open as to the economic consequences that that would have, such as business failure, soaring unemployment and reduced support for trade and success. The Prime Minister’s deal would be equally damaging, in that it would not keep us in the single market and the customs union. The Scottish Government is concerned by that prospect and will do all that it can to avoid it. We have offered another way through, and we will prepare for every contingency, but the way out of the situation is in the UK Government’s hands.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take two supplementary questions. Shorter answers will be required if we are to get through all the questions.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last week, the cabinet secretary announced that Scotland’s economy might adopt a new currency in the event of independence. Given the potential significance of that proposal, I assume that he has made a full assessment of the financial consequences of such plans. Will he therefore confirm the level of reserves that would be required for the establishment of a new Scottish central bank? How would such reserves be funded?

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

That question is quite far away from the original one that was posed. [

Interruption

.] I am more than happy to answer it; I am just not sure that I can do so in the timescale that I have been given by the Presiding Officer.

I know the proposition that we have set out in the growth commission’s report and which I will present to the Scottish National Party’s party conference. I no longer chair the conference but I will be happy to attend it in my party capacity.

Considering that I have been asked about potential Scottish National Party policy, I will just say that this is an area where we can use the levers and tools that come with independence to make our country more prosperous and fairer. All the small advanced economies around the globe that are doing better than Scotland have only one thing that Scotland does not have—independence—and that is what we intend to get.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government’s report “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, which was published in January 2018, forecast that, by 2030, 60 per cent of the drop in Scotland’s GDP would be accounted for not by a loss of trade per se or a loss of in-migration but by a fall in productivity. Moreover, the Fraser of Allander institute wrote last year:

“Back in 2007, the Scottish Government set a target to ‘

rank in the top quartile for productivity amongst our key trading partners in the OECD by 2017

.’”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you come to your question, please?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

That target was missed, so—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you come to your question, please?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

—what meaningful steps has the Government taken to close the productivity gap?

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

I find it very interesting that Richard Leonard is trying to suggest that Brexit is not the greatest threat to Scotland’s economy. I actually agree that productivity is a challenge and an opportunity for Scotland’s economy, but the fact is that over the period of devolution we have made more progress on productivity, and have done so better, than any other part of the UK. Given that, thanks to the other unionists as well as the Conservatives, we have touched on the issue, I point out that the growth commission has been able to show how, with the powers of independence, we can enhance our productivity. That will involve people, the ability to grow our population, the ability to innovate and the ability to support our economy in the way that we cannot at present because of the straitjacket of the union that Richard Leonard supports.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Right. I want to have a quick word with members. This is not First Minister’s question time but a chance for back benchers to put questions to and get answers from Scottish Government cabinet secretaries and ministers. Can we bear that in mind for the rest of this item?

I call the very sensible Mr Tavish Scott.

Members

Oh!

Bond Finance (Restrictions on Local Authorities)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

2. I entirely endorse your sensible remarks, Presiding Officer—by which I mean, of course, your observations about the front bench.

To ask the Scottish Government whether there are restrictions on local authorities using bond finance to support investment proposals in their areas. (S5O-02940)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Derek Mackay. [

Interruption

.] Sorry—I mean the very sensible Kate Forbes.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Indeed, Presiding Officer.

It is a matter for each local authority to consider the ways in which it might want to borrow, including the use of bond finance, and the terms of that borrowing. The Local Authority (Capital Finance and Accounting) (Scotland) Regulations 2016 set out the statutory arrangements for local authority borrowing, which, in line with the prudential code, should be prudent, affordable and sustainable.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Given that Aberdeen City Council has successfully raised £415 million in bond finance to finance its magnificent new conference centre, would the minister encourage Shetland Islands Council at least to explore that capital financing mechanism to pay for the fixed links that are desperately needed to join the islands in the Shetland archipelago, not least because of the considerable pressures on capital finance that come with every Government?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

As long as councils do so in a fiscally responsible manner, we are definitely willing to explore the possibilities of using bond finance. That funding mechanism has great potential for wider use in Scotland in funding key projects, and the project in Aberdeen is a good example of how it can be used effectively.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that questions 3 and 7 will be grouped together.

Brexit (Areas of Economy Most at Risk)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government which parts of the economy and areas of employment are most at risk from a no-deal Brexit. (S5O-02941)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Analysis has highlighted that all sectors and regions of the economy will be negatively affected by Brexit, but the sectors that are most at risk from a no-deal Brexit include agriculture, food and drink, chemicals, construction and some areas of manufacturing. Local authorities with the highest concentration of workers in those sectors are typically in more rural areas, reflecting the importance of sectors such as agriculture and fishing to those areas.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Dumfries and Galloway is one of the regions in Scotland that will be most exposed if there is a no-deal Brexit, given that between 20 and 24 per cent of workers earn their wages in the most vulnerable sectors. Does the minister agree that it is utterly outrageous for the United Kingdom Tory Government to threaten the south of Scotland in that way?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Yes, I agree with the member on that. As I highlighted in my first answer, rural areas will be particularly hard hit by Brexit and, in particular, by a no-deal Brexit. It is completely unacceptable that the UK Government is forcing on Scotland a potential recession for no reason other than to deal with infighting in the Conservative Party.

Brexit (Economic Impact)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on the economy of a no-deal Brexit. (S5O-02945)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

On 21 February this year, the Scottish Government’s chief economist published an analysis setting out the immediate economic implications of a no-deal Brexit for the Scottish economy. The analysis indicated that there is potential for the economy to contract by between 2.5 per cent and 7 per cent by the end of 2019 and for it to be pushed into recession, depending on the way in which a no-deal Brexit evolves. Previous analysis published in “Scotland’s place in Europe: people, jobs and investment” outlined the long-term implications of Brexit for Scotland’s economy.

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

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the concerns of fish processors in my constituency, who are worried that they will be unable to obtain the necessary export health certificates in a timely fashion to allow them to get their fresh fish products to markets in Europe and elsewhere?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The impact of a no-deal Brexit will have catastrophic consequences for the seafood sector in Scotland. Our seafood sector will be severely impacted by disruption at the port of Dover, which will jeopardise the just-in-time nature of the seafood supply chain

. The sector will also be required to comply with a range of administrative burdens, including the requirement for export health certificates for all seafood consignments that are exported to the European Union. We anticipate at least a fourfold increase in the requirement for export health certificates, with a potential additional cost to the industry of more than £15 million per year. The Scottish Government continues to press the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on our proposals for controlling imports to and exports from the UK.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I agree with the minister’s remarks about a no-deal Brexit. Has he conducted any research to compare the negative economic impacts of a no-deal Brexit scenario with those of a no-deal independence scenario?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

If Willie Rennie had read the growth commission’s report, he would be aware of the potential of an independent Scotland standing alongside other small to medium-sized nations across Europe, which would lead to significant increases in the growth rate in Scotland’s economy. If we look at how those nations have grown in the past decade compared to Scotland, we see that the difference is not in the amount of resources that those other countries have, as we have more resources, and it is not in the people whom they have, as we have better trained and skilled individuals. The only difference is that those countries can pursue their own economic policies because they are independent.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 was not lodged.

Brexit (Discussions with Businesses)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with businesses regarding the potential economic impact of Brexit. (S5O-02943)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government engages extensively with individual businesses and their representative bodies. Those discussions routinely confirm that, although Scotland did not vote for Brexit, it is the biggest and most immediate economic challenge that businesses face. Raising awareness in and action by businesses is vital. Last year, we launched the PrepareforBrexit.scot website, which offers readiness self-assessment tools and expert advice as well as access to learning and networking events and grants for Brexit planning support. That campaign can help many more businesses to take steps to enhance resilience despite the on-going uncertainty of Brexit.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Businesses that I have spoken to in my constituency are disappointed with the lack of engagement from the United Kingdom Government. Is there any evidence that the views of Scotland’s businesses have been heeded by the UK Government or, as with most things related to Brexit, have the Tories run roughshod over those views in favour of keeping their party together?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

There is clear evidence of the UK Government ignoring the views and interests of Scottish business. I will focus on immigration policy, which is a significant factor in ensuring that businesses have the skilled workforce that they and we need to grow and prosper. That is clear from two quotations from businesses that are in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, “Immigration policy—the countdown to Brexit”, which was published in January.

This is the voice of business in Scotland. The Federation of Small Businesses Scotland policy chair, Andrew McRae, said:

“The UK Government’s obstinate approach to immigration is a clear threat to many of Scotland’s businesses and local communities. These proposals will make it nigh impossible for the vast majority of Scottish firms to access any non-UK labour and the skills they need to grow and sustain their operations.”

Scottish Tourism Alliance chief executive Marc Crothall said:

“The UK Government’s measures on immigration ... could have potentially devastating effects on Scotland’s tourism industry, in particular, a £30,000 minimum salary threshold ... There is no doubt that the government’s plans will exacerbate the existing recruitment crisis considerably, placing our tourism industry and what is one of the most important economic drivers for Scotland in severe jeopardy.”

The UK Government is not listening on immigration or on a range of issues that relate to Brexit and the economy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can allow a very quick supplementary and a very quick answer.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is estimated that unemployment will rise to up to 8 per cent if there is a no-deal Brexit. What plans does the Scottish Government have to deal with that rise and mitigate its impact?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As the member will be aware, the Scottish Government’s resilience room—SGoRR—is meeting on a weekly basis to evaluate and bring forward steps to mitigate the worst impacts of Brexit. An extensive range of measures are laid out in “Economic Action Plan 2018-20”, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work published. The plan sets out the many steps that the Scottish Government has taken across a range of aspects of the economy to mitigate the worst impacts of a no-deal Brexit.

Budget Impact (Orkney and Shetland)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how its budget will impact on Orkney and Shetland. (S5O-02944)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The budget invests in our local authorities, including Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council, to enable them to deliver services to the people who live in their areas, from education and social care to transport and planning.

The budget delivers a fair financial settlement for local government by providing funding of £11.2 billion, which is a real-terms increase of £300 million. Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council will both receive their fair formula share of the total funding.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Ahead of the conclusion of the budget process, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations, Mike Russell, came to Orkney. While he was there, he spoke about the funding of internal ferries in Orkney and Shetland and the shortfall between what is given to the council and the cost of maintaining services. Mike Russell said:

“this is a big issue in Orkney, and obviously it needs a resolution”.

However, a month later, we hear that there is no resolution. Why has this Scottish Government yet again failed to meet its pledge to provide fair ferry funding for Orkney and Shetland? One local councillor described the decision—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please come to a conclusion.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The local councillor described that as “Donald Trump politics”.

When will Mr Russell pledge to go back and raise this “big issue” with cabinet colleagues? Did he do so, and if so, was he simply ignored?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I ask Jamie Halcro Johnston why he voted against the provision of £10.5 million for ferries in the budget for this year—and last year, as well.

Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council remain responsible for the delivery of the internal ferry services, but we recognise the challenges that that presents. The budget made available £10.5 million this year—as was the case last year—for local authority ferry services.

We have also ensured, through the local government settlement, that the two councils have the money to deliver their services, and we have given councils more flexibility around council tax.

I ask Jamie Halcro Johnston how much more difficult it would be to fund local services in Orkney if we had to follow his tax plans and find an additional £500 million for those services.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am delighted that the minister had such a positive visit to Orkney earlier this week.

The minister will have been informed that Orkney has received £200,000 less for internal ferry funding this year, leaving a shortfall of well over £1 million. How does that square with the Government’s commitment to fair funding for our lifeline internal ferry services?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I had a thoroughly enjoyable two days in Orkney and I am most jealous of Liam McArthur’s opportunities to go back there weekly.

We recognise the challenges around local ferry services, as I said, and I had that discussion with the local council. In our budget, we have been clear about ensuring that we provide adequate funding, and we have given local authorities, who are responsible for the ferry service, the funding that they need to deliver the services.

Local Government Finance (Meetings)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what recent meetings the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding local government finance. (S5O-02946)

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

As part of the annual budget process, I met all relevant ministerial colleagues regarding local government finance, both individually and collectively. Local government finance was also discussed at meetings of the Cabinet in the lead up to the announcement of the 2019-20 Scottish budget.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On 15 November 2018, when I last asked about the £5 million of funding that is required to remove overhanging rocks at Stromeferry, the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands confirmed that he would raise the matter with the finance secretary. Can the finance secretary confirm when he last met the minister, what additional funds the minister requested for Stromeferry and what funds he will make available?

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

As far as I understand, those matters are principally the responsibility of Highland Council. The member will be aware that we increased financial support to local government in revenue and capital terms. The uplift in capital is particularly relevant to the case that he raises.

I have done some research on what Tory tax cuts would mean for individual local authorities. What pays for public services? It is the raising of revenue. What do the Tories want to do? They want to cut tax for the richest in society, which will reduce the amount of revenue to Scotland’s public services. If we followed Tory tax policy, the cut to Highland Council would be £23.5 million. This Government is allocating more in resource and capital terms to Scotland’s local authorities so that they can get on with infrastructure matters in the face of reckless and irresponsible Tory opposition.

