Scottish Parliament, 5 June 2019

283 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Sustainable Aquaculture

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

The first item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing, on progress in delivering a sustainable aquaculture sector. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am pleased to set out to Parliament the progress that is being made to deliver a sustainable aquaculture sector in Scotland. Last year, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee contributed to the debate on the farmed salmon sector. The committees concluded that in relation to regulatory arrangements for the sector the status quo was not an option. The Scottish Government agreed with that conclusion: today’s statement demonstrates our determination to deliver the necessary changes to strengthen the arrangements.

Before I describe those changes, I want to make reference to wild salmonids and the potential impact on them from sea lice in and around fish farms. We are, of course, extremely concerned about the serious declines in wild Atlantic salmon populations right across the north-east Atlantic. The reasons for the declines are multifactorial.

We have identified 12 major groups of pressures that are impacting on wild salmon stocks, and we recognise that aquaculture is one of the pressures. Sea lice are, of course, ubiquitous in the marine environment and have the potential to impact on wild and farmed fish. That is why we established a salmon interactions working group, which is making good progress in collating recommendations for a future approach to managing farmed and wild fish interactions. That group is aided by a technical working group, which is developing practical arrangements for improving regulation in the area. Its work is informed by regulatory regimes elsewhere, including Norway. Discussions are on-going to develop proposals: the group aims to issue those for public consultation this summer.

I have mentioned those developments simply to emphasise that we are serious about delivering a broad programme of reform; the changes that I am announcing today are only the first part of that programme.

The Scottish Government has completed its review of Scotland’s farmed fish sea lice policy. Two years have passed since changes to the policy were last introduced. To put that in context, that represents one fish farming cycle in the marine environment. As a result of the review, we will be making the following changes to the current policy.

First, we will in 2020 introduce new legislation that will require all marine fish farms to report a weekly sea lice number to the Scottish Government’s fish health inspectorate, one week in arrears. The sector has already recognised that it must become more open and transparent, and has in the past year announced its own sea lice publication plans. However, we will take action to strengthen the statutory basis of our sea lice regime in order to ensure a consistent approach and to deliver confidence in the system.

The introduction of legislation will remove any ambiguity about reporting requirements and will deliver more detailed information about salmon and rainbow trout farms. Crucially, it will provide data to enable monitoring of specific farms and issues as they arise, and to allow for further policy change, if needed. To ensure openness and transparency, every sea lice report will be published.

Secondly, from the next reporting week, we will reduce the current reporting and intervention thresholds from three and eight average adult female lice per fish to two and six, respectively. Those thresholds are an average of adult female lice per fish on the farm, and are calculated by following established counting and recording protocols. That change means that fish farms will now be expected to report at much lower sea lice levels to the Scottish Government’s fish health inspectorate, which will allow for earlier intervention and enforcement action being taken. We will publish an updated enforcement information sheet to that effect, which will include a simplified enforcement process.

Thirdly, today I am also committing in the medium term—unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary—to a further reduction of the sea lice reporting and intervention thresholds to two and four average adult female lice per fish. That further reduction will happen, if confirmed by a review of the evidence, 12 months following the implementation of the new statutory reporting regime. I mentioned that the changes to the intervention levels are being introduced following just one fish farming cycle in the marine environment. It must be recognised that those timescales are actually very short in terms of the fish farming production cycle, and we must ensure that farmers can adapt and make necessary investments.

Finally, I am announcing today that we will explore how to introduce third-party independent checks on fish farms’ sea lice counts to ensure the accuracy of the information that is provided to the Scottish Government.

Taken together, the new measures signal a major shift from self-regulation to statutory regulation. They also seek to move to an approach that supports prevention through robust and independent monitoring. The new sea lice management policy will not operate in isolation. All marine salmon producers will continue to follow the code of good practice for Scottish fin-fish aquaculture, which includes points of compliance on sea lice and national treatment standards. Adherence to the code, alongside voluntary monitoring and early intervention by salmon producers, as well as investment in new technologies, has resulted in 2018 having the lowest annual average reported sea lice levels since records started to be made available, which was back in 2013.

The changes that I am announcing will ensure that efforts to control and minimise the prevalence of sea lice will be maintained and, indeed, exceeded in the future. The improvements to date have been supported by investment since 2016 of £13 million of European Union and Scottish Government funding, through the European maritime and fisheries fund, in 48 aquaculture projects, which has unlocked more than £25 million total sector expenditure in innovation and new technologies to address the issue. Hydrolicer, Thermolicer and permaskirt technologies to tackle sea lice have all been supported, in addition to cleaner-fish hatchery projects being supported. At the same time, the sector has invested about £53.5 million over the past three years on lice-removing technologies.

The review of the farmed salmon sea lice policy has been progressed as a key strand of Scotland’s 10-year farmed fish health framework. Work is also under way, through the framework, to ensure that we lead on information sharing, that we support and promote innovation in fish health management, and that we deliver on other sea lice actions, such as creating a sea lice modelling and farm connectivity action plan. A wider update on progress on all those strands will be provided to Parliament in due course.

This week, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency published a new fin-fish regulatory framework, which seeks to strengthen protection of Scotland’s marine environment and enable sustainable growth of aquaculture in the right places. The framework will be implemented through improvements to the existing controlled activities regulations—CAR—licensing process. SEPA is now using the best modelling available so that it can better predict and monitor environmental effects. In addition to the introduction and enforcement of a tighter organic waste standard, the improved modelling will mean that risks to local environments will be better understood and can be better managed. That approach will allow assessment of larger-scale impacts, including interactions with other farms, to be carried out.

Tougher regulation will ensure that farms are sited in the most appropriate areas. It will also mean that sites that might have the potential to increase sustainably without threatening sea-bed environmental standards will be able to do so.

Taken together, the measures demonstrate the progress that is being made in changing our approach to regulating the aquaculture sector. They also show our intention to continue to work with the industry and alongside our independent regulator to ensure that appropriate and proportionate action is taken to allow the sector to grow sustainably while protecting our marine environment. Ensuring that growth in Scottish aquaculture is sustainable is key to its future success.

We must continue to apply high health and welfare standards in order to ensure that Scotland can continue to produce a world-class and high-quality product that is one of the most eco-efficient and sustainable forms of healthy protein available to feed the growing global population.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the prior sight of his statement.

Let me be quite clear: I welcome the statement. The reports on Scottish salmon from the REC Committee and the ECCLR Committee showed that the status quo is unacceptable, and it is positive to hear of the progress that the salmon interactions working group and technical working group are making. It is important to recognise that, if the industry is to grow, it must grow sustainably.

I welcome the announcement that there will be legislation to require salmon farms to publish lice numbers weekly, and I welcome the announcement of a reduction in reporting and intervention thresholds, which follows the advice in the REC Committee report.

It is important that the weekly reports on lice numbers are published. Will the cabinet secretary say when the figures will be published?

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary acknowledged that his planned timescale for the introduction of legislation is short. It is important that fish farmers are able to plan and make the necessary preparations and upgrades to make the new system happen. However, it is also important and correct that the legislation should be introduced early in 2020. Will the cabinet secretary give us a clearer timescale for when new regulations will come into being?

The appropriate technologies are essential to the carrying out of lice checks, especially if that is to be done weekly. What support will be made available to smaller fish farms, which might not have the funds or infrastructure to achieve what is required timeously?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I very much welcome the approach that Mr Chapman, speaking on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, is taking. That is very much appreciated and I think that it reflects the cross-party support for sustainable aquaculture that was expressed in the major debate on the committees’ reports.

Mr Chapman asked when the legislation will come into force. The Parliament will be aware that uncertainties around Brexit remain and that there is potential for changes in the legislative timetable. Those are practical aspects, which the First Minister, the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and the Cabinet must take into account. Given the uncertainties, it is not possible to be categoric at the current time.

However, I expect that the legislation will come into force in 2020. It might be helpful to Mr Chapman if I say that my officials are considering the reporting requirements of new legislation, and if I confirm that draft legislation will be put to public consultation for full scrutiny—openness, transparency and straightforwardness are what we require.

Mr Chapman asked about support for companies in the farmed salmon sector that are smaller and perhaps less financially resourced than the majors, which are very robust and substantial companies, by and large. We want all possible practical support to be available to all players who operate on such a basis.

I recognise that, across the board, there has been a tremendous desire and tremendous action on the part of all the companies involved to take the necessary steps, including substantial investment, to address problems such as sea lice levels and amoebic gill disease in a robust and comprehensive fashion. I am very pleased that the sea lice levels that the sector reported last year are the lowest for six years, which I think proves that substantial progress has been made. I am pleased that Mr Chapman welcomed that.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the prior sight of his statement.

Aquaculture is extremely important to the economy of rural Scotland, so it is imperative that we get the regulation right and build an excellent reputation for our produce. That is important not just for our economy but for our health, as our diets often lack enough oily fish.

The cabinet secretary states that the technical working group is developing practical arrangements for improving regulation. The Norwegian system, which is more streamlined and crucially also focuses on animal health, is cited by the industry and those expressing concerns as providing the best regulatory regime. Therefore, why is the cabinet secretary delaying the implementation of a system along the same lines?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I appreciate Rhoda Grant’s support for the sector. I do not think that it is fair to charge us with delaying. As I made clear in my statement, changes must be made to the two-year cycle.

I am often questioned as to why the Norwegian fish farming industry works in a different way. The Scottish Government sea lice compliance policy does not operate in isolation. It acts as a backstop on occasions when things go wrong. The two systems are different. In many ways, the system in Scotland is said to be very robust by stakeholders, but there are areas in which we need to improve. One of them is regulation of sea lice, which is why I have taken the steps today to announce that tighter standards will be introduced.

I am pleased that the industry has worked closely with us in developing the policy, and that industry and stakeholders are working on the various groups of the fish health framework and the various sub-committees, including those relating to wild salmon. It is key that we work together in Scotland and, in particular, listen carefully to practical ways in which we can make progress. Today illustrates that we are taking steps to tighten the regulation on sea lice, and I am pleased that the industry has welcomed the approach that we are taking.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have 10 members and 13 minutes, so I ask members to be neat with their questions to let others get in.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that there is still a serious concern with large fish farms being granted consent by breaking up into two or more applications, when in fact they are operating as a single farm. That means that cumulative environmental impacts are not fully considered. SEPA has said that the new modelling—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I want your question please, Mr Ruskell.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary commit to reviewing existing farms that were granted permission under multiple applications, using the new modelling that SEPA has just announced to give an accurate picture of their impacts.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The existing system contains provision for monitoring, as we well know. Today, we are indicating that tighter standards will apply in relation to sea lice. That is one of several aspects. I also covered the measures that SEPA is taking on the use of treatments in my statement—which Mr Ruskell heard.

I am very pleased that the industry has invested substantially in alternatives to treatment—thermalisers, cleaner fish, skirting and other techniques—and substantial progress is being made.

I do not think that I can agree to Mr Ruskell’s request. I note that SEPA has suggested a different form of modelling. It will bring that forward and put it into action, and we look forward to working very carefully with it to achieve the shared aim, which I hope we all support, of an increasingly sustainable aquaculture sector in Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the Norwegian industry is trialling a mechanism

to filter fish medicines out of the water that is used to treat fish. Will he immediately ensure that those trials are replicated in Scotland, to the benefit of the marine environment and the industry, and will he reject any further consideration of a fish farm feed limit, given its well-known damaging consequences on fish quality, as Norway again has demonstrated?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I welcome Mr Scott’s support for the sector, as always. He is a stalwart supporter of the aquaculture sector, and it is extremely important in his constituency. We absolutely welcome the development of Benchmark’s CleanTreat system, which has been trialled in Norway. I am delighted that discussions are already taking place with Scottish regulators regarding a Scottish trial. It is not up to me to decide whether that trial should go ahead but, as Mr Scott has indicated, it makes sense that we should be trialling new innovative products and techniques that can help to secure the objective of a sustainable sector that we all share.

I am advised that SEPA is considering whether to move to using a feed limit or to retain a biomass limit to regulate fish farms. Over the next three months, SEPA will consult with all interested stakeholders on the options. I am pleased that it will engage substantially with the industry, and I am sure that Mr Scott will ensure that the companies that operate in his constituency will play a part in those discussions.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Salmon is one of our most important food exports. How has the industry performed this year, and what is it doing to improve its environmental sustainability credentials?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The industry is performing well. It directly employs more than 2,000 people and contributes around £220 million in gross value added to the economy. The wider impacts across the supply chain are estimated to represent £620 million in GVA and 12,000 jobs. Further, as I have said before in the chamber, those jobs are well remunerated; the average annual salary in the fish farming sector is around £34,000, and many of the jobs are on the periphery of the country, where there are no alternative opportunities of that type. That is extremely important.

Companies have contributed enormously to improving their operations and sustainability. Mowi has invested around £100 million in its Kyleakin feed plant and £26.5 million in its new Inchmore hatchery at Glenmoriston, which I had the privilege of opening; Scottish Sea Farms has invested around £50 million in its new hatchery at Barcaldine; Loch Duart recently announced that it will invest £1.2 million in new feed barges; and substantial investments have been made by the Scottish Salmon Company, Cooke Aquaculture, Gael Force Aquaculture and others. The industry is investing heavily, and those investments are going directly to improve the sustainability of aquaculture.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

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

I welcome the general thrust of the proposals, which, I believe, will help fish farms to become better neighbours to those who share their environment. Is there a plan to increase enforcement once the proposals are brought in? We know that, in the past, enforcement in this sector has been very poor.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Obviously, enforcement plays a part. The higher standards are primarily intended to further drive forward improved practice.

Although we have tightened up the reporting and intervention thresholds from three and eight adult female lice per fish to two and six, respectively, the actual performance of most of the companies is far higher. I see that Mr Mountain is shaking his head, but the facts that I have seen indicate that the actual levels of sea lice that are found are much lower.

Enforcement is important and must be dealt with independently by those who are responsible for it. That approach will continue. I am not sure that I accept Mr Mountain’s thesis, but I would say that we take enforcement seriously, and that the steps that I have announced today, which involve an aspect of independent audit of the process, will increase transparency, which I hope everyone supports.

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

On the sea lice numbers, will the cabinet secretary outline why a phased approach is being taken and say how the chosen figures were arrived at?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We believe that a phased approach is the correct approach to drive forward best practice while enabling companies to alter and improve their practice in practical terms. We have today indicated that regulation will be tightened up, which I think is something that the companies regard as being welcome in order to demonstrate the good work that is being done to further improve fish health in Scotland.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome the commitment on compulsory public reporting of sea lice data on a farm-by-farm basis, and other measures, as it reflects an amendment that I lodged during the passage of the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Act 2013, but which was rejected by the Scottish Government.

On the welfare of farmed fish, will the cabinet secretary assure the chamber that any plans for closed containment will be fully tested against animal welfare standards? At the other end of the scale, will he assure the chamber that SEPA’s shift to encouraging applications for larger fish farms in deeper waters will not simply disperse the fish faeces and medicines more widely in the marine environment, pushing them out of sight and out of mind?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That question was at the edge of being too long, but never mind.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I can confirm that impacts on all forms of the marine system, including marine life, will be considered carefully. I assure Claudia Beamish that all aspects of providing a sustainable aquaculture industry in Scotland will be considered in relation to future applications.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that any proposals that are taken forward will not impact adversely on businesses that work closely with the aquaculture industry, such as W & J Knox in Kilbirnie? Founded in 1778, it employs 130 local people who clean and repair nets, and it is at the forefront of developing technology to stop lice penetrating fish tanks and to dissuade seals, in non-lethal ways, from eating the fish.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

If I may say so, that was an excellent question from Mr Gibson. It illustrates the point that not all the jobs are on our coasts and islands; many of the jobs that the industry sustains are inland, in our towns and cities, and throughout Scotland.

It is an important Scottish industry, which is not confined solely to the periphery. Companies such as

W & J Knox are vital to the success of the industry. Seal management is a priority, and Mr Gibson eloquently pointed out the improved practices that the company in his constituency is contributing towards.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary said:

“tougher regulation will ensure that farms are sited in the most appropriate areas.

However, one of the committee’s recommendations was about addressing the issue of the relocation of historically poorly-sited farms. What special assistance will be given to fish farms that want to relocate, but which face regulatory or financial barriers in doing so?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The appropriate location of sites is a material factor that is taken into account for all applications. That approach will be followed by the various parties that are involved—as Mr Greene knows, various parties are involved—in the operation of existing sites as well as in the appropriate siting of new sites; those matters will be taken into account. If Mr Greene has any particular concerns, I would be happy to hear from him about them.

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

In light of the cabinet secretary’s welcome announcements today, what steps does he intend to take to promote closer working between SEPA, Crown Estate Scotland and other agencies?

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

That is my job.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

My colleague Roseanna Cunningham has joined me, and has pointed out that she has responsibility in respect of SEPA.

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

And the Crown Estate.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

And the Crown Estate, she adds.

We all accept in the Scottish Government the duty of all public bodies, Scottish Government agencies and regulators to work together as a team to achieve our different purposes and, in the case of regulators, statutory functions. Of course, as I am sure is uppermost in the minds of members, all regulators are bound by the terms of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, in particular, section 4.

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

The key to success in this relatively new industry is innovation. A great example of that is the creation of the international centre for aquaculture research and development at the University of Aberdeen, with its innovative farm-to-fork approach. What other investment is going on in that area in our learning institutions throughout Scotland?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

As I outlined in my initial statement, substantial investment is going on in respect of research. That investment is seen in bodies such as the Scottish aquaculture innovation centre—SAIC—which is headed up by Heather

Jones and which does excellent work.

In addition, the Scottish Government has invested around £13 million in research, which has levered in around £25 million from industry. My colleague Roseanna Cunningham recently enabled the investment of £500,000 in research into how we improve the general issue of interactions between wild salmon and other multifactorial issues. We are investing heavily, because that is extremely important for Scotland and the objectives of both the industry and a clean environment—those go hand in hand.

Finance, Economy and Fair Work

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

I remind members that questions 2 and 3 and questions 7 and 8 will be grouped together. That means that I will take questions 2 and 3 and members’ supplementaries pertaining to them after them. If members want to ask supplementary questions to questions 2 and 3, they should press their buttons, but those questions will be taken after questions 2 and 3.

I hope that I have explained that. If not, I have muddled myself up in the process.

Unemployment (Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it is tackling unemployment in the Mid Fife and Glenrothes constituency. (S5O-03324)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Scottish Government and its agencies are committed to tackling unemployment by supporting inclusive economic growth across Scotland, including in Mid Fife and Glenrothes. For example, in 2018-19, Scottish Enterprise committed investment of over £1 million in local companies through regional selective assistance and research and development awards.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

In 2017-18, Fife had an impressive 7 per cent of the national total of modern apprenticeship starts, and more than 27,000 people took up the qualification. However, the most recent statistics for 2018-19 point to a slight drop in female modern apprenticeship starts compared with those in the same period last year. What practical work is being done by Skills Development Scotland in my constituency to close the gender gap in modern apprenticeships?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

As Ms Gilruth points out, Fife is doing very well in the number of its modern apprenticeships overall. In 2017-18, which is the last full year for which we have figures, there were 1,893 modern apprentices in Fife. We should place on record our thanks to employers across the kingdom of Fife for offering those opportunities.

However, I recognise that more has to be done to diversify participation and improve female participation. Work on that is under way in Fife and across the country. Skills Development Scotland has its apprenticeship equality action plan, and there is the science, technology, engineering and mathematics strategy to try to tackle gender segregation in subject choice at school, as emphasised in our “A fairer Scotland for women: gender pay gap action plan”.

There is activity in train, but I absolutely recognise that much more remains to be done.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

One of the ways to tackle unemployment in Mid Fife and Glenrothes and other communities in Scotland is to lift people out of poverty. Will the Government take urgent action to investigate the £22 million of European social fund funding to tackle poverty that the European Union has suspended and take immediate action to release that money into Scotland’s communities?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I can assure Mr Kelly that we are aware of that issue and are actively exploring it. However, we should also place on record the fact that a number of the projects that are funded through that source continue to be supported. I can assure Mr Kelly and other members that we are actively exploring a resolution to that issue.

Inclusive Growth (North Ayrshire)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to promote inclusive growth in the North Ayrshire economy. (S5O-03325)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government is committed to achieving inclusive growth in all parts of Scotland, including North Ayrshire. Inclusive growth is assisted by our significant investment in housing, education and skills, transport, health and other areas.

Specifically, the North Ayrshire economy will benefit from the £103 million that the Scottish Government has committed for the Ayrshire growth deal. The heads of terms agreement, which was signed in March, includes significant local investment proposals, including in the great harbour, the i3 project and marine tourism in North Ayrshire, as well as regional initiatives for skills, digital, and community wealth building.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

It is over six months since the Fraser of Allander institute published its “North Ayrshire Economic Review” for North Ayrshire Council. That review highlighted the importance of inclusive growth in tackling regional inequalities. It stated:

“if significant in-roads are to be made in tackling regional challenges this will require major investment and national strategic support.”

Given that North Ayrshire Council’s spending power has been diminished through Scottish Government cuts and that North Ayrshire was passed over as a location for the new social security agency, despite being identified as the best option for inclusive growth, what will the Scottish Government now do to turn its rhetoric into reality on inclusive growth in North Ayrshire?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As Neil Bibby should be aware, Scottish Enterprise has approved a funding offer of £10 million towards Peel Ports’s £30 million proposed project to redevelop its Hunterston park site in North Ayrshire; North Ayrshire has been allocated £1.4 million from the town centre regeneration fund for 2019-20; and North Ayrshire projects have received more than £2 million through empowering communities programme funds to date. Scottish Enterprise also continues to deliver support to businesses in North Ayrshire via innovation grants, the Scottish manufacturing advisory service, regional selective assistance and research and development grants.

Job Opportunities (North Ayrshire)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to bring job opportunities to North Ayrshire. (S5O-03326)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government and its agencies are committed to achieving inclusive growth in all parts of Scotland, including North Ayrshire. We are working with a range of partners to create high-quality jobs and opportunities in the area. Specifically, North Ayrshire will benefit from the £103 million that the Scottish Government committed for the Ayrshire growth deal. The heads of terms agreement, which was signed in March, includes significant investment proposals from the Scottish Government for projects in North Ayrshire. The Ayrshire regional partners estimate that the deal with result in 7,000 new jobs across the region.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am pleased that the minister welcomes the multi-Government investment in North Ayrshire. However, the Scottish Government’s regional employment study highlighted that underemployment in North Ayrshire has risen to 13.5 per cent, whereas underemployment is falling in other local authority areas. What specific action is the Government taking to address underemployment?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The North Ayrshire inclusive growth diagnostic is a joint piece of work between the office of the chief economic adviser and North Ayrshire Council. The work involves looking at the barriers to growth in the area, a significant one of which is underemployment, as the member identified. Work has been rolled out through North Ayrshire Council’s fair for all strategy in order to tackle inequalities in the area and to influence investment decisions that will deliver long-term transformational change in the North Ayrshire economy.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The minister will be aware that, if delivered, the proposed economic master plan for Hunterston will bring more than 1,700 jobs to North Ayrshire. The master plan is supported by local Labour and Tory councillors, as well as by me and the local MP. Does the minister agree that it is time that Mr Greene came off the fence on the issue and stops trying to be all things to everyone? Through the Ayrshire growth deal and directly, what support will the Scottish Government provide to successfully deliver the master plan?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As the member and others are aware, the Scottish Government has committed to providing £103 million for the Ayrshire growth deal over the next 10 years. We and our agencies are committed to working with all partners to secure the future of the Hunterston site and maximise opportunities for inclusive growth, and I encourage all local politicians to work in common purpose on the matter. On direct support, as I said earlier, in November last year, Scottish Enterprise committed to providing £10 million towards the redevelopment. The investment and joint working between Scottish Enterprise, North Ayrshire Council and private sector partners have the potential to deliver significant benefits to the North Ayrshire and wider Ayrshire economies.

TalkTalk Employees (Stornoway)

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

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made in assisting the workforce of the TalkTalk call centre in Stornoway. (S5O-03327)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Scottish Government, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—partners are continuing their contact with TalkTalk and with the staff who face redundancy to ensure that all employment opportunities are explored, and that pay support is provided.

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

TalkTalk has been a significant employer on Lewis, so the loss of jobs will have an impact on the broader economy. Will the Scottish Government commit to examining whether there are opportunities for more public sector jobs to be based on the islands?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I very much recognise the key role that public sector jobs play in the economy of the islands and, indeed, in economies in all parts of Scotland. The Scottish Government is consulting on development of the national islands plan, which will set out a number of objectives, including on employment, for supporting and promoting our island communities. We will always be willing to look at opportunities that make sense, and at what can be done.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I agree that public sector jobs should be dispersed throughout Scotland and should not be centralised. Will the minister consider a staff buy-out of TalkTalk? That would allow staff to bid for call-centre work so that the jobs could be retained in Stornoway.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Thus far, no such proposition has been advanced, but as Rhoda Grant knows from my previous remarks, the Government has high ambitions in respect of employee-owned businesses. If the workforce is interested in making such a bid, I would be delighted to engage with the staff directly.

Teachers Pay Agreement (Implications for Public Sector Pay Policy)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what the implications are for its public sector pay policy of the agreement reached with the teaching profession. (S5O-03328)

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

The public sector pay policy sets a framework for pay negotiations, and balances delivery of a fair deal for employees with affordability and investment in high-quality public services. The policy acts as a benchmark against which employers have the flexibility to deliver pay awards that meet local circumstances.

The pay award for teachers includes an element that is targeted at addressing recruitment and retention issues, as well as a wider package of measures to address workload issues and support the empowering schools agenda.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

As the minister will be aware, exactly the same circumstances apply to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd with regard to the pending air traffic controllers strike, which has been suspended for next Wednesday but is still threatened for the future. Will she bring the same flexibility to those pay negotiations? Of course, ministers directly intervened in the teachers’ strike. We could do with some intervention in the ATC strike, too, because lifeline air services depend on those people.

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

As Tavish Scott does, I recognise that it has, with the disruption, been a difficult time for travellers. I welcome the suspension of the industrial action that had been scheduled for 12 June, and I encourage HIAL’s air traffic controllers to consider carefully HIAL’s latest offer of a new retention allowance.

I also go back to my earlier answer and reiterate that the pay policy is a guide and benchmark. In that sense, delivering a pay package is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the Scottish Government still have a public sector pay policy that is worth the paper that it is printed on? From the latest deals that have been struck, it does not sound as though it does.

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

We do, indeed, have a pay policy that ensures affordability of and investment in high-quality public services. However, as I have said, the policy acts as a benchmark against which employers have the flexibility to deliver pay awards that meet their local circumstances. We reflect on the impact of all sectoral awards in developing pay policies, and we will do so again in time for next year’s pay policy, in the context of the spending review.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I commend the Educational Institute of Scotland for securing a deal for its members, but I note that when the Scottish Government gave some prison officers a pay upgrade while leaving others floundering, it was taken to court by the Public and Commercial Services Union and caved in. In the same vein, the Government is treating some council workers one way and others another way. What has happened to the pay policy, and what is happening to fairness?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

For a moment, I thought that we were drifting away from the subject of teaching, but the question is about the public sector pay policy.

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

Again, I reiterate that the pay policy does not apply directly to all workforces. Instead, it acts as a benchmark for pay awards in other sectors, and sets the tone for the wider public sector to increase labour participation and productivity, which will ensure that work pays for the individual and the Scottish economy. Key sectors including local government, the health service, the police and the fire service have all delivered arrangements that are broadly in line with our public sector pay policy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 has been withdrawn, and questions 7 and 8 have been grouped together.

Real Living Wage Employers

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how many accredited real living wage employers there are in Scotland. (S5O-03330)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Scotland has 1,473 living wage accredited employers, which, proportionately, is over five times more than the rest of the United Kingdom.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

According to living wage Scotland, more than 3,000 workers across Lanarkshire have received a pay increase to the real living wage of £9 per hour. However, low pay is still one of the main drivers of in-work poverty. What action is the Scottish Government taking to encourage more employers to pay, as I do, the real living wage not only in Motherwell and Wishaw but across Scotland?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I hope that people will view the figures that I have given on accreditation as positive, although, of course, much more needs to be done. Through our work with the Poverty Alliance, we are aiming over the course of this parliamentary session for an uplift of 25,000 in the number of workers who are paid at least or more than the real living wage as a result of accreditation. Of course, we are also taking forward our fair work first agenda to ensure that, under all job-related grants that are made by our agencies, the living wage is paid, and we are undertaking activity in the social care and early learning and childcare settings to ensure that workforces there are paid the living wage, too.

Clare Adamson made a salient point when she mentioned that she is a living wage employer. That shows that members, too, can show leadership, and should be encouraging all employers in our areas and communities to become accredited and to pay at least the real living wage.

Living Wage

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how many people in Scotland earn less than the living wage. (S5O-03331)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The living wage initiative is an important part of the Scottish Government’s fair work agenda. In 2018, there were 470,000 workers earning less than the real living wage in Scotland. However, since 2015, the number of workers in Scotland earning the real living wage or more has increased, meaning that, in total, 80.6 per cent of all workers in Scotland now receive the real living wage, which is the highest proportion of all the United Kingdom countries.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

In West Lothian, 16,000 people in 2012 received a wage that was lower than the living wage; that figure is now 17,500. We could make an impact on that figure if there was the political will to do so. Why—this is a very straightforward question—does the Government not insist in its public procurement policy that contractors pay the living wage, and that companies that receive Government direct assistance must pay the living wage?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have already pointed to our fair work agenda, which I think will lead to improvements.

The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 took every opportunity to address the real living wage through procurement. The legislation requires that public bodies’ procurement strategies include a statement on their general policy of paying the living wage to people who will be involved in delivering contracts.

In October 2015, we published statutory guidance addressing fair work practices, including the living wage and the procurement practices that public bodies should be following.

The Government has carried out a recent trawl, which shows that 96 per cent of all suppliers who were awarded a Scottish Government collaborative agreement during the period January 2017 to March 2018 made a commitment to pay the real living wage. That significant progress is encouraging, but we continue to strive towards 100 per cent.

Single-use Plastic Usage

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action that it is taking to reduce single-use plastic usage. (S5O-03332)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You took that very slowly—I think that that was to allow the minister to get into place. Are you ready, minister?

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

Yes.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are. I call Mairi Gougeon.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. We are absolutely committed to tackling Scotland’s throwaway culture and to matching the pace that was envisaged by the European Union single-use plastics directive. We are already taking very ambitious action: we are the first country in the United Kingdom to announce our design for a deposit return scheme; we have taken action on plastic cotton buds and microbeads; our expert panel is considering measures to reduce the use of difficult-to-recycle items, such as single-use beverage cups; we have committed to increasing the single-use carrier bag charge to 10p; and we are part of a UK-wide consultation on the reform of packaging producer responsibility arrangements.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You can speed up your delivery now, if you like, Mr Crawford.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Forgive me, Presiding Officer.

I was trying to allow time for the cabinet secretary to get ready to answer—I had not realised that the minister would be responding.

Is the minister aware that a recent centre for international law report found that the proliferation of single-use plastics around the world is accelerating global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change? The UK Committee on Climate Change was clear on the need for action in order for Scotland to reach its net zero ambitions. Given the importance of reserved UK policy levers, will the cabinet secretary outline any areas on which action is required by the UK Government?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You have been promoted, minister.

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

We very much welcome that report, and we have already taken steps to address the recommendations on single-use plastics.

On the CCC advice and the need for UK Government action in reserved areas, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform has written twice to the UK minister of state, Claire Perry, requesting an urgent meeting to discuss action to accelerate the deployment of fully operational carbon capture and storage facilities and the decarbonisation of the gas grid; redesign vehicle and tax incentives; commit to adhering to future EU emissions standards; reduce VAT on energy efficiency improvement in homes; and ensure continued support for the renewables industry. Those areas are reserved, and if we are to meet our ambitious targets, we need the UK Government to take action to address them. That is imperative.

There is a whole host of other areas where action could be taken but where a contrary approach has been adopted, which has disincentivised renewable technologies, for example.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Plastic pollution is, indeed, a systemic problem that is dangerous and causes damage to our environment. Will the Government commit to a system-wide arrangement for measures to tackle the issue? For example, will it have a range of targets to reduce the different types of plastics, and will it ban those plastics that cannot be recycled?

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

We are doing a whole power of work when it comes to single-use plastics, both on land, by reducing, reusing and recycling plastics, and when they end up in our marine environment. The cabinet secretary or I would be happy to have a further conversation with Claudia Beamish about her proposals.

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

Does the minister agree that education is one of our strongest tools in tackling single-use plastics, and that groups such as the Ullapool sea savers are great examples that could be replicated across the country?

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

It will probably not surprise Gail Ross to hear me say that I absolutely agree with her. The Ullapool sea savers, in particular, have really led the way on the issue.

Members across the chamber will be aware from their visits to primary schools—this is certainly the case whenever I visit primary schools in my constituency—that the issue of marine litter and plastics and what we are doing about it is raised every time. It is only right that our young people continue to push us to strive to do more. We should be proud of the fact that young people in this country take such an interest in the issue. We are listening, and we are doing what we can.

Climate Emergency (Remote and Rural Areas)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it will assist people in remote and rural areas in dealing with the climate emergency. (S5O-03333)

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

Delivering the transformative change that is required to tackle the global climate emergency must be a shared national endeavour. The Scottish Government is now looking across our range of responsibilities to make sure that we continue with the policies that are working and that we increase action where necessary.

Over the summer, the Scottish Government will engage the public, communities, businesses, industry and the public sector, including in remote and rural areas, in a discussion about what more can be done and how we can work together.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Many of the measures that have been outlined that will reduce an area’s carbon emissions require transformative action at local authority level. How will the particular challenge of decarbonising transport in areas such as mine in Aberdeenshire, which has one of the highest road mileages and a high proportion of off-gas and hard-to-heat homes, be addressed? Will tailored assistance be provided? How will an administration be held to account for its decisions in our national endeavour to deal with the climate emergency?

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

The Scottish Government supports the Energy Saving Trust, which provides bespoke advice to home owners on insulation and energy storage, which is particularly useful for those with off-grid and hard-to-heat homes. We have provided almost £10 million to local authorities across Scotland to ensure that electric vehicle charging points are installed across the country and are encouraging local authorities to focus on solutions for remote and rural communities.

The Scottish Government will keep exploring the use of hydrogen as a zero-carbon substitute fuel. As the member is probably aware, Aberdeen has been a leader in that—there are already 10 hydrogen buses running on two routes in Aberdeen, and a further 10 will come into service later this year.

Scotland is the only country to have statutory annual climate targets, which ensure that progress is regularly scrutinised in Parliament, and there will be annual reporting on a sector-by-sector basis on progress in delivering the climate change plan. However, as I have said previously, the Scottish Government cannot do this work on its own—it will be a widespread endeavour in which local authorities will be involved. They will be expected to step up and, in that regard, I welcome the announcements by Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council in respect of their climate targets.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

With the deposit return scheme now being rolled out as part of the response to the climate emergency and rural shopkeepers starting to think about the likely cost to them, can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament what the expected cost of installing a machine to recycle plastic will be to each rural shopkeeper? Will the Government help to defray that cost?

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

As the member is probably aware, we are involving organisations that represent shopkeepers the length and breadth of the country, including the very small ones, in discussions. We have indicated that there will be a variety of different options available for return, which may—or may not—include return vending machines. That conversation will be had with those organisations.

I should point out that there will be a handling fee. It is expected that, in the end, the measure will be cost neutral for all the shopkeepers who are involved.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What can be done to support people in less conventional housing tenures in rural areas, such as those that involve agricultural holdings or tied cottages, to allow them to increase energy efficiency and reduce household emissions, and to tackle fuel poverty?

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

There are a lot of things in play. I know that the member will be aware of the widespread work that the Government is doing on energy efficiency, which will continue.

I am aware that the tenure of homes can sometimes create an issue but, of course, it is not the only issue. Sometimes, there are other concerns. Unusual scenarios are among the harder ones to look at.

If the member has specific examples in mind in asking her question, it would be helpful if she could come to me, and we can discuss them in more detail. I am aware that different tenures, and tied housing in particular, can create some real barriers for people.

Mossmorran Petrochemical Plant

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Fife Council’s call for an independent inquiry into the Mossmorran petