Scottish Parliament, 7 March 2019

301 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

NHS Boards (Budgets)

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government under what circumstances a national health service board would limit the amount of necessary operations that a patient requires due to budgetary concerns. (S5O-02963)

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

No clinically necessary operation should be curtailed because of budgetary or other financial concerns. Funding for NHS Borders will increase to £207.7 million, which is a 44.8 per cent increase in real terms since 2006-07. In addition, NHS Borders will receive £987,000 to target specialties such as ophthalmology and radiology as part of the first tranche of funding to reduce waiting times.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

I was contacted by a constituent who had gone through the whole process of being referred and put on the waiting list for a double hip operation. He was asked whether he would be willing to go to the Golden Jubilee hospital for his treatment and he agreed to that. I have to say that the treatment was very good, the operation was successful and he was very happy, although only one hip could be done at a time—we know that that is the clinically recommended approach. However, at his 12-week assessment he asked when he would be admitted for the operation on the other hip and he was told that there were no plans to do his other hip and that he would have to go back to the beginning and start again.

My question is not about my constituent himself but about the concern that he raises. When he tried to find out why NHS Lothian—it was that health board—had not approved having both hips done, which is the treatment for which he was referred, the only whisper that he got back was that the budget that was allocated was for only one hip. That raises some concerns.

Will the cabinet secretary assure others who might face that issue that they will not have the same experience?

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

If Ms Ballantyne emails me with some of the details of that case, I will look into the issue specifically. I am pleased that her constituent’s first operation went well. The situation that Ms Ballantyne described does not make sense to me and it does not sound correct. If she sends me the details I will look into it and, as soon as I have an answer I will ensure that she has an answer, too.

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

To go back to the first question that Michelle Ballantyne asked, on budgetary considerations, does the cabinet secretary agree that it is a bit rich for the Tories to talk budgets when their proposal to cut tax for the richest would have taken £500 million out of our budget, which pays for an awful lot of medical staff?

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

Ms Grahame is correct to say that the Tories’ proposal would have reduced our health budget by that amount. Fortunately, the Parliament took a different view. That money represents a significant number of nurses, doctors and allied health professionals, all of whom are committed to delivering the quality of healthcare that the Government is committed to and to ensuring the reduction in waiting times that I intend to see over the next period, as I have made very clear.

Cosmetic Procedures (Non-medically Qualified Practitioners)

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

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on non-medically qualified practitioners providing Botox and other similar treatments. (S5O-02964)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I put on record that I have a family member who is a qualified beautician.

We are currently considering a range of options for phase 2 of the regulation of independent clinics, which focuses on cosmetic procedures, including Botox and dermal fillers, that are provided by non-healthcare professionals within non-regulated sites—those procedures are principally, although not exclusively, administered by beauty therapists or hairdressers.

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

Given that desperate circumstances sometimes force people to undergo such risky treatments, what steps is the Scottish Government taking to improve access to such services on the national health service and to better regulate the industry?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Botox injections and similar procedures are not provided by the NHS for cosmetic rather than medical reasons. In April 2015, the Scottish cosmetic interventions expert group published a report on the regulation of independent healthcare and its recommendations were accepted by ministers. Phase 1 of the regulations, which came into effect on 1 April 2016, focuses on independent clinics run by a doctor, dentist, nurse, midwife or dental technician that administer cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and lip enhancement drugs such as Botox, which is a prescribed drug. Those clinics are required to be registered with Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

Road Improvements (A84)

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when the feasibility study on junction improvements on the A84 near Blair Drummond Safari Park will be completed. (S5O-02965)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Transport Scotland commissioned its operating company to undertake a feasibility study and to outline the design for potential improvements at the location. That has taken longer than anticipated, as new information relating to historical accidents came to light during the final evaluation stage. That information is currently being reviewed to see how it relates to the completion of the study. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson, has asked Transport Scotland officials to conclude the report at the earliest opportunity.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that response and update. Community representatives first met in December 2017 to discuss options to improve safety at the junction. The feasibility study was meant to appear in summer 2018 but has since faced the delays that the minister mentioned. Does he share my frustration about the delay to the report and does he share the concerns of local communities about the junction?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

First, I absolutely recognise the strong community interest in the issue. I know that Mr Lockhart and Mr Crawford have raised the issue in the course of their work and I understand the frustration of the local community about any delay to such a key study. As I said, the cabinet secretary is keen for the final report to be presented to him at the earliest opportunity and I am sure that he will be keen to communicate it to Mr Lockhart.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Although I am grateful for the information that the minister provided to Dean Lockhart, I hope that he will understand my disappointment that it has taken a parliamentary question for the delay to emerge from Transport Scotland. In October last year, I was informed

that the study would be available in a number of weeks, and I informed the community of that response.

I hope that the minister will also understand that there will be considerable frustration about the delay in the Blair Drummond community, because the people there have been gallantly campaigning on this important road safety issue for a number of years.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I absolutely accept the concerns that Mr Crawford raised and—for what it is worth—I apologise to Mr Crawford for the delay in the production of the report. As I explained in my initial answer to Mr Lockhart, the reason for the delay is the presentation of additional accident data. I hope that Mr Crawford understands the need to take that on board to ensure that the final report reflects that data if necessary. However, I am sorry that the delay was not communicated to Mr Crawford and that he has had to wait to hear that news today. I am sure that Mr Matheson will be keen to ensure that all members who have an interest in the issue are communicated with as soon as possible once the final report has been produced.

Neonatal Expenses Fund

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the neonatal expenses fund. (S5O-02966)

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

A mid-year evaluation report will be published by the end of this month. An evaluation of the full year, following the end of March, will be published in autumn 2019. To date, over the first four months of the scheme, £60,000 has been spent, which has helped 435 families.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will know of my interest in the operation of the fund because of my experience of the time that my daughter spent in a neonatal ward. How does the number of applications to the fund compare with the number of admissions to neonatal or special care wards, and is there any variation across health boards? Some health boards perhaps need an extra push to ensure that parents know about the fund.

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

I cannot give Mr Griffin that information at the moment—it will be part of the first full-year evaluation that will take place at the end of March. Although that evaluation is not due for publication until autumn 2019, I will look

specifically at that data in advance of publication to address those questions.

We are also conscious of other areas in which improvement is needed. In particular, we are looking at the availability and appropriateness of accommodation for parents in those circumstances, and at the quality and reach of the information that is given by our health boards to parents who should qualify for such support but who might not be aware of it.

We will look at some of that information in advance of the full-year evaluation, and I will ensure that Mr Griffin understands the basis of what we are looking at. Given his keen interest and pivotal role in the issue, we will see whether he thinks that there is anything more that we might do.

Pupil Equity Funding (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government how much pupil equity funding has been given to schools in the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency. (S5O-02967)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Schools in the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency have been given almost £2.9 million of pupil equity funding in both 2017-18 and 2018-19. In the forthcoming financial year, schools in the constituency will receive over £2.9 million as part of the more than £22.3 million that is allocated to schools across Glasgow.

The funding is to be spent at the discretion of headteachers and will continue to the end of this parliamentary session as part of our commitment to invest £750 million to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap.

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

I commend the imaginative use of pupil equity funding by Chirnsyde primary school in Milton, in my constituency, where the social enterprise Highballs Low CIC works with students to improve physical literacy and build confidence in a fun way. More importantly, teachers see improvements in children’s readiness to learn.

How does the Scottish Government disseminate around Scotland examples of such good practice? Given the success in my constituency and the benefits to my constituents of such initiatives, I hope that the Scottish Government will consider continuing to extend pupil equity funding not just in this parliamentary session but into the next one.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I would love to be in the position to continue pupil equity funding into the next parliamentary session under the leadership of a Scottish National Party Government, but the public will, of course, make their choices on that question in 2021.

I commend

Chirnsyde primary school in the Milton area of Mr Doris’s constituency. A tremendous amount of imagination has been deployed in the utilisation of PEF. Mr Doris cites a good example of how schools acknowledge that some young people face barriers that have to be overcome before they can participate in effective learning.

We look for solid, sound, evidenced examples of good practice and share them widely through, for example, the regional improvement collaborative events that are taking place this spring. On Tuesday, I was at the first event in Murrayfield for the south-east collaborative. We will ensure that, through networks such as glow and the national improvement hub, there is a wider understanding of the effective ways in which young people’s performance can be enhanced as a consequence of the utilisation of pupil equity funding.

Practice of Medicine (Gender Inequality)

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent comments by the chief medical officer for Scotland, what action it is taking to tackle gender inequality in the practice of medicine. (S5O-02968)

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

This month, the First Minister’s national advisory council on women and girls will shine a spotlight on the issue of women’s and girls’ health, inviting individuals and communities to provide feedback on women’s and girls’ health-related questions. A summary of that feedback will be published on the advisory council’s website, and responses will inform future reports to the First Minister.

In addition, with the chief medical officer, I will look at how we can strategically—but at pace—focus on necessary improvements across the national health service to tackle women’s health issues.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

That is a welcome answer, and I will certainly highlight this month’s activities.

Is the cabinet secretary aware that women’s inequality in medicine includes thyroid patients, whose diagnosis and treatment is deeply concerning? In recognition of that, her colleague, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing, wrote to health boards, advising them that the Government expects triiodothyronine—or T3—to be prescribed when an endocrinologist initiates that.

What will the cabinet secretary do about NHS Tayside, which has blatantly ignored the Government’s letter? Only yesterday, the board refused the prescription of T3 to a patient, saying that T3 is non-formulary—that is wrong, as the cabinet secretary will know, as it is on the formulary—and allowed a panel to overrule a specialist clinician who has recognised that the woman needs that life-saving medicine.

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

I am grateful to the member for raising that issue with me. From what she has said, that sounds like a completely unacceptable response from NHS Tayside. I will ask the minister the pursue the matter with NHS Tayside with some urgency in order to resolve it, so that the Tayside board follows the guidelines and the clear views that we have expressed, as other health boards are doing.

The Presiding Officer

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Ferry Capacity (Highlands and Islands)

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve ferry capacity in the Highlands and Islands region. (S5O-02970)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Scottish Government remains committed to improving ferry capacity on the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services network and on the northern isles ferry services network to support the economic, social and cultural development of our island and remote mainland communities.

The Government works closely with ferry operators to try to ensure that demands on our ferry services are met. In line with the vessel replacement and deployment plan, a number of initiatives are being taken forward to ensure that future capacity challenges are met and that ferry services are further developed.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister might be aware of recent reports that distilleries on Islay have raised concerns about the ferries that serve the island and the space that is available on vessels, not just for commercial reasons but because of the vital tourism that the whisky industry brings. What action is the Scottish Government taking to improve the situation on Islay and elsewhere?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The introduction of the road equivalent tariff has brought significant and continuing benefits to Islay. As the member has indicated, there is increasing demand on the capacity that serves Islay. We are very much aware of that. The fact that a 35 per cent increase in demand is forecast from the distilling sector alone will put additional pressure on the capacity that serves Islay.

We have discussed how we can respond to that demand in the long term with the Islay ferry committee and the local member, Mr Russell, and I would be happy to have similar discussions with Mr Cameron. Islay is, of course, the next island that we are looking to provide a new vessel to serve. We have also had discussions with other ferry operators, including Western Ferries, that have expressed an interest in that area. We are doing everything that we can to look at all options to improve ferry capacity to serve the very important community on Islay and make sure that its economic aspirations can be met.

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

The minister will be aware of the importance of upgrading CalMac’s booking system to allow better management of capacity, not least during times of disruption. Can the minister provide an update on progress in that area?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I certainly can. I recognise that the issue is an important one, which was raised at a summit that was chaired by Dr Allan in Uist last November, and I am grateful to him for hosting that event. I can confirm that I requested that Transport Scotland officials prioritise that area in their discussions with CalMac. The proposals for the introduction of smart ticketing that CalMac outlined in its tender bid for the Clyde and Hebrides service are under discussion with Transport Scotland. I recognise that an updated system could significantly benefit communication with customers and help with different packaging of tickets to incentivise the use of CalMac’s services.

Fair Food Transformation Fund

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

9. To ask the Scottish Government whether the fair food transformation fund will continue to provide funding to community-based organisations beyond the 2019 tranche. (S5O-02971)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are currently reviewing the way in which organisations apply for funding through the fair food transformation fund and several other communities-related funds.

As was set out in the draft budget statement, this year we aim to launch a new, single, harmonised communities fund that will replace several current funding mechanisms including the fair food transformation fund. That streamlined application process will seek to make things easier for third sector and community organisations, which we know that the sector would value and has requested.