Disposable Drinks Cups (Charge)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to introduce a charge on disposable drinks cups. (S5O-02947)

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

As was indicated in the budget statement, the Scottish Government agrees in principle to the introduction of a charge for disposable drinks cups. In deciding how to proceed, we will consider the recommendations of the expert panel on environmental charging and other measures, which is due to report later this year. The panel is taking an evidence-based approach and is considering a range of measures to address the issue.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s action on the issue, which I have raised in the chamber and at the Scottish National Party conference. Does the minister agree that, for the policy to be successful, work needs to be done with retailers so that they can change their way of working, including by signing up to some of the various cup exchange schemes and by helping with any infrastructure challenges that might exist, particularly for independent retailers? Can the minister provide any information on what the money from the levy would be invested in?

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

I agree that we need to work with retailers to tackle the issue. I do not know whether the member is aware of the Glasgow cup movement, which was launched recently by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. Keep Scotland Beautiful has designed the campaign, which is to ensure that single-use cups do not end up in landfill or as litter and that far more cups are recycled. It will encourage people to use reusable cups instead of disposable cups.

The campaign has involved working with a range of partners including Starbucks, Caffè Nero, Costa Coffee, Greggs, McDonald’s and Bewley’s, as well as the cup manufacturers.

In Scotland, we use 500 million single-use cups a year. In the greater Glasgow area, the figure is 95 million, so the problem that we need to tackle is massive. We will monitor the project closely to see how it goes and whether we could roll out a similar scheme across the rest of Scotland.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

It has emerged that, in the past three years, 1.5 million disposable cups were bought through the SNP Government’s official catering contract—that is equivalent to one cup every minute. What assurance can the minister provide that that situation will not continue?

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

I will be more than happy to look at that issue. It is important for the Scottish Government to take a lead, which is why we have removed single-use plastics and have to use reusable cups in Government buildings. I will look into the issue and get back to Maurice Golden with a response.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 2 was not lodged.

Mossmorran Petrochemical Plant

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency/Health and Safety Executive report regarding the Mossmorran petrochemical plant. (S5O-02949)

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

The Scottish Government understands that the regulators have completed their investigations at the plant. SEPA published an update on 27 February, setting out that the action that has been taken to date in relation to the repeated unplanned flaring at the plant has been effective and appropriate. Nevertheless, SEPA has not ruled out future enforcement action if that is deemed necessary.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am aware that SEPA published its investigative update last week. One action point was a forward programme for environmental monitoring. Can the minister provide any clarity as to what that environmental monitoring will entail on the ground?

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

SEPA recently announced enhanced air quality monitoring at the Mossmorran complex, which will include monitoring of the relevant pollutants in order to provide up-to-date monitoring data and comparison with the previous monitoring and modelling studies that have been undertaken. That monitoring commenced in January this year, and it is expected to run until April, with the result being published later this year. The location of the monitoring equipment was determined following liaison with community representatives, and the monitoring programme is in addition to the substantial work that has already been undertaken by the Mossmorran and Braefoot Bay independent air quality monitoring group, which advises Fife Council with regard to the quality of the ambient air associated with emissions at Mossmorran.

Plastic Nurdles on Beaches

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to reduce the amount of plastic nurdles on beaches. (S5O-02950)

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

Marine plastics are a global problem, and we are taking actions to prevent and reduce nurdle pollution. We are working with the plastics industry to expand on its successful operation clean sweep guidance. We are engaging with all sectors that handle pre-production plastics, and we are exploring the feasibility of a move towards a system that is auditable, to allow for traceability and accreditation. On 22 February, at the marine litter symposium, the Scottish Government committed to co-operative working with the other British-Irish Council Administrations to further reduce the loss of pre-production plastics across the supply chain.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I wish that I had been at the marine litter symposium. There are particular concerns about the beaches on the Forth estuary in my constituency—particularly Ruby bay, where there are millions of nurdles. I respect the minister’s answer, but what is the timescale for implementing the measures that she has set out, and how will that be monitored? If the measures do not work, will the minister consider legislation?

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

It is vital that we work with industry as far as we can, because this is not just about the plastics industry. The supply chains around it are complex, which is why we have to work right across the industry to tackle the problem in the best way. I would rather look at and exhaust all those options before we consider further action. I have mentioned operation clean sweep, which is a plastics industry-led initiative that is rapidly being adopted by industry members. We also have a pre-production plastic pellets steering group, which has a membership that includes Ineos, PlasticsEurope, the British Plastics Federation, the Road Haulage Association and the Scottish Plastics and Rubber Association. With the work that the steering group will undertake, we can start to have an impact on the problem. I will also mention the fantastic work of Fidra and of the Marine Conservation Society, through its great nurdle hunt, which is raising awareness of this important issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will have short supplementary questions from Gail Ross and John Scott, please.

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Will the minister outline what else the Scottish Government is doing to tackle marine litter, given that approximately 20 per cent of it originates from the marine sector?

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

I am really sorry, Presiding Officer—I will try to keep this short, but an awful lot of work is going on.

Littering at sea by the shipping industry is already prohibited under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. We have been supporting a number of initiatives, including KIMO’s fishing for litter scheme, since 2005. Over that time, 300 Scottish vessels have removed more than 1,220 tonnes of waste from our seas.

We have helped to fund the SCRAPbook project, which is helping to map the marine litter sinks that exist right along our coastlines. We also had the marine litter conference—I detected a wee hint of sarcasm in Willie Rennie’s voice about that conference; I do not know whether he was being serious, but that international conference was vital. It brought lots of people together and allowed us to hear ideas, to hear about what is happening in other countries and to see where collaborative work can take place. There is also a £1 million innovation fund for plastics capture, collection and recovery. In addition, the First Minister announced at that conference a £175,000 campaign to promote reusable sanitary products, which is aimed at reducing the 100 billion pieces of sanitary waste that are disposed of each year.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Phew! I call John Scott.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

My question might have been answered already; I am not certain. There was so much in that answer, which was wonderful.

Could the harvesting of nurdles from our beaches, seas and oceans on an industrial scale provide a resource for general recycling, such as the building of roads, as has been detailed in the press this week? What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage the development of such a recycling industry—in addition to what the minister might already have said?

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

We are always happy to consider innovative ways in which we can work with those materials. However, we must ensure that there are no knock-on impacts such as seeing more nurdles or plastic pollution as a result. All of those issues have to be considered carefully.

It is also vital to talk about the important work that is happening across our universities, which is at the forefront of research. I recently visited the University of Stirling, where two important pieces of work are being undertaken in relation to microplastics, including mapping them across the ocean. The university is at the forefront of work in that area, and we are lucky to have people who are leaders in the field, as it means that we can take strong positive action in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 5 was not lodged.

Glasgow Airport (Personal Rapid Transit System)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the environment secretary has had with the transport secretary regarding the environmental implications of the proposed personal rapid transit system for Glasgow airport. (S5O-02952)

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, has not held any meetings with Michael Matheson in his role as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity regarding the environmental implications of the proposed personal rapid transit system for Glasgow airport.

The projects within the Glasgow city region deal are for the relevant local partners to develop and deliver. The Glasgow airport access project is being taken forward by Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

I am utterly astonished at that response. The cabinet secretary must be aware—and the minister must be aware—that the Glasgow airport rail link was seen to have social, economic and, critically, environmental benefits. Given the decision to scrap that plan, is the minister confirming that there was no environmental impact assessment of the people-pod option as compared with the airport rail link option before that decision was made?

Will the minister reflect on the fact that it is essential that the environmental issues around the airport link are properly addressed, and that it is a failure of Government for the environment secretary not to be discussing this critical matter ahead of a decision that will have direct consequences across the west of Scotland?

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

I was certainly not confirming that an environmental impact assessment did not take place. My answer to the initial question was about whether the

environment secretary had met the transport secretary and that had not happened—that is what I was talking about in my initial response to the member. Any significant concerns should be raised with the relevant councils and the city region deal cabinet.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

What would be the impact on Ayrshire commuters and the Ayrshire economy should the airport rail link, as proposed by Labour, be implemented? Based on what we have been told, any dire consequences would impact the Ayrshire and Inverclyde economies.

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

Members across the chamber will be aware that the

Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity

was clear in the statement that he made to Parliament on 7 February that there would be impacts on rail users should the tram-train service between Glasgow airport and Glasgow central station—as proposed by the city region deal project—be delivered.

The analysis has shown that, although it might be possible to introduce a tram-train service to Glasgow airport, it would have a detrimental effect on performance and require a reduction in current rail services, the deferral of future service enhancements, and significant and high-cost infrastructure enhancement at Glasgow central station, which is not currently funded.

Hunterston (Decommissioning of Oil Rigs)

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the environment secretary has had with the energy minister regarding the environmental impact of the proposed decommissioning of oil rigs at Hunterston. (S5O-02953)

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

As the Hunterston project is a major infrastructure project, plans for it span several ministerial portfolios, including that of the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands. The Scottish Government is committed to environmental protection and to working with the relevant consenting authorities to ensure that statutory environmental processes are undertaken in order to protect the environment while promoting Scottish opportunities within an emerging industry that is estimated to be worth £15 billion to 2025.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

As a result of a freedom of information request by local residents, it was discovered that two Scottish Government agencies—Marine Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage—encouraged North Ayrshire Council to conduct a full environmental impact assessment, which it did not do. I requested that the Scottish Government call that in and require a full environmental impact assessment, but it declined to do so. Will the minister please explain why, despite two Government agencies recommending an EIA on what she has conceded is a major project, which involves half a million tonnes of dredging, the Government declined to require an environmental impact assessment?

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

I understand that, when the proposal was initially introduced in June 2017, Marine Scotland determined that an

environmental impact assessment was not needed. However, I believe that the proposals that have come forward since then have substantially changed and that officials are currently considering whether the revised plans that have come forward require an environmental impact assessment.

I would be happy to liaise with Ross Greer or have the cabinet secretary contact him if he wishes to discuss the matter further as it progresses.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Kenneth Gibson has a short supplementary question.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that it was agreed on a cross-party basis that there should be no environmental impact assessment because the information was that there would be no damage to the site of special scientific interest at

Hunterston and that the project will deliver hundreds of jobs for an area that much requires them? Does she agree that the Scottish Government, through Scottish Enterprise, awarded a £10 million grant to Hunterston on condition that those jobs are delivered, that there is no damage to the environment and that, if there is any damage to the environment, that money can be clawed back in part or in whole?

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

The decisions that were taken at that time on not requiring an environmental impact assessment were based on the proposals at that time. As I have just intimated in my response to Ross Greer, the plans that have come forward are substantially different from the plans that were first submitted, so officials are considering whether an environmental impact assessment is required.

Landfill (Muncipal Waste Ban)

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what the timeline is for the ban on municipal waste going to landfill. (S5O-02954)

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

The ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill in Scotland will apply from 1 January 2021. Much progress has already been made, and a significant number of local authorities and commercial operators already have long-term or interim solutions in place. However, we are aware of the significant challenges that some local authorities face, and we are working with public and private sector partners to address them. Our focus is on identifying ways in which they can comply with the ban as soon as possible.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I understand that Falkirk Council is on target to meet that deadline because its current contract lasts until 2022, which takes it over the 2021 deadline. That is in the short to medium term. What are the longer-term plans and solutions?

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

We are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Zero Waste Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Environmental Services Association, and we are really trying to work with the councils that have not identified any solutions. The target was set in 2012, and we have it in place because we have to be ambitious and we need to set ambitious targets, especially when it comes to such vitally important environmental issues.

Fourteen councils already have a solution in place and other councils have interim solutions. The priority for us right now is to work with those local authorities to ensure that we can meet the timescale, but we are trying to implement the ban as soon as possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Elaine Smith has a short supplementary question.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

With the upcoming ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill, it is important to have viable alternative solutions. Does the minister agree that they should not include private companies imposing unwanted and potentially dangerous incinerators on our communities? Can she tell us when the environmental impact assessment for the proposed incinerator in Carnbroe in Coatbridge might be available?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mairi Gougeon should give a short answer, please.

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

I am afraid that I do not have an answer to that specific question, but I am happy to take it back to the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform so that she can provide that information to the member.

Severe Disablement Allowance

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it did not inform the Parliament in last week’s statement that the severe disablement allowance will remain reserved and be administered by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It might help if I start by clearing up a misunderstanding in the member’s question. Let me be clear: none of the 11 benefits included in the Scotland Act 2016 will remain reserved to the DWP. Last Thursday, I informed Parliament that the Scottish Government will take responsibility for all 11 devolved benefits from 1 April 2020. That remains the case and it includes severe disablement allowance. That means that all funding, delivery and policy decisions are taken by the Scottish Government.

The arrangements for the delivery of the severe disablement allowance were set out in documents that were published on Thursday and referred to in my statement and in a letter that was also sent on Thursday to the Social Security Committee of the Parliament. They were also published as part of a public question-and-answer session on Thursday.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

There was no mention of the severe disablement allowance in the statement that was given on Thursday. Let us face it, this is another devolved power that the cabinet secretary is asking the DWP to administer. You knew the circumstances of the benefit two years ago in 2016, and it has taken you two years to decide that you do not want to administer it. I will ask a straightforward question. You say that you can create a whole new state in 18 months, but it has taken you two years to make this decision. When exactly was the decision made? Did you already know when you made your statement last week? When did you tell everybody?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

That was a few questions.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I laid out in my original answer, I told the Parliament in my statement last week, in the 11 policy position papers that were published alongside it and in the letter to the Social Security Committee, of which Michelle Ballantyne is a member.

As we move through the process of devolving benefits to Scotland we take our decisions based on consultation with people with lived experience. The consultation that we did with those people indicated that we should ensure both the safe and secure transition of all 11 benefits, and also the transformation of the benefits that are causing most anxiety and stress to those in the current system, such as benefits for disability assistance that have an application process that is viewed by claimants as being designed to catch people out and having an inhumane system of assessments. That will be our next priority within the devolution of benefits.

As I said in multiple channels last week, we chose to deliver the SDA through an agency agreement with the DWP. The benefit has approximately 2,000 claimants and has been closed since 2001, and, in the consultation that we did before deciding how to deliver benefits, nobody suggested any changes or any particular issues that we needed to address. That is why the priority will go to disability assistance, where the maximum damage is being done by the DWP.

The particular challenge with the SDA is that it is also closely linked to the pension system, which remains reserved to Westminster. The establishment of a separate payment system would put claimants at risk. It is a prime example of why it would be easier to have full responsibility for social security, rather than having to work with the complex and outdated DWP systems.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind Michelle Ballantyne to speak through the chair.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

I do not know whether to thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. The reality is that it is like smoke and mirrors, is it not? You say that you want everything to be devolved, but you are increasingly pushing things back to be administered under agreement by the DWP. It took t

wo years to consult on a benefit that is closed and has 2,000 claimants. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how much money has been spent so far preparing for the devolution of the SDA and how much it will cost for the DWP to continue to administer it? It is yet another devolved benefit that the Scottish Government is asking the DWP to administer.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The agency agreements between the DWP and the Scottish Government are made to ensure best value for the Scottish taxpayer.

I say gently to Michelle Ballantyne—I made this offer to her directly last week—that I appreciate that we will have disagreements about how social security will be devolved to Scotland and the policy decisions that we will make, but we have a shared responsibility in this Parliament to look seriously at what we can and should do differently. I direct her not to my words but to a blog that was written by Chris Creegan from the Scottish Commission for Learning Disability after he watched the statement to Parliament last week. He said:

“disagreement is as much a part of the game as consensus. But so is striking the right tone and understanding the complexity behind the sloganising that grabs headlines.”

Once again, I say gently to Michelle Ballantyne that if she has a realistic alternative to the way that we want to do the SDA in Scotland, I am more than happy to hear it. However, let us please get away from the headline grabbing, the sloganising and putting fear into the 2,000 people who rely on benefits through the SDA, and let us get on with delivering a credible Social Security Scotland that ensures a secure and safe transmission and a transformation of the benefits under the DWP that are harming people so much just now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have hardly any time left. I will take Mary Fee.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

How much is the cabinet secretary going to have to pay the DWP to deliver the benefits, instead of spending that money to support severely disabled people? More broadly, what are the estimated costs of the agency arrangements with the DWP that will be in place until all devolved benefits fully transition to Social Security Scotland? That information was not included in Thursday’s statement.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It was not included in the statement because we are consulting on our priorities as we go ahead. As I have said in the past about agency agreements, it is imperative that we deliver those, ensure that we have good administration of them in Scotland and work with the DWP on what is a joint policy. [

Interruption

.]

Mary Fee talks about how much—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, cabinet secretary. Mr Tomkins, please do not sit at the back and shout over the benches when you have not actually been taking part in this question time. Thank you.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

No policy changes have been suggested as part of the consultation process, and it was very important that we listened to those with lived experience to determine the best way forward for the SDA. We will take forward the agency agreements with the DWP to ensure that we pay for administering the benefit, but the safe and secure transition is imperative, and we will do that with full consultation with those who have lived experience of this benefit and all others.

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

I confirm that I and fellow committee members, including Michelle Ballantyne, were informed on 28 February regarding the severe disablement allowance. Does the cabinet secretary agree that this non-revelation from Michelle Ballantyne regarding the severe disablement allowance may have more to do with Tory diversionary tactics, given that our Social Security Committee will take evidence tomorrow morning on the scandal of the UK Government’s pension credit cuts—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Will you please come to your question, Mr Doris?

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

—which will cost up to £7,000 a year for up to 10 per cent of pension credit claimants?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank the convener of the Social Security Committee for once again establishing that that letter was sent last week.

It is important that I listen to genuine suggestions on social security from all parts of the chamber, because this is a subject that I would like to seek maximum consensus on. However, Mr Doris is right to point out that it is difficult to take lessons from a Conservative Party that administers the DWP, and the inhumane personal independence payment system in particular, on how I should treat people with a disability and our carers. We have seen a startling lack in the ability of the DWP to look after and support those people, and that is exactly what we are determined to do within social security in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes this item of business. Before we move on, I want to say to the chamber that we do not often have urgent questions, but the key thing here is the word “questions”. This item is not an opportunity for people to stand up and have a 10-minute debate; it is about asking questions and getting answers. Many people who wanted to ask a question were unable to do so because of the length of time that the initial questions and, indeed, answers took. That is something to bear in mind for the future.

Early Years

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16122, in the name of Alison Harris, on early years.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In October last year, when the Scottish Conservatives last brought this topic to the chamber, we highlighted some concerning and urgent issues regarding the implementation of the expansion to 1,140 hours of funded childcare. Those issues

focused mainly on the private, voluntary and independent—PVI—sector. The problems were many, but four key issues kept appearing: a lack of access to capital funding for expansion in the PVI sector; a lack of partnership between local authorities and the PVI sector; a material variation in the revenue funding rates that are offered to partner providers across local authorities; and the staff drain from the PVI sector to councils.

So, what has changed? The Scottish Government and the minister will say that they have taken action to address those key issues. However, that has come far too late in the implementation period and, for the most part, has been of little substance with not much effect.

In December 2018, the Scottish Government published a delivery support plan for partner providers, but only two of the new measures in the document’s 20 pages actually tried to address the key problems that we highlighted in October. Therefore, the four key issues are still very much outstanding.

On access to capital funding for the PVI sector, there has been some progress—but bear with me. Back in October, the majority of local authorities had allocated no capital funding to the PVI sector’s expansion to 1,140 funded hours. I asked the minister to clarify the position on capital funding to each local authority. On 14 November, her team wrote to all councils to say that they were permitted to use capital funding for PVI sector expansion, but that that was subject to

“legal and financial restrictions on ability to use capital funding”.

That is little help when the confusion around the legal and financial restrictions has often been the very reason why funding is not allocated.

The recent establishment of the early learning and childcare partnership forum has allowed for some progress in that respect. Councils such as Angus Council and Moray Council have successfully devised a working method of allocating capital funding and have been able to share that process with other local authorities. It seems inconceivable that it took until late 2018 before a successful method of allocating capital funding to the PVI sector was shared. Moreover, it took numerous calls from the Scottish Conservatives and other stakeholders before the Government intervened to help in that regard, even though the issue concerned something that should have been planned for when the policy was announced several years ago. Despite the Scottish Government’s letter, I have been informed that some councils are still not allocating capital funding. Therefore, the lack of access to capital funding, which was brought up last October, is still an issue nearly six months later.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Will the member give way on that point?

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Which point?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

On capital projects.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Yes, okay.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Rather than the both of you just having a little conversation together, let me call Maureen Watt.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I apologise.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Maureen Watt.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Is the member aware that, in Aberdeen City Council’s budget discussions, it was recommended that funding be approved for the delivery of early learning and childcare expansion and that chief officers approved the business case for projects related to early learning and childcare—[

Interruption

.] The projects are east Torry new build, Northfield public park—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is quite a long intervention, Ms Watt.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

—Tillydrone nursery and Seaton nursery. That is local councils preparing for the expansion to 1,140 hours.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is time in hand, so the member will get her time back.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The picture across Scotland is variable, and I am listening to the private sector.

The next major problem with roll-out that we raised was the lack of partnership between local authorities and the PVI sector. The ELC partnership forum has at least introduced a dialogue between councils and the PVI sector where, in some cases, none had existed. However, one provider recently told me that some local authorities are unwilling to meet funded providers who are already in partnership or, indeed, are willing to meet only when a council-run nursery needs holiday cover.

Partnership is vital to the success of the 1,140 hours policy. I know that the minister agrees that partnership is vital, but it is still not happening in far too many cases, and that is putting the policy in jeopardy. This morning, the minister said that everything is on target and that the policy will be delivered on time. That is the opposite of what the PVI sector is telling us. Who is wrong, minister?

The third key problem is the huge variations in revenue funding rates for the PVI sector. The total revenue funding from the Scottish Government is rising, which obviously is welcome, but significant variations in funding rates across local authorities still exist. The variations are creating a postcode lottery for partner providers. That has implications for partners if the funding rate is lower in their authority. They are prevented by the Scottish Government from charging top-up fees to bridge the funding gaps, but the funding rate alone is not sustainable for their businesses to succeed.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will Alison Harris clarify a point for me? It is currently unlawful, as the member has said, to charge parents and carers top-up fees for a child’s statutory early learning and childcare hours. That long-standing legal position is laid out clearly in statutory guidance passed by the Parliament in 2014. The position is reiterated in the new national standard to be introduced from August 2020. Does the member agree that statutory early learning and childcare hours should be free at the point of access, or—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

—is the member advocating for a change in the law?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Yes, I agree, but the policy must be properly funded.

The variations in funding rates have resulted in some providers now considering pulling out of the partnership; indeed, some already have, as we saw with St George’s school for girls in Edinburgh last week.

The final key issue is the staff drain from the PVI sector to local authorities. The Government says that it is encouraging local authorities to promote from within council staffing pools, but staffing is still a major issue.

Last week, a job was posted on the myjobscotland website for a childcare practitioner at North Lanarkshire Council. The typical salary for an entry-level practitioner role is about £20,500, but the posting advertised for an entry-level practitioner with a salary ranging from £25,000 to £29,000. There is no way that a PVI sector nursery can compete with that level of salary. Which job do members think that a practitioner working in the industry would go for?

The situation is having real knock-on effects on businesses. Recently, one provider lost a manager, a depute, a supervisor and two qualified staff from one setting in a matter of weeks, with all of the staff moving to local authority services for more money, and who can blame them? Meanwhile, the PVI sector’s hands are tied, with no top-ups allowed, and providers cannot compete because of the variation in funding rates around Scotland. The implementation of the policy is frustrating in many ways, because we keep hearing from the Scottish National Party that everything is on track, the partnership approach is working and everyone is happy, but that is just not the case.

The motion calls for the Scottish Government to urgently intervene to fix the flaws in implementation. If it does not, there will be many more examples of businesses withdrawing from partnerships or leaving the sector altogether, which would be to the detriment of children and parents around Scotland.

The minister has acknowledged that the expansion cannot happen without the PVI sector and, with August 2020 around the corner, there is not much time left to fix this. That is why I hope that the whole Parliament will support my motion.

I move,

That the Parliament is committed to the delivery of 1,140 hours of funded childcare for all three- and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds by August 2020; recognises the growing concerns that are being expressed by private, voluntary and independent (PVI) providers with regard to the implementation of this policy; believes, in light of the most recent evidence from PVI sector providers, some of whom have chosen to end their partnerships with local authorities altogether, that the problems have not yet been addressed, and calls on the Scottish Ministers to take urgent action to address these flaws in implementation.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Maree Todd to speak to and move amendment S5M-16122.2. You have five minutes, minister. I beg your pardon—you have six minutes.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak more slowly, in that case.

In partnership with local government, we have made an ambitious commitment to almost double the funded early learning and childcare entitlement for all three and four-year-olds, and for eligible two-year-olds from August 2020. It is heartening that today’s motion recognises and celebrates the commitment of members from across Parliament to that transformative policy.

The earliest years of life are crucial for every child, and we all want every single one of Scotland’s children to grow up in a country where they feel loved, safe and respected and where they are able to reach their full potential.

Evidence tells us that if our early learning and childcare are to give children the best start in life, and contribute to closing the poverty-related attainment gap, they must be of high quality. A child’s statutory funded hours must also be free at the point of access, so that no child is held back due to their household’s circumstances.

We do not shy away from the scale of the challenge that we face together in respect of achieving our ambition for 2020: no single part of the system can achieve it alone. Meaningful and genuine partnership working is fundamental to the success of the expansion. We want parents and carers to be able to choose from a range of setting types that offer different patterns of provision, and which all meet the national standard. That means local authorities working in partnership with a range of early learning and childcare settings in addition to working with the nurseries that they run in-house.

Partnership working is not always easy, but the fact that we are making good progress together in our preparations for August 2020 is testament to the commitment, passion and determination of nurseries, childminders, representative organisations and local authorities around Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Does the minister agree that the best way of respecting the commitment of, for example, the National Day Nurseries Association, which is a representative body, is to listen to what it says about the problems?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I certainly agree. I regularly meet representative bodies: I will meet Purnima Tanuku of the National Day Nurseries Association later this month.

We have put in place, to oversee progress across all aspects of the expansion to 1,140 hours, a joint delivery board, which I chair jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities spokesperson for children and young people. The work of the board is informed by regular submissions of data and intelligence from local authorities on progress in delivery in a number of key areas. We published the first progress report in December 2018, which showed that local authorities are, broadly, meeting forecast delivery progress and remain on track.

It is important to be clear that the expanded entitlement to 1,140 hours will come into force from August 2020: legislation to underpin the expanded entitlement will be introduced in Parliament later in this parliamentary session. We are on a journey to 2020. Local authorities have been asked to phase in the expanded offer and to ensure that the children who stand to gain most from the extra funded early learning and childcare are the first to benefit.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Does not the minister accept that it is a bit insulting to say that

“We are on a journey”

when some nurseries are already being asked to deliver 1,140 hours but are not receiving enough money to cover the costs of doing so?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As I said, I regularly meet representatives of private nurseries. I was in a private nursery on Monday this week and, last week, I met people from private nurseries who are members of a group called 2020 together. My door is open, and I am more than happy to hear from, and to work, with private nurseries in order to improve their partnership relationship with local authorities.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the previous debate on the issue, the minister said that

“Quality sits front and centre of our vision”,—[

Official Report

, 31 October 2018; c 53.]

which is something to which we all aspire. We are getting a lot of evidence that the independent, voluntary and private sectors do not feel that it can deliver that quality, because the minister’s policy does not give them sufficient investment.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Through the multiyear funding that we agreed last year with local authorities, I am confident that the rates will increase, that they will be sustainable and that the policy is deliverable by 2020. The transition period is hugely important. It allows time for local authorities and partners to work together to refine local plans for provision of 1,140 hours. With 18 months to go until full national roll-out, it is unfair to accuse local authorities of already failing to achieve the ambition to provide 1,140 hours.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Is she aware that Child Watch in north Ayr will close in March, which is in part due to South Ayrshire Council providing the poor funding rate of £3.50 per hour? Can the minister intervene in that case, which will mean the loss of a vital facility that serves approximately 200 children?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to meet John Scott to discuss the matter and to hear more detail. I cannot comment on the individual case: it is not one that I am aware of. However, I would be happy to hear from him and to work with him to solve the matter.

Today is an opportunity for me to share with Parliament some examples of positive progress in partnership working.

The last time we debated the topic, North Lanarkshire Council was the focus of everyone’s attention. It has made incredible progress in strengthening partnership working, which has led to all funded providers in the area being involved in the phased roll-out of 1,140 hours from August 2019. The council has also invested additional revenue funding from the Scottish Government in creating a new grant scheme—as Parliament asked for—which is supporting private providers to prepare for provision of 1,140 hours.

We have ambitious aspirations to ensure that our children realise their full potential. Neither COSLA nor the Scottish Government underestimates the scale of the challenge that is involved in achieving our ambition, but we are committed to working in meaningful and genuine partnership in order to achieve that ambition for 2020.

I move amendment S5M-16122.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:

“agrees that a child’s early learning and childcare entitlement should be free at the point of access; notes the important contribution of private, voluntary and independent providers and childminders to the expansion of funded early learning and childcare and the implementation of Funding Follows the Child, which will ensure more choice for parents, and calls on the Scottish Government, COSLA and all parties to continue to work tirelessly to promote meaningful partnership working across the country in the interests of children and their families.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Mary Fee to speak to and move amendment

S5M-16122.1. You have five minutes, Ms Fee.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I thank the Scottish Conservatives for bringing this subject back to the chamber for debate, following a similar debate in October last year.

At the outset, I state our support for the policy of the Scottish Government, as we have done in the past. The debate is not about opposing the ambition to deliver 1,140 funded hours; it is about expressing the level of confidence that we have in the Scottish Government to meet the 2020 deadline and to deliver for children and families, with the backing of all early years providers. Our level of confidence about delivery is not because we dislike for any one party or any one organisation, but is based on the feedback that we receive from providers, parents and bodies including the NDNA and Audit Scotland.

Scottish Labour believes that childcare should be flexible, affordable and of high quality for all ages, all year round. The delivery of 1,140 funded hours will be an important step in meeting the needs of parents and children.

I repeat what I said in October: our childcare system is in need of urgent reform. The current system would never have been designed as it is from scratch. However, we are at a point at which the Scottish Government’s policy can be delivered only by using the current mix of providers, so it is vital that we address the problems that remain for them.

The flexibility in the policy is of particular concern. The Scottish Government wants to allow local authorities and partner providers to decide how flexible the service they provide is, but we must ensure that that does not lead to a postcode lottery with regard to the early learning and childcare services that parents and carers can access.

Partner providers have once again contacted me ahead of the debate: I appreciate all their comments and the concerns that they have reasonably set out. At the heart of those concerns is frustration about the lack of parity between private and council providers.

First, there is a postcode lottery in Scotland, with local authorities having set different rates for funded providers. The NDNA is calling on the Scottish Government to rerun the Ipsos MORI survey that was carried out in 2016 and identified a sustainable rate of £5.31 per hour. By the time the policy is fully introduced, that figure will be four years out of date. Also, it was based on the 600 funded hours model. That is grotesquely unfair on the private nursery sector, which is expected to pay the living wage to the staff who deliver the funded entitlement.

Further to that, concerns have been raised that the current plans for expansion could lead to a two-tier system in which some early learning and childcare providers pay the living wage and some do not. Instead, there should be, among providers, parity on wages as well as on terms and conditions.

Unison and the Scottish Trades Union Congress have also highlighted disparity in pay between the private, voluntary and public sectors, and Unison has questioned why early years practitioners would put themselves through training only to get less pay than they would get in jobs that require lower qualifications.

At the heart of Labour’s amendment is the acknowledgment that local authorities are under severe financial pressure in delivering a range of public services. Although a £1 billion deal has been agreed between COSLA and the Scottish Government for delivery of the policy, we are concerned that underfunding councils for delivery will have major consequences on other services that are delivered by councils.

Lastly, if we are serious about tackling the poverty-related attainment gap, we must be serious about addressing the wider issues of poverty. We need also to address job growth, job quality and low wages, otherwise the policy of providing 1,140 hours will do nothing to address the problems that affect children of the lowest earners, who should be a priority for everyone in the chamber.

I move amendment 16122.1, to insert after “addressed”:

“; acknowledges the financial pressures faced by councils in delivering local services”.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is entirely reasonable for Parliament to press Government on the implementation of this broadly agreed policy, given the scale of the moneys that are to be invested in the area and the challenge of that implementation. As many people know, there is a big difference between endless ministerial visits and meetings and the action that is needed to make a policy work.

This debate would not be necessary if MSPs of all political persuasions across the Parliament were not hearing of practical concerns that currently exist. One of those came up at the Education and Skills Committee meeting this morning, at which the committee heard evidence on additional support needs. When asked what training was taking place for staff who undertake early learning and childcare across the sector, the witnesses were not aware of any training or support.

If the policy is to work, it strikes me as important that, given that one in six children in primary 1 classes across Scotland have some additional support needs, the progress through early learning into primary 1 should allow for better monitoring and flagging up of those young people’s needs. As far as I understand it, that issue does not appear to have been addressed at all, but I am happy to be corrected when the minister winds up the debate

Numerous issues have come to light since the policy was announced, and it is not clear to Parliament, never mind to all the practitioners, that they have yet been fully addressed. As recently as January, reports illustrated that private nurseries were pulling out of council funding arrangements for three and four-year-olds because the new extended hours scheme that the Government was offering was not financially viable. Nurseries complained that the Government funding would not cover staffing costs and that they were barred from asking parents to top up fees to make the difference—a point that has just been clarified from the front bench.

City of Edinburgh Council has confirmed that two nurseries have announced their intention to end their Government partnership from 2020. Just before the debate, Willie Rennie told me that, last week, the nursery in Cowdenbeath that his son attended before he went to school closed, also citing the challenges of losing staff to the council nursery. As Alison Harris, rightly, said, who can blame people for choosing to move on when a better salary can be gained elsewhere? The challenge is a significant one—not just in Fife or Edinburgh but, I suspect, right across the country. I know that that is the case in Shetland, too. The Government will have to find a way to address that.

The other day, Professor Aline-Wendy Dunlop of the University of Strathclyde’s school of education said:

“If the government has the ambition to put equity for all children with their closing-the-gap agenda, they can’t afford any further attrition in ... teacher numbers”

in the early years sector. That seems to me to be a pretty fair assessment. In January, City of Edinburgh Council announced its plans to replace nursery teachers with early years practitioners in order to save money and tackle teacher shortages. A raft of issues have been raised in response to what is currently going on.

I hope that the Government will accept the representations that are being made to members by organisations such as the Scottish Childminding Association, recognise that there has been a decrease of 4 per cent in the number of childminders between 2017 and 2018, and make serious proposals to address such issues before this policy becomes too difficult to implement.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. Speeches should take a maximum of four minutes, please. There is a little time in hand for interventions.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning, in a BBC radio interview, the minister said unequivocally—she has repeated it this afternoon—that she is wholly confident that the early years policy will be delivered, and delivered on time. However, in our debate on the issue in October 2018, she admitted that there were problems, so I am keen to see whether, in her closing remarks, she will explain to the Parliament what convinces her that the policy will be delivered, in the light of the evidence that all parties, including the SNP, are receiving from various private, voluntary and independent providers.

I come back to what the National Day Nurseries Association has said about the lower rates that are being paid to partner providers, the lack of access to capital funding, the lack of full involvement of the private, voluntary and independent sector, and the imbalance that it believes exists because local authorities are much more likely to want to concentrate on the provision for three and four-year-olds—for which it is much easier to deliver economies of scale and cost savings—in comparison with the more staff-intensive provision for one and two-year-olds. That issue is very much coming to the fore as I speak.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I reassure Liz Smith that the first tranche of detail that we looked at showed that we were ahead of our expectations on recruiting two-year-olds. At this stage, some 26 per cent more two-year-olds are currently in the system than we had anticipated.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that information, but it is at odds with what we are being told by many providers. [

Interruption

.] The minister does not want to hear that, but I say to her that they feel very strongly that they are not in a position to deliver the policy. The minister has said several times that the Scottish Government and COSLA are working hard on the policy to ensure that it will be delivered, but Scottish Conservatives—and, I am sure, members of the other political parties—are finding that the evidence points in the other direction.

I see that the minister is shaking her head, but I say to her that we have a lot of casework on the issue. We could give her a whole chapter on that and could spend all day debating the casework that we have received. People such as Mrs Alex Hems from the nursery at St George’s school for girls, which was mentioned by my colleague Alison Harris, are withdrawing from partnerships. Surely that is not a good basis on which the policy can be formed.

I want to be very clear in asking the minister this question: if we are trying to deliver greater choice and flexibility, which we all want to be able to do, does the Scottish Government recognise that, if we do not sort out such issues, the very opposite will happen?

If it is a level playing field that the minister wants, I wonder whether she will give us some update on or answer to the discriminatory anomaly of non-profit-making charitable nurseries in the independent sector being liable to be hit by the withdrawal of business rates relief while private sector providers, which in theory could be making profits, are entitled to it. Not only does that make no logical sense, it does not help with choice and provision, especially if some of these groups pull out of implementing the policy. I would be interested in the minister telling us a bit more about that when she sums up.

If we accept that there is a very significant supply and demand issue here, what the Parliament is telling the Scottish Government is that, on the supply side, we are not as confident as the minister seems to be that this policy will be delivered either on time or with the flexibility, the choice and, most important, the quality that parents want. The minister needs to address that issue.

I will finish there, but I would be grateful if the minister could, in summing up, address the points that I have raised, because they are bothering an awful lot of people in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am delighted to speak in the debate, just as I was when this issue was last brought to the chamber. At the time, I had just joined the Education and Skills Committee, and one of my first duties as convener of the committee was to attend a forum in Rutherglen town hall on 28 October 2018. At that meeting, I had an opportunity to speak to private sector providers, local authorities, childminders and parents who had concerns and issues that they wanted to feed into the committee’s scrutiny of the area. In these debates, it is often easy to forget these kinds of things, but what struck me at that meeting was the overwhelming support of everyone in the room for the delivery of 1,140 hours and their feeling that this was a transformative, ambitious and welcome policy from the Scottish Government. However, they realised that it

had to be delivered in partnership.

I would be glad if the minister could tell us about the action that was taken at the time on some of the issues and concerns that were raised at the forum and which have been echoed in the chamber this afternoon. She listened to the concerns of childminders and private providers, and the early learning and childcare partnership forum, which has been introduced, provides a welcome way for people to feed into the process.

In implementing this transformative childcare policy for Scotland, we must also protect the interests of the people who are delivering it and ensure that everyone who is working to deliver the Scottish Government’s policy objective is paid the real living wage. That is highly important. We must also remember the number of modern apprenticeships and apprenticeship opportunities that are being given not only to young women but to young men and, indeed, the concerted effort to improve the number of young men coming into this area. We need only think about the opportunities that are available to and the doors that open for young people who take up a career in care.

The minister mentioned North Lanarkshire Council and the changes that it has made in the past year. I commend the council for introducing the care academy, which is actively going into schools and speaking to young people about the possibility of foundation apprenticeships, modern apprenticeships and opportunities in the care sector.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member give way?

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am sorry, but no. It is a very short debate and I want to make some progress.

The evaluation that the Government carried out of the trials, which were discussed at length at the meeting that I have mentioned, found that the expansion was positively received by staff and parents and highlighted the importance of good communication with parents, sharing practice and building relationships with partner providers, including childminders. It stated that a

“focus on high-quality professional learning for the existing and new ELC workforce is essential.”

I believe that at the heart of this process is the issue of quality and delivering a really beneficial service for our young people.

I agree with Tavish Scott that it is very important that we scrutinise the process and the Government’s delivery of the model but, as the minister said, it is a journey and we are learning from it. The most important thing that I have heard in the debate has been the minister saying that her door is open to anyone with concerns and that she will meet private providers in the near future. It is important that progress is made in the area.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

I am happy to contribute briefly to this debate on early years provision, but I again reflect, as I did the last time that the Opposition brought a debate on education, that we need the Government to give some of its time to discussing the wide range of issues in relation to education and childcare so that we are not constrained and so that we can have a deeper conversation.

I say to Clare Adamson that signing up to the policy and saying that we are in favour of increased provision is the easy bit; the challenge is to ensure that it is deliverable. It is simply not good enough for a Government minister to say that there is no problem, when we are all being told that there is a problem. If the Government wants meaningful partnership, it should not just lodge an amendment to urge itself and others

“to work tirelessly to promote meaningful partnership working across the country”.

I do not know why the Government feels the need to encourage itself to seek meaningful partnership working, but meaningful partnership means listening to people, responding to them and believing them when they say that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I accept that some of the issue may simply be about negotiations with the private sector and the voluntary sector but, from the representations that have been made to me and others, there is no doubt that there is a problem. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is not sufficient for the minister to cross her fingers, hope for the best and say that, if we believe enough, it will happen.

Concerns have been raised by Audit Scotland, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the private sector as well as childcare groups, which are the very groups that were formed to impose on the public mind the need for a change in childcare provision. All those bodies are highlighting issues, so we need to address those issues. If we are to rely on private and voluntary sector providers to deliver the hours that we all want, we need to have confidence that those providers can do what is asked of them and that the way in which their funding is provided is accurate and meaningful. It is equally important that the pressure on local authorities is properly understood. We cannot cut millions of pounds from local authorities such as Glasgow City Council and then expect them to take on extra burdens such as the ones involved in the transformation of childcare.

We need to understand the benefits of increased hours. There are two different policy purposes, which I will address separately in my remaining time. We want to support parents and carers to work. Too many families have fragile work. For example, a mother might work during the day as a nurse and a father might work at night as a taxi driver. The early years provision could be transformative for such people, so it is essential that it is flexible and available locally. That is the challenge. The half-day provision that has too often been given in the past by local authorities is not good enough.

The minister highlighted the other policy imperative when she talked about the consequential benefits that the increase in hours could have with regard to closing the poverty-related attainment gap. However, simply offering the hours is not enough for some of our most vulnerable children and families. Without a proper and effective strategy for reaching the families whose children would most benefit from early learning, a policy of increasing hours will not contribute to closing the attainment gap. Those people will not simply fetch up at the nursery on their own. I am interested in whether any analysis is being done of the extent to which, where there is increased provision, the poorest or most vulnerable families are taking it up. That is critical if we are to close the attainment gap.

It is a contradiction in policy terms to increase hours but, at the same time, through cutting local government funding, to lose the services that can work with the most vulnerable families in our communities. For example, I am proud of the work of Home-Start Glasgow South, the south-west Glasgow carers centre and others that support vulnerable families to access services. However, we know that there is increased pressure on those groups and that resources are limited, which means that they are chasing funding at the very time when their intervention could make the most difference.

If the policy is to be poverty proofed, it needs to be put in the context of the Government’s broader spending decisions. I urge the minister, given her commitment on childcare, to ensure that those choices are addressed as well as the specific provision.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

We know that the transformational policy of rolling out free, flexible childcare to 1,140 hours will bring phenomenal benefits and huge opportunities for children and families throughout Scotland. No one can argue that giving children the best-quality early years education is a bad thing, and I think that members of all parties agree that giving parents the choice to shape childcare to suit their lifestyles can be only a good thing.

Alison Harris’s motion says:

“growing concerns ... are being expressed by private, voluntary and independent ... providers with regard to the implementation of this policy”.

As I said in the debate that we held on the subject last autumn, a project of such size and complexity was never going to be plain sailing during the planning stages, with so many variables at play in local authorities. I do not think that anyone could have reasonably expected the project to be otherwise.

During the previous debate, we heard about a disconnect between some private care providers and local authorities. That is something that I have witnessed in my constituency. However, last month, at a meeting with the early years and education director at East Dunbartonshire Council, I was reassured that much progress has been made and the council is on track to iron out the remaining issues. Most private partnerships are now on board and are happy with how the roll-out is progressing.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that that is not happening in other areas, and I agree with Mary Fee that this should not become a postcode lottery.

The situation might not be perfect, and there were certainly teething problems in my constituency, but regular meetings with stakeholders and focus groups—that is, better communication—have largely sorted them out. It is incumbent on MSPs to engage with local authorities in our constituencies and regions, if we are not already doing so, to follow progress on issues to do with the roll-out.

I am aware that some private providers have concerns, particularly about the agreed rate that is being offered by local authorities. I hope that such concerns can be resolved quickly. During my visits to private providers, I learned that although they want to pay the living wage, the funding allocation makes that difficult for some. Providers also had concerns that pay was leading to an exodus of trained staff to local authorities.

The Government has been at pains to stress that private providers should be in equal partnership with local authorities. We know that private providers are vital in ensuring that the roll-out succeeds.

The Scottish Government has engaged with the independent schools sector throughout the process, but, as we heard, two independent schools have announced their intention to withdraw from partnership from August 2020, because they will be unable to charge parents top-up fees.

The fact is that it is unlawful to charge parents and carers top-up fees for a child’s statutory early learning and childcare hours. That is the long-standing legal position, which is laid out clearly in statutory guidance.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I understand that it is the legal position, but does the member understand the practical position, which is

that it is difficult for a nursery to provide care for children when it is not getting enough funding to pay staff and keep the nursery open?

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Of course I understand that, but the guidelines are there, and other arrangements must be made to help such nurseries. I understand the difficulties that they are in.

As the minister said, the guidelines will be reiterated in the new national standard for early learning providers, which is to be introduced from August 2020. Parents and carers should not be required to pay top-up fees or buy additional hours to access their child’s funded early years entitlement.

The Government is on track to deliver, despite the issues that still prevail. As I have said before, failure is not an option for this initiative, and we have to work together to make it happen. It will transform family lives and give our children the best possible start in life.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the early years childcare policy again.

How often do we hear the phrase, “the right policy, poorly implemented” in political discussions? The early years policy is so crucial and has such far-reaching consequences, in so many ways, that the Scottish Government does not have the luxury of not getting it right first time.

Let me be clear. The Scottish Conservatives fully support the principles of the policy, just as the partnership nurseries welcome its intentions. The problem is, of course, as the Scottish Conservatives have said in the chamber on many occasions, that good intentions are not being consistently reflected in practice on the ground.

Partnership nursery after partnership nursery has raised concerns with MSPs, as we have heard in the debate. The minister will remember that Alison Harris and I tried to bring those concerns directly to her by arranging a meeting between her and partnership nurseries from 24 council areas. The matter is far too important for us to be playing party politics with it. With that in mind, we thought that the minister would be much more likely to respond constructively if we kept politics out of it. However, the minister had the audacity to suggest that her colleagues—that is, Alison Harris and me—just did not understand the nuances of the policy. How condescending.

Let me tell the minister that we understand the issues all too well. Why? Because Conservative members continue to listen to what partnership nurseries are saying. We understand that the inequalities between the pay structures of council-run facilities and those of partnership nurseries are causing the mass exodus of qualified and dedicated staff from partnership nurseries to council nurseries.

It is obvious, from advertisements for childcare, that there is a lack of equality in the eyes of certain councils, given the lack of information for parents on the variety of options that are available to them. The Scottish Government claims to be delivering choice, but it is delivering the exact opposite. The minister has confirmed that.

We understand that, in some cases, quality childcare that has been provided by partnership nurseries for decades is under threat. We understand that, if we lose partnership nurseries, that quality will be very difficult to replace. More fundamentally, we understand that, without the full integration of partnership nurseries, the policy cannot be successful.

Experienced staff who have long-term relationships with the children in their charge are leaving partnership nurseries, to the detriment of all concerned. I am most concerned about the ability of the childcare sector to ensure adequate cover for under three-year-olds. Lack of cover will impact parents who want to go back to work, as Liz Smith highlighted.

The Care Inspectorate is downgrading nurseries because of the turnover of staff, and there is nothing that partnership nurseries can do about it. They need to accept the funding rates that they are given. From listening to partnership nurseries, we know that they feel sidelined, ignored and treated as an afterthought in the process.

There is a huge disparity in approach across councils. In South Ayrshire, for example, the 1,140 hours will be available for families from Scottish index of multiple deprivation decile 1 areas and perhaps for some families in SIMD decile 2 areas. However, some nurseries have no children in those areas, so they will be excluded. That is not what the Government’s policy document says should happen.

Let us be clear: the Scottish Government’s policy is not being implemented properly, as outlined in the Government’s framework. The Government cannot duck responsibility and leave it to councils to deliver childcare. This crucial policy must work first time round; there is no time to tinker around the edges. If the Scottish Government does not get it right first time, it will find that, when it tries again, the partnership nursery infrastructure, which is crucial to the success of the policy, has collapsed.

It is time for the minister and the SNP Government to get their heads out of the sand and listen to what is happening on the ground. They must make the changes to the policy that are needed for it to be successful. Until they do that, the Scottish Conservatives will continue to give partnership nurseries and parents the voice that they need, and we will continue to press the minister and the Scottish Government to accept their responsibilities.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On Monday, I visited Townhead primary school, in my constituency. It was clear from that visit that the school has a very strong early years ethos—through promoting outdoor learning, for example—and it was a privilege to be taken on a tour of the facilities by the enthusiastic Ms Cowan. We spoke about the potential development of a new local authority nursery on the campus. Such a nursery seems to have been generally welcomed by the community and will meet the needs of youngsters in the area. That is just one example of the amazing early years work that is going on across my constituency and Scotland as a whole. I need to mention my own wee boy’s nursery, which I cannot thank enough for all the work that it does.

As the minister outlined, the Scottish Government is clearly making notable progress towards implementing the fully funded 1,140 hours in the expansion of early learning and childcare. As others have said, the Scottish Government has found that the overwhelming majority of parents are satisfied with the quality of funded provision and with the benefits for their children. The data that has been gathered shows that we are currently on track to meet that ambitious aim.

Despite a slight shortfall in recruitment, more than 11,000 children are enjoying access to more than 600 hours of learning. The Government is tackling that shortfall in recruitment. There has been talk of the vacancy rate being below the national average, with about 11,000 additional workers being required. I welcome the Government’s initiatives, such as the men in early years challenge fund, which seeks to attract more males into the profession via funding for colleges. I applaud the Scottish Government’s work to offer 1,500 additional places on higher national certificate courses in 2018-19. We will see more practitioners being trained up through vocational training routes that are in place at nurseries across the country. We also have a national recruitment campaign that will attract school leavers and people who are looking for a different career path. That is all good news, but, from the Tory speeches and motion, we would not think that there is any good news at all.

That is not to say that there are not difficulties, as has been outlined by the minister and other speakers—even SNP speakers. Lochview and Parkview nurseries are excellent facilities in my constituency that I have mentioned in the chamber before. I agree with what the minister and my colleague Clare Adamson have said about North Lanarkshire Council. It is an example of a council that has turned round its engagement with private sector nurseries over the past few months.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member give way?

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I do not think that I have time.

North Lanarkshire Council has turned round that engagement to the extent that it and the private sector nurseries now work together. In discussions, nursery managers are still raising the concerns that I think Alison Harris raised about the disparity between wages in the private sector and those in the local authority sector, and they are looking to the council to address that issue through those discussions.

I want to mention the give them time campaign and how it fits with the motion that we are debating today. I recently lodged a motion to take the campaign forward, and I thank members for signing my motion and the minister for her engagement with the group. The campaign is based on the fairly simple principle that the choice to defer a child starting P1 is for parents or carers, not local authorities. The group is campaigning not for automatic deferral but for the choice to defer. Unfortunately, parental experience of deferral is inconsistent across local authorities, with many councils being negative and obstructive when it comes to funding nursery places for children whose parents choose to defer. I will go into that in more detail if I am lucky enough to get a members’ business debate on my motion.

In the meantime—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will have to await your members’ business debate, Mr MacGregor.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Local

authorities must apply the law as it stands. With the new policy on 1,140 hours—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am being nice—for the time being. Thank you.

I call Iain Gray to close for Labour.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

As many members have said, this is a debate that we have had before, most recently in October. It is a pity that we have to keep returning to it, because the minister was right when she said that there is much agreement across the chamber that high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare is critical. The expansion to 1,140 hours is a policy that is supported right across the chamber. There is also agreement that that childcare will have to be provided by a mix of providers if the policy is to be delivered at all and if it is to be delivered with the flexibility that parents will wish to see.

There is agreement, too, that that means that we need to pursue common standards—common training and qualification levels—and the payment of the real living wage to those who deliver funded hours, whatever sector they work in.

We also agree with what the minister said this morning on “Good Morning Scotland”: the delivery of the policy is challenging. Many of those who have spoken today have said that although they agree with the minister, they think that that is rather an understatement.

There are some authoritative voices that agree that delivery of the policy is extremely challenging. We know that Audit Scotland has expressed considerable concerns, particularly about the ability to recruit the required workforce. It is updating its work, and it will be interesting to see what it will say. Unison, which organises in the sector, has raised concerns about the disparity in wage levels between the public and private sectors and the consequences of that—that issue has featured in the debate. The NDNA is still telling us that around half its members say that they will not be able to be involved in the 1,140-hour expansion at all. We do not need the NDNA to tell us that, because we all have nurseries in our constituencies that are telling us all the things that have been discussed and debated today.

A nursery in a colleague’s constituency told her that, over the past 18 months, it has lost three of its most-qualified members of staff to the state sector because they are pursuing better pay. An email from a partner provider nursery to another colleague talks about three contiguous local authorities—all with similar demographic and socioeconomic profiles—that offer partner providers between £4.76 and £5.55 per hour. That is a significant difference, and members can understand why providers are concerned by that. Providers are also being offered different numbers of hours and transition arrangements. There are problems, and there are voices that are raising real concerns. Johann Lamont is right to say that it is not good enough just to shrug those off.

Although there is an agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about funding for the policy, we must understand that the funding is less than the sum of what individual local authorities are asking for in their plans. We must also understand the local government context at the moment, which is one of squeezed budgets. All that members are asking for in the debate is some acknowledgement of all that.

The minister has said repeatedly that her door is open. However, the trouble is that her ears and her mind seem to be closed to the problems that we are told exist. Both the Tory motion and our amendment are measured and mild, to say the least. They do not denounce the policy and they do not demand that ministers be dragged to the tumbrils so that we can see heads roll. They ask only for a little humility and a willingness to listen to and acknowledge the concerns and evidence of councils and providers, and to seek to address the problems before they compromise the policy, which commands support across the chamber. Surely, that is not too much to ask.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Let me begin by assuring the chamber that I am listening and that I am willing to address the problems that have been mentioned today. I thank colleagues across Parliament for today’s debate. As I said earlier, it is heartening to have heard throughout the debate that shared commitment, across Parliament, to this transformative policy ambition.

We are 18 months away from a national roll-out of 1,140 hours for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds, and we are on a journey with our partners in local government and in early learning and childcare settings the length and breadth of Scotland.

I do not underestimate the challenges that are involved, but I am determined and confident that, together, we will deliver for Scotland’s children and families.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Could the minister provide to Parliament the evidence that makes her feel confident that this will be delivered on time? Given the conflicting evidence that we are getting from our casework, it would be helpful if we could have that evidence.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Absolutely. There has been much discussion this afternoon about what progress the data does or does not show. I point colleagues to the early learning and childcare expansion delivery progress reports that were published by the joint delivery board. The board is working with the Improvement Service and the Scottish Futures Trust to collect data on the progress of the delivery of expansion programmes across all councils. That is a rich data set that covers all aspects of the expansion.

The first of those reports, which was published in December 2018, covered the period from 1 May to 30 September 2018. It demonstrated that local authorities are broadly meeting forecasts for delivery progress and remain on track to deliver. Indeed, the number of children who are benefiting from additional hours is exceeding local authority projections. I am hugely proud that more than 11,000 children are already benefiting from access to more than 600 hours of funded early learning and childcare, including 1,100 eligible two-year-olds.

That figure is 26 per cent higher than we anticipated. We are already hearing about the positive impacts for children, their families and the practitioners who work with them.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

I understand what the minister is saying about the rich data set and the numbers that she has. However, does she know how many children are waiting to go into the 1,140 hours? In addition, of that number how many local authority places are still available, and how much is reliant on the private sector? That is where the gap is.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I assure Michelle Ballantyne that, at the start of the expansion, the proportion of the market that the partner providers occupied was around 23 per cent and that, at the time of the completion of the expansion, it will be around 23 per cent. In the meantime, we have not committed to delivering 1,140 hours until 2020.

To answer Ms Lamont’s point about Glasgow City Council, it signed off plans very recently to accelerate the expansion of early learning and childcare. From August this year, families with a household income of up to £45,000—that is, 90 per cent of families in the area—will be able to access 900 hours of funded early learning and childcare in local authority and private settings.

I think that everyone in the chamber—or nearly everyone; I certainly expect my Labour colleagues to do so—will welcome the fact that up to 8,000 staff in 960 partner provider settings will benefit from a real living wage. That is a largely female workforce.

On the point that Mr Scott raised about ASN training, there is a £2 million inclusion fund that allows settings to bid for funding to support children with additional support needs and to access ELC, and there are funds for staff to receive appropriate training, equipment and adaptations. The most recent funding round closed on 22 February.

On the point that my Conservative colleagues raised about rates relief for independent school nurseries, the non-domestic rates bill will remove that relief and end the inequality. It is unfair that independent schools that are charities benefit from non-domestic rates charity relief and council schools do not qualify. That will be ended.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I would like to finish the point.

In April 2018, we introduced 100 per cent business rates relief for premises that are wholly or mainly used as day nurseries. That will remain unchanged.

I will take Liz Smith’s intervention now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I suggest that you do not. You are in your last minute. I am sorry, but you must conclude.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I appreciate the valuable contribution that the national representative organisations have made. As I said in an intervention, I look forward to meeting the chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association later this month. There is continued dialogue with colleagues at Early Years Scotland, and I will speak at its conference later this year. Later this month, the Scottish Childminding Association, the Care and Learning Alliance and the Care Inspectorate will all support a dedicated summit for local authority colleagues on involving childminders in the 1,140 hours offer.

Flexibility and choice for families are hugely important, and I am grateful to all those organisations for their involvement.

My door is open to anyone who wants to talk about early learning and childcare. In my role, I have the opportunity to visit settings throughout Scotland regularly, and it is incredibly valuable to hear at first hand about progress and challenges.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude there. Thank you very much.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

The message from the debate is clear: the Scottish National Party’s flagship policy is under pressure and, as with many issues under the Government, the rhetoric that comes from the minister does not match the reality on the ground. I say gently, as I do not want to make things too political, that the Government cannot on one hand try to claim the credit for a noble policy ambition and on the other hand just ignore its shortcomings and challenges. That is the Government at its worst, and parents and young people deserve better. It is time for the minister to take responsibility for ensuring

that the 1,140 hours provision is the success that many families across Scotland need it to be.

The problem is that the minister has ignored the problems that members across the chamber have raised over the past year, and the task is becoming harder because trust is breaking down. We have heard numerous examples this afternoon, but I will focus on a few from my constituency that sum up the debate that we are having.

It is all very well to say that the policy is going well in some places, but it is meant to be about universal access to 1,140 hours of provision in every local authority area in Scotland. Ahead of the debate, a nursery owner got in touch with me to say:

“The situation in Dumfries & Galloway is ... fraught. There is no consultation nor any trust or partnership ... we are committed to performing high quality early learning and child care but unless something is done immediately there is a high chance of businesses closing.”

Another nursery has been in touch to tell me that, despite having invested thousands of pounds in opening a new nursery following the closure of the only other childcare facility in the town, and meeting an otherwise unmet need among working parents, it has been prevented from offering funded places because the local authority has taken the decision not to commission any new providers where there is an existing local authority nursery.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

On that particular issue, in Dumfries and Galloway the share of provision from partner providers and childminders at the start of the expansion in 2016-17 was 38 per cent. At the time of completion in 2021-22, the share is expected to increase to 40 per cent, and of course, the number of hours available will be greater.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

That gets right to the nub of the issue. If those partner providers are not there, the policy will fail. It is all very well to talk up the policy, but, as an angry parent who got in touch with me said, the refusal to allow that nursery to open and offer funded places when it is the only provider to offer childcare for 51 weeks of the year is discriminatory to single parents. There are people who will not be able to go to work because it will be impossible for them to obtain the childcare that they have been promised.

Another parent believes that the nursery in question is best placed to deliver outcomes for their child, who requires additional support and will benefit from being in a smaller environment.

The next issue is perhaps even worse. A nursery has been told that its business lease—the nursery is in part of a school, in which it has operated for the past 13 years—is to be terminated. When the nursery asked why, it turns out that it is to make room for a local authority nursery.

Those three examples follow a case that I raised with the minister before Christmas, in which a nursery in Annan that had been asked to deliver 1,140 hours in January was still trying to find out from the council at 4pm on 21 December what its funded rates would be. That does not sound like partnership working to me.

I have chosen not to name the nurseries in question, because I do not want to further alarm parents. However, is the minister willing to personally investigate those unresolved cases and to give a guarantee that the policy that is delivered on the ground is the same policy that the Government has announced? Does the minister accept that such serious, systematic issues and failings at this stage, in one local authority area, are enough of a problem for the Scottish Government to step in, or are we meant to wait until it is too late?

Even the Scottish Government’s own deputy director of early learning and childcare appears to recognise the problem and said in a recent email to directors of education:

“there is a continuing sense at forum meetings that not all providers feel that they are being equally treated by their commissioning local authorities.”

That same official was concerned to hear that the national standard requirements were being incorrectly interpreted in some areas.

If this really is a national policy, when will we see national leadership from the Scottish Government to iron out the differences and to ensure that the whole sector is valued and that the existing skill base and talents offered by the private and voluntary sector are put to maximum use?

The time for warm words and positive aspirations is over. If the policy is going to deliver on its potential, we need action. We need firm commitments from the minister that she is going to intervene and get the policy back on track. Is the minister ready to take full ownership of the policy or would the Government rather blame individual local authorities and focus on regional inconsistencies?

Like the Scottish Conservatives, parents and young people would rather just see the policy fixed, and I urge members to support our motion at decision time.

Supporting Scottish Agriculture

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16123, in the name of Donald Cameron, on supporting Scottish agriculture.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding farming and crofting.

Many members will be aware that we had a similar discussion in the chamber about farming policy a couple of months ago. The Scottish Government’s welcome, if belated, U-turn on less favoured area support scheme payments dominated that debate, as did arguments about the United Kingdom’s and Scotland’s agriculture bills. For the record, I note that we continue to believe that Scotland should be included in the UK bill and that, by rejecting an offer to extend the powers in that bill to Scotland, the SNP is failing Scottish agriculture. However, we did not get as much discussion as many of us would have liked on the specifics of a future support system. That is just one reason why we have brought the debate to the chamber today, and I make no apology for that.

In addition, although Brexit is at the forefront of many people’s minds, that is no reason, in our view, for the Scottish Government to delay setting out its thinking on agriculture support. Leaving the European Union and the common agricultural policy provides us with a unique opportunity to rethink how we support farming. Almost three years have elapsed since the vote to leave the EU, but, in comparison with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have had precious little detail or leadership from the Scottish Government.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I thank Mr Cameron for giving way. I do not accept what he says. However, do the Scottish Conservatives have any specific policy of their own with regard to the future of financial support for Scottish agriculture?

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I look forward to setting that out right now.

Likewise, the continuing round of Government expert groups, task forces, advisory bodies and consultation exercises should not prevent the Government from providing details. However well intentioned those groups are and however well qualified the people who contribute are, we now need to see concrete specifics from the Government. The fact is that Scotland’s agricultural community remains firmly in the dark about the SNP’s plans for support and what it wants to achieve for farmers, crofters and land managers. Unlike people in other parts of the UK, we, in Scotland, have had little direction, lots of posturing and no real action.

That is why we have brought forward the debate—to set out our plans for supporting Scottish agriculture. If the SNP will not set out its vision, we will set out ours, and I look forward to contributions from across the chamber. I really think that we can build a consensus around several points, as there is an overlap and many principles that many of us share.

Our starting point is that any support system must not create friction with the internal UK market, which is by far our biggest market and is of crucial importance to our farmers and crofters. Our focus is on practical, simple support that farmers can access easily and quickly. We want the Government to support environmental measures, new technologies, new entrants to farming and flexibility for those in farming as well as those who wish to exit the sector with dignity. Scotland’s unique landscape poses challenges and opportunities, which we will embrace. Above all, Scotland’s farmers deserve an ambitious programme of support and encouragement that will ensure that our rural communities capitalise on the opportunity that we now have.

As our motion states, we believe that there are several key principles that must be adhered to, which are as follows. First and foremost, we believe that food production and productivity must be at the heart of future farming policy. That is vital if the Scottish Government is to achieve its ambition of doubling the value of food and drink from £15 billion to £30 billion by 2030—an ambition that we share. Scotland has some of the finest food and drink products in the world, and it is important that we create the conditions for the sector to thrive and for producers to maintain the supply of high-quality goods.

However, to ensure that that growth does not come at a cost to producers, we must do all that we can to guarantee that our farmers and crofters will get a fairer return for their products. We therefore propose working with the UK Government to widen and strengthen the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, so that our food suppliers are treated more fairly. We would also look to work with the UK Government to ensure that better and clearer food labelling helps to build brands and deliver better prices, driving up sales and productivity. Last year, the total income from farming fell by 8 per cent, with productivity falling for the third year in a row, and we want to reverse those worrying trends.

Another important step is to encourage and incentivise farmers to invest in new technologies such as global positioning system targeting input systems for arable farms and new weighing systems to make farming and crofting smarter and more efficient.

Secondly, we believe in regional differentiation. There must be a recognition that Scottish agriculture has unique circumstances, with 85 per cent of land being classed as less favoured. The remoteness of many of our farms and crofts often drives up costs and makes it more difficult to transport livestock to slaughter or to market. NFU Scotland has said that any sudden loss of support to less favoured areas could render many hill farms and crofts “unsustainable”. We, too, believe that a tailored Scottish system should deliver a menu of targeted options that are designed to meet regional and sectoral needs, as opposed to our having a one-size-fits-all approach.

Thirdly, a key component of a future agriculture policy is environmental protection. We must recognise our commitments to protecting the environment and reducing our carbon footprint. I put on record my admiration for the many things that farmers and crofters are already doing to reduce their carbon emissions voluntarily. From planting hedgerows and trees to improving animal health and diet or cutting methane output, the sector is already taking the challenge seriously. We agree with NFUS that there is huge potential in having a suite of environmental measures that offer real, practical choices to every farm and croft. We need to promote the environment specifically as one of the key priorities for farming policy and assist those in the sector with what they are already doing.

Fourthly, we believe in simplification. Given the utter chaos that has been caused by the Scottish National Party Government’s inability to deliver common agricultural policy payments on time to our farmers and crofters, it is clear that any future support system must be different. It should be easier to access and apply for, simpler to administer and able to deal with genuine mistakes and errors. We believe that there must be a clear distinction between minor and major non-compliance, with proportionate penalties in any given case. We should aim to reduce bureaucracy, and there should be fewer but better-targeted inspections. In short, a system must be delivered that removes many of the burdens that exist and that supports our farmers and crofters instead of working against them.

Fifthly, we believe that the future of Scottish agriculture can be guaranteed only by encouraging the next generation to enter it. We must be able to attract new entrants to ensure that farming and crofting remain sustainable and productive. We must make it easier to work in the sector, offer new opportunities to develop new skills, promote flexible working and the diversification of businesses, and, as I said, make it easier for those who want to leave farming to do so. It is vital that we equip our farmers and crofters with the necessary skills, training and knowledge to drive up productivity while supporting new, complementary enterprises that those in the sector are undertaking alongside farming and crofting.

A large part of that will come down to how much we invest in research, development and innovation, but the approach also acknowledges the role of advisory services. In addition, we support a rural network to raise awareness and provide a link with innovation.

I note the various amendments to the motion, and I sympathise with elements of them—particularly the part of Rhoda Grant’s amendment that talks about rural poverty and repopulation. I am sympathetic to that point, but I wonder whether it is suitable for agriculture support funding to promote those specific issues.

I have laid out just some of our ideas, and we will actively work with the Scottish Government to see them come to fruition. However, we will do that in the absence of any real, concrete measures from the SNP.

I will end with some questions, although I have no great expectation of answers. What system of support can farmers and crofters expect? Will it be easier to use? What specific support will the Government offer to encourage farmers to cut carbon, attract the next generation and drive up productivity? Does the Scottish Government believe that we should recognise regional differences and tailor support to the unique needs of farming and crofting? What is the Scottish Government’s position on the capping of payments and the length of any transition period? When can we expect to see a Scottish agriculture bill? That is an important question, because our agricultural communities rightly expect concrete proposals that will enable them to plan for the future. The Scottish Conservatives are willing to make that case; now is the time for the SNP to do so, too.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that future agricultural policy should have at its heart the following principles: productivity, regional differentiation, environmental protection, simplification, and research and education that secures the future of farming careers; believes that the Scottish Government’s failure to develop an agricultural policy for Scotland is having a detrimental effect on the country’s farmers and crofters, and calls on the Scottish Government to set out its position regarding the main elements of a future support system for farming in Scotland.

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

I welcome the opportunity to debate the support that we give to our farming and crofting sector, because it is an iconic industry that not only forms part of our diverse rural economy but is an integral part of our economy as a whole.

However, I must take serious issue with the motion that has been lodged by Donald Cameron, because it contains a quite astonishing and glaring omission. The one thing that Donald Cameron fails to mention is the single biggest threat to farmers, crofters, our rural economy and Scotland as a whole: Brexit.

We are only 23 days away from exit day, and we still have no idea whether we will be leaving with a bad deal or—truly catastrophic—no deal, which the United Kingdom Government belligerently refuses to rule out. That belligerence translates into recklessness—a reckless failure to give certainty on future funding arrangements, reckless inability to rule out tariffs on our most valuable exports, and a callous recklessness in refusing to give certainty to the EU citizens who live and work in our rural, coastal and island communities.

As a Government, we have made our position clear: we will continue to support faming and crofting through payment of common agricultural policy support this year and next. We have set out our proposals in the document “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”, and we have a clear five-year plan to see the industry through the transition following the UK’s exit from the EU and beyond.

Scotland is the only part of the UK with such a detailed transition plan. Our commitment to that work is already being put into effect by the simplification task force, which first met in December 2018 and met again on 13 February 2019. In addition, through a Lib Dem amendment, we as a Parliament agreed to convene a group of producers, consumers and environmental organisations

“to inform and recommend a new bespoke policy on farming and food production for Scotland”.

The simple fact is that, while we are taking those concrete steps in Scotland, south of the border the UK Government is taking us ever closer to the Brexit cliff edge. As if the persistent threat, 23 days from EU exit, of a no-deal Brexit was not enough, we still have no clarity on a number of key issues that are affecting our rural economy now. The UK Government has said that it will continue

“to commit the same cash total in funds for farm support”

until the end of the current session of the UK Parliament. We still do not know what “farm support” means. Not all pillar 2 funding is guaranteed, which puts at risk investment in forestry.

We also do not know about the position on LEADER, which is a fund that has played an integral role in empowering rural communities for more than 25 years. Last week, I spoke at an event in Parliament to recognise the massive impact that LEADER has had in our rural areas, and I opened a LEADER-funded community hub in my home city of Brechin on Saturday morning, which is one of four LEADER-funded projects in Brechin alone.

The Tory motion is shamefully silent on questions about future funding and the implications for our wider rural economy. In the two and a bit years since the referendum, we have had just one statement on the detail of the shared prosperity fund. A consultation on it was due to take place last year, but we are still waiting. What exactly will it fund? Who knows?

We also need to recognise the very real and immediate threats across the whole rural economy: farmers, fishers and seafood producers will be hit harder than anyone else. If the UK does not receive third-country listing from day 1, we will lose access to 96 per cent of our export market for lamb. If we get that listing, tariffs on sheep meat will be about 40 per cent, and we can expect the same tariff across red meats.

The EU is also a key market for seafood exports, accounting for 77 per cent of all our overseas seafood exports. The market will be particularly badly hit by non-tariff barriers, including the need for export health certificates, which would see a fourfold increase in administration for the salmon industry alone and would cost an extra £15 million a year. There is no word of that in the Tory motion.

People across our food supply chains are being forced to spend from tens of thousands of pounds to millions of pounds to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. It might never happen, but the UK Government refuses to rule it out.

Above all that, what lies at the heart of the debate is people. I am talking not only about the people who work on our farms and crofts and in abattoirs and processing, but the people who are in all the jobs that keep our rural communities going, including nurses, social care workers and hospitality workers. A large number of those workers are EU citizens. In the north-east, 70 per cent of the people who work in fish processing and 95 per cent of vets in abattoirs are EU citizens. How will our rural economy continue to function without the people who sit at its very heart?

This is not just about the economic imperative behind the movement of people: we are talking about people’s lives. I would love to hear what the Tories have to say to my family and my friends, and to the hundreds of thousands of other families who are affected by the hostile environment that its Government has created. People—many of whom have known only Scotland as their home—now have to apply for the right to stay in Scotland.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Most of, if not all, the problems that the minister has outlined are happening on her watch. This is nothing to do with Brexit; those things are happening on the minister’s watch, now. She should answer that.

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

John Scott says that the threat to EU citizens is happening on our watch, when it is because of the policies that the Tory Government in Westminster is pursuing. Is that happening on our watch? The Tory Government’s policies are absolutely abhorrent, and I have absolutely nothing to do with them. As I said, the policies are affecting my family and hundreds of thousands of other families across the country, right now.

On 10 January in Parliament, we were able to achieve consensus on our shared approach to future rural policy. Compare that with the approach that has been taken south of the border, where there have been 26 ministerial resignations over Brexit since last year. The most recent resignation was that of George Eustice, who was the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, such little faith has he in his Government’s policy direction. That is why I will take no lectures or lessons from the Tories on rural policy.

The Scottish Government will continue to do what it has always done, which is to stand up for our farmers, crofters, fishermen, fish processors, EU citizens and rural and island communities, while working collaboratively to build policy for the future.

I move amendment S5M-16123.2, to leave out from “future agricultural policy” to end, and insert:

“the principles that it agreed following the debate on motion S5M-15279 on 10 January 2019 should be at the heart of future rural policy, namely sustainability, simplicity, innovation, inclusion, productivity and profitability; recognises the significant role that research and education should play to secure future careers in rural industries; reaffirms its view that a no deal outcome to the current negotiations on EU withdrawal would be completely unacceptable, not least because of its potential disastrous impact on Scotland’s rural economy, and agrees that, as well as supporting Scotland’s farming and crofting sector, a future funding system should also support rural, coastal and island community activity and promote environmental stewardship.”

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Two months ago, we had a similar debate in an attempt to provide our crofters and farmers with an indication of what Scotland’s priorities for agriculture will be post-Brexit. We appear to be no further forward.

I cannot disagree with the Conservative motion or the Government amendment to it, although I would have hoped that the Government would use its amendment to provide more detail.

Brexit has caused the uncertainty, but the Scottish Government cannot simply wash its hands of it. It is for the Government to govern, regardless of the circumstances in which it finds itself. It is for the Government to steer the direction of travel for our farmers and crofters, and to give them the information that they need to plan for Brexit. The Scottish Government cannot simply carry on as before.

The mood of the debate so far has been unhelpful. Rather than trade insults across the chamber, the Scottish Government must use the opportunity of the debate to provide an outline of its plans.

Our current system is very biased towards production; it allows farmers who could run profitable businesses without support to receive the lion’s share of the available support. The top five recipients of single farm payments in Scotland receive more than the bottom 3,500 recipients combined. Sadly, 45 per cent of farms make an income that is equivalent to less than the minimum agricultural wage, and 23 per cent of farms make a loss. That is why the debate is also about poverty. It is arguable that those businesses offer the most by way of public good—however, they receive the least in the way of funding.

I said all that a month ago in the debate then. I want to hear what the Scottish Government has done since then, as a result of what was said. How does the Government plan to ensure that public money is used for the public good, rather than for personal gain? Our amendment sets priorities for an inclusive system that directs investment where it is most needed, tackles rural and food poverty and supports repopulation.

The Scottish Government has two opportunities to lay out its future policy, because there is to be an agriculture bill and a good food nation bill. If the Government was truly ambitious, there would be one bill encompassing both and making the connection between support and outcomes. We have fantastic and world-renowned produce, yet many of our people are malnourished. Therefore, what we want from our farmers and crofters has to be the basis of the new farming support scheme. Central to that is a good food nation bill.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does Rhoda Grant agree that the opportunity exists to expand the great food that she speaks of into our schools and hospitals where—through the Government-controlled Scotland Excel website procurement contracts—only 16 per cent of the food currently comes from Scotland?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I agree. After finishing this point, I will come on to that one, which must be made.

We agree with the principles of

“sustainability, simplicity, innovation, inclusion, productivity and profitability”.

They are all laudable, but we also want a right to food. Too many of our children grow up in food poverty, which is storing up problems for future generations and the health service and affects their lifespan and life chances.

Farming and crofting are economic drivers as well as food producers, but the profit from the industry often goes to the people in the long food chain between field and fork. As Brian Whittle said, we need to find ways to tackle that, because rural poverty surely could be tackled by shortening the food chain and keeping the wealth in our communities.

Local procurement could cut costs for the public sector while also supporting the local agriculture industry. The potential to allow farmers and crofters to sell direct to public bodies is something that we have always talked about in Parliament but have never realised. We need to encourage co-operative working between individual businesses, which would allow them to compete for contracts and ensure the supply of goods. However, we also need to look at how small producers could access such contracts on their own. Such enterprises need support to get off the ground and to work towards being able to get into that procurement market.

New schemes must also recognise that co-operative working is important; they must encourage it rather than discourage it, which the current schemes often do by not recognising equipment rings and common grazings, for example, which are fundamental to rural farming and crofting.

If we are to halt depopulation and turn it around, we must maximise the impact of the industry and make sure that secondary processing also remains in communities.

We recognise the uncertainty that prevails and the impact that it has on our agriculture sector. We need an indication of what the future holds. We believe that we have an opportunity to build a policy and strategy that will support farming communities, going forward.

I move amendment S5M-16123.1, to insert at end:

“, and notes that any future system of rural payments should have inclusion as a principle, prioritise payments for those most in need, tackle rural and food poverty, and support repopulation in rural areas.”

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Once again, we are debating a motion on farming policy that fails to address the crisis that climate change poses to our farms, coastlines, communities and future generations in Scotland. During the debate in the chamber on 10 January, I made it clear that the Greens cannot support any future farm support system or farming policy that does not address climate change as a core principle. Our position has not changed on that matter.

I lodged an amendment to the motion for debate in January, calling for agriculture to play a key role in addressing the climate emergency that we face and for farming support payments to be used to develop a net zero emissions sector in Scotland. The cabinet secretary failed to speak to my amendment once in that debate, so I am still unsure why the Government voted against it, but an explanation from him of why the Government is so opposed to climate change mitigation forming a core principle of our farm support system would be welcome today.

I know that I am not alone in my frustration about that. This week, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee published our stage 1 report on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which included the following observation:

“the area where divergence from UK Committee on Climate Change advice is most apparent is in relation to agriculture policy. In this case”—

the most recent climate change plan—

“the CCC recommended an approach which was subsequently rejected by the Scottish Government without an explanation provided to justify the decision.”

Our report says that,

“In its most recent report ... the CCC again noted: ‘Not all our recommendations have been implemented. In the agriculture sector, ambitions for emissions reduction have been further scaled back from the draft Plan.’”

The body that was established specifically to advise Government on its climate change plan has made it clear that we are going in the wrong direction and ignoring its advice.

Our report on the bill goes on to recommend that

“the Scottish Government give urgent consideration to the agriculture sector ... and take a holistic approach to emissions accounting, recognising the activities across the sector that play a positive role in reducing emissions, such as afforestation and peatland restoration, and highlighting the opportunities that can arise by developing new rural support mechanisms that encourage this.”

I am looking at John Scott, who will recognise those words—he is nodding sagely in the corner.

That recommendation from a Parliament committee makes it clear that we are not, as some would accuse us, heaping undue blame for emissions on the agriculture sector. Agriculture is both a cause of and a solution to climate change emissions. By leaving out climate change from our discussions of agricultural support, we deny the fundamental role that the industry can play in mitigation and we shut off a potentially valuable source of funding for our farmers. We also deny the farming sector the chance for a just transition, which was discussed on a number of occasions in evidence to the committee. Agriculture was singled out for its vulnerability. A just transition will not come about by ignoring the difficult conversations.

We must recognise the wide range of approaches that are currently in the sector and ensure that we not only promote but financially support the best examples of low-carbon farming in Scotland. The answers are out there in the industry already—initiatives such as the nature friendly farming network, which was established by farmers themselves, are leading the way in low-carbon, sustainable farming, and I find it incomprehensible that they should not be rewarded for their approach to climate change in our future farm support system.

We are working towards a position in which most of us in the chamber agree to the public money for public goods approach to subsidies. What bigger public good is there than being part of the solution to climate change and helping Scotland to achieve net zero emissions?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I thank the Conservative Party for using its debating time today to raise the important issue of our rural economy. Unfortunately, although I am sure that Donald Cameron has the best of intentions, I believe that he fails to recognise what has to be the way forward for our rural economy. In the motion, he

“calls on the Scottish Government to set out its position regarding the main elements of a future support system for farming”.

No. If it did that, the Government would be ignoring what our Parliament decided on 10 January. Can you imagine the uproar in the chamber if the minister did that and decided to ignore the will of Parliament? Parliament decided, in a vote after the debate on 10 January, that the Government’s way forward would be

“to convene a group consisting of producer, consumer and environmental organisations to inform and recommend a new bespoke policy on farming and food production for Scotland”.

That has to be the way forward if we are to design a new bespoke system of rural support that has buy-in from all our stakeholders.

Indeed, the Government’s amendment today would have contained a reference to that commitment but, unfortunately, the Presiding Officer decided not to call the amendment that I lodged to the Government’s amendment, so we do not have an opportunity to vote to reconfirm Parliament’s and the Scottish Government’s commitment. I do not question the Presiding Officer’s decision. Perhaps I am assuming something, but he may have felt that Parliament did not need a vote to reconfirm what it had already decided, and I absolutely accept that. I am sure that, during his summing up, the cabinet secretary will update us on the work that he has been doing to establish that group, so that we can see that work is under way to recommend a bespoke system that will work for Scotland.

I do not wish to be unkind to Donald Cameron, but the Conservative call for the Government to outline the new system that we need is, if I may say so, a typically paternalistic approach. The Conservatives seem to want the Government to tell our producers, consumers and environmental organisations that the Government always knows best. Ignoring buy-in from our producer, consumer and environmental stakeholders, which is what we would do if we went down the route that Donald Cameron wants us to, is a recipe for failure, and that is why the call from the Conservatives must be resisted once again. Donald Cameron tried that approach during the debate on 10 January, and Parliament said no. Unfortunately, Donald Cameron repeatedly misses the point and he is back again with very much the same motion.

We will support the Labour amendment, but we must be careful not to pre-empt the work of the producer, consumer and environmental organisations that form the new group.

As I said in the debate on 10 January,

“in designing a new and bespoke system of support for our rural economy that works, the rural economy secretary has a difficult task ahead of him”—

it is not going to be easy—

“and we must all make the extra effort not to create false divisions between us”,

which is what I think is happening,

“simply for party advantage.”—[

Official Report

, 10 January 2019; c 74-5.]

Even now, I call on the Conservatives to engage with that inclusive approach because, as I said in the debate in January and it is worth repeating:

“The great prize is a bespoke and successful system of rural support that will enable our rural economy”

to overcome the real challenges that it faces and

“to thrive.” —[

Official Report

, 10 January 2019; c 74.]

Surely that is what we all want to see.

The Presiding Officer

We turn to the open part of the debate.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am a partner in a farming business. As someone who has a farm and comes from a family that has farmed for three generations, and who has spent 12 years of their professional life offering advice to farmers, I believe that it is right that I have strong and informed views on farming.

Farming is a long-term business that does not always mirror the patterns of normal business or the Parliament’s election cycles. Farmers have to plan 10 years in advance to ensure that the huge capital costs that they require to pay are well invested. Preparing for the future is everything, and being able to predict the future is all important.

Cabinet secretary, that is why farmers up and down the country are getting more and more frustrated with your

lack of forward planning and a long-term vision for Scottish farming. You always point to your “Stability and Simplicity” document, which I believe you waved earlier. My question to you is this: what workable, comprehensive plan contains 46 questions? When I worked as a surveyor in private practice, if I had gone to my boss and said, “Here is a plan with 46 questions in it,” I do not think that he would have given me a fair hearing. I believe that the document is quite simple in what it says, but it offers no certainty and no vision for the future. Farmers are not seeing enough progress, and the Scottish Conservatives now call on the Scottish Government to get on with it. Too much analysis often leads to paralysis.

First, let us look at productivity, which has already been mentioned. For far too long, productivity on Scottish farms has plateaued. Barley yields per acre have hardly increased in 20 years. We need to be far more progressive in our use of new technology, from using smarter digital technology to boost crop yields to investigating how we can improve resilience through plant and animal breeding.

Secondly, with the new system that is being developed we now have an opportunity to recognise the differences between the Lowlands and the Highlands, and future policy must do so. Clearly, there is a difference between the productivity of the alluvial coastal and riverine plains and that of the pioneer habitats on the upper slopes of our hills. As we have seen in the past, one policy never suits all. We must ensure that we lay out what we want each of Scotland’s habitats to achieve.

Thirdly, we believe that farmers are the custodians of the countryside. We all benefit from the landscape that our farmers maintain and have produced over hundreds of years. Scottish Conservatives feel that the principle of public money being used for public good must be at the heart of future funding.

Fourthly, the current funding system is far too complicated. Time and again, we have stressed that the penalties for errors are too stringent. Frankly, if the Government’s agencies had been fined for their errors in delivering agricultural support in the same way that farmers have been in trying to receive it, they would be bankrupt. Here is an idea for you, cabinet secretary—you did ask for them: we could simplify the system by using the many assurance schemes that are currently in place to form the basis of information checking for farming. It would cost less, because farmers would be paying for it, it would be more efficient and it would perhaps result in a decrease in demand for the approximately 750 staff who are required to implement the current scheme.

Finally, we must secure future farming careers. I see that time is tight, but I want to make this comment. On land reform, I believe that we have got to the point at which, because of the legislation, we are not seeing new tenancies being created. We also have older farmers, less land to rent, lower incomes for farmers, and greater reliance on subsidies—all of which point to failure.

Farmers have been left in the dark for too long by this cabinet secretary, who is playing politics with them as he uses Brexit to delay introducing a Scottish agriculture bill or signing up to the UK Parliament’s Agriculture Bill. Cabinet secretary, it is time for you to stop sitting on the fence. Farmers do not want or need you there—they want you to back Scottish farming and come up with a plan, which you have fundamentally failed to do.

The Presiding Officer

I encourage members to speak through the chair and not to use the term “you” in their speeches.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Crofting is a major part of the fabric of life in my constituency. The Western Isles are home to approximately one third of all Scotland’s crofts, with more than 6,000 island crofts spread out among nearly 300 townships. Crofting is closely connected to the way of life, the culture and even the language of the islands that I represent.

The future of crofting faces some very real challenges. The age profile of crofters is higher than the rest of the population, and there remains a difficulty in attracting new entrants, which is not helped by the occasional casually dismissive remark that crofters are “people who have a couple of sheep and a back garden”—a quote that I am sad to say is directly attributable to members on the Opposition benches.

The high levels of bureaucracy that are associated with crofting are a source of constant frustration, with a recent survey showing that 95 per cent of crofters do not see crofting as economically viable unless they supplement their income in other ways. It is therefore worth mentioning the importance of the less favoured area support scheme to my constituency, and I thank the cabinet secretary for his commitment to finding a solution that will deliver funding under LFASS at approximately 100 per cent for this year and the next two years of the scheme.

I like and respect Mr Cameron, not least for his knowledge of the subject under debate, but, in my view, today’s motion fails to take account of one other thing that is making crofters anxious. When people in my constituency say “‘S e bùrach a th’ ann!” or “‘S e brochan a th’ ann”—or worse—they are talking about Brexit and the catastrophe that is the UK Government’s handling of it. Some members have decided that the issue should not be brought into this debate, but it has added huge new uncertainties for crofting. According to a survey of crofters that was conducted in November by the Scottish Crofting Federation, 14 per cent of respondents were confident about the future, compared with 31 per cent who classified themselves as despondent, while 55 per cent of respondents were uncertain, citing Brexit and the potential knock-on effects on prices and support payments.

We can only marvel at the blame-shifting exercise that is under way in the Conservative Party’s motion. We are now only 23 days from Brexit, but we still do not know what kind of Brexit we are facing, what markets producers will be able to sell into, the rules that will govern them, whether their exports will face high tariffs or what kind of customs checks they might expect to face. However, having dragged—in Scotland’s case, the more appropriate word might be “shoved”—us on to the cliff edge of a disastrous hard Brexit, the Tories have the sheer brass neck to turn around and say that it is uncertainty from the Scottish Government that is having a detrimental impact on farmers and crofters. There is a large body of evidence that shows that Scotland’s agriculture sector would be worse off under every conceivable Brexit scenario, and I ask the members opposite who so casually dismiss those concerns to support calls from members on the SNP benches for the UK Government to guarantee that farmers and crofters will be compensated in the event of a no-deal Brexit.