Scottish Parliament, 8 May 2019

337 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Deposit Return Scheme

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The first item of business is a statement by Roseanna Cunningham on a deposit return scheme for Scotland.

Before we move on to the statement, I note that it appears that significant details of the scheme have been reported in the press before today’s announcement. I refer members to the good practice guidance on announcements by the Scottish Government, in that major policy announcements should always come to the Parliament in the first instance. I urge the Government to have regard to that guidance.

The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

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

The existence of such a leak is disappointing. Not only does it rather steal my thunder; the Scottish Government would wish not to see such a thing happen, and I am absolutely unclear how it did.

The Scottish Government is

proud to lead the way across the United Kingdom with our plans for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers. Last summer’s extensive consultation reinforced the view that an appropriately targeted deposit return scheme—or DRS—would help to improve the environment and change people’s attitudes to recycling and littering. Having such a scheme is central to our ambition to build a more circular economy in which materials are kept in high-value use for as long as possible.

As members will be aware, we have embraced the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change and have acted by making amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. Interventions such as establishing a DRS will be central to our efforts to tackle climate change. The Scottish Government has been working closely with Zero Waste Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others to build on the outputs of the DRS consultation. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that we learn the lessons of successful schemes. At the same time, we have been keen to avoid simply lifting and laying a model from elsewhere. We are clear that we need a DRS that properly reflects the needs of Scotland.

I am pleased to be able to share the outputs of that activity and to outline the shape of the ambitious scheme that we will deliver. Further detail on today’s proposals will be available in supporting documents that will be published after this statement.

The recent consultation signalled strong support for a DRS that would cover a wide range of materials, and so I intend to implement a system that will cover metal cans, polyethylene terephthalate—or PET, which is the most common form of plastic that is used for drinks containers—and glass.

I have looked carefully at the arguments for and against including glass. After a detailed analysis of how the costs of including glass match up to the benefits, including increased recycling rates, reductions in carbon emissions and reductions in glass litter, my conclusion is that its inclusion is justified. There is also strong public support for including it, as was shown by the Marine Conservation Society’s recent poll, in which 85 per cent of participants indicated their support for it. However, I know that some producers, retailers and the glass industry have concerns about its inclusion. I want to make it clear today that I am committed to working with them to implement the scheme in a way that will address such concerns. However, if we are to include glass, it must be done from the outset. The infrastructure requirements for the material mean that it would be hugely complex and expensive to add it later.

At this stage, I have chosen not to include high-density polyethylene—or HDPE—plastic in the scope of the scheme. HDPE is used primarily for packaging fresh milk, but there are significant concerns about it—for example, about contamination of other materials and odour. Unlike glass, it would be possible to include HDPE in our DRS at a later stage if such concerns could be overcome.

Our DRS needs to be as convenient as possible for the public. People must be able to access return points easily. It would not be acceptable for certain groups of people—for example, those who live in our more rural and remote communities or who are on low incomes—to be penalised because they cannot return containers.

With that in mind, I intend to implement a return-to-retail model, whereby all businesses that sell drinks will be required to accept returns. The change will be visible to us all, including here in this Parliament, in the Scottish Government and in workplaces across the country, reinforcing the fact that we all have a role to play in helping our environment.

We recognise that consideration must be given to the operation of DRS in smaller retail settings. Retailers will be given flexibility in how they enable returns, whether through different sizes of reverse vending machines or manual over-the-counter take-back arrangements. We will explore with retailers how the financing of reverse vending machines can be supported, and we are committed to trialling different return, storage and collection solutions in preparation for the scheme’s roll-out.

I have carefully considered the calls by some to introduce automatic exemptions for retailers below a certain size. I have significant reservations about doing so. Modelling shows that even a modest level of automatic exemption would quickly hinder the scheme’s accessibility. An exemption for retailers with a floor space of up to 280m2

, as some have proposed, would result in only 17 per cent of retailers accepting returns. I do not believe that that would be workable.

On occasion, of course, there will be numerous retailers operating very close together, and where that is the case, we should build in the flexibility to accommodate exemptions. I also believe that there should be the flexibility to supplement the role of retailers through the operation of additional return points. That could help to drive additional footfall for community initiatives and could add particular value in our more rural and remote communities, which are less well served by shops. By taking that approach, we will maximise opportunities for the public to reclaim their deposits.

I have listened carefully to the hospitality industry regarding how DRS should operate for premises such as pubs and restaurants where drinks are sold for consumption on site. I can confirm that, in such cases, the premises will pay the deposit but will have the choice of whether to pass it on to the consumer.

International evidence suggests that the value of the deposit within a DRS is key to participation. The consultation indicated strong support for a deposit of 15p or more, and our analysis suggests that a deposit at around that level would support a strong return rate. Evidence from international models also indicates that ease of consumer understanding and proofing against inflation are important factors. I am therefore proposing a deposit level of 20p.

With up to 1.7 billion containers and many millions of pounds passing through our DRS, it will be important for businesses and the public to have confidence in the scheme’s operation. We have looked at examples of effective schemes elsewhere. It is clear that privately operated systems can often deliver the right performance outcomes. In practice, that involves producers and retailers establishing a not-for profit company for the specific purpose of running the scheme. I favour such a model; as DRS is a form of producer responsibility, intuitively it makes sense for industry to shoulder the responsibility for its operation, and I believe that, with the proper regulation, that approach will work well for Scotland.

In line with other schemes, I see no reason why we cannot recycle 90 per cent or more of our drinks containers through DRS. That is far in excess of current recycling rates, and I intend to reflect that aspiration in the regulations for establishing the scheme. Clearly, it will mean fewer containers being collected through kerbside collections. We will work with local government to ensure that DRS complements their collections, which will still have a critical role to play. Those collections will in future be supported through reformed packaging producer responsibility arrangements that are currently being consulted on across the UK.

The DRS regulations will be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. There will be ample opportunity to review and comment on our proposals before the secondary legislation is laid and during its passage through Parliament. I encourage everyone to take that opportunity and to continue the high levels of engagement that have benefited us to date. It is my intention to commence the super-affirmative procedure this summer.

Clearly there is much to do to successfully translate the scheme design into a fully operational service. As the contribution of industry will be central to its success, we have set up an implementation advisory group to work with those sectors with a direct stake in the scheme’s operation. Members include the British Soft Drinks Association, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association and a number of others. The group will meet regularly to discuss implementation.

I acknowledge that our plans are ambitious. I make no apology for that, but I do not underestimate the scale of the task. I look forward to working with partners to plan next steps. My overall aim is to deliver the scheme in the current parliamentary session.

I remain open to working with the other UK Administrations, which are currently consulting on DRS. However, that must be on the basis that their ambition matches ours. Our climate change commitments mean that it is simply not an option for us to wait in the hope that others will follow the example that we are now setting. That said, I am optimistic that the bold approach that we are taking here in Scotland will provide a blueprint for future action across the UK.

Today’s announcement marks an important milestone for DRS and our wider circular economy ambitions. I look forward to working with parliamentarians across the chamber as we progress that work in the weeks and months ahead.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will move on to questions, for which I intend to allow around 20 minutes. We have a load of questions but, if members are succinct in their questions and answers, we can get through them all.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I thank the cabinet secretary for providing advance sight of the statement.

A deposit return scheme can be a valuable tool in increasing recycling rates, but it is commonly used in advance of kerbside recycling infrastructure roll-out. Nevertheless, I recognise that the Scottish National Party Government has been working on the scheme for more than a decade and so I expect the smoothest possible roll-out.

Our expectations of the scheme are as follows: a plastic recycling plant and DRS vending machines to be built here in Scotland; local authorities to be compensated on current and future revenue streams and to receive technical support regarding any rerouting of collections; an incentive scheme to be rolled out to allow smaller businesses a mechanism to attract more customers, and exemptions for some of the smallest businesses, perhaps only with respect to glass; a procurement framework to be set up to allow businesses to buy vending machines at a competitive price; health and safety training to be provided for glass, focused on smaller businesses; and a full behaviour-change analysis of the scheme to be carried out as part of monitoring and evaluation.

The cabinet secretary may wish to reflect on those points. Will she also inform Parliament of how much extra the inclusion of glass has added to the total cost of the scheme?

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

Maurice Golden has raised quite a lot of issues. He will be happy to learn that the document that will be available once the statement is finished—it could not be published sooner because that would have given away the scheme design—is a full 150-page stage 1 business case and is likely to have the level of detail that will have even Maurice Golden’s heart beating strongly. I know that he is very keen on seeing that detail.

We have considered a number of the issues that the member raises, which are key issues, and I referred to some of them in my statement. One reason why we have the implementation advisory group is to continue to have that conversation. A stage 2 business case will be published a little later in the process. All the points that the member raises will be taken on board, including the issues to do with glass. As the member may know from listening to my statement, the case for including glass was slightly more arguable. People would have expected plastic and aluminium to be included, but we had to think a bit more about glass. On balance, we decided that it was better to include glass at this point, because we cannot retrofit it. Fundamentally, that would have been a major problem.

I hope to be able to engage with Maurice Golden on a lot of the detail, in which I know he is interested.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing advance sight of the statement.

Scottish Labour welcomes this robust DRS model and recognises the campaign by the Marine Conservation Society and the have you got the bottle? campaign. I declare that I visited Norway with that campaign group last summer.

I agree that the ambition must not be held up by the UK Government, but compatibility with the rest of the UK will be important for businesses and the public. What contact has the cabinet secretary had with her UK counterparts to ensure the necessary synergy? When I was in Oslo, I saw a collection station. What actions can the Scottish Government take to ensure that such stations are ready to receive the range of materials? What support is being given to provide new opportunities for remanufacturing, which is important for our circular economy and climate change targets?

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

Claudia Beamish’s latter points are important and relate to some of the things to which Maurice Golden referred. One of the reasons why we want the industry to be in the driving seat in running the scheme is that, from an early stage, it will see the need for, and the advantage of, having such a scheme.

In Scotland, up until now, we have not capitalised on some of the recycling opportunities that there might have been. The scheme will provide the volume of materials that are needed to take advantage of such opportunities. We will continue to talk about those issues, and I expect that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee will be interested in them, too.