Throughout the review, my officials have been keeping in contact with organisations and with those who are interested in applying to the fund, and we will update them as soon as plans are finalised.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

What support might the Scottish Government give to food banks that apply for funding to develop a wraparound food justice system such as the one that is provided by Drumchapel food bank, in my constituency?

The food bank also provides referrals to health and social care services, including mental health and suicide prevention services, and to local money advice services. Where appropriate, it also interacts with local education services.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Mr Kidd for raising awareness of the incredible work that is being done in his constituency. Those are exactly the sort of activities that the current fair food fund seeks to support, because they allow people to access food in a dignified manner and provide holistic, person-centred support. That is clearly the hallmark of the approach in Drumchapel.

I can confirm that the new unified fund will also endeavour to support that innovative work.

What a pity it is that we are having to deal with increasing levels of food insecurity, which the United Kingdom Government has only now, finally, conceded are down to its appalling roll-out of universal credit.

The Presiding Officer

Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery Dr Husam Zomlot, the head of the Palestinian mission in the United Kingdom. [

Applause

.]

Scottish Independence (Currency)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. Scotland does not want to be in a separate currency. Does the First Minister agree?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scotland should have the ability to choose the arrangements on currency, and everything else, that best suit our needs and interests. That is the very essence of independence, and it is why I and an increasing number of people in Scotland support Scotland becoming an independent country.

I am always delighted to talk about independence, but there is a constitutional issue that is more immediately pressing right now. In just 22 days—three weeks tomorrow—Scotland is due to be taken out of the European Union against our will. There is still no sign of an agreement on withdrawal issues, no guarantee of a transitional phase and no clarity on our future relationship. I give Jackson Carlaw another chance to say something that people might want to hear. Will he join me today in demanding that the Prime Minister stops asking people to choose between catastrophe and disaster, and instead takes a no-deal Brexit off the table now?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

It is the First Minister’s own deputy leader who has raised the issue of currency this week.

“Scotland doesn’t want to be in a separate currency.”

The First Minister said that just a few short years ago, when she and her predecessor were telling us that it was Scotland’s pound and nobody was going to take it. Who would have thought that, five years on, the only people who want to take away Scotland’s pound are the Scottish National Party? This week, we have learned from the SNP’s deputy leader that its new plan is to ditch the pound and set up a completely new and untried currency.

So, First Minister, for any home owner who has a mortgage in pounds and, overnight, a salary paid in a new, untried currency, are mortgage payments going to go up or down?

The First Minister

Until a democratically elected Scottish Parliament in an independent Scotland decided to change that, people would continue to use the pound, which of course is Scotland’s currency, just as it is the currency of anywhere else in the UK.

Jackson Carlaw confidently talks about what people in Scotland want. The way to determine what people in Scotland want is to allow them to choose in a referendum. The Tories are so scared that people would choose independence at the next time of asking that they want to block them having that choice. That is deeply anti-democratic.

I say to Jackson Carlaw that I am afraid that people watching this exchange today are thinking about what is due to happen three weeks tomorrow, so let me bring him back to the here and now. Three weeks tomorrow, this country is due to be taken out of the EU against our will. We still do not know whether there will be a transition phase and we do not know anything about the future relationship with the EU. That uncertainty could be removed today if the Prime Minister ruled out a no-deal Brexit. I will give Jackson Carlaw another opportunity. Will he join me today and call on the Prime Minister to end this uncertainty and rule out a no-deal Brexit at any time—yes or no?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The problem is that this First Minister just does not listen. There is no majority support for a second independence referendum. If the currency were changed, here is what would happen. The Fraser of Allander institute made it clear on ITV Border this week that people would still be tied into mortgages or car loans, but they would be paying them off in an untried, unknown and as yet unnamed new currency—a clear risk of people paying more. That is the plan that the First Minister’s deputy leader launched this week.

Worse still, today we read in the papers that the First Minister’s deputy is also plotting another referendum on independence, no matter whether it is legal or not. Another independence referendum is the last thing that Scotland needs. Irrespective of the views of her errant deputy, will the First Minister rule out that divisive plan?

The First Minister

The legal basis for the next independence referendum should be the same as the basis for the last independence referendum. We are talking about the issue only because of the disgracefully anti-democratic stance of the Conservatives, who refuse to recognise a mandate that was won at not just one but two elections and which was endorsed by this Parliament.

We can always tell when the Tories are in trouble, because pantomime Jackson Carlaw makes a reappearance. The face gets red and the arms get waved about.

People in Scotland will have ample opportunity to talk about the many benefits of becoming an independent country, but we do not have too much longer to sort out the mess of Brexit. Therefore, I will give Jackson Carlaw another opportunity. In 22 days—three weeks tomorrow, at midnight—Scotland is due to be taken out of the EU and we still do not know what will follow. That uncertainty can be taken away if a no-deal Brexit is ruled out. For once in his life, will Jackson Carlaw stand up to his bosses at Westminster and join me in demanding that the Prime Minister rules out a no-deal Brexit and that she does it now, with no further delay?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The whole chamber knows that, in two short years, Ruth Davidson will be sitting where the First Minister sits today and a Scottish Conservative First Minister will be answering questions for a long time to come. [

Interruption

.]

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Order.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

However, for the moment, this First Minister remains in office. According to its deputy leader, the SNP is preparing to launch a new currency, which would throw people’s mortgages and Scotland’s economy into chaos. According to her deputy leader—with whom she is now disagreeing publicly—the SNP plans to launch an illegal referendum within a matter of weeks.

Another week of the SNP showing that there is only one priority for this Government, and that is satisfying Nicola Sturgeon’s obsession with a second independence referendum. Enough is enough. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The First Minister should rule it out and let Scotland move on.

The First Minister

At the start of that latest chapter in the pantomime, Jackson Carlaw had the good grace to laugh at himself, because he was being so utterly ridiculous. I was going to say that he had lost the plot, but I am not sure that he ever had the plot in the first place.

I will tell Jackson Carlaw that my obsession right now is saving Scotland from the disaster of a Tory Brexit. I do not know how Jackson Carlaw plans to spend the rest of his day. Let me tell him how I will be spending the rest of my day.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Not answering questions.

The First Minister

Jackson Carlaw might want to listen to this. I will be chairing a meeting of the Scottish Government’s resilience committee. We will be looking at how—just three weeks from tomorrow—we can secure medicine supplies in Scotland and how we can secure food supplies, so that we can make sure that people in Scotland still have food on the table. We will be looking at how we can protect our economy from the risk of being plunged into recession. All that time, all that effort and all that expense because a Tory Prime Minister refuses to rule out a no-deal Brexit. It is shameful that the Scottish Conservatives have not demanded that she do so.

I have been wondering why the Scottish Tories—

The Presiding Officer

First Minister, that is enough.

The First Minister

—are quite as supine as they are. Perhaps it is because they do not want to stand up for Scotland and never will stand up for Scotland.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. Presiding Officer,

“An independent Scotland will keep the pound because it is in everyone’s best interests, and to try and suggest otherwise flies in the face of the facts.”

That is what Nicola Sturgeon said in 2013. If it was true then, why is it not true now? [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Can we please have some quiet for the questions and the answers.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Let me share a quote with the chamber:

“People in Scotland need a strong party of labour that speaks for working-class people and working-class communities. And they are not doing that”.

Richard Leonard’s strategy is

“a recipe for failure.”

That was from Gary Smith of the GMB, on Scottish Labour. Perhaps it is about time that Scottish Labour stopped being a pale echo of the Scottish Conservatives and started standing up for Scotland as well.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I did not discern an answer in that, so let me ask another question.

Last night, the Scottish National Party Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, Kate Forbes, told the BBC:

“The currency you use the day before independence will be the same currency you use the day after independence.”

However, under the First Minister’s plans, that is simply not true, is it? What Kate Forbes left out last night, and what the First Minister left out in her first answer, is that the SNP plans to use the pound without a central bank. It is the SNP’s very own no-deal exit, and it would mean building up substantial foreign exchange reserves. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work, Derek Mackay, could not tell this chamber yesterday afternoon how much that would cost, but the people of Scotland deserve an answer, so, this afternoon, can the First Minister provide us with an answer?

The First Minister

The position of Labour and the Tories on these questions is utterly ridiculous. Remember that in 2014 they told us that an independent Scotland could not use sterling in a currency union. Now they tell us that we cannot use sterling without a currency union, and they tell us that we cannot have our own currency either. Scotland must be the only country in the entire world that could not have any currency—that is ridiculous and the people of Scotland know it.

Let me tell Richard Leonard exactly what the position will be in an independent Scotland. Until a democratically elected Scottish Parliament decides otherwise, we will use the pound, which is our currency just as it is the currency of other parts of the United Kingdom.

Richard Leonard is again asking questions about independence. I am happy to talk about independence any day, but people across Scotland are worried right now about Brexit. Yesterday, a member of his back benches told us that Richard Leonard is so desperate that he is trying to stop his own party conference openly debating Brexit. Will Richard Leonard join me now in calling not just for no deal to be ruled out, but for people to have a chance again to reject Brexit? Will he do that today?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Yes, I will—I said that on Tuesday afternoon.

The answer to the question that I asked is that £40 billion of foreign exchange reserves would be required, and that is before we look at the reserves needed to ensure bank deposits and before Derek Mackay’s austerity programme to halve the deficit in five years. That is not just a programme for austerity; it is a programme for turbo-charged austerity, at the very time when the people are crying out for investment.

That is not about the best interests of the people of Scotland, is it? It is only about the best interests of the SNP.

The First Minister

If Scotland was independent right now, we would not be facing being taken out of the European Union against our will three weeks tomorrow. Right now, it is because Scotland is not independent that we have to put up with a Tory Government that we did not vote for. It is because Scotland is not independent that we face being ripped out of the EU against our will. Until Richard Leonard and Scottish Labour find it within themselves to stand up for Scotland instead of standing up for the continuation of Tory rule, the party will never recover in Scotland, and it will never deserve to recover in Scotland.

The Presiding Officer

We have some constituency supplementary questions, the first of which is from Angus MacDonald.

Duncan Adams Ltd (Administration)

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The First Minister will be aware that, yesterday, administrators were called in to Grangemouth haulage firm Duncan Adams Ltd, which has operated at the port for nearly 60 years. One hundred and thirty-two employees were made redundant yesterday, following the devastating news, with 12 employees having been retained in the short term to assist with the closure of the firm. The priority in the immediate term must clearly be focused on supporting the staff and their families through this difficult period.

Falkirk Council has been in touch with Skills Development Scotland regarding p

artnership action for continuing employment

support and Unite the union has arranged an advice session for the workforce on Sunday. Will the First Minister help to ensure that everything possible is done to provide follow-up support to the families who are affected and also ensure that plans are in place to avoid a backlog of containers at the port of Grangemouth?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Angus MacDonald for raising this important issue. I was very concerned to learn of the development at Duncan Adams haulage and the impact that it will have on the workers there, their families and, of course, the surrounding communities. I confirm that, through our PACE initiative, we have already been in contact with the administrators, who have agreed to issue PACE guides to all 144 employees. PACE representatives will also attend a meeting on 10 March at the Leapark hotel in Grangemouth, which has been organised by Unite the union and which is open to all redundant employees.

The local PACE team is considering what further support can be provided and I confirm that we are in touch with the port authority to assess the impact on port operations. I would be very happy to ask the minister who is involved to keep Angus MacDonald fully updated.

Edinburgh Tram Network

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the First Minister whether she agrees that no decision should be made by the City of Edinburgh Council to extend the Edinburgh tram network until the findings of the Edinburgh tram inquiry are published and all lessons learned?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I think that decisions of the City of Edinburgh Council are for the City of Edinburgh Council to take and I am sure that it will take account of all relevant

factors. It is important that the inquiry concludes and it is important that any lessons that come from the inquiry are learned. The Scottish Conservatives used to be in favour of localism and they used to demand that the Scottish Government did more to support localism, so I am going to do that today—even if they have changed their minds—and say that matters for the City of Edinburgh Council are for the City of Edinburgh Council to determine.

Air Traffic Controller Strike (Highlands and Islands Airports)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Air traffic controllers who are employed by a company that is owned by the Government and who operate across the Highlands and Islands plan to strike next month. I am sure that the First Minister will recognise that that would stop air travel and create tremendous disruption for passengers across the network, including those who are potentially flying to hospitals for appointments. Will the First Minister set out to the Parliament what her Government has done on this matter and what it now plans to do to make sure that the strike does not happen?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is of course disappointing to hear about planned strike action. Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd is covered by our public sector pay policy and it has implemented a pay rise for all staff that is a significant improvement on previous years. It has also significantly increased its contribution to the pension scheme in order to maintain the benefit for employees. In addition, ministers have authorised HIAL to develop a retention allowance as part of the “Air Traffic Management 2030 Strategy” programme. I hope that we will see strikes avoided and I encourage the union and HIAL to continue to work together to resolve the outstanding issues.

Gemini Rail Services (Springburn Closure)

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

The announcement of 120 redundancies and the looming closure of the Gemini Rail Services works in my constituency is a devastating blow for a skilled and dedicated workforce. Gemini Rail has been inflexible, unimaginative and slow to engage meaningfully in our efforts to retain jobs and operations. Will the First Minister commit to continuing to explore all options to support workers to retain jobs and operations at the site? I stress that, if the Springburn works was to win the ScotRail 170 class train tender—work that Gemini Rail has staggeringly still failed to bid for—30 jobs would be provided for three years and it would potentially kick-start the railway hub model that the Scottish Government is exploring.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I pay tribute to Bob Doris for the way in which he is representing the interests of his constituents and I agree with the latter point that he made.

I was extremely disappointed to receive a letter from Gemini Rail yesterday that confirmed the closure of the workshops at Springburn and I know that it will be a very concerning time for workers there and their families. I stress that consideration needs to be given to potential options for keeping the site open. There will be a further meeting of stakeholders at the end of this month to discuss the way forward. The workshops have work to complete on vehicles that are leased to ScotRail until July this year and Gemini Rail has retained the lease until March next year. That means that there is time to work with industry with a view to repurposing the site for future rail use. To that end, Scottish Enterprise has already engaged independent financial advice in reviewing Gemini Rail’s model for the site. We will keep members fully updated on any progress.

Burntisland Fabrications Ltd

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The BBC reported this morning that Burntisland Fabrications Ltd—BiFab—has lost out on an order for offshore platforms to yards in Belgium, Spain and the United Arab Emirates.

The Unite and GMB unions are calling for a committee inquiry in this Parliament. They say that billions of pounds’ worth of contracts and thousands of direct and indirect jobs are now on the brink of being lost to state-sponsored companies and companies that hold an unfair commercial advantage, or to economies that do not apply labour standards that we would recognise. This is not a level playing field.

What further steps will the Scottish Government take to secure a long-term future for the Fife yards and does the First Minister accept that we need more direct state intervention to ensure a just transition in our economy?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I agree with that last point, which is why we have established a just transition commission in Scotland, on the recommendation of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

It is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the real challenges that are being faced, BiFab would not even exist today had it not been for Scottish Government intervention. Although there are big challenges for the Fife yards, we had the good news about the Arnish yard earlier this week.

As I indicated last week, I absolutely share the concerns that have been expressed by Gary Smith of GMB and Pat Rafferty of Unite the union that BiFab may be facing unfair challenges in relation to securing other contracts. I want the Scottish Government to work with the unions to fully explore that. I intend to convene a summit in early course to do so. We have worked extremely well with the unions and we intend to continue doing so.

In the interim, we will continue to do everything that we can, with the unions and with the owners. The Scottish Government has a stake in BiFab and we will do everything that we can to help to secure work for not just Arnish but the two yards in Fife. I hope that we have the support of the whole chamber as we do so.

Road Safety (20mph Speed Limit)

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

3. Young people are twice as likely to be injured on our roads. Some parts of Scotland have made their streets safer, healthier places, including here in Edinburgh, where a 20mph speed limit has been rolled out across the city, and in Fife, where more lives are being saved and children protected from injury, particularly in low-income areas, as a result of 20mph speed limits. Does the First Minister share my concerns that too many communities are not benefiting from this small change, which would make a big difference to tackling the health inequality that continues to blight Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I welcome Alison Johnstone to First Minister’s question time. It is great to have her asking questions. [

Applause

.]

I recognise and share her concern about the statistics that she has cited. Many local authorities already have 20mph speed limits in certain areas and I encourage local authorities to consider having 20mph speed limits where they think it is appropriate.

A member’s bill on the issue is currently being considered by this Parliament. Of course, the Parliament will debate that and the Scottish Government will continue to listen to all the arguments that are made.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I appreciate the First Minister’s response. The Scottish Government has made brave and important public health interventions in banning smoking in public places and introducing a minimum price for alcohol. Those policies are effective because they apply at a national level, with Government leadership. The piecemeal approach will not deliver what I know both I and the First Minister want, which is for all children to have safe streets.

The health and safety of our children cannot depend on which part of the country they live in, so will the First Minister join organisations such as NHS Health Scotland and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and back my colleague Mark Ruskell’s Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Scotland) Bill—a public health measure that will have the greatest impact where it is most needed?

The First Minister

I give an assurance that we will listen carefully to the arguments that are made as Mark Ruskell’s bill is discussed and I commend him for raising the issue.

An issue that we grapple with all the time in Government is getting the balance right between showing national leadership on an issue—which, as Alison Johnstone has said, we have done on a range of public health issues in particular—while respecting the autonomy of local councils, which is something that people across the chamber call for regularly.

It is important that we get the balance right, and paramount importance has to be attached to the safety of children. I commit to listening carefully to the arguments, as I am sure that members across the chamber will do. I hope that the Parliament reaches the right decision on this and gets that balance right.

Global (Local Radio Services)

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Is the First Minister aware that Global, which operates Heart, Capital Scotland and Smooth Radio in Scotland, plans to create a virtual radio network to compete with BBC Radio 1 and Radio 2, using local licences to do so? Does the First Minister agree that Ofcom must become involved and keep local commercial radio in Scotland local?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am a great supporter and fan of local radio. Its place in our broadcasting environment is very important. I hope that Ofcom would take into account all the reasonable points that George Adam has just made.

National Health Service (Waiting Times)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

On Monday, my constituent Mr Phillips, an armed forces veteran, collapsed from a suspected stroke. He waited just under six hours for an ambulance to arrive at his home in Milngavie, after which he was taken to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, where he waited a further five hours before he was seen by a doctor. He spent the night in the receiving unit, as no beds were available. Does the First Minister agree that that is an unacceptable amount of time for anyone to wait for an ambulance and an assessment from a doctor, let alone someone who has suffered a stroke? Will she look into the matter with the utmost urgency?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I agree that what the member has narrated is unacceptable. If he wants to provide greater detail of his constituent’s case, the health secretary will be happy to look into it.

What I am about to say does not take away from that case and the unacceptability of what has been described. Our Scottish Ambulance Service does a fantastic job day in and day out, and our accident and emergency services, though they face considerable challenges, remain the best-performing accident and emergency services anywhere in the UK. All the staff who work so hard to deliver that performance deserve our grateful thanks.

We will be happy to look into those individual circumstances.

Use of Statistics

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This morning, the UK Statistics Authority reprimanded the First Minister for the misuse of statistics in response to my question on national health service waiting times at last week’s First Minister’s question time. The letter states:

“Waiting times are a major concern to patients and their families. The statistics informing debates about them must therefore be trustworthy, of suitable quality and useful. We are therefore extremely disappointed that it has been necessary for us to intervene in this way.”

This is the second time that this has happened recently. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to apologise to the chamber and to the country for misusing statistics in this way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will, as the Government always will, reflect

carefully on anything that the Office for Statistics Regulation says. The statistics that I used were accurate and, as I understand it, are available to anybody on request and will be published by ISD Scotland. It is not the Scottish Government that decides what statistics ISD publish or do not publish; ISD decides that. I hope that we can have as much transparency and as many comprehensive statistics as possible, because that would demonstrate that the NHS is, on so many different measures, the best-performing NHS anywhere in the UK.

McGill & Co (Apprentices)

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

In Dundee, electrical apprentices from McGill, the firm that went into administration after failure of the Government to provide a modest loan, are still trying to salvage their apprenticeships. This country’s skills situation cannot afford to lose apprentices. From the representation I have had from constituents, I am not convinced that Skills Development Scotland is doing all that it can. Can the First Minister guarantee today that her minister will follow up every McGill apprentice to make sure that they secure another place to complete their apprenticeship?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will do everything, as we always do in redundancy situations, to make sure that apprentices are placed and are able to continue their apprenticeships. Skills Development Scotland works extremely hard to do that. If Jenny Marra knows of anybody who needs further assistance, she should bring those people to us so that we can ensure that the assistance is there.

This is Scottish apprenticeship week, and right across the country people have been celebrating the success of Scotland’s apprenticeship programme. A few years ago, there were around 10,000 modern apprentices in Scotland and today the figure is 27,000, as we work towards the target of 30,000. That is a success story. When companies regrettably fail, we will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that apprentices do not pay the price of that. That is an absolute commitment that the Scottish Government will always honour.

Video Games (“Rape Day”)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Does the First Minister share my concern that, in the week when we celebrate international women’s day, we have seen the creation of a video game entitled “Rape Day”, which enables players to verbally harass, kill and rape women as they progress through the story? Although it is positive news that the gaming platform Steam has decided not to distribute and sell the game, does the First Minister agree that we should send a clear message to other game developers and platform providers that such games have no place in our society in this day and age? Does she think that it is time for the United Kingdom Government to review the regulations in the area?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I do, and I pay tribute to Shona Robison for highlighting the issue this week. The “Rape Day” video game is absolutely sickening and appalling. Violence against women, whether it is sexual or of any other form, is not a game and should never be treated in such a way. It is serious and must be treated in that way, so I hope that the game is not promoted. In my view, the matter should not be down to the individual decisions of companies. It is time for the regulations governing the area to be reviewed. Perhaps the whole Parliament can unite on the issue and call on the UK Government to do that without delay.

Stronger Towns Fund

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the United Kingdom Government’s stronger towns fund. (S5F-03121)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

To be honest, it is hard to know what our response should be, because the UK Government has been unable to confirm any details of the funding implications of the announcement for Scotland. We will continue to press the UK Government to ensure that Scotland receives its fair share of any additional funding. As with so many things related to Brexit, the UK Government’s plans are, frankly, as clear as mud, but they suggest that Scotland is continually being short changed.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I acknowledge the First Minister’s point that much of the process is unclear. Does she share my concerns about the exclusion of Scotland and Wales from the Prime Minister’s Brexit bung? Does she agree that it is yet another example of the failing fiasco of Tory Brexit, which one of the Prime Minister’s Tory cabinet ministers said was like hitting an iceberg, and that it is surpassed only by the complete inadequacy of the 13 Tory MPs from Scotland, each of whom represents a constituency that voted to remain in the European Union, and their failure to stand up for Scotland?

The First Minister

Those points are important. Not only do we have no clarity on the stronger towns fund or whether Scotland will get any share of it, let alone a fair share, we still have no clarity regarding the future of structural funds or the so-called shared prosperity fund. We have also heard that the UK Government is to provide an additional £140 million to Northern Ireland, but there is no indication of equivalent consequential funding for Scotland or Wales. We welcome the additional funding for Northern Ireland, but there must be confirmation that Scotland and Wales will be treated fairly.

In sharp contrast to the Prime Minister’s Brexit bung, this morning, the Scottish Government has announced the projects that will benefit from our £20 million regeneration capital grant fund. That is not money to persuade anybody to vote for anybody; it is just money to ensure the regeneration of communities the length and breadth of Scotland. That shows a Government that is getting on with the day job, and the UK Government could learn lots of lessons from us.

Bipolar Disorder

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to help people who have bipolar disorder. (S5F-03124)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Bipolar disorder is a very serious mental illness. We want everyone in Scotland to have access to effective mental health services when they need them, which is why we set out in our programme for government a £250 million package of measures to do more to support positive mental health and to prevent ill health. That funding for a package of new measures is in addition to £150 million of investment over five years that is already under way to support the delivery of the mental health strategy. In addition, we are providing support to Bipolar Scotland, which provides information, support and advice for people who are affected by bipolar disorder and those who care for them.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

According to Professor Daniel Smith from the University of Glasgow, bipolar disorder patients in Scotland are receiving treatments such as antidepressant monotherapy that are, at best, ineffective and, at worst, detrimental to long-term outcomes. Lithium, prescribed on its own, is the recommended first-line treatment for bipolar disorder because of its proven effectiveness in preventing episodes of depression and mania, but that treatment is prescribed to only one in 20 patients. What action is the First Minister’s Government taking to address this important issue? Does she agree with Alison Cairns, the chief executive of Bipolar Scotland, that we need more patient-clinician partnerships in Scotland?

The First Minister

Yes, I agree. The Scottish Government expects all patients with bipolar disorder to have access to appropriate and evidence-based treatments, with individual prescribing decisions, of course, being made by clinicians, but in partnership with their patients. We have set a national standard in Scotland that outlines the monitoring requirements for people who are treated with lithium. Details of that were sent to health and care services in June 2017. Using that benchmark, we can improve the quality of the care and treatment that we provide, improve patient safety and reduce what is an established health inequality.

Individual health boards will, of course, determine how best to undertake the monitoring, but it is very important that it is done.

British Transport Police and Police Scotland (Merger)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the merger of Police Scotland and the British Transport Police has been permanently abandoned. (S5F-03140)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We remain committed to the devolution of railway policing, as agreed by all parties in the Parliament during the Smith commission. We have worked with stakeholders on options to improve the accountability of railway policing in Scotland. There is consensus that current legislation could be used to create an arrangement that facilitates a stronger role for the Scottish Police Authority. The SPA and the British Transport Police Authority are considering how that should be done, and they aim to present proposals to their respective boards in the coming months. It would be premature to rule out any option at this time, but any proposal must enhance the accountability of railway policing in Scotland, while ensuring the safety and security of the travelling public.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

After almost two years and hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ pounds having been spent on finding a way to achieve the integration of the BTP into Police Scotland, it is clear to everyone—if not the First Minister—that integration is simply not possible. The uncertainly that staff and officers have faced will not end until full integration is permanently ruled out. Will the First Minister take the opportunity to go further than the letter that was sent to staff and officers this week, which said that there will not be a transfer, and confirm that the plan for full integration has been permanently scrapped? Will she confirm when the fatally flawed Railway Policing (Scotland) Act 2017 will be repealed?

The First Minister

As Daniel Johnson recognised, this work is challenging and complex. Considerable work has been done to assess all the risks and challenges and we have engaged with stakeholders throughout the process. A stakeholder engagement event was held in November to explore all the options.

The option that is currently being developed will involve the establishment of a new committee to oversee railway policing in Scotland, which will comprise members of the Scottish Police Authority and the British Transport Police Authority. Those authorities have been working closely on the proposed terms of reference for the new committee. They are making good progress and it is hoped that they will be in a position to present proposals to their respective boards in the coming months. I give an undertaking today that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity will update Parliament once the negotiations are included. That is the right way to proceed to ensure that arrangements are in place to enhance the accountability of railway policing in Scotland—which, I hope, all members want—and to ensure the safety and security of the travelling public and those who work in our transport police.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank all the officers, staff, experts, academics and colleagues from across the chamber for forcing the Scottish National Party to concede that erecting a border on Britain’s railways is a dreadful idea. How much taxpayers’ money has been wasted in the pursuit of full integration thus far? Will the First Minister admit that control room infrastructure cannot be replaced on the cheap?

The First Minister

At least we know that we have trains, whereas the United Kingdom Tory Government does not check that its ferry contractors have ferries.

This is a serious issue. I, too, pay tribute to those who work in our transport police. The Tories here do not exactly have a consistent position. In their 2016 Scottish election manifesto, they advocated for merger, saying:

“We will create a national infrastructure police force, bringing together the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to improve the protection of critical infrastructure”.

The idea that the Tories have always supported retaining the British Transport Police as a stand-alone entity is not supported by the evidence or the facts.

We will continue to progress the merger in a proper way. The work that is being done now is extremely solid. When it is concluded, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will come back to Parliament to update members in the usual way.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

A recent academic paper by Dr Kath Murray and Dr Colin Atkinson concluded:

“While cutting losses at this stage will carry short-term political and reputational consequences, such a decision would stem the escalating financial, professional and personal costs”.

Years have been wasted on the full integration model. Why will the First Minister not take the opportunity now to rule out that option for good?

The First Minister

I have already set out to the chamber, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has done previously, the work that is being done to get the right solution. It is important that that work continues.

In the interests of balance, I will quote the 2016 Liberal Democrat manifesto. The party said that it would

“Transfer control of the British Transport Police to Police Scotland but seek to retain the ring-fenced expertise of officers on transport related matters”.

Members

Oh!

The First Minister

I have read out the full extract. The fact of the matter is that parties are not necessarily taking the same position now as they did previously.

That, of course, is history. What is important now is that we get it right and we will continue to support the work that is being done to ensure that that happens.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the First Minister accept that ordinary constituents in my constituency do not understand why there should be one police force for the street outside the railway station and a separate police force for the railway station itself? My ordinary constituents want a much more joined-up approach than we have had in the past.

The First Minister

John Mason makes an important point because, whatever our individual views on the best arrangements, most members of the public, I suspect, simply want politicians to sort out the structures and arrangements so that they can have confidence in their police, wherever they need their services. If there are, for example, terrorist incidents on our transport network, Police Scotland resources are often brought to bear to help with resilience in those cases.

It is important that we have greater accountability for the British Transport Police, that we have as much integration on the use of resources as possible and that we put in place the right structures to support that. That is what we are working towards, and we are determined to get it right in the interests of everybody—those who work in the service and those who use the service.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does the First Minister share my concern that there are hundreds of police officers here in Scotland who can exercise the power of arrest on our citizens and enter and search our premises but who have no political accountability in Scotland?

The First Minister

I have made the point about accountability on several occasions already today. It is important to improve the accountability of the British Transport Police’s Scottish arrangements. That is one of the motivations behind the work that is under way and why it is important that we allow that work to reach a conclusion.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions. Before moving on to members’ business, we will take a short suspension, to allow members, ministers and those in the gallery to change seats.

12:43 Meeting suspended.

12:46 On resuming—

European Union Settlement Scheme

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

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-15513, in the name of Annabelle Ewing, on the settled status scheme for European Union citizens in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the UK Government’s decision to abandon its plans to charge EU citizens a fee when applying for their right to remain in Scotland through the EU Settlement Scheme; believes that it was wrong for the UK Government to oblige EU citizens who have built their lives in Scotland, and who contribute to the economy and communities, to pay for the status and rights they already have; acknowledges the persistence of the Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour, Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats in their respective campaigns to abolish the settled status fee; considers that it remains unfair to oblige EU citizens in Scotland to apply to retain the rights that they already hold, regardless of the fee; recognises what it considers the significant economic, social and cultural contributions made by EU citizens in communities across Scotland, including in the Cowdenbeath constituency, and notes the calls on the UK Government to scrap the settlement scheme for EU citizens.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate my motion on the United Kingdom Government’s EU settlement scheme. I thank the members who added their names in support of the motion and, by doing so, facilitated this debate.

At the outset, I want to say that I find the UK Government’s approach to EU nationals abhorrent. It is, as a matter of principle, forcing individual citizens who have legally acquired rights further to international treaty to make an application to the UK Government to register in order to stay in the UK—in other words, the UK Government is forcing EU citizens to apply for rights that they already have. It is nothing less than the othering of EU citizens living in our country and, as students of history will know, such othering policies are not without risk to societal cohesion. Moreover, it is nothing short of a blatant rewriting of history with regard to the role that the EU has played on these isles since the UK became a member back in 1973.

Those individuals, who number 223,000 in Scotland and 3.5 million across the UK as a whole, have lived in our country for years, and they have contributed to its economic life and social fabric. They have paid taxes into the Exchequer, and they have paid national insurance contributions. They have their physical homes in our country, and they regard our country as home. EU nationals are our friends, our neighbours, our work colleagues and our fellow students—for many, in fact, they are family members.

This week, we heard the heartbreaking story of 87-year-old Tove Macdonald in an interview that was broadcast by STV. Although she was born in Denmark, she has lived in Scotland for almost 60 years. She has children and grandchildren here; she was married here; she has friends here; and she has built her life here. However, the UK Government has written to her, insisting that she apply to stay in her own home. She described receiving the letter thus:

“I got a letter to say that because of Brexit I had to register and I couldn’t understand why. I thought ‘This couldn’t be right’, because I’ve been here for so many years. I thought it was absolutely crazy. It makes me feel very sad because this is my home and I feel more Scottish than Danish ... I’ve got nowhere to go. This is my home.”

Who would ever have imagined that they would live to hear such a statement in 21st century Scotland? That is not who we are, and it is shaming not just for the UK Government but for Ruth Davidson’s Tories in Scotland, who are happily going along with this. Not one Tory MSP has seen fit to sign my motion.

The UK Government must bring this sorry saga to an end and scrap the policy, which is of dubious legality and must be viewed as motivated by the anti-immigration factions that are now rife in the Tory party across the UK. The policy is ugly and heartless and is causing considerable uncertainty, anxiety and distress.

Further to a concerted campaign by the Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister bowed some weeks ago to pressure to abolish the proposed fee that was to be charged for each settlement scheme application. I urge all those parties to keep up the pressure and work with the Scottish Government to see the end of this truly grotesque policy.

It is worth highlighting that many concerns have been raised about the scheme’s mechanics, including the unrealistic deadline for applications, the limited means by which applications can be made and whether the already dysfunctional Home Office has the ability to administer the scheme. The House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee has expressed concern that there will be no physical piece of paper if applications are successful; rather, there will be an electronic link only. Given the UK Government’s record on information technology and competence in general, that will be a chilling prospect for many.

Moreover, any delays in processing applications will have implications far beyond mere administrative issues. As the think tank British Future has said, such delays could result in many thousands of EU citizens being left with an insecure immigration status or no status at all. It should be noted that deportations have not been ruled out by the Prime Minister and her Tory party. It must therefore be asked whether the UK Government has wilfully learned no lessons at all from the Windrush scandal—Baroness Helena Kennedy has made that point in the House of Lords.

Here in Scotland, the Scottish Government is doing all that it can within our limited immigration powers to help our fellow EU citizens. Citizens Advice Scotland has been funded to provide a new advice service on rights, entitlements and requirements that will be available across its network, and a solicitor-led helpline is to be established for more difficult and complex cases. Here in our country—in Scotland—at this time of great uncertainty and anxiety, our Government is committed to doing all that it can to speak up for and support our EU citizens, while the Westminster Government in London is forcing EU citizens to apply to retain the rights that they already have. What a contrast that is. That contrasting tale of two Governments will not be lost on the people of Scotland, for we did not vote for this—we want no part of it and we will not put up with it.

I will repeat what Scotland’s First Minister said on the morning when the 2016 EU referendum result was announced. In speaking directly to citizens of other EU countries who live in Scotland, she said:

“you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.”

For my part, I reiterate that message and take the opportunity today to say to all the EU citizens who live in my Cowdenbeath constituency and across Scotland, “You remain welcome here; Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.”

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Annabelle Ewing for her excellent speech, which summarised the salient points brilliantly and in a measured way—that can be challenging in such debates.

I recognise the outstanding contribution of EU nationals in my Renfrewshire South constituency—of EU nationals in Barrhead, Neilston, Uplawmoor, Johnstone, Elderslie, Linwood, Brookfield, Kilbarchan, Howwood and Lochwinnoch.

I recognise the contribution of EU nationals who volunteer in the third sector in Renfrewshire South and those who work for Renfrewshire Council and East Renfrewshire Council, in our businesses and in the hospitality sector. I recognise the contribution of EU nationals in every area of our life—they are our friends and neighbours in Renfrewshire South. I recognise the outstanding contribution of EU nationals who work in the Scottish Parliament. I recognise the contribution that is made by all EU nationals across Scotland.

I am not speaking about someone different when I say “EU national”, because I am an EU national. I am an EU citizen and I am proud to be an EU citizen. I will fight to my dying breath to ensure that we retain our EU citizenship and that one day we see an independent Scotland as a full member of the European Union, in which we are all European citizens.

European citizenship is not some abstract legalism; it was born out of the ashes of two calamities that befell the continent in the first half of the 20th century. The wisdom of EU citizenship and shared identity came at the expense of the blood of countless millions of men, women and children across the continent. If we forget that and allow ourselves to lapse into a numb, unthinking and bureaucratic state of mind, we will be in a very dangerous situation, because that allows the insidious creep of intolerance and othering that Annabelle Ewing spoke about.

I deeply regret that we are in such a position today. First and foremost, we must recognise the contribution of our EU friends, brothers, sisters, neighbours, co-workers and families and how they enrich us.

One of Europe’s great authors, Marcel Proust, said:

“The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.”

In Europe, we can seek new landscapes because, through the principle of freedom of movement, we have the opportunity to travel. Through mixing, engaging and cultural exchange, we enhance and develop ourselves, and we also see with new eyes. We become better people and our EU citizenship enhances us. That is the great gift that the European Union, freedom of movement and the ability of all EU citizens to live anywhere in the continent have bestowed on us.

When we visit a country and go through passport control knowing that we have a mere three months to stay there and that we are only a visitor, our state of mind is fundamentally different from what it is when we know that we can go from Scotland to Paris, Kraków, Athens, Madrid, Lisbon or any European city and have the right not just to visit, but to settle, live and work there. That brings a sense of collective ownership and responsibility that binds the people of the continent together and realises the vision of the founders of the European Union, which was to ensure that the continent would never again go to war. When we start to unpick the rich, ennobling tapestry that we have woven over the past 60 years, we risk another catastrophe befalling our continent further down the line.

The practical reality for Scotland is that, without EU nationals, we will not be able to build the fairer, more prosperous and more equal country that we all seek. We know the challenges that face Scottish public finances as a consequence of the demographics. Although Scotland’s working-age population is just as productive as the working-age population in many other parts of the UK—if not more so—our population overall is ageing. Without freedom of movement and without sending the message to citizens throughout Europe and the rest of the world that they are welcome, we will not be able to build that better Scotland.

I thank Annabelle Ewing for lodging the motion for the debate, and I thank all those members who signed it. We will continue to fight for our fellow EU citizens and to ensure that their citizenship is restored in full as members of an independent Scotland within the European Union.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me to leave after making my speech, as I have individuals to meet and I need to be back in the chamber to ask the first question on the rural economy. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and I congratulate Annabelle Ewing on bringing it to Parliament.

I value the significant contribution that migrants to Scotland make to our economy, culture and everyday lives. Recommendations with regard to the EU settlement scheme will be taken on board, which is why the scheme was initially launched as a pilot. During that time, the procedure will go through the prototype stage—just as any new scheme would initially go through that process. There will be strong opinions on particular procedures in the scheme, and the UK Government will listen to the options and act accordingly, if appropriate. That is why the application fee has been withdrawn and why any person who applied during the pilot scheme will have their fee reimbursed.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I hear that it is a pilot that it is moving towards a scheme and that the UK Government might or might not listen to some things—who knows? However, the fact of the matter is that there will be an EU settlement scheme. Why should citizens such as Tove Macdonald, who has lived in this country for 60 years, be forced by the Tory Government to apply for rights that she already has?

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I acknowledge what Ms Ewing says and the representations that the individual has made. I feel uncomfortable about the situation—I am not denying that fact. The process needs to be looked at, and I have no doubt that representations will continue to be made.

The nature of permanent status means that it is vital to offer individuals the ability to come forward for it. As I said, the UK Government will continue to welcome the best and brightest to this country—and it is vital that we do that. However, as with such schemes in the past, we must ensure that we understand the benefits for both the host country and the applicant. Therefore, like others, I am delighted that the UK Government has abandoned its plans to charge EU citizens a fee when they apply for the right to remain in Scotland through the settled status scheme.

Governments in EU countries have already said that UK citizens who live in other parts of the world will be treated in a similar way to how the UK Government treats EU citizens who live in the UK, and that is rightly to be expected. It is interesting that the UK Government has, additionally, reached agreements with non-EU countries such as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as well as a separate agreement with Switzerland. Those countries are happy with the current arrangements, and any national of those countries will be able to apply to the EU settled status scheme from 30 March 2019.

Our new system for obtaining settled status will be streamlined and user friendly, and it will draw on existing Government data and information to minimise the burden on applicants to provide evidence. Applications will not be refused on minor technicalities without the applicant being given an appropriate opportunity to rectify the situation. Caseworkers who consider applications will exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, where appropriate. As a result, the Home Office has said that it expects the vast majority of applications to be granted, with refusals most likely to be made only on the basis of serious criminality or an individual not being an EU citizen. It is also important that, once settled status has been obtained, individuals can stay outside the UK for up to five years without losing their settled status.

I heard Ms Ewing’s comments, and there is no doubt that this is a volatile issue in the current negotiations. As I indicated right at the start of my speech, I and my party recognise the importance and value of migrants coming to our country. Many have made their lives here and contribute to our business community and our academic and political life. They are most welcome, have a right to remain and should be treated with dignity and respect. As I said, however, the case that Ms Ewing raised indicates that there is some way to go in managing the process.

EU citizens have made, and continue to make, a significant contribution to our way of life. I once again thank Ms Ewing for lodging today’s motion for debate. I look forward to seeing the progress that will be achieved in this area and to seeing all of us play our part in ensuring stability and continuity.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome today’s debate on the settled status scheme for EU citizens in Scotland. I was pleased to support Annabelle Ewing’s motion, and I associate myself with the speech that she gave today. However, it is ridiculous that the Tories have brought us to a place where something that seems so obvious warrants discussion.

Those who live, work and have families and homes here should clearly have an automatic right to remain and should never have been subject to the proposal of the Tory Government at Westminster to pay for the status and rights that they already have. I am glad that the proposal was hastily scrapped by the Tories amid strong criticism from MPs and campaign groups, but the fact that it was proposed in the first place only serves to highlight how much of a mess the Tories are making of Brexit. The Labour Party would never have used people living in this country in cheap negotiation tactics, and it is shameful that they were ever treated as pawns in that way.

EU citizens living in Scotland contribute greatly to our country, both culturally and economically. Diverse communities experience wide-ranging cultural benefits, especially through exchanges in ideas and customs, as well as through our world being a more connected place. Migrants from the EU contribute £2,300 more to the Exchequer each year in net terms than the average adult. Over their lifetimes, EU migrants pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits.

It is time that we, as a country, started talking about immigration. It has become an almost taboo subject to raise, which has, in turn, resulted in those with extreme views capitalising on the lack of discussion and playing up to people’s fears. We need to talk about immigration and try to disperse the myths and fears that people have about it. In Scotland, we need not less but more immigration. Scotland has an ageing population and, as a result, we will require more immigration in the future simply to sustain public services and support the increase in the elderly population.

We have only to look at the Windrush scandal last year to see that our immigration system is broken. Theresa May has proposed a post-Brexit salary threshold of £30,000 for skilled immigrants, which is just ridiculous. Given that so many of our carers and national health service staff are migrants and that many of those skilled workers will be blocked from working in the UK, how can we possibly maintain the required level of service? Our health service and social care system are already struggling with funding problems, so what will removing access to a huge workforce resource mean for those in need?

Brexit has highlighted, quite starkly, that we need to work on dispelling fears of immigration, but the Government has a huge role to play in that, and the Tories have to answer for stirring up fear with their rhetoric to score political points. It is time that they stopped using people’s lives as they have been and started standing up for the country as a whole. I am happy to support the motion.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank my friend and colleague Annabelle Ewing for securing this important debate.

The campaign, which has been successful so far, proves that, when parties work together, they can encourage or force political change. Every party in this Parliament except the Conservatives deserves some credit. The Tories, either willingly or through a blindly dogmatic approach, seem to have forgotten how important EU nationals are to Scotland and the rest of the UK. It has been a complete and utter embarrassment that the disgusting settled status scheme was instigated.

Tom Arthur spoke about the history of the EU project, and I cannot agree with him more. We must understand and appreciate why the EU came about and how important that was.

The fee was to be £65. Some would claim that, for many people, that would not have broken the bank, but the fee could have been 65p for all I care—the issue is not how much it was but the message that it sent out to people. It told them two things: first, that they were not wanted and, secondly, that they were a bargaining chip in the shambolic EU negotiations that were being led by the worst Prime Minister in history. They were being used to tell the EU negotiators that the UK would be tough in the talks. What the Prime Minister and her acolytes have done is turn Britain into a laughing stock. The so-called Great Britain that the Tories proclaim that they support and love will have a reputation that is not great across the EU and beyond. The Prime Minister and her revolving door of ministers—apart from Chris Grayling, of course—are telling people that Britain is uncaring.

It has been claimed that the UK’s negotiating skills have been reduced somewhat by its being a member of the EU. That certainly appears to be true. The EU is not kicking us out, but the UK seems to be hell-bent on leaving as sour a taste as possible as it exits the EU to make things worse for the future.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Does Mr McMillan agree that a fitting motto for the UK Government in the whole Brexit process would be “Stop the world—Britain wants to get off”?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Absolutely.

Who genuinely thought that imposing a charge on people who are our neighbours, our friends, our family members or colleagues, and active members of society, such as teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, footballers, rugby players and many more, was a good thing? Who genuinely thought that imposing a charge on EU nationals would build up some good will during the negotiations? Brexit is serious. It will have a huge effect on the lives of everyone who lives in the four nations that currently make up the UK, as well as on those of people who live in the EU27.

This is not a game of chicken. We are talking about real people with real lives and real futures. Not for one minute do I think that all the Tories in this Parliament supported the proposal. They will have toed the line to support their London masters. I get that—I understand that we have internal party discipline. Every member will get that. However, on such an issue, forcing people who live here—many of whom have been here for decades—to pay for the privilege of being able to remain in their own homes, with their families, in their communities and in their jobs was the worst kind of dog-whistle politics. The Scottish Tories did not need to sign up to that. They could have been different, but they proved that, whether in Scotland or across the UK, the nasty party is well and truly back.

I truly welcome the Prime Minister’s U-turn on the £65 fee, but the damage has been done. I am a firm believer that prevention is better than cure. Every Government will make mistakes; this one was a howler of epic proportions. The sour taste will linger for many years, long after Brexit. That comes on top of the Windrush scandal, in which members of the population were told that, if they were different, they would remain different. It stinks and is deplorable. I understand why people were rightly angry, and I understand why people such as the former MSP Christian Allard were so vocal about the scandal. Every Tory who supported the scheme should hang their head in shame. The Tories need to apologise to our friends, our neighbours and every EU national who lives in and contributes to society, including those among the staff of the Scottish Parliament.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I had written a speech, but I have listened carefully to what members have had to say, some of which I accept. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to work together on such issues. We had a lengthy four-hour debate on Brexit the other day. There was a lot of theatre involved, but a lot of sense came out of the debate, too. My colleague Jackson Carlaw spoke about some of the issues that Ms Ewing mentioned to do with how people feel about the process. I share his sentiment and Ms Ewing’s sentiment on some of those issues.

There is a lot to agree with in the motion, but there are a few things that I do not agree with. If members will allow me to, I will explain why I did not sign the motion. I do not intend to talk about the wider issues of Brexit, what EU citizenship means to people who are Scottish or British, and what might happen with regard to Scottish independence. I want to talk specifically about the processes by which we will achieve what we all want to achieve, which is to secure the rights of EU citizens.

I welcome the U-turn on the fee. We did not have a specific role to play in that policy: it was a Home Office decision. Did it sit uncomfortably with some members? Perhaps it did. Was the decision to abolish the fee the right one? Yes, it was.

However, I have a conundrum about the process by which we secure EU citizens’ rights. Anyone who knows me, and members from across the chamber with whom I have discussions about immigration, including members on the Government front bench, will know that I think that there is a positive case for inward migration to Scotland, and that there is a sensible conversation to be had around that. However, people who are already here, and those who wish to come here after 29 March, need security and certainty that the process that they follow will give them the rights that they need—or, indeed, will maintain those that they already have.

Let me explain why that is important to me. I have lived in Europe—in Spain, the Netherlands and France. I have been through the process of turning up in a new country to live and work, but I have also been through and respected those countries’ domestic processes for applying for residency. I went through those processes because I wanted to enjoy the employment benefits that the citizens of those countries enjoy. I wanted to be able to pay tax locally and to be a meaningful part of the economies of those countries. I have had to apply for identity cards and registration of my citizenship.

This is partly why we are where we are: we are not in the Schengen area, we do not have domestic identity or residency cards, and no other country has ever left the European Union. It is against that backdrop that we have a conundrum about how we will guarantee the rights of people from a union of which we will no longer be a member. The motion

“calls on the UK Government to scrap the settlement scheme for EU citizens.”

If we do so, what legal means would we have available to us to secure the rights of EU citizens who are already here? It is not an automatic process, because the constitutional changes that will have taken place will mean that some form of process is needed.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have very little time and a lot more to say.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You are refusing to take an intervention.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

For the record, I am not

refusing to take an intervention. I will take an intervention if I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Ewing, all interventions should be through the Presiding Officer. The member has every right not to take an intervention. He only has four minutes or thereabouts, and it is for him to decide.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I wish that we had longer. I would love to take an intervention, but I simply do not have time.

If the logic is that there should be no settlement scheme for EU citizens in the UK, surely we, as a Parliament, should be insisting that there be nothing for UK citizens in Europe. Spain has offered reciprocal rights for UK nationals, but has said that they will need to apply for something called a foreigner identity card. What do we do as a Parliament? Do we welcome that, because Spain has offered that reciprocal right, or do we condemn it because it involves a card, a process or some form of registration? That is the conundrum that we face. I want bilateral agreements that secure the rights of UK citizens in the EU, and I want to secure the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but let us ensure that it is as simple, fair and respectful a process—in both directions—as it can and should be.

There is much to agree with in the motion, but I cannot agree that there should be no process whatever, because that would make it difficult to secure the outcome that I think we collectively want to achieve—to secure the rights of EU citizens who are already here. I want them to stay and I welcome them. I do not believe that any Conservative member does not want them to stay. Any suggestion otherwise is not just unfair, but deeply saddening.

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

I, too, congratulate Annabelle Ewing on securing this incredibly important debate. I say so with regret, however, because Scotland is a remarkable outward-looking and welcoming European country, and we should not have to have this debate.

My message to EU citizens, as it has been from the majority of members who have spoken, is this: “Scotland is your home. You will always be welcome here. We want you to stay, and the Scottish Government will do all that it can to support you to stay.” We can none of us say that enough to our EU citizen friends, neighbours, colleagues and loved ones.

We must never lose sight of the fact that behind all the talk of amendments, withdrawal agreements, negotiations and abolition of fees lie people whose lives are directly affected by the situation. Tove Macdonald was mentioned; after 59 years of living in Scotland, her awful situation is that she must now apply for the right to live in her home. When I saw Tove’s interview, I thought of so many other people—from Poland, Italy, France and other EU countries—whom I have met and spoken to over recent months and years. They are real people with real stories—people who have made their homes here, have brought up their families here, pay their taxes and are valued members of their communities but are now being forced to apply for the right to stay in their homes. That cannot be right.

In response, the Scottish Government is clear about the need to ensure that EU citizens feel valued and welcomed in Scotland. That has been at the heart of everything that we have done since the EU referendum in 2016—but we are working against the backdrop of a deeply unhelpful narrative from the UK Government. Its hostile environment policy is hurting people.

Before Christmas, Parliament debated the rights of EU citizens, and one of our key asks was that the settled status fee be abolished—an argument that was rejected at the time by the UK Government. However, within a short time, and after pressure from the Scottish Government, this Parliament—with key partners including the3million—played a central role in getting the fee for settled status scrapped.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I have been listening to the debate. I, too, am concerned for the many EU citizens in my region. Members have been talking about the settled status scheme; I am also interested in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme that is being developed for fruit and vegetable pickers. Does the minister acknowledge that the UK Government’s design of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has completely disregarded dairy farms, 48 per cent of which are in the south-west of Scotland? The work on dairy farms is not seasonal—it is all year round, and the jobs probably do not even meet the tier 2 £30,000 salary requirement for staying in this country.

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

I thank Emma Harper for that question. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme is useful in some ways, but it is inadequate and will not be a substitute for freedom of movement. That is why the Scottish Government is pressing the UK Government to rethink its white paper proposals on immigration. We are also putting forward proposals for flexibility for devolution within in a UK framework, in order that we obtain solutions for Scotland in the post-Brexit environment. We do not want Brexit to happen; we would prefer to maintain freedom of movement, but in the face of what is coming, we are trying our best to stand up for the interests of Scotland, including the interests of dairy farmers.

With regard to the settled status scheme, let me make it clear that the scrapping of the fee was just a small concession from Westminster. Demanding that our colleagues, neighbours, friends and family members pay to remain in their homes should never have been suggested in the first place. The proposal to charge a fee was always unacceptable, but it is not the only issue with the settled status scheme.

EU citizens should not have to apply. I noticed that one of the Tory members talked about “the applicant” a number of times. They are not applicants. They are people who are embedded in our communities and are welcome citizens of our country. People should not have to apply for the rights that they already enjoy. To answer one Conservative member’s question, I say that they should and could instead have automatically been granted settled status, unless there was a very good reason not to grant it. The responsibility for obtaining that status should lie not with individuals, but with the UK Government that has imposed this wrong-headed scheme.

The UK Government could and should have chosen to secure EU citizens’ rights as a priority after the vote for Brexit—separate to any withdrawal agreement. It could have done that: it could have led on it and it would have been the right thing to do.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I hear what the minister is saying. By that logic, is it the Scottish Government’s official policy that the EU27 should—without any process or registration—give automatic residency to all UK nationals who are living in Europe at the moment?

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

My understanding is that the matter became a live issue in the negotiations only because it was one of the Prime Minister’s red lines. If the UK Government had shown leadership—ethical leadership, in particular—by securing the rights of EU citizens, she could have encouraged the remaining EU27 to do the same. That should have been done years ago; it is certainly something that we would back now. The security of EU citizens in all EU member states should be paramount. We absolutely support that.

Despite assurances from the Home Office that the settled status scheme would be simple, with a presumption of acceptance, there are serious and mounting concerns about its operation. The UK Government has left a vacuum where it should be providing information, advice and support to EU citizens across the UK.

Many EU citizens simply do not know that they need to apply, because the UK Government has not done nearly enough to raise awareness of the scheme or to provide much-needed assistance with applications. That is why, in the weeks and months ahead, the Scottish Government will redouble its efforts to reach out and provide EU citizens with the information and support that they need. We have already made provision for an advice and support service to be delivered through Citizens Advice Scotland, which will provide assistance over and above anything that the UK Government is doing, despite that clearly being the UK Government’s responsibility.

The concerns do not end there. The UK Government’s insistence that all applications be made online does not work for significant numbers of people. The issue with Apple devices not being able to be used for applying for the scheme has been much debated. However, for many people it is not a question of which device they use; it is about having the digital skills and confidence to trust their future to an online application.

I know that many EU citizens are concerned about their ability to access services, housing and employment in the future. I hear consistently that many individuals want physical proof of their status—something that they can show in order to evidence their rights. The UK Government should listen and, in addition to the proposed electronic proof of status, provide individuals with a physical document evidencing their status. Again, that could have been proactively provided through a declarative process, rather than an application process.

The Home Office says that the vast majority of those who have applied during the test phase have been granted status, but there is no information on the number of people who were incorrectly granted pre-settled status instead of settled status. The Home Office must look at that as a matter of urgency. We acknowledge that those who have been granted pre-settled status face many more months, or even years, of uncertainty. The onus will be on them to remember, perhaps in several years, that they need to reapply for settled status. It is incumbent on the UK Government to make sure that that does not happen. The Home Office must notify individuals when they become eligible to apply for settled status.

My overarching concern is the same as that of Tove Macdonald—a grandmother who fears being the victim of another Windrush scandal. The UK scheme is unprecedented in its nature and scale. Entrusting its delivery to the department that was responsible for Windrush is wrong-headed in the extreme. The UK Government must look again at the fundamentals of the EU settled status scheme and address the urgent concerns that I and many others have raised, all of which could critically undermine the ability of our friends, neighbours, colleagues and family members to continue their lives here in Scotland.

I will conclude by saying again that this Parliament, and Scotland, welcomes and supports the many EU citizens who have built their lives here and call Scotland their home. We are better for having them here. We know that they love Scotland: we love them, too, and we want them to stay and continue to feel welcome as part of our communities.

13:28 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Crofters’ Incomes (Impact of Wildlife)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a recent news release by the Scottish Crofting Federation stating that many crofters believe that their incomes have been significantly affected by wildlife. (S5O-02955)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I recognise that some wildlife species can have an economic impact on crofters. The Scottish Government works collaboratively with Scottish Natural Heritage and a range of stakeholders to manage and reduce adverse impacts of wildlife on farming and crofting in Scotland. A range of strategies and control measures is in place to help support crofters, for example the sea eagle management scheme.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that a balance can be reached, so that wildlife does not have a detrimental impact on crofting incomes?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The member raises a fair point. There needs to be a balance. I just came from a meeting with Malcolm and Chris Cameron from the monitor farm in Lochaber, who mentioned that sea eagles are causing the loss of their stock of lambs. I am aware that it is a very serious issue and there is a sea eagle management scheme in place. Finding a balance is the right measure and I am glad that the member has approached the matter in that way. We need to constantly ensure that the measures are sufficient to allow farmers to manage their stock and protect it against what is a source of not just financial loss but personal loss and misery for farmers who care deeply about their livestock.

Sheep Farming (Brexit)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has carried out of the potential impact on sheep farming of Brexit. (S5O-02956)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

A no-deal Brexit is by far the biggest threat to farming and to our successful food and drink sector. A wealth of Government and independent research concludes that the sheep sector will be worse off in every possible alternative trade arrangement.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the United Kingdom Government promised, and has failed, to publish its tariff rate quotas. What impact will that failure have on our trade with the European Union of key food products such as Scotch lamb?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

It is disgraceful and quite extraordinary that we are so close to 29 March yet still do not know what the tariffs will be. As I understand it, they were supposed to have been published for the past three weeks, but publication has been delayed by the UK Government. It is a very serious point. The sector of farming—and, arguably, of the whole economy—that is most at risk is sheep farming. That is because the EU is a vital export market and, if there is no deal by 29 March, as things stand, we will not even have the legal right to export at all. Even if that right is secured, the tariffs will be above 40 per cent. If the pound depreciates as experts on the economy believe, the combination of the depreciation of the pound and the imposition of a tax of 40 per cent will see a massive loss of market in Europe and a loss of income to primary producers. The saddest thing of all is that Michael Gove understands and agrees with all that, but the UK Government will still not remove a no-deal Brexit from the table. It is not too late to do that and I repeat the First Minister’s call urging the UK Government to

do so, not least for the sake of our hill farmers in Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the UK Government confirmed this week that, because of the uncertainty of Brexit, it is unlikely to introduce a change to sheep ageing for the purposes of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies control. Under the proposed new system, sheep producers would have received far greater certainty on the price that they receive from the abattoir for sheep. Will he take the matter up with his good friend Michael Gove, to see whether the UK Government could instead go back to the previous arrangement that the UK Government assured us that it would achieve?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am glad that Mr Scott has raised this important matter. We have been working with the UK Government to remove the teething test. I am not a farmer myself so I have had to learn about this test, but every single lamb needs to have their mouth opened to check whether their adult teeth have come through as a proxy to tell how old they are. If a farmer has 500 sheep scattered all over mountains and hills, that is not the easiest thing to do.

My colleague Mairi Gougeon has been working with the UK Government on this and we were confident that a scheme would be agreed to remove the need for the test in a way that was perfectly practical and consistent with animal welfare standards. However, in the past few days, without consulting us, the UK Government has said that it will not go ahead with such a scheme. I find that extraordinary and I very much hope that the UK Government will reconsider its approach. In the meantime, we are having discussions with the National Sheep Association and others. I am keen to keep Mr Scott and others advised on how those discussions proceed. There may be difficulties in pursuing a Scotland-alone project in this case; it would be far preferable if there were a UK solution for the matter.

Wholesale Food Sector (No-deal Brexit)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it is making for business continuity with wholesale food providers in the event of a no-deal Brexit. (S5O-02957)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

As it will for all parts of the food and drink supply chain in Scotland, a no-deal Brexit is likely to have serious consequences for the wholesale sector. As it happens, I had a meeting just this morning with the Scottish Wholesale Association, as the member may know.

In an interesting discussion the association told me specifically about the disadvantages that are already being experienced because of the possibility of no deal.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Bidfood is a large wholesale provider that is based in Newbridge, in my constituency. These are anxious times for that company. Can the Scottish Government reassure Bidfood that it will get information as soon as it becomes available for contingency planning and that the Scottish Government will do what it can to ensure continuity in the supply chain so that Bidfood can continue trading in the way that it does now?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am happy to provide that assurance, which I provided to Bidfood’s representative at the meeting this morning.

The wholesale sector says that storage costs are already rising and there is hardly any, if any, chilled storage capacity. There are already price impacts and some instances of stockpiling by major players. I agreed that we would of course keep the wholesale sector, which is an important sector of our economy in the member’s constituency among others, fully advised as far as we are able to. However, we can advise the sector of information only once we have it. Sadly, there has been an information deficit from the United Kingdom Government of late.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The cabinet secretary will have seen reports that some overseas customers have already started buying produce from elsewhere. Does he share my concern about the impact that that could have on exporters and on livestock farmers in particular who, according to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, could face European Union tariffs of 70 per cent on beef and 45 per cent on lamb post-Brexit?

What is the Scottish Government doing to help our exporters of food and livestock find alternative markets in that scenario?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We are in regular contact with exporters and their representatives; I have had weekly discussions with them. There is a Scottish Government resilience room—SGoRR—meeting this afternoon, which my colleague Mairi Gougeon will be at. My officials are in regular contact with companies and we provide export assistance in a number of ways, including an element of financial support.

However, there is only so much that we can do and the problems are so serious that—frankly—it may be impossible to mitigate them. The consequences of no deal, particularly for the red meat sector, would be extremely serious. That is why no deal must be removed from the table. It can be removed and not to do so is not just a run-of-the-mill Government mistake. There is no Government in the world that does not make mistakes, but this is negligence, recklessness and culpability, and it needs to be sorted now.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Any delay in transporting fresh food would have a disastrous effect, with whole consignments being lost. What contingencies are being put in place to protect wholesalers and producers who stand to lose those consignments?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Rhoda Grant is quite right. The export of, for example, shellfish from the Highlands and Islands, which is the area that we both represent, is subject to very tight timelines. The supply to markets in Italy and Spain, for example, has timelines that mean that, if there is a delay of longer than a few hours, the whole consignment becomes valueless.

Therefore, we have done a power of work to try to ensure that drivers have permits to drive in Europe—there is a real problem with that. Also, the aquaculture sector says that the number of export health certificates required would rise from 50,000 to 200,000, at an additional cost of £15 million, which is quite ridiculous. We have worked with local authorities to have a contingency plan for export health certificates, which are dealt with by environmental health officers, to deal with a four-fold increase in workload, and we have undertaken other measures to ensure that information is passed out to all processors, so far as we have it.

There is only so much that the Government can do to mitigate and anticipate without the hard information that we need from the UK Government about the impact of whatever it finally decides to do. It is impossible to fully prevent the enormous damage that will be caused, not least to our inshore fishermen and all those who rely on them.

Red Meat Industry

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of the red meat industry and what was discussed. (S5O-02958)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I regularly meet representatives from the red meat sector. Last week, I met the National Sheep Association Scotland and Scotbeef, and in the week beginning 18 February, there was a debate between me and Michael Gove, which NFU Scotland, the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers, the National Sheep Association and Quality Meat Scotland all attended. On 19 February, I chaired a food resilience group meeting, at which I held discussions with the industry. Prior to that, I spoke at the NFUS annual general meeting, and last Saturday night, I had the pleasure of dinner at the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association. At lunch time today, I met several farmers in the meat sector from Lochaber.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. Some producers have adopted alternative treatments to nitrites to process meats, in light of the 2015 World Health Organization report that concluded that nitrites can cause cancer. However, nitrites continue to be widely used, and a recent investigation by

The Herald on Sunday

found that three quarters of Scotland’s councils include nitrite meats on school menus.

What is the Scottish Government doing to help the industry to remove nitrites from processed meats?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I understand that my colleagues Mr Swinney and perhaps Mr FitzPatrick are dealing with that primarily. It is not my portfolio area. I am advised that nitrites play an important role in food safety and in helping to reduce the growth of harmful micro-organisms. There are, however, strict maximum permitted limits that can be used by manufacturers in ham, bacon or gammon product recipes.

The European Food Safety Authority reviewed nitrites as food additives in April 2017 and concluded that there was no need to change statutory safe levels. Scottish red meat is a completely appropriate food to serve in school and does not have added nitrites. I know that those matters are under consideration by Mr Swinney, following an extensive consultation that took place last August. We are analysing the responses on those matters carefully. I am sure that Ms Lennon will contact Mr Swinney to get the up-to-date detail on that.

Impact of 20mph Speed Limit on Rural Economy

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural secretary has had with the transport secretary regarding the impact on the rural economy of the proposals in the Restricted Roads (20 mph speed limit) (Scotland) Bill. (S5O-02959)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

To date, I have not had any formal discussions with the transport secretary regarding the impact of the bill. However, the member will be aware from the evidence that my colleague Michael Matheson, the cabinet secretary responsible, gave to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee yesterday that Transport Scotland officials are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Society of Chief Officers of Transport in Scotland to better understand the current barriers to implementation, including the traffic regulation order process, in order to assist and encourage more local authorities to introduce 20mph limits and ensure greater consistency across authorities.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Yesterday, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard evidence that the costs of the bill would impact disproportionately across rural Scotland and could lead to the expenditure of tens of millions of pounds of public money. In the interests of joined-up government, will the cabinet secretary express to his Cabinet colleagues those concerns about the disproportionate financial impact on the rural economy?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I am happy to relay Mr Rumbles’s comments. I will study the

Official Report

of the evidence that was given yesterday so that I fully understand it—as yet, I have not had an opportunity so to do. I am sure that Mr Matheson will want to give those matters very careful consideration indeed.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that discussion between the two cabinet secretaries, will the rural secretary acknowledge that the financial modelling for the bill was developed with the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and that it fully acknowledged the differing characteristics of rural roads? Will the cabinet secretary also acknowledge that dozens of rural community councils support the bill and that a significant number of councils, including Highland Council, Shetland Islands Council, Orkney Islands Council, Angus Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Stirling Council and many urban councils, back the bill because they believe that it will be a cheaper and more effective way to save lives?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I have not studied the modelling to which the member refers, but I am sure that Mr Matheson will give serious consideration to those matters. I listened carefully to what the First Minister said in response to the member’s colleague Alison Johnstone at First Minister’s question time today. It is appropriate that careful consideration is given to all of those matters, for which, as the member knows, I am not directly responsible.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary may be aware of evidence yesterday from Police Scotland that enforcing 20mph zones is not necessarily a priority and that, in rural areas, the majority of accidents happen on country roads where drivers drive at high speeds. Does he therefore agree that any shift in focus from those accident hotspots would affect the overall efficacy of the bill and the policy?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I would need to think about that, so I will not give the member a direct answer, if he does not mind. However, I will say that I have always thought that it is very sensible to listen carefully to what police road traffic experts have to say about road safety. They have to deal with matters that none of us would wish to deal with, and particularly the horrific consequences of road traffic incidents where there is loss of life. As individuals and citizens, and as representatives of the people of Scotland, we need to do a whole raft of things to ensure that road safety is given the priority that it rightly deserves.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

With regard to road haulage, can the cabinet secretary advise how many ECMT—European Conference of Ministers of Transport—permits road hauliers in Scotland have applied for and how many they have received back? What impact might that situation have on post-Brexit export and import of key foodstuffs, including in relation to wholesale providers and seafood and fish exporters such as those in north-east Scotland?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We are worried about that matter. We understand that businesses in Scotland have applied for 680 permits for individual lorries that, as I understand it, in most cases are currently used for export purposes. From those 680 applications, only 48 permits have been received, so 632 were unsuccessful. That is a stark illustration of the lunacy of not ruling out a no-deal Brexit. Without those permits, the drivers will not be able to drive to Europe with our shellfish, lamb and other exports. That is a ludicrous and preposterous situation, and I am grateful that the member has given me the opportunity to highlight it.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

I am pleased that the minister knew the answer to that question.

Tree Planting Targets

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in meeting its tree planting targets and creating 10,000 hectares of new trees in 2019. (S5O-02960)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We are making good progress.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Is it good, but undefined, progress? Perhaps I can drill down a little further. The Parliament agreed to the sale of national forest estate land, provided that the revenues that were received would be properly reinvested, so perhaps the cabinet secretary could be more specific in his answer to my supplementary question. Given that 50,000 hectares of land has been sold, how much land has been acquired—in numerical terms? Of the more than £100 million of revenue that has been raised through the sale of that land, how much has been spent on acquiring land and planting trees?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I gave a direct answer to the question that was asked. We are making good progress.

Mr Greene now raises an entirely different issue. As I understand it, I have already provided that information to the committee of which he is a member. I do not know whether the convener has passed on the letter, but it is there.

The apparent attack on Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland seems to be completely groundless. They are reputable, responsible bodies that do a great job and which will be fully devolved very shortly. They sell and purchase land for a variety of purposes, and they invest the money for the purposes for which they were established: to promote forestry in Scotland. If the member is suggesting that money is siphoned off for other irrelevant purposes, I am afraid that there is no evidence to back up that suggestion. I refer Mr Greene to the letter that has answered the matter in great detail.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

How does land coverage by forestry compare in each country of the United Kingdom? How much of the UK’s new planting is done in Scotland?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

From memory, I think that forestry cover accounts for 18 to 19 per cent of land in Scotland. The figure is significantly less down south so, proportionately, forestry is much more important in this country than it is in the rest of the UK. I am very pleased that we are making good progress in the forestry sector, which is playing a big part in helping to provide employment in rural communities. A couple of weeks ago, I was pleased to meet a series of young apprentices who are being taken on by the public sector in forestry at Balloch. I think that the industry will be taking on many more young people, which is good and a sign of its success.

Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019 [Draft]

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16170, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019.

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

T

he purpose of today’s debate on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019 is to seek Parliament’s approval of the guaranteed allocations of revenue funding to individual local authorities for the next budget year. It is also to seek agreement to the allocation of additional funding for 2018-19 that has been identified since the 2018 order was approved at this time last year. Although elements of my speech and the debate will be quite technical, this is about ensuring that local authorities can deliver real services for real people the length and breadth of the country.

The 2019-20 budget delivers a fair settlement for local government under the most challenging circumstances. The funding package in 2019-20 provides local government with a real-terms increase in revenue and capital funding to invest in our public services and to deliver our key priority of achieving sustainable economic growth in partnership with local authorities.

In 2019-20, the Scottish Government will provide councils with a total funding package that is worth £11.2 billion. That includes revenue funding of £10.1 billion and support for capital expenditure of £1.1 billion. Today’s order seeks Parliament’s approval for the distribution and payment of £9.5 billion out of the revenue total of £10.1 billion. The remainder will be paid out as specific grant funding or other funding and will be distributed later, as agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Next year’s overall funding package includes an additional £90 million to protect spending on day-to-day services, which was announced on 31 January during the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill stage 1 debate; an additional £40 million of support for social care, for the implementation of the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 and to extend free personal care for under-65s; an additional £120 million from health to local government, to support health and social care; an additional £210 million of revenue and £25 million of capital, to support the expansion of early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours by 2020; an additional £88 million to maintain the pupil teacher ratio and secure a place for every probationer who requires one; and the flexibility to allow local authorities to increase council tax by up to 3 per cent in real terms, which is worth an estimated £124 million.

The settlement and the other sources of income that are available to councils through increases in council tax mean that the overall potential increase in spending power to support local authority services amounts to £621.4 million.

An additional £65 million of revenue funding will be distributed once the necessary information becomes available, and that will be included for approval in the 2020 order.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister has listed the moneys that are available. Why, then, is every council cutting millions of pounds from its budget? Why are some councils making hundreds of people redundant?

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

Of course, at stages 1 and 3, the member voted against the Budget (Scotland) (No 3) Bill, which is ensuring that additional resources are going to local authorities. That is real money going to real people for real services the length and breadth of the country. The member need not believe me; he can believe the Scottish Parliament information centre’s independent analysis, which makes it clear that the overall funding going to local authorities is going up. He can also look at the comments made by the president of COSLA after stage 1, when she welcomed the empowerment of local authorities as part of the budget.

We work in partnership with COSLA and local authorities, recognising that they have commitments and that they have identified challenges, and we have ensured that, in this funding package, the finances are available to deliver on the many priorities that I have outlined. Those include extending free personal care to under-65s, expanding early learning and childcare and ensuring that local authorities have the basic capital that they need to invest in infrastructure. As I said, there is undistributed revenue funding. It is important that, when it comes to distributing it through the teachers induction scheme, discretionary housing payments and mental health school counselling services, we do so in conjunction with COSLA.

In addition to the revenue funding that is covered by the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019, specific revenue funding amounting to just over £507 million—including, as members will be aware, £120 million of pupil equity funding, £86.5 million of criminal justice social work funding and funding for the early learning and childcare expansion, for the northern isles ferries and for Gaelic—is paid directly by the relevant policy areas under separate legislation. The 2019 order also seeks approval for £54.1 million-worth of changes to funding allocations for last year, which have been made to fund a number of agreed spending commitments.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Obviously, the minister understands—we all do—that one council has to be at the bottom of the league table, but Aberdeen City Council has been in that position for a number of years. When does she expect Aberdeen City Council to receive a fairer funding settlement that will move it off the bottom of the table?

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

On the contrary, all local authorities receive their needs-based formula share of the total funding that is available from the Scottish Government, and they keep every penny of non-domestic rates to ensure that there is adequate funding. Although every local authority probably has a unique case to make on why it should get additional funding, it is up to COSLA to consider the distribution methodology. If all local authorities could agree to revisit that methodology, that would be a totally different question.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The minister is technically correct in saying that councils keep every single penny of additional business rates income, but does she accept that the Government claws back every single penny of additional business rates income from the general revenue grant?

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

It is technically correct to say that Aberdeen City Council and every other council keeps every penny of non-domestic rates. That is reflected in the funding settlement that they receive and the money that they have with which to deliver their core services. Every local authority has the ability to keep every penny of council tax and non-domestic rates, and the general revenue grant reflects a commitment to their keeping those rates.

On capital funding, although it is not covered by the order, the settlement for local government includes a capital budget of £1 billion, which is an increase of £207 million, or 24 per cent, on last year’s budget. That represents a significant boost to support local authorities’ investment in their schools, roads and other infrastructure.

I have already touched briefly on business rates. The distributable amount of non-domestic rates income has been set at £2.8 billion in 2019-20. I have said this already, but I confirm again that all local authorities will retain every single penny of non-domestic rates income that is collected in their area, and the Scottish Government will continue to guarantee each local authority the combined general revenue grant plus non-domestic rates income.

I realise that the debate can be quite technical, but what we are doing will ensure that local authorities have the funding to deliver the services that need to be delivered to the people of this country, who rely on them day in, day out.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019 [draft] be approved.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2019 comes at the tail end of the budget process. Given that we have spent weeks debating the Scottish Government's tax and spending choices, it might seem at this point that there is little more to add. Nevertheless, this is still an important part of the parliamentary process.

The order before us allocates funding to each of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. We do not intend to oppose it, as that would simply deprive local government of much-needed resources for the coming year, but we have concerns about the overall allocation of cash to local councils.

I will start by being generous to the Scottish Government. As the chamber knows, I am a very fair-minded person, and, as such, I accept—with one important caveat that I will come to—the minister’s basic proposition that overall support from the Scottish Government to local councils has increased compared with last year. According to SPICe, it is up by 1.1 per cent in real terms, which amounts to some £110 million for revenue, and, once the capital budget is included, the increase is 2.8 per cent in real terms, or some £298.9 million.

However, that is not the fulI story, as the Scottish Government well knows. Some of that additional money is ring fenced for specific purposes and cannot be spent flexibly by local councils. Although the total budget has increased, the core budget, which councils have discretion over how to spend, is down on last year’s budget by 2.5 per cent in real terms, or £230 million. Those are the figures from SPICe, and they are indisputable.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Given that the Conservatives obviously do not agree with the order, I am puzzled by Mr Fraser’s statement that they are not going to vote against it. After all, if they voted against it and it did not pass, the Government would have to introduce a new one.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that it is reasonable for us to abstain on this. The Liberal Democrats might want to vote it down, but if the whole Parliament were to do so, there would be a real danger that councils, which in any case have set their budgets for the coming year, would be left in a black hole. I am not sure, therefore, that voting the order down is a particularly wise tactic—given that it is being put forward by the Liberal Democrats, it is not going to matter anyway.

Having set out in a very

fair-minded fashion the overall picture, I am sure that the minister, who is equally fair minded, will, in her winding-up speech, accept the basic facts as I have set them out, including the fact that the core grant is down. In case there is any doubt about that, I point out that we are seeing it right across the country. If we open any local newspaper in any part of the country, we will see councils having to make cuts to the number of teachers, the length of the school week and school-crossing patrollers as well as closures of public conveniences, libraries and leisure centres.

Those choices have not been made lightly by councils; they have been forced on councils by the Scottish Government.

At the same time, councils are having to choose whether to increase taxes and charges. Let us not forget that the Scottish Government was elected on a manifesto commitment that council tax increases would not be above 3 per cent, yet we now know that at least 11 councils of all political persuasions are going to increase their council tax by the maximum permitted level of 4.79 per cent.

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

Will the member explain why Tory councillors across the country have supported the maximum council tax rises?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not know whether the minister has checked, but the finance secretary’s council—Scottish National Party-run Renfrewshire Council—is to increase council tax by the maximum of 4.79 per cent. I will not criticise any council that has, when given an unpalatable choice between increasing taxes and cutting vital services, made a difficult choice to protect the services that local people rely on.

Councils are looking at what other revenue they might raise—for example, from a tourist tax, which the SNP said it would never introduce, or from the new car park tax, which would hit the lowest earners hardest as it is a regressive form of taxation. Councils are concerned that, if they decide not to introduce the new charges, the Scottish Government will penalise them for that in future years. It would be good to hear confirmation in the minister’s winding-up speech that the Scottish Government will not seek to claw back money from councils that choose not to impose the tourist tax or the car park charge.

That is all against a background of the Scottish Government’s block grant from Westminster going up in real terms compared with last year, so there was no need to make such cuts to local government funding and no need for the hard choices to be forced on local authorities.

We would have taken a different approach. It was interesting that the finance secretary said at the weekend that an independent Scotland would eliminate its deficit in “a few years” by growing the economy more quickly. That gives rise to the question why the Scottish Government is not growing the economy more quickly now, given all the powers that are at its disposal. If the Scottish Government thinks that it can eliminate a deficit of £13 billion in a few years by growing the economy, it can hardly say that it is unreasonable for us to argue that, by growing the economy just a bit faster than it is currently growing, we could generate additional tax revenues to provide better funding for local authorities.

We should never forget that, under the fiscal framework, it is our economic performance relative to the rest of the United Kingdom that matters. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s projections show that, for each of the next four years, economic growth in Scotland and income tax revenues as a consequence are expected to lag behind the UK average. That means that we will have less money to spend, which is why the focus on growing the economy is vital.

As I said at the start, we will not oppose the order, because we do not want to penalise local government. However, that does not mean that we support the funding settlement. It will have a negative impact on councils across Scotland. We are already seeing increased council tax, increased charges and poorer services, and the responsibility for that rests firmly at the door of the SNP Government.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister tried to put a good gloss on the figures that are being presented in the local government settlement, but the reality is that, despite the money that will be allocated as a result of the order, councils face increased responsibilities for delivery on childcare and through health and social care partnerships. That means that core funding for day-to-day responsibilities that councils have had to deliver year on year will reduce by £230 million in real terms.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The member seems to criticise the increase in childcare provision. Will he confirm that he opposes the 1,140 hours of childcare?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

What Mr Mason says is inaccurate. I merely described the increased responsibilities for childcare delivery that councils will have; I was criticising the £230 million decrease in core funding.

The reality is that the funding that the Government has allocated means that councils are having to make cuts to their budgets. We can see the evidence of that across the country. That is undermining some of the Government’s main policy commitments. The Government is committed to creating jobs and growing the economy, which Scottish Labour agrees with, but analysis from Unison shows that since 2011, 30,000 jobs have been lost. That is 30,000 fewer people working in communities, local businesses and shops and making a contribution. That is detrimental to the economy.

The Government and the First Minister have made great play of education being the number 1 priority. However, in Dundee, the education budget has been cut by 3 per cent, which will reduce teacher numbers by 26 in that city council alone. In Moray, library closures are proposed—on world book day, of all days. That undermines the educational effort that the Government has been so keen to promote and that Scottish Labour supports.

The Government is also, rightly, keen to support vulnerable people in Scotland. However, in Clackmannanshire, support to citizens advice bureaux and food banks will end, undermining help for vulnerable people. Health and wellbeing is another big policy area for the Government. However, in Moray, we see that the sport development programme will be closed down. That undermines efforts to promote health and wellbeing and tackle issues such as obesity. In several key policy areas, the local government settlement will undermine the Government’s aim to make progress and achieve its targets.

As Murdo Fraser pointed out, we are now reaching the end of the process and it is useful to consider how we can move forward. Throughout the budget process, Labour has consistently argued that we should be more progressive on taxation. This is the first year of the new budget process, which tries to take a longer-term view of the budget and it is fair to say that it is still settling in. In the year ahead, we need to avoid the approach where all the budget effort is concertina-ed between December and February.

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

On that point, and in relation to parties making budget proposals, costing them and being clear about the tax proposition, there are many things in our budget and the Labour Party might welcome some of them, so how does Labour suggest that we improve the budget process when it comes to next year’s party negotiations?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I am glad that the minister made that intervention, because I am just coming to that point. The reality of the budget negotiation process this year was that the Government focused its efforts on the Greens because it had concluded that that was the party with which it was best placed to do a deal.

I met the cabinet secretary and outlined Labour’s budget priorities and the areas where I thought that tax should be more progressive in order to fund them. However, the cabinet secretary afforded me only 10 minutes. That does not show proper respect for the process.

We must all acknowledge that, year on year, local government funding has been reduced, which has made it difficult for local communities. If we want to adopt a different approach that will help local government, as well as helping the Scottish Government to achieve its policy objectives, the negotiations and discussions need to start earlier. I am prepared to be part of that. The Government must respect all the Opposition parties in the Parliament and not focus on just one.

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

Their proposals must have substance.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I take the point, but the Government needs to respect the other parties in those discussions.

The Presiding Officer

Please conclude, Mr Kelly.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

A 10-minute discussion is simply disrespectful; it is not taking the process seriously. Let us have a different approach from everyone next year.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

First, I thank James Kelly for his comments regarding the budget process and negotiations. As he will be well aware, I outlined my thoughts about that in the stage 3 debate and I hope that we can work together, if not to ensure that all parties support the budget next year, then to give a far greater prospect of the different priorities that different parties attach to the budget being secured.

As Murdo Fraser said, this is an important debate. Although it comes at the end of the process, we are asked to approve an order that allocates almost £9.5 billion to local government. As the minister said, that money will be used to deliver a wide range of vital public services, from education to social care, leisure, recreation, transport and housing.

As members know, following last year’s budget, the Greens made it clear that no negotiations could take place this year unless a serious, credible and substantive process was begun to increase the financial autonomy of local authorities, reform local taxation, shift the balance of funding from the centre to the local and put in place for local government the same sort of fiscal framework that exists between the UK and Scotland in relation to devolved budgets.

That is why, on 21 February last year, we wrote to the First Minister to outline why we need local tax reform. It is why, last March, we published a paper outlining what a fiscal framework for local government might look like. It is why I will introduce a member’s bill to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law, and it is also why we will support the motion, as we agreed a deal with the Scottish Government to do so. In any event, to vote against the motion is to deny revenue support to local government.

Following the Greens’ engagement with the budget process, the settlement mitigates some of the planned cuts to the general revenue grant and distributable NDR. It does not eliminate cuts, but that is not for want of trying. This year’s negotiations were genuinely difficult, and those parties with alternative ideas about how things could realistically have turned out differently need to reflect on how much effort was made and what they might have achieved that we could not.

I stress that the settlement is not a funding allocation that we would like to vote for. It is fundamentally wrong that so much of the revenue and capital budgets of local government is determined by this Parliament. In 2014, COSLA’s commission on strengthening local democracy published its final report, in which it argued that

“The case for much stronger local democracy is founded on the simple premise that it is fundamentally better for decisions about these aspirations to be made by those that are most affected by them.”

That is a familiar argument—I am sure that the minister will recognise it from the 2014 independence debate, when much the same argument was made by those who supported Scottish independence. However, for more than 50 years, local democracy in Scotland has been eroded to the point where Scotland is one of the least democratic countries in Europe, with the weakest structure of local governance and the least fiscal freedom. Across most European countries, at least 50 per cent of the budgets of municipalities and communes is raised locally. That delivers a sense of accountability that is entirely missing in Scotland and means that the local government politicians who decide about raising and spending money are elected by people who meet them every day, on the street, in the shops and in the school playground.

It is a particular affront to local democracy that the limited and regressive tax power that it has—the council tax—remains the most regressive tax in the UK, is based on a tax base that was last assessed 25 years ago, and has in place rate capping that in my view is unlawful and would not be allowed in most other European countries.

I do not feel comfortable sitting in this Parliament and voting on how much money local government should receive. However, we are where we are, we reached a deal, and we will support the order at decision time.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This year was

supposed to mark significant movement on the reform of local government finance. It was supposed to empower local councils and mark the end of harsh budgets. It was also supposed to mark the end of the council tax, but the council tax has not been scrapped—it has been increased. That is Green Party folly number 1 in the budget process.

The budgets for councils were set to be cut by £230 million as a result of this budget. The Greens said that that could be fixed with £90 million. That is Green Party folly number 2.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Will Willie Rennie take an intervention?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Not just now.

Social care budgets are under threat to the tune of £50 million. Apparently, that is flexibility, but it could be a cut to social care. That is Green Party folly number 3.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention now?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will take one in a second.

What about the supposed new tax powers that were dressed up as reform? That is the grandest folly of them all. Handing councils a bunch of taxes that they do not want, that will not work and that will not raise the money that they need is certainly not reform. It is another example of this Government treating councils with disrespect. The Greens have sold out local government, because they are too afraid to stand up to their allies in the SNP.