Claudia Beamish mentioned the relationship with the rest of the UK. She can be reassured that I have been involved in two different meetings with my counterpart south of the border, Thérèse Coffey, to discuss the issues relating to deposit return schemes. The UK Government is well aware that we are a couple of years ahead in developing such a scheme. Given the position that we have taken today, I hope that Michael Gove and Thérèse Coffey will consider whether they can use our experience and some of the work that we have done, including the business case that we will publish, to help to drive faster what the UK Government is intending to do.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Twelve members wish to ask questions, so I reiterate that succinct questions and answers will be useful.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I note the cabinet secretary’s comments about the return-to-retail model. How will small retailers be supported to play their part in delivering the scheme? Specifically, how will people in rural villages be able to access the DRS machines?

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

The intention is that the DRS will be cost neutral for retailers, who will be reimbursed through a per-container handling fee, which will make participation as easy as possible.

We intend to explore directly with retailers how the financing of reverse vending machines can be supported. That might have been one of the issues that I missed from Maurice Golden’s list of points.

Although some retailers will choose to operate a reverse vending machine, we recognise that that will not always be practical. Gillian Martin’s question acknowledges that point. Therefore, the scheme will allow for manual over-the-counter take-back, if that suits retailers.

Our decision not to include automatic exemptions for retailers will help us to ensure maximum coverage in remote and rural communities across the country. That is important, because the vast majority of people need to have direct access to places where they can get the deposit back, otherwise the scheme will not work.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the scheme will be compatible with any scheme that is developed in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will any additional infrastructure that is required, such as a recycling plant, be built in Scotland, preferably in Ayrshire?

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

John Scott is an old friend of mine, but he somewhat overstates my ability to see into that crystal ball.

We are pressing ahead with our plans, which contain a great deal of detail. The UK Government is seriously considering rolling out a deposit return scheme in England and Wales. I cannot say what decisions the UK Government will make, but, by the time it is in a position to make such decisions, we will be well down the road to having a scheme up and running. I hope that the UK Government will have regard to what we will have in place, and I suspect that everybody, including producers and retailers, will put pressure on the UK Government to introduce the same system that will be in place in Scotland.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement. In the most modern deposit return schemes, the operator provides an app for retailers so that they can request efficient collections, and a different app for the public so that they can reclaim their money directly or donate it to charity. Will the Scottish deposit return scheme make use of technology and include such options?

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

That is a good idea and is one of the issues that the implementation advisory group will discuss. Apps are used across the board for all sorts of things, such as paying for parking. I see no reason why we cannot use modern technology in that way, and I will ensure that the advisory group that will meet later this month adds that to the issues that they might think about.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I, too, refer members to my entry in the register of interests. At the invitation of the have you got the bottle? campaign, I joined a cross-party visit to Oslo to see the Norwegian system in operation.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of my strong support for DRS, since first seeing it in operation in Norway in the mid-1980s, and of my keen interest in seeing it rolled out in Scotland, so I am delighted by today’s announcement. However, the cabinet secretary said in her statement that she is aware of concerns from some retailers and producers—as well as the glass industry itself—about the inclusion of glass bottles in the scheme. Will she assure those with concerns—and members—that when the scheme is being implemented, Zero Waste Scotland will do everything that it can to engage with and assist retailers or producers who continue to have concerns?

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

We are absolutely committed to continuing the engagement that we have had with retailers in the development of the scheme. We intend to work with them to test different return, storage and collection arrangements in the coming months. The critical role of retailers is also reflected in the membership of the implementation advisory group that I spoke about. That includes representatives from the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. It is my intention to bring forward secondary legislation later this year to establish the scheme. That will provide another important opportunity for retailers to engage with Parliament on our plans for DRS.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests and to the very successful study visit that a number of us made to Oslo last year. I add, on behalf of the Scottish Greens, that we warmly welcome this wide-ranging deposit returns scheme. It really takes the lead in the UK.

Last year, in preparation for the scheme, the cabinet secretary also visited Oslo, where hotels and restaurants in the catering trade that collect empties on behalf of the system are paid the same handling fee as retailers that do the work. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that that will also be case for Scotland’s hospitality trade?

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

I understand that the hospitality trade will not be required to operate the deposit return system with its customers: it will be a customer.

I undertake to get back to Mark Ruskell on whether there is a handling fee, because I am not entirely certain that that is the case, although I do not want to mislead him by saying that there is not.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I also refer to the register of interests. I am the convener of the cross-party group on independent convenience stores.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that three members of the Scottish Grocers Federation, including the Oxgangs Premier store in my constituency, have been trialling reverse vending machines. More than 36,000 plastic bottles and aluminium cans have been collected in two months, with 40 per cent of people donating the deposit to a local charity.

However, those machines, with their smaller footprint, cannot accommodate collection of glass. Will the cabinet secretary clarify how she expects the convenience store sector, which in most cases has limited floor space, to accommodate storage of glass?

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

That, of course, was one of the issues that we had to think about when we were considering whether to include glass. If those smaller machines that do not take back glass were to be rolled out in a scheme, that would make it impossible to add glass in the future. The trial showed that once a retailer had been set up on that basis, collection of glass was not a possibility for the future.

Retailers will have the flexibility to accept returns through machines or manually, over the counter, if that better meets their needs. As I said, we are committed to testing different return, storage and collection arrangements in preparation for the scheme’s implementation.

Businesses that choose to use RVMs will have flexibility in respect of the type of machines that they operate, subject to some basic technical criteria being met. There will not be a mandated RVM model.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I, too, declare an interest, in that I was a member of the cross-party delegation to Oslo. As a member of a party that has since 2012 been committed to a DRS, I welcome the commitment that has been made today, and much of the content of the cabinet secretary’s statement.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the proposals will be island proofed, so that accessibility and affordability for island residents, businesses and communities are properly taken into account?

Given the strong evidence from Norway about the environmental and economic benefits of excluding glass, thereby allowing other less environmentally impactful materials to be used, can the cabinet secretary also confirm that she has opened a further debate—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that that is enough, Mr McArthur.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

—about the inclusion of glass—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have asked

two questions already. Thank you.

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

I will catch up with Liam McArthur on some of the wider issues. I absolutely reassure him that the comments that I am making about remote and rural premises also apply to island premises. I know that the issue that he raises is a real one; it has been raised by my colleague, Michael Russell, in respect of Gigha. I want to reassure Liam McArthur that we take that point on board.

There are different ways to manage the scheme. Norway has remote and rural areas and it has islands, and there are plenty of other examples internationally of the issue being resolved. I am not concerned that that will not happen in Scotland.

I can share details with Liam McArthur, but I do not have time to do so just now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The questions are getting very long again, and there are five left to ask. We will not get everybody in, but I will do my best.

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

On rural and remote and island communities, might one way around problems that a number of members have raised involve setting up communal return points at shops and other institutions, including schools and community centres?

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

We envisage exactly that possibility. The scheme design allows the establishment of community-led return points, which could be provided by a local authority, or even by a third sector provider, and will encourage the public to make best use of local services across the country.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I declare an interest, in that I was part of the cross-party group that visited Norway to see the DRS scheme.

The proposed flat-rate deposit of 20p does not take into consideration the cost of recovery or how sustainable each material is. Can the cabinet secretary set out how the scheme will encourage producers to switch to more recyclable and lower-carbon packaging?

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

Finlay Carson should be aware that a number of initiatives are under way. For example, his Government at Westminster has introduced a kind of plastic tax, which approaches the issue from the direction of the producer. As well as what we are announcing today in Scotland, a number of things that deal with the issue that he raised are happening in the UK as a whole. I know that if he were to question Michael Gove on the plastic tax, he would get a fairly robust answer.

I am happy to talk more with Finlay Carson about the 20p deposit. We were thinking about the impact on the customer and the need for the deposit to be a straightforward and simple one that people will want to reclaim.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I recently visited Family Shopper in Blantyre, which returns some of the proceeds from its reverse vending machine to the community. How can the scheme that the cabinet secretary has outlined today incentivise community involvement?

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

There is nothing in our scheme design that would make what James Kelly described impossible. I expect that it is one of the things that people will want to consider. I think that it was Alex Rowley who talked about a similar thing happening elsewhere. Those who will administer schemes will perhaps have a view, but the decision will be entirely a matter for the customer. I anticipate that, in some cases, what the member suggests will happen, and that in others it will not.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I declare that I have never been to Oslo.

Can the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that return accessibility—for example, for people without cars—will be a key consideration in relation to implementation, so that people can make returns with ease?

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

I am now wondering whether I should have also declared that I have been to Norway to look at the system there. In defence of all those of us who went there, I note that the system is astonishing to see, and that gaining understanding of it has cleared away a lot of the concern about deposit return systems.

In response to Kenneth Gibson’s question, I say that we are committed to working with retailers in the coming months to test different return, storage and collection arrangements. In addition, we will consider options for retailers to access support to acquire reverse vending machines, when they choose to operate automated returns. Those matters will be taken forward by the implementation advisory group that I mentioned.

Scottish Welfare Fund

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it allocates funding from the Scottish welfare fund to local authorities. (S5O-03188)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Scottish welfare fund funding is allocated to local authorities in accordance with a formula that is agreed by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The formula is based on the income domain of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, so that local authorities with more people on low incomes get higher allocations, ensuring that the Scottish welfare fund is focused on the most deprived areas.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that there are different overspends and underspends of the Scottish welfare fund

across local authorities. Does the Scottish Government take that into account—or does it believe that it should take that into account—when distributing the funding?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is up to each local authority to manage the budget in that year for its local area. It is important that the formula basis—which is based on deprived areas—is held to and stays that way. We therefore encourage local authorities to ensure that they manage their own expenditure and use up their allocation. However, we do not take underspend into account as we move into the next financial year, because it is important that we recognise the deprived communities on which the formula is based.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government would not have to provide any welfare support to Scottish local authorities if it was not for the savage cuts to social security that have been imposed by the United Kingdom Tory Government, which is backed by Mr Scott?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I absolutely agree with the premise of Mr Gibson’s question. The fact that we have to provide for the nearly one third of a million households in Scotland that require a Scottish welfare fund is a sad indictment of the UK Government’s record on welfare cuts. We have provided money to ensure that the Scottish welfare fund is there for people who are in crisis. However, it is a sad time when we once again have to mitigate against UK Government welfare reform.

Young Carer Grant

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported concerns raised by young carer groups that the current proposals for the young carer grant are unduly restrictive. (S5O-03189)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government is committed to co-designing the young carer grant with young carers and stakeholder organisations to ensure that the grant meets the needs of our young carers.

The draft regulations that have been passed to the Scottish Commission on Social Security for scrutiny have been amended in line with the feedback that was received through the consultation; user research; the young carer grant working group; and the young carer panels.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

The Greens particularly welcome the decision to allow young carers to be recognised for caring for more than one person. However, the current proposals still appear to extend to only one young carer, which the Carers Trust Scotland says is unfair; when two young carers provide support, one would appear to miss out. Will the cabinet secretary take action to address the issue?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Government has moved on a number of issues as we have developed the regulations and as we go through the different processes. As I said in my original answer to Alison Johnstone, the regulations are with the commission. I look forward to the commission’s feedback on the first set of regulations that it will consider in due course.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary knows that carers want restrictions on studying to be ended, support for caring for multiple people, and changes to the poverty-inducing earnings cliff edge. Will she ensure that, when the carers strategic policy statement is launched next month, the consultation that flows from it will not be about whether the Government should introduce the long-called-for changes but about how carers want those policies to develop, ready for when the carers allowance is fully transferred?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

T

he announcements and the proposals that will come forward, which Mark Griffin mentioned, will not be specifically to do with social security; they will be on wider carers issues, and the development will not be led by me. However, it is important that we consider social security in the wider context of what is happening for carers in Scotland. The Government is determined to ensure that we support carers in social security and other aspects as we move through that process. The developments that Mark Griffin referred to will be an important way to ensure that we receive feedback from carers and stakeholder organisations on what they wish to see in the longer term.

Older People (Assistance to Stay at Home)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it assists older people to stay in their homes for as long as possible. (S5O-03190)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

We are absolutely committed to supporting older people to live as independently as possible at home or in a homely setting. This year, we are increasing our package of investment in social care and integration to exceed £700 million. That demonstrates the Government’s commitment to support older people and disabled people, and recognises the vital role of unpaid carers.

Last month, the Government published “A Fairer Scotland for Older People: A Framework for Action”, which identifies actions that will be taken to maximise the contribution of older people and remove the barriers that they face, including in the areas of housing and care, while maintaining their personal independence.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sure that the minister will take the opportunity to acknowledge the contribution that care and repair services play in helping older people to live independently at home for as long as possible. Does she agree that denying that service to older people, as some councils have chosen to do by withdrawing funding, is unacceptable? Will she give a commitment to review the funding mechanisms that support such services, as Care and Repair Scotland and Age Scotland have called for, so that we can ensure that they are consistent across the country?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I know that Graham Simpson is well aware of some of the innovative work that is being done in those areas, including the work with the University of Stirling and Age Scotland, and he will know that local authorities have responsibility for care and repair services. No direct issues have been raised with me on them. Those issues would be raised with my housing colleagues, and I am happy to ensure that they are aware of the concerns that Graham Simpson has raised.

Gender Recognition (Legislation)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the 2016 Scottish National Party manifesto commitment, whether it will legislate in the current parliamentary session to bring gender recognition law up to international best practice. (S5O-03191)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Government is strongly committed to maintaining and, indeed, advancing trans rights and equality. Like all the parties in the Parliament, we want to reform the gender recognition law. Our 2018-19 programme for government reaffirmed that commitment to legislation on gender recognition.

The majority of the 15,500 responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation on gender recognition supported the proposals. However, we recognise that some respondents expressed sincerely held concerns about reform. We will take account of those concerns as we reach our decisions on the next steps, and we will announce our response to the consultation in due course.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am glad that the cabinet secretary reminded members that all five political parties in the Parliament stood on manifesto commitments to continue to advance that legislation. In the Equality Network’s hustings in advance of the 2016 election, every political party leader gave a clear personal commitment to see that legislation introduced. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that a much more coherent campaign against trans rights and equality has developed with the delay since the consultation, which has included those who seek to portray trans people as a threat in a way that is reminiscent of previous campaigns against lesbian, gay and bisexual equality? Does she recognise that there is impatience to see the legislation introduced? Can she give us a timetable?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I appreciate that stakeholder groups and individuals across Scotland are looking to the Parliament to ensure that there is change. There is an imperative on all of us to ensure that the debate is carried out in the right manner and with respect and that different opinions are recognised, and that that is done on the foundation of trans inclusivity and ensuring that trans rights are respected along with other rights in our community.

Trans people are not a threat; they never have been, and they never will be. However, it is important that we listen to people who have concerns, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to reassure them and work through their concerns. That is why I will ensure that I go through a due diligence process of looking at the consultation responses, to understand the concerns that are out there and work with people to find solutions. That is what I ask of everybody in the chamber and beyond. If we are committed to ensuring that everyone in Scotland is respected and has a place in our society, we all have an obligation to come forward with solutions about how we do that in a respectful manner.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I remind Patrick Harvie that one of the groups that is most concerned about the proposals is lesbians. Nothing in the SNP 2016 manifesto said that males with male bodies, including male genitals, should be able to declare themselves female without any medical or psychological assessment or safeguarding.

Trans people are not a threat; it is men who are a threat because men commit 97 per cent of sexual crimes. What evidence does the Government have that males who self-declare as female no longer offend at male rates?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I welcome Joan McAlpine’s reaffirmation that trans people are not a threat. The important point that is picked up is that there is a perceived threat from men who will use the debate around trans rights. It is very important that we recognise that—I recognised it in a blog that I put out on the subject—and that we tackle that fear that women have of men and ensure that we deal with it. We must also ensure that we develop trans rights in a respectful manner.

The Government is absolutely determined to move forward with gender recognition laws, but it is important that we do so in the right manner. We must ensure that the process that we have at the moment changes and that we listen to people’s concerns around how we are trying to change it. We must also ensure that people recognise that the Government is proposing something that would involve a solemn declaration that would be made in front of a notary public, and that there would be serious consequences if it was ever broken.

It is important that we ensure that self-declaration is made in front of a notary public and that criminal offences will be available for someone to be charged if they abuse the system. If we can work to ensure that the process that we introduce recognises concerns, but also ensure that we are delivering a system of gender recognition that is fit for purpose in view of what is going on in the international community, we can move Scotland a long way forward on an issue that it is difficult for many of us to find a solution to.

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

I appreciate that that was a lengthier answer on a sensitive matter, but I would like shorter answers, please, so that everybody gets in.

Benefits Claims (Removal of Back-dating)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Department for Work and Pensions’ removal of the protected date of claim guarantees, which previously allowed councils and Citizens Advice Scotland to back-date benefits claims of their clients to the start of the application process rather than the final submission date. (S5O-03192)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

That is yet another area in which there are great concerns over universal credit and its effect on people in Scotland.

There are many reasons why someone might not be able to make a claim from the day that they are entitled to do so—for example, they may not have digital access. Therefore, it is important that the protected dates that were available are recognised by the United Kingdom Government.

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

The removal of the financial safeguards for some of my most vulnerable constituents is alarming and unacceptable. Glasgow City Council has estimated that each and every month 200 Glaswegians will miss out as a result.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the flaws in the universal credit system require to be fixed, not made worse at the expense of the poorest in society, including many of my constituents? Will she join me in calling for an urgent rethink of the appalling changes and for them to be scrapped altogether?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Once again, Bob Doris raises a very important point. I fully support the reasoning behind his question and his calls for action from the UK Government.

Social Security Scotland (Benefit Payments)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how much Social Security Scotland has paid out in benefits since the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 was passed. (S5O-03193)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Social Security (Scotland) Bill received royal assent on 1 June 2018, with Social Security Scotland being established on 1 September 2018. The agency paid out £197 million between 1 September 2018 and 31 March 2019. The breakdown includes £158.5 million for carers allowance and £33.9 million for carers allowance supplement, which makes an investment in carers of more than £192 million. Payments of £4.4 million have been made for the best start grant pregnancy and baby payment.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the best start grant. More has been paid out for that in two months than the DWP paid out for the benefit that it replaced in a whole year. That has put money into the pockets of families with children, many of whom have been hit by the United Kingdom Government cuts. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that shows the positive difference that we are making to families throughout Scotland with our new powers over social security?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

This Government wants to ensure that our children get the best start in life, and using our new social security powers to help to make that happen is a very important part of our programme.

In the first three months, more than 9,700 families received the pregnancy and baby payment. The best start grant takes provision for the first child from £500 under the sure start maternity grant up to a total of £1,100 over three payments. Families who have subsequent children, who received nothing from the UK Government, will receive up to a total of £800. That is £1,400 more than under the UK system for a two-child family in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Michelle Ballantyne. Please be brief.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

Last week, we heard that Social Security Scotland has spent £9.1 million on temporary and contract workers. How does the Scottish Government plan to ensure that we will have enough permanent staff to deliver the remaining 98 per cent of devolved benefits?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The use of contract staff within the programme is an important way to ensure that we have the right skills mix at the right time. There are also particular areas where it is better to use contract staff than a permanent member of Scottish Government staff because the types of skills that we require are required only for a short time in a particular part of the programme. That is why we are taking important steps to ensure that we create the right mix of permanent staff, temporary staff and contract staff, with a keen eye on the public purse.

Best Start Grant (Pregnancy and Baby Payments)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how many families in the Highlands and Islands have been awarded a best start grant pregnancy and baby payment since December 2018, and how many have had their applications rejected. (S5O-03194)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Social Security Scotland had made about 600 best start grant pregnancy and baby payments to families in the Highlands and Islands electoral region by the end of February 2019. In the same period, about 300 applications were denied and a small number were withdrawn.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will know that as many as one in five children is in poverty in parts of my region, yet, as she has just told us, more than 300 families had their grant applications rejected. A recent report from Social Security Scotland on the delivery of the grant has shown that staff are unclear about the scheme and are working under intense pressure, that the guidance is long winded and that the systems are not fully tested. Can the cabinet secretary give an assurance that families in my region who are entitled to a payment have got it and that any failures in the system have not led to anyone missing out?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I say to Rhoda Grant that I absolutely do not recognise her assessment of the Social Security Scotland agency or its workings. If she refers to the new insights research that is published by Social Security Scotland, she will see that it shows satisfaction rates of 98 per cent and 100 per cent for online and telephone inquiries. That proves that we have an agency that is based on dignity, fairness and respect.

Applications were denied, particularly around the new benefit, for many reasons. It could be, for example, that people were not on the low-income benefits that they have to be on in order to be eligible. We had a number of people applying for best start pregnancy and baby payments who did not live in Scotland, and we had a number of people applying whose child was not within the age range that the entitlement is actually for.

We will look seriously at why applications have been rejected in different parts of the country but I refute Rhoda Grant’s allegations that there are flaws in the Social Security Scotland system. People who apply for the grants are getting them, and it is a shame that the Scottish Labour Party cannot recognise the success of Social Security Scotland and its staff.

Childcare Expansion (Impact on Benefit Recipients)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on benefit recipients of the expansion to 1,140 hours of funded childcare. (S5O-03195)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

A key driver for the expansion to 1,140 hours is the evidence that all children, especially those experiencing the most disadvantage, benefit from access to high-quality early learning and childcare. The increase in hours, and the new approach to flexibility and choice, could make it easier for families to access work, training or study.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Liz Smith may ask the quickest supplementary question ever.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What contingency measures does the Scottish Government have in place for those who are on benefits if they are going to have to pay up-front childcare fees because neither the publicly funded nurseries nor the private nurseries have spaces available?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is important that I get the point over to Liz Smith that the Scottish Government, local authorities and private providers are on track to deliver on the commitment to 1,140 hours. I hope that she is therefore assured that that situation will not arise.

Oil and Gas (Jobs)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to protect the jobs of people employed in the North Sea oil and gas sector as the industry changes. (S5O-03196)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As highlighted in our energy strategy, Scotland’s oil and gas sector is a key component of our energy system and our economy. It can also play a positive role in supporting the global low-carbon transition. In taking forward the aims and ambitions of the strategy, Skills Development Scotland and stakeholders have been working across a number of sectoral groups to ensure alignment of skills planning and delivery. That work will enable pathways for future employment, reflecting the potential impact of challenging demographics while addressing demand, especially in areas such as digital technology, automation, and advanced manufacturing.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister will be aware that oil and gas support 280,000 United Kingdom jobs and workers in the energy sector, many of whom are based in the north-east and each of whom contributes an average of over £170,000 to the economy. However, Aberdeen City Council’s general revenue grant is being cut by more than £20 million and north-east councils face funding cuts of £100,000 per day. Given that context, when can we expect a fair share for north east councils?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

North-east councils, like all councils across Scotland, get their fare share of the Scottish Government’s support to councils, which has increased. Councils in the north-east, as across Scotland, keep all their council tax payments and non-domestic rates receipts.

Immigration (Economic Contribution)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment the finance secretary has made of the contribution that immigration makes to Scotland’s economy. (S5O-03197)

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

Migration is vital to Scotland’s population growth and makes an essential contribution to future economic prosperity and delivery of public services. We know that people who come to live and work in Scotland and across the United Kingdom typically contribute more through tax revenues than they consume by way of public services. Research from Oxford Economics published last June found that people who arrived in the UK in 2016 are projected to make a total net positive contribution of £26.9 billion to the UK’s public finances over the entirety of their stay.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Last week, the Federation of Small Businesses revealed that one in 10 small businesses in Scotland is led by an immigrant entrepreneur, contributing more than £13 billion to the Scottish economy. During its recent inquiry, the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee heard from Scottish Chambers of Commerce that businesses could find themselves in the position where their route to Government support is somewhat unclear. Given the lack of—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, I want a question. We are getting a lot of preambles and I do not like preambles.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

What consideration has the Government given to whether that lack of transparency could deter immigrant entrepreneurs from starting or upscaling businesses in Scotland?

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

The Scottish Government has welcomed the FSB report, and Stuart McMillan MSP is hosting an FSB reception here this evening. Jamie Hepburn has engaged with the FSB on the report.

I agree that we should look at further ways of supporting entrepreneurship, business growth, and the scaling up the businesses of those migrant entrepreneurs who are building successful businesses in Scotland’s economy and contributing to our shared prosperity.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I want to push the cabinet secretary further on that, because, despite immigrant-led SMEs generating £13 billion and 107,000 jobs, they struggle—growth is erratic and export activity is poor. Is sufficient support available from Scottish Enterprise and business gateway to help immigrant-led SMEs flourish, and what more can be done?

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

As a member of the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee, Jackie Baillie is well aware that business gateway is led by local government, but, yes, we are proactively looking at that, partly as a consequence of the committee’s inquiry. I believe that there is support from Scottish Enterprise, but I want to do more, and that is why we will engage further with the FSB and other business representative organisations to try to support those groups that, for whatever reason, feel that financial products and support have not been available. We want to address that and celebrate the economic and social contribution that migrants have made to this country.

Living Wage Accreditation

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it encourages employers to commit to having living wage accreditation. (S5O-03198)

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

Scotland has more than 1,400 living wage accredited employers which, proportionately, is over five times more than the number in the rest of the United Kingdom.

To support our ambition to be a fair work nation by 2025, we have provided £380,000 to the Poverty Alliance this year to support employers through the accreditation process and to drive the commitment to lift at least 25,000 additional workers to at least the real living wage by 2021, focusing on low-pay sectors such as hospitality, to help those most affected by low income levels.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Will the minister join me in recognising the excellent initiative of Excel Vending in East Kilbride in becoming a living wage employer to mark its 25th anniversary and thus encouraging other employers to consider that way of marking special milestones in their companies’ development?

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

I certainly join Linda Fabiani in congratulating that company on its 25th anniversary and recognising that it has committed to fair work practices that obviously improve staff retention and productivity. I hope that the success of that business will encourage others to follow suit.

Currency Proposals (Central Bank Reserves)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the amount of reserves required for a new central bank in the event of a separate Scottish currency. (S5O-03199)

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

First, our proposals are to keep the pound in the immediate term. A Scottish National Party Government will take the steps that are necessary to enable the Scottish Parliament to authorise the preparation of a Scottish currency as soon as is practicable after independence.

The sustainable growth commission, which was established by the First Minister in her capacity as SNP leader, produced a detailed report on the financial, economic and regulatory requirements necessary for the transition to an independent currency. It engaged extensively with businesses in developing its recommendations. It recommended the introduction of six tests to guide that transition, one of which is on the financial requirements of Scottish residents and businesses.

Our position is clear: until a new currency can be safely and securely established in the interests of the economy as a whole, the currency of an independent Scotland should continue to be the pound sterling.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, but it does not sound as if the Government has done any assessment of what the level of foreign exchange reserves would need to be—so let me help him. Professor MacDonald of the University of Glasgow’s Adam Smith business school has estimated that an independent currency would require £40 billion of foreign exchange reserves in order to run a managed system.

Does the finance secretary, who sets the budgets of this Parliament, understand that that means more cuts, higher borrowing and tax rises?

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

No, I do not accept that at all, but I am delighted that Anas Sarwar is also scenario planning for Scottish independence. That is a very welcome revelation.

The six tests have been outlined in the growth commission’s documentation. I would have thought that Anas Sarwar would welcome the fact that an economic plan on independence would be an alternative to the austerity that we have endured under the Tory Government. We have outlined the tests that we would apply as we transition to an independent country, making the right decisions for Scotland’s economy. As I have said, on independence, Scotland will keep the pound.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Are we any clearer what the transaction costs will be to Scottish businesses if we have a different currency from our largest market in the rest of the United Kingdom? [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would like to hear the answers, please.

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

I encourage anybody with a genuine interest in how to grow Scotland’s economy to read the growth commission’s report—and the resolution that was supported at the SNP conference—which sets out how we can grow our economy and deliver a more successful society using the levers and powers of independence. The report goes through all the requirements that would have to be fulfilled to enable us to move to an independent currency if that was in the interests of the economy at the time, which we would be advised about by a Scottish central bank. That is all laid out in the growth commission documentation, which I encourage Opposition members to read.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

For the sake of Anas Sarwar and other members in the chamber who have obviously not read the growth commission’s proposals in depth, will the cabinet secretary confirm—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I cannot hear the question.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

It is a very good question, Presiding Officer.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the tests that would guide any move to an independent currency include a sufficiency of foreign exchange and financial reserves to allow for successful currency management in a successful independent Scotland?

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

In the interest of brevity, because we have covered the six tests previously, I say again that they are fiscal sustainability; central bank credibility and stability of debt issuance; the financial requirements of Scottish residents and businesses; sufficiency of foreign exchange and financial reserves; a fit to trade and investment patterns; and correlation with the economic and trade cycle.

Those are the tests that we would apply.

Independence would give us choice, economic powers and levers that are currently denied to us so that we could make the right decisions for Scotland’s economy. Any decision on currency would be taken by an independent Scottish Parliament. That is right—the right to choose is what the SNP seeks for Scotland.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Is it not amusing to hear those who argued vociferously against a currency union a few years ago and still argue against sterlingisation—quite rightly—now say how outrageous it would be to not continue to use the pound? Does the cabinet secretary look forward as I do to seeing those parties finally have to make a decision on which currency option they will support when Scotland votes for independence?

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

The only currency that Labour and the Conservatives understand is austerity, which is what we have endured as a consequence of their economic policies.

I know that the Opposition does not like this, but

the United Kingdom Government cannot stop an independent Scotland using the pound. We do not need its permission to do that. The retention of sterling is open to the people of Scotland, as are the choices that come with independence, which is why we want the levers of independence. We looked at the most successful small advanced economies around the globe, and the only thing that they have that we do not is independence.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I let that run because it was an important question—all of them are important, of course—but I want the rest of the questions and answers to be short and snappy.

Large Business Supplement (Central Scotland)

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how much it expects to raise from the large business supplement in Central Scotland region in 2019-20. (S5O-03200)

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

Local authorities administer the non-domestic rates system, and information on revenue that is raised by the large business supplement is not currently available at constituency level. In 2019-20, we forecast that the supplement will raise £8.3 million in Falkirk and North Lanarkshire, and a further £16.5 million in South Lanarkshire, which reflects the role of the council there as the designated authority that is responsible for collecting receipts from electricity generation, transmission and distribution subjects.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In this financial year, businesses in Falkirk will pay £1.75 million more than they would if they were based in England. Does it remain the Scottish Government’s aim to implement the Barclay recommendation to reduce the large business supplement by 2020 or earlier, if that is affordable?

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

Falkirk will probably reflect the national trend, under which businesses in more than 90 per cent of properties in Scotland will pay a lower poundage in 2019-20 than they would in other parts of the United Kingdom. They will also benefit from the most generous rates relief scheme in the UK, which, through the small business bonus scheme, takes more than 100,000 properties out of rates altogether. It was only a few weeks ago that a Westminster committee recommended that the UK Government should adopt the Scottish Government’s unique business growth accelerator.

We accepted the Barclay review recommendations on the large business supplement. In the meantime, we are ensuring that Scotland is the best place to do business in.

Strengthening the Economy (Glasgow)

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to further strengthen the economy of Glasgow. (S5O-03201)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting and unlocking economic growth across Scotland. In Glasgow, our focus on delivering key infrastructure has helped to establish the city as a home for innovation and to secure new jobs, including jobs through inward investment.

We are also working in partnership with others. Our £500 million commitment to the Glasgow city region deal has empowered local and regional partners to develop a transformational programme of investment, which will help to drive inclusive economic growth for the city and across the region.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Earlier this year, Mark Johnston, who is Glasgow airport’s managing director, forecast that the airport was set to lose 1 million passengers from the levels that it had in 2016. The failure to cut air passenger duty meant that Ryanair cut many of its routes that served Glasgow. Now that the Scottish Government has performed a U-turn on its commitment to cut the duty, will it explain how that decision will do anything to support growth at Glasgow airport?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting our airports and recognises their importance to our economy. However, Annie Wells will be aware that the air departure tax has not been introduced because of issues with the United Kingdom Government’s running of the scheme over a number of years. She will also be aware of the importance of the climate change emergency that we face and the issues that we need to address as a consequence.

Economic Growth (Update)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the most recent official statistics on Scotland’s economic growth. (S5O-03202)

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

The Scottish Government published the latest official statistics on Scotland’s economic growth on 1 May in the gross domestic product quarterly national accounts for quarter 4 of 2018. The accounts confirmed that the Scottish economy grew by 0.3 per cent in that quarter, which was higher than the United Kingdom rate of 0.2 per cent.

In 2018, the value of Scotland’s gross domestic product per person, including offshore oil and gas, increased to £32,800, which was higher than the UK average of £31,900. The first estimate of GDP growth for quarter 1 of 2019 will be published on 19 June.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am delighted to hear of the strength of Scotland’s economy. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the biggest threat to that continued success is a Tory Brexit, particularly in rural areas such as the south of Scotland? The Government’s analysis showed that that area has one of the highest proportions of its workforce in sectors that will be most exposed by a no-deal Brexit.

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

That assessment is accurate. In particular, a no-deal Brexit threatens to create recession, business contraction, reduced exports and soaring unemployment from the current record-low level of 3.3 per cent. Any form of Brexit will damage Scotland’s economy, and a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic.

Veterans (Skills and Economic Contribution)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to capitalise on the skills of veterans returning to the labour market to benefit the Scottish economy. (S5O-03203)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government aspires for Scotland to be the destination of choice for those who are leaving the armed forces. We recognise the challenges that are faced by those who are undergoing resettlement and taking the next steps in their careers.

We work closely with partners to ensure that armed forces leavers are aware of the training, development and employment opportunities that are available and to improve the support that is available to veterans and their families. Skills Development Scotland is working with the career transition partnership’s RFEA services to ensure that early leavers are referred to SDS for support after discharge if they wish to take up that offer.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

Several veterans who have good technical skills are being taken on by companies such as BT Openreach. Does the minister agree that the time is now right for a more concentrated effort to encourage more veterans to take up trades-based apprenticeships?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Yes. The Scottish Government and SDS recognise the challenges for those who are undergoing resettlement, and apprenticeships and skills are a key part of resettlement. It is important that all service leavers who plan to settle in Scotland are informed of apprenticeships and other skills initiatives, to ensure that they can access SDS services. SDS is working with partners, including the Scottish Government’s strategic working group, to raise awareness of what is on offer.

Maurice Corry has a keen interest in such matters. Earlier this week, I visited the Scottish veterans residence that is in my constituency in Glasgow. I am wearing the Scottish veterans tie, and I was delighted to see the huge amount of work that staff there are undertaking to focus on employment opportunities for veterans.

Air Departure Tax

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-17190, in the name of Colin Smyth, on Scotland’s future: scrap the cut to the air departure tax. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call Colin Smyth to speak to and move the motion.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Last week, the Scottish Government made a welcome, if overdue, commitment to strengthening our emissions reduction targets and to accepting the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation of a target of net zero emissions by 2045. Labour welcomes that decision, as a target of net zero emissions has been our position for some time and reflects the urgency of the climate emergency that we face. However, those targets are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not backed by the policies that are needed to deliver them.

That is why the Scottish National Party’s proposal to cut air departure tax was not only the wrong policy when it ditched it on the eve of this debate but the wrong policy when it was proposed in the SNP’s 2016 election manifesto. It has been the wrong policy every day since then, as SNP minister after SNP minister has queued up to justify the policy and attack Labour when we have questioned it.

The SNP amendment says that a cut in air passenger duty is

“not now compatible with the more ambitious targets that Scotland wishes to pursue”,

but it never was compatible, and Labour’s long-standing calls to drop the cut have been vindicated by the SNP’s U-turn on the issue.

That U-turn should have been made a long time ago, because the Scottish Government’s own analysis has consistently predicted that a 50 per cent cut in air departure tax would be bad for the environment, adding more than 60,000 tonnes of CO2

equivalent to the atmosphere each year. The strategic environmental assessment of the policy raised concerns that a cut to ADT would drive a modal shift away from rail towards short-haul flights, yet it is only now that the SNP seems to realise that pursuing policies that would actively increase emissions from transport is damaging to the environment.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Colin Smyth is talking about policies. Would the Labour Party be prepared to support the workplace parking levy, which might help?

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The answer to that question is no. Nobody believes that Derek Mackay’s proposal for a workplace parking levy was anything other than a fig leaf to cover the brutal cuts to council budgets that the Scottish Government is pursuing.

The problem with the regressive workplace parking levy, under which a company boss will pay—[

Interruption

.] The cabinet secretary is speaking from a sedentary position. Does he want to make an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Everything should be through the chair, please, cabinet secretary. I like to fulfil my function.

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

Colin Smyth has just said that, apparently, nobody in the Labour Party believes in the workplace parking levy. Does that include those who took the other position at the Labour Party conference?

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The Labour Party put its policy to its conference; the SNP did not. Derek Mackay sneaked the policy through in the budget because he knows that it is a regressive tax under which a company boss will pay the same as a company cleaner and the chief executive of a health board will be exempt but a carer on the living wage will have to stump up. The only thing that a workplace parking levy will do is ignite a public backlash that will undermine proper changes to the environment that we need to make in the future. I presume that that is why we have still not seen the cabinet secretary’s proposals for that tax.

Transport already contributes over a third of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is the single biggest sectoral contributor, with emission levels barely any lower than they were in 1990 and higher than they were in 2016. When it comes to transport and the environment, the Scottish Government has been moving in the wrong direction.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me a minute, Mr Smyth. There is a wee debate going on between the Glasgow MSPs on the back benches. I ask them to show some respect to the member who is leading the debate. I am sorry, Mr Smyth. I will make up your time.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I presume that they are working out how much the SNP’s proposed workplace parking levy will be.

When it comes to transport and the environment, the Government is moving in the wrong direction. Airline passenger numbers are higher than ever before—at Scotland’s airports, they have increased by 40 per cent since 2010—yet the level of bus use continues to plummet and active travel rates are stuck at less than 2 per cent. Domestic air travel is the least environmentally friendly of all the modes of transport: it has higher emissions per passenger kilometre than any other. In 2016, aviation was responsible for emitting more than 2 megatonnes of CO2

, which was an increase on the previous year and 50 per cent more than the levels in 1990.

A cut in ADT would continue to drive such emissions up, which would have been bad not only for the environment but for our public services, too. A 50 per cent cut in ADT would have cost £150 million a year, and the cost of abolishing it was likely to have been more than double that, which would have meant more than £300 million of cuts to our public services that they simply could not have afforded. It would also have been a tax cut that would have benefited the most well off, with the richest 10 per cent of people being almost three times more likely to fly in any year than those on the lowest incomes. In contrast, lower-income groups are disproportionately dependent on bus services, walking and cycling. Yet, the recent Scottish budget saw spending on those modes of travel frozen while, at the same, the SNP continued to argue for a £150 million cut to ADT, which is three times the total amount of support that is available for buses through the bus service operators grant.

I recognise the economic and strategic value of aviation, but we need to support it in a way that is responsible, sustainable and—crucially—in keeping with our broader transport and environmental aims. That means, for example, supporting Glasgow airport with the establishment of a direct rail link to cut car usage on the M8. It does not mean pursuing support for airports that increase emissions and drive passengers away from greener modes of transport such as cross-border rail.

The long-overdue SNP U-turn on air departure tax is welcome, but it seems that it is not just the SNP that has changed its position. The Tory amendment calls on the SNP to

“honour the commitment made in the manifesto it stood on in 2016 and introduce a reduction in Scotland's current ADT regime”.

The problem for the Tories is that, in calling for the SNP to honour its manifesto commitment, they are dumping their own. The 2016 Scottish Conservative manifesto was very clear. On air passenger duty, it said:

“We have studied the evidence on Air Passenger Duty, alongside the final report of our Tax Commission, and have concluded that we will not support the Scottish Government’s proposed 50% cut in APD.”

That Tory tax commission also stated that

“the only impact of a reduction of APD would be to boost airline and airport profits”.

So, at a time when the world is declaring a climate emergency—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Unfortunately, I do not think that I will be able to have extra time. Is that correct, Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can let you have extra time if you wish.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Thank you. In that case, I will take Patrick Harvie’s intervention.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am very grateful for that. Colin Smyth is right to point out that

other parties have changed their views. Will he remind us when Labour changed its view? It voted for the SNP’s motion on the issue back in 2012.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I can tell Mr Harvie that our manifesto commitment was very clear—and we have stuck to it, while it seems that the SNP and the Tories have been dropping theirs.

I welcome the SNP’s change in position on ADT. However, at a time when the world is declaring a climate emergency, the Scottish Tories are declaring themselves climate change deniers. Their response to rising transport emissions is to call for them to be raised even further. While the Tories move in the direction of Donald Trump on climate change, Scotland needs to do more and move faster in the direction of lower emissions. That means ditching not just the cut in air departure tax but other damaging policies including the brutal cuts that we have seen being made to local councils by the Scottish Government.

Since 2011, council budgets have been slashed by more than £1.5 billion, and that cut continues in this year’s budget, which will devastate local services. We see that picture clearly in transport. Across Scotland, bus services are being dismantled route by route—often as a direct result of funding pressures on councils, and particularly in rural communities in which subsidised services are a lifeline for many. Likewise, cuts to local authority budgets are having an impact on active travel. If we are serious about reducing emissions from cars, the way to achieve that is to put in place affordable alternatives.

If transport is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, agriculture is not far behind it. That sector is of huge importance to the Scottish economy, particularly in rural and remote areas, but it is also one of the hardest to treat as far as emissions are concerned. The current support system does little to encourage—much less enforce—best practice on emissions and sustainability, yet the Government is dragging its heels in redesigning agricultural support to take account of—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Just stop for a minute, please, Mr Smyth. I am looking at the motion, and it seems that I may have been quite lax in allowing you to continue. The motion refers only to the abolition of air departure tax, but you are now talking about cows and things. We have therefore moved off the topic a wee bit. You should be winding up anyway, so please do so.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I will refrain from arguing the link between the two, Presiding Officer.

Over the past 200 years, humans have shown that they can change the climate—unfortunately, it has been for the worse. We have a far shorter time in which to recognise the climate emergency that we face and to change our environment for the better. The Government’s U-turn on air departure tax is a welcome step on that journey, but Labour also recognises that other changes can be made and that there is still a long, long way to go and a lot more change is needed.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to abandon its policy to cut, then abolish, the Air Departure Tax.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members to please keep to their amendments as set out in the

Business Bulletin

and not to drift into other areas, exciting though they might be.

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

To be fair, Colin Smyth has at least shown himself to be agile enough to amend his speech in the light of circumstances.

We are in the midst of a climate emergency, and business as usual will not do. In its new report, which was published last week, the Committee on Climate Change said that Scotland should set a 2045 target for net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases. This Government has been and will continue to be a world leader on climate change. As such, we have embraced the CCC’s new report in full, acting immediately to amend the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill not only to set a net zero target for 2045 but to increase the targets for 2030 and 2040.

It will not be easy to meet those targets; it will require difficult decisions to be made—Parliament needs to be prepared for that—including on the Government’s policy on air departure tax, which was deferred to ensure that it was not devolved in, as the UK Government admitted, a defective state. To protect rural communities, we must find a solution to the Highlands and Islands exemption before we can take on the tax, and the Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government on a solution.

It has been a long-standing policy of this Government to reduce ADT by 50 per cent and to abolish it when resources allow. However, we have always sought to balance the economic benefits that the policy can bring with the impact on the environment. The Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Bill itself placed a duty on ministers to consider the economic, environmental and social impacts before setting the rates and bands and to keep the matter under review. Following the First Minister’s declaration of a climate emergency and the new emissions reduction targets for Scotland, we are committed to looking across the whole range of our responsibilities and increasing action, where necessary, and we have come to the conclusion that the economic benefits that we have sought through our ADT policy are not compatible with our new emissions reduction targets.

The Government has not taken that decision lightly, but we have recognised that it is an important first step towards meeting our tougher climate targets and rising to the climate challenge.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the light of everything that the cabinet secretary has said, is the Scottish Government still committed to supporting the third runway at Heathrow?

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

As I have said, the environment secretary and other ministers will look at appropriate policy responses with regard to our overall suite of policies, but this is an important and significant first step.

I have seen much of Murdo Fraser’s pontification about the air departure tax and air passenger duty, and Colin Smyth is right: the position in the Tories’ manifesto was that they were not convinced about the need for a reduction in the tax. The Tories need to be careful what they wish for, because the tax cuts that they have planned now total more than three quarters of a billion pounds. If they are so concerned about APD, I should point out that the UK Government will continue those rates in the UK after failing to devolve it properly to Scotland. The evidence that we have seen has led us to conclude that such a tax cut is incompatible with our ambitious climate change targets, and it is only the Tories who are going in the opposite direction.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

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

If I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It will have to be a short intervention.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Thank you. I recognise that the Government wants to look at its wider range of policies, but is it not clear that, if a tax measure that boosts faster aviation growth is incompatible with climate change policies, so is any other measure that does the same? Is the Government committed to stabilising aviation levels?

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

Aviation emissions actually account for a relatively small amount of Scotland’s overall carbon emissions. The decision on ADT alone will have little impact if it is taken in isolation, so we will have to look at the range of policies that the Government has. If we are serious about the climate emergency, all of us in Parliament need to look at our policies and take the appropriate actions to meet the ambitious climate change targets.

I agree with Colin Smyth that there is no point in having the targets if we are not putting in place the actions to get there. That is why it is significant that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will make a statement to Parliament on the challenges involved in meeting the new targets.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary does not have time.

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

We must take all appropriate action. On finance, we are committed to increasing the share of capital expenditure on low-carbon projects year on year to ensure that investment in infrastructure matches our ambition. As part of the budget agreement with the Greens, local authorities will be empowered to implement workplace parking levies to reduce emissions and encourage modal shift. If the Labour Party is serious in its efforts to tackle climate change and if this debate is to be more than just political commentary, the Labour Party needs to be prepared to recognise that its policies and reactions must also change and that difficult decisions are required. It should now drop its opposition to empowering councils through the workplace parking levy.

Tackling the climate emergency requires decisive action. The Government is up for that challenge, and I hope that others are, too.

I move amendment S5M-17190.1, to leave out from “abandon” to end and insert:

“review its policies and commitments in response to the global climate emergency and the Committee on Climate Change Report; believes that the Scottish Government should maintain its commitment to increasing the share of capital expenditure spent on low-carbon projects year on year; agrees that local authorities must be more empowered to tackle climate change and pursue policies and investments that are designed to encourage modal shift, such as the workplace parking levy and low emission zones, and further agrees that cutting and then abolishing Air Departure Tax is not now compatible with the more ambitious targets that Scotland wishes to pursue.”

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

This very second, I am reading straight from the Scottish National Party’s website, in a section that is ironically named “Scotland: open for business”:

“We ... want to increase international connectivity and support our thriving tourist industry, so we’ll use new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament to halve Air Passenger Duty, one of the highest taxes of its kind in the world, and ultimately abolish it.”

What has changed? The much trumpeted and long-awaited reduction to the tax has been canned. It was a flagship policy that the SNP praised and defended to the hilt, but SNP members are all now frantically looking on social media to delete their tweets. Nicola Sturgeon is trying to walk a political tightrope. In one breath, she promises support for tourism, aviation, oil and gas and exports while declaring emergencies in another. She is giving hostages to fortune with policy changes that are bereft of intelligent scrutiny and the consequences of which have either been ignored or simply misunderstood.

Yesterday, Gordon Dewar of Edinburgh airport put it simply when he said:

“We’ve gone from personal commitments to all-out cancellation in ... two weeks, which shows just how reactionary this decision is.”

He went on:

“airports and airlines have been led down a path of failed promises for three years by this Scottish government.”

Those are his angry words, not mine.

Last night, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which is a sensible voice of business—[

Interruption

.] Some members do not think that it is sensible, which is a shame. Thank goodness they are not in government. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce said that the decision had been taken

“Despite years of consultation ... and detailed technical and economic evaluations”,

and that the decision will

“do nothing to reduce emissions”,

but instead will

“cut Scotland off at the knees”.

What credible Government proactively does that to the business community? It is not one that those of us on the Conservative benches will sit in.

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

Will the member give way?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

In my three years in the Parliament, never has such a U-turn resulted in such a damning indictment. That is just what it is: a U-turn.

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

Will the member give way?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Please sit down.

It is a monumental U-turn that is politically motivated and convenient. It is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a serious and complex problem. It is a decision that flies in the face of the Government’s own policy and advice and it does nothing to address the flawed logic at the heart of its rationale.

The issue has never been and nor should it ever be about whether members support the aviation industry or the environment, because we desperately need to support both. As a country, we need the business travellers who come and invest here and tourists who come and spend money here. What is wrong with giving hard-pressed families a helping hand on their well-deserved break?

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Yes, if it is very brief.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It will have to be brief, because the member is in his last minute.

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

[

Interruption

.] My microphone is not working, Presiding Officer.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have a fair bit to get through, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member has changed his mind, Mr Mackay, so please sit down. Mr Greene, you have to finish within your four minutes.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am going to move on, because I have a lot to get through.

It is at best naive—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please sit down, Mr Greene. There seems to be a wee problem here—what is it? Mr Greene, if you take the intervention, I will give you 30 seconds. It will have to be a 30-second intervention.

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

Out of curiosity, and based on what airlines and airports have said, does Jamie Greene think that the UK Government should reduce air passenger duty?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Derek Mackay knows that the whole point of devolution is that this Parliament should make the right decisions for Scotland, and he has made the wrong decision today.

It is, at best, naive and, at worst, disingenuous to single out any one industry in such a specific and uninformed way, with the cabinet secretary having done no consultation, no analysis and no economic forecasting.

What galls people the most is the sheer hypocrisy from the SNP. It thinks that it is right for people in the Highlands and Islands to be exempt from the tax, that it is right to back Heathrow expansion and that it is right to send rockets to space from our peninsula. However, in one simple act of ill-thought-through policy reversal, the SNP has shown itself for what it really is: no friend of business and no friend of Scotland’s tourism industry.

Today, we could have had a sensible, informed and balanced debate about the future of aviation and the future of our economy. Instead, the First Minister has turned the issue into a polarised game of political brinkmanship. The only losers of that game will be Scottish businesses, Scottish jobs and hard-working Scottish families. This is a sad U-turn that the Government will live to regret.

I move amendment S5M-17190.4, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:

“notes the benefits of a competitive Air Departure Tax (ADT) regime; recognises that a reduction in this taxation for long-haul flights is essential for the retention and development of new intercontinental routes and economic ties across the world with a view to boost trade, tourism and inward investment into Scotland; understands that the devolution of ADT is a critical economic lever to achieve this, and calls on the Scottish Government to honour the commitment made in the manifesto it stood on in 2016 and introduce a reduction in Scotland’s current ADT regime.”

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I have had many opportunities to speak in the chamber against an aviation tax cut, before and since the devolution of such powers were, theoretically, agreed. The policy has clearly been dead for quite some time now, and I am delighted to finally have the chance to speak in a debate in celebration of its ultimate burial.

As far back as 2012, as soon as the Scottish Government proposed the policy, we made the very clear case against it. We showed that it would hurt the revenues that fund Scottish public services if the tax was reduced once the powers were devolved. We challenged the Government to say where that cost would come from, but we did not get a response. At a time when the Scottish Government was still carrying on with the delusional nonsense that the tax cut would somehow reduce emissions, it was Green questions to ministers that forced the Government to admit that such a policy would do the opposite and lead to an increase in emissions from aviation.

Through our work with the fellow travellers campaign group, we showed that the policy would demonstrably benefit the better-off. In any one year, the large majority of people in Scotland do not fly at all, so they would gain no benefit from the tax cut. Of those people who do fly, most fly once or twice a year, so the vast bulk of the tax cut would go to the tiny number of wealthy frequent flyers, who would gain disproportionately from the policy.

I welcome the fact that there has been such movement since the debate in 2012. Back then, we were the only political party that made the coherent climate argument against the policy. There were individuals, including Malcolm Chisholm and Willie Rennie, who recognised the strength of our argument but, ultimately, only Alison Johnstone and I voted for the Green amendment on that occasion. The Labour Party voted with the Government on its unamended motion. It is important to recognise and welcome the fact that the SNP and Labour have changed their views.

I also want to welcome how far the Conservative Party has come, because it has made the most extraordinary change in the space of just one week. Last week, the Conservatives made a wee video for their social media in which they claimed that the Greens have never achieved any environmental change since the SNP has been in Government. Now, following this one policy announcement, the Conservatives say that the SNP has succumbed once again to the environmental extremists. I thank the Conservative Party for recognising the impact of the Greens.

We can see the positive effects of that Green influence in the Scottish Government’s amendment today. The commitment to shift the balance of the capital budget away from high-carbon industries towards low-carbon industries is a concession to Green policy. There is a commitment to a workplace parking levy, which was introduced originally by Labour and was included in Scottish Labour local manifestos in recent years, but which is now opposed by Labour only because it is being introduced by the wrong political party.

We must make the longer-term case that aviation cannot be given a free pass. We all recognise that lifeline flights to the islands, for example, are a special case, but aircraft efficiency alone will not reduce emissions if we keep on flying more. If the whole world flew as much as we do in this country, there would be zero chance of averting climate disaster.

If ADT cuts are unacceptable as a means to boost aviation growth, so are other methods. The Scottish Government must drop its commitment to support the Heathrow third runway and other means of boosting aviation, and commit instead to public transport and to the investment in walking and cycling that would make a real difference to people getting about sustainably right across Scotland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Colin Smyth for bringing the debate to Parliament. Notwithstanding the finance secretary’s last-minute U-turn yesterday, I confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support Mr Smyth’s motion, not least because it reflects our party’s consistently-held position on the air departure tax.

We will not, however, support either of the amendments. I am afraid that the Tory’s position on ADT seems to have been crafted by the same brains trust that brought us Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit position. It therefore risks damaging the environment while also failing to satisfy the airline industry. As for the Government’s amendment, I am afraid that Mr Mackay—reasonable as he ever is—cannot get away with rewriting history. He is right; cutting and abolishing ADT is certainly not compatible with the more ambitious climate change targets that we wish to set, but it was not compatible with the previous climate change targets either.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No. I am sorry.

The truth is that this policy has never been compatible with our climate change ambitions, and no amount of re-setting the clock by Mr Mackay—and all the other Ministers lined up as supporters of his amendment—will persuade the chamber or the public otherwise.

The justification for giving the airline industry a £250 million tax break was always dubious. Against the backdrop of rising passenger numbers and an expanding network of routes, the SNP’s decision to offer such a massive windfall looked reckless. What was the evidence for that move? Therein lies a tale.

I note that Keith Brown is not among those listed as supporters of the Government’s new position. That is a shame, because it was he who, when asked in a written question back in 2013 what the evidence for the policy was, pointed my colleague Willie Rennie in the direction of the easyJet website. Helpfully, a report commissioned by British Airways, easyJet, Virgin Atlantic and Ryanair could be found there. Surprisingly, they thought that there was only an upside to a £250 million tax cut to the airline industry. Who knew? Massive economic benefits and little environmental impact was too good to be true, surely.

Clearly, even SNP Ministers thought so, as an independent expert group was then consulted. Sadly, that group comprised 15 airline and airport representatives and one, lone environmental voice. SNP Ministers seemed determined to load the dice. By contrast, when the Government went out to public consultation on its proposals, half the respondents raised concerns or objections, principally around the environmental impact. The other main concern, of course, was the impact that the tax giveaway would have on funding available for key public services: education, health, policing and even support to help to decarbonise our transport system.

The audacious attempt by the Scottish Government to raid its own coffers cannot be laid at the feet of Westminster. The move had the SNP’s fingerprints all over it. Even after yesterday’s U-turn, the First Minister needs to explain how her full-throated support for a third runway at Heathrow squares with her new-found acceptance of the climate emergency.

I accept that we need an airline industry that is in good health. Given the constituency that I represent, how could I do otherwise? There is also a strong case for reducing taxes and costs on certain types of air service that provide a lifeline—usually a pretty expensive one—for remote rural and island communities. However, there is a world of difference between that sort of targeted intervention and the sort of windfall that was previously being offered up by the SNP—and is still being backed by the Tories. I welcome the Government’s decision to abandon that reckless policy, however belatedly, and reiterate my support for the motion in Colin Smyth’s name.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of four minutes, please. We have no time in hand.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Last week was a truly significant time for the Parliament and the country, as the Scottish Government agreed to up its ambition and shift its long-term emissions reduction targets in line with the advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change. The target of net zero emissions by 2045 is, indeed, world leading, feasible, cost-effective and necessary. Scottish Labour has, with others, led the way on the matter.

I am delighted that pressure from Scottish Labour has led to the Scottish Government changing its mind about cutting air departure tax, which is a money saver for the wealthy that would have been, in carbon terms, the equivalent of 30,000 new cars on the road. It was always a regressive policy, so it is welcome that the cabinet secretary has come to recognise its social and environmental implications.

Of course, the necessity for swift climate action has been stark since publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report entitled “Global Warming of 1.5°C”. The damage that would be done by a rise of 2°C would be far reaching—it would turn dangerous extremes into normality and bring disaster to many. The target of an increase of no more than 1.5°C is an imperative for the global population’s health, livelihoods, peace and safety, and for the continuation of the natural world that we know, love and rely on.

Those issues are intersectional with class, race, gender and many other characteristics. I will focus briefly on race, having chaired a conference on climate justice at UN House at which representatives of the black lives matter movement spoke. Communities in the global south are adapting to climate change now, and seven out of 10 of the countries that are most vulnerable to its effects are in sub-Saharan Africa. However, those issues impact here at home, too. Black British Africans are 28 per cent more likely than their white counterparts to be exposed to air pollution. The black lives matter protest at London City airport highlighted the climate injustice in the existence of an airport for the elite polluting a low-income London community and exacerbating climate change in the global south.

Alterations to ADT would have included cuts for short-haul flights for which there are rail alternatives, including to the continent via the Eurostar. That would likely have had a significant impact on the rail sector. For example, greater choice in short-haul flights at lower prices could displace rail movements, which is the opposite of the modal shift that the Scottish Government needs to encourage in order to deliver a sustainable transport system.

Scottish Labour can suggest a number of other ways to deliver that modal shift. We would stop the cuts to councils that are devastating public transport links and active travel schemes. We need more on-road segregated cycle schemes. We would introduce a young person’s bus pass to encourage a long-term modal shift, we would strengthen legislation on low-emission zones, and we would promote public ownership of the transport system, so that profits could be spent on improving services, lowering fares and delivering greener vehicles.

The UK CCC report emphasised that good policy design is vital to our ability to reach net zero emissions. We parliamentarians must now apply stricter tests to all policies, with due regard being given to their environmental and social externalities. Such considerations will elevate Scotland to the progressive place that we want it to occupy.

This is a challenging and exciting time, and lately the Government has made two welcome shifts in its original policies. All parties must scrutinise their policies as we go forward towards net zero emissions. That mentality should be rolled out across all sectors to give stable long-term direction.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

You must close.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I look forward to the Government’s review of all policies in its new climate change plan, and to contributing to it. We are, indeed, experiencing a climate emergency, so we must act together.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We are already over time. Speeches will be cut if members insist on speaking over their time limits.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Labour’s motion is interesting, and I will talk about each part of it in turn. However, before I do, I want to acknowledge the fact that my committee colleague, Claudia Beamish, has been a robust challenger of policy and a robust influencer in her party, as—I think—is evident.

The first line of the motion asks the Scottish Government to review its policies in response to the global climate emergency. At First Minister’s question time last week, Nicola Sturgeon said that she would review all policy areas in respect of our increased ambition to tackle climate change. Just over an hour ago, the First Minister responded positively, saying directly to me that all cabinet secretaries will take ownership of the Government’s commitment on action to reach the net zero emissions target.

Of course, that comes off the back of the Government’s acceptance of the main recommendations of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s report on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which include accepting the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change and producing a new climate change plan within 6 months of royal assent.

It is interesting to note that, in the middle of the motion, Labour calls for local authorities to be more empowered to tackle climate change. We have a recent example of the Government doing just that, when it gave local authorities the power to introduce a car parking levy, although only local authorities in cities with good public transport infrastructure will, I think, see fit to use that power. Rural councils including Aberdeenshire Council have opted not to use it—Aberdeenshire does not yet have a public transport infrastructure that would mean that people could completely ditch their cars. I agree with that decision, which shows exactly why such decisions must be made at local level.

However, here is the weird thing: after the Government decided to give local authorities that discretionary power, James Kelly was out and about campaigning against it, quite against the views of his colleagues. Councillor Cammy Day, who heads the Labour group on the City of Edinburgh Council, disagrees with him. He has said:

“We have argued councils need powers like the tourist tax and the workplace parking levy ... It’s not about taxing cars, it’s about creating a new environment for people to work, live and enjoy the city.”

Finally, let us consider the motion’s main title, “Scotland’s Future”. As we wait—and wait and wait—for the UK Government’s response to the advice on targets from the UK Committee on Climate Change, we are met with a wall of silence about the policies that the Tory Government will pursue in order to meet its advised targets. I am therefore yet more convinced that Scotland’s future must be as an independent country that has all the levers available to it to make agile and meaningful decisions, such as the one that it has just made on ADT and—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Ms Martin.

Could members please ensure that they use their time to address the motion and amendments that are under discussion? This is not the first contribution in which that has not happened.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am just coming to the air departure tax. The decision on ADT was taken in the first Cabinet meeting after the CCC’s advice was received. I also note today’s announcement on a deposit return scheme.

With the powers that it already has at its disposal, Scotland has a reputation for being a world leader on tackling climate change. This week’s decision is proof of that agile working.

I also asked the First Minister about the importance of the UK Government committing to the targets that the CCC has advised that it should set. She pointed out three areas that the UK Government has been asked specifically to address: decarbonisation of the gas network; commitment to investing in carbon capture and storage technology; and an earlier date for electrification of cars, potentially in line with the Scottish Government’s date of 2032.

The motion suggests that Labour is fully on board with supporting areas of devolved and local authority powers that it previously did not support, and I look forward—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close now, Ms Martin.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I note my interest as a co-convener of the cross-party group on aviation, and I express my surprise at being here today to debate the SNP Government’s U-turn on yet another of its flagship policies. Not only am I concerned about the

SNP Government again going back on its word—which was freely given—but it is no exaggeration to say that business leaders from across Scotland are queuing up to condemn this anti-business, anti-tourism and anti-people SNP Government.

People in Ayr will not understand why the Scottish Government—which owns Prestwick airport—just made it even more difficult to fly aeroplanes to and from that remarkable strategically-placed airport. My constituents will not forgive this SNP Government for breaking the promise that it made to do all that it could to help Prestwick airport to grow and succeed, because air departure tax affects regional airports such as Prestwick, Aberdeen and Dundee most adversely.

Instead, the 300 or so trusted and valued employees at Prestwick airport will today be wondering for how long they will have a job at all, given Ryanair's anger at the broken promise, which affects all their flights to and from Scotland, and not just those to and from Prestwick.

I was in Dublin on the day in April 2014 on which Michael O’Leary announced that he had persuaded the Irish Government to abolish air passenger duty. He said that he would increase the Irish Government’s tax take from tourism through increased VAT receipts if it abolished APD. Michael O’Leary did just that; tourists visiting Ireland increased by 3.3 million in the first year after APD was abolished.

At the time, the then Minister for Transport and Islands, Derek Mackay, was so impressed that he told the

Daily Record

that

“more investment would be possible if APD ... was to be scrapped”

in Scotland. I ask the cabinet secretary whether there is consistency there.

We are witnessing the SNP again dividing Scotland into those who are for Scotland’s business development and the SNP—which is, it appears, supported by the Labour Party and now the Liberals, as well, who are against business development.

The cabinet secretary should not take my word for it.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No, I will not.

The cabinet secretary should listen to Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which has roundly condemned the SNP Government for going back on its word. Listen to Gordon Dewar of Edinburgh Airport, which runs Scotland’s most successful airport. He said that the decision

“does not show leadership and means airports and airlines have been led down a path of failed promises for three years by this Scottish government.”'

The SNP Government has shown again that it does not keep its promises; instead, it makes promises in order to win elections and then goes back on them.

My constituents in Ayrshire and others in Aberdeenshire and Dundee will be outraged by yet another failure to deliver by the Scottish Government, as their business connections and holiday destination choices have just got harder and more expensive because of their Government’s actions.

Of course we all know that the threat of climate change needs to be addressed, but the Scottish Government’s virtue signalling is not the way to go about it. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Will members stop shouting at Mr Scott, please?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The

aviation industry is already cleaning up its act on greenhouse gas emissions more quickly than almost any other industry.

The Government is allowing itself to be driven by the Green Party agenda, as it was similarly with the proposed imposition of a workplace car parking charging scheme. The SNP and the Greens will pay the price at the ballot box as they displace jobs and tourism from Scotland at the same time as they reduce the choice of easily accessible tourist destinations from Scotland.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

There has always been a fairly fine balance between seeking to boost our tourism sector with lower air departure tax, which would, we hope, encourage visitors to come to Scotland, and wanting to tackle climate change and protect the environment, which makes us lean towards discouraging flying as a means of travel by keeping or even raising taxes such as ADT.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Let me go on a little longer.

There is also the factor that, if we want better public services in a time of very tight finances, we need to raise tax, and certainly not cut it. Cutting tax means further restrictions on spending, as the Conservative Party well knows.

The reality is that we should all be taking climate change more seriously than we may have done in the past. We cannot stick rigidly to policies that seemed right in the past. It is the sign of a mature Parliament and a mature Government that we can learn and adapt to circumstances.

Other parties also need to consider their positions. The aim of the workplace parking levy—and maybe a levy on parking in other places, too—is to discourage the use of cars and get more people to use public transport. Again, there is a balance to be struck. People want to use their cars, and we have a democracy, so we can restrict car use only to the extent that the public will accept it.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on the motion?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Not from Mr Kerr, if he is going to be cheeky.

That is not to say there should be no change from how things have been done in the past. We in the SNP seem to find ourselves in the middle ground on a number of issues. The Greens, whom I admire for their idealism, want to go much further than the public are prepared for. On the other hand, Labour and the Tories oppose the likes of a workplace parking levy—I presume that that is because it came from the SNP and the Greens.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does Mr Mason think that the new wave of direct action and activism, from the school strikers to extinction rebellion, demonstrates that the public are ready for us to go further than many politicians have previously thought possible?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yes, I think that that is correct and that the public mood is changing, but the public are not ready to have cars abolished tomorrow night, as some of Patrick Harvie’s colleagues might want.

There has been some fairly extreme comment on the decision not to cut ADT, not least from Scottish Chambers of Commerce. It said that we need balance and we need to reach a balanced judgment. However, it also said that the decision will

“cut Scotland off at the knees”.

That is clearly nonsense, and I would have expected better from Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Both our tourism sector and the number of flight destinations from Scotland, which has increased, are doing well, perhaps better than we had expected when the policy to cut ADT was introduced. Many factors other than the tax affect the number of flights and passengers. For example, Manchester airport draws on a larger population base than Scottish airports do.

I have some sympathy for the Green amendment, which was not chosen for debate today. Expansion at Heathrow airport might provide more onward flights for travellers from Scotland, but it could undermine the aim to get more direct flights to Scotland and, on top of that, is likely to have a negative effect on the environment. If recent developments mean that we are re-examining previous decisions, perhaps expansion at Heathrow is another policy to be re-examined.

As has been mentioned, the Conservative amendment refers to manifesto commitments. I think that the Conservatives’ 2016 manifesto said that they would not support an APD cut. One of the strengths of the Parliament is that no party has a majority and every party needs to compromise and find common ground. As an SNP MSP, I find that disappointing at times but, as a democrat and a parliamentarian, I find it extremely good. An ability to adapt, compromise and negotiate is a good thing. We do not see that with Theresa May at Westminster, but I hope that it is something that we see at Holyrood.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The estimated value that was placed on air departure tax being cut by 50 per cent was £150 million. If we take the cut to the conclusion that the Conservatives would like, the value would be £300 million. Where would that money have come from? Where would the cuts in public services have taken place? The fact that the Conservatives come here to shout about that, when we know that their budgets cuts would have taken another £500 million or £600 million out of public services in Scotland, surely leaves them with no credibility whatsoever.

Whatever reasons have brought about the U-turn in Government policy, they must be welcomed. We have got to recognise that, as we address the climate crisis in this country, we must do so in a fair and equitable way. Indeed, a transition to a zero-carbon economy must surely be part of a broader programme to redistribute wealth and power in Scotland.

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s shadow UK business secretary, pointed out that

“Britain is already one the most unequal and regionally divided countries in Europe. Poorly implemented, economic transitions threaten to further impoverish the poorest parts of the country that are already suffering the worst effects of de-industrialisation and austerity. If climate policy does not fundamentally address these problems it not only risks accentuating them, but will also never receive mass support from Britain’s working people.”

Surely one of the key objectives of every political party in the Parliament should be to build mass support across the country for tackling the climate crisis. That is why I say to the SNP that of course we should be working together to tackle the climate crisis, but we will not line up to support a half-baked policy that has not been thought through. The proposed workplace parking levy is such a policy. It will attack working people and threaten their jobs. For example, workers at Babcock International in Rosyth travel there from all over Fife, where there is not a good public transport system in place.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Mr Rowley’s speech has got nothing to do with the motion. There has not been a single mention of APD—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, can I have some silence, please? Mr Greene, that is for me, not you, to decide.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member reads the SNP amendment, he will see that my comments have got absolutely everything to do with the motion and the SNP amendment.

Workers at Diageo who travel from all over Fife—and, indeed, from much further afield than Mid Scotland and Fife—would end up having to pay a workplace parking levy.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Rowley is in his last half minute.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The policy has not been thought through properly and it would hurt workers.

I have looked at Nottingham, where a workplace parking levy has been brought in. Emissions in Nottingham city centre have not been drastically cut as a result of the policy.

I welcome the Government’s decision to back down on this—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close, please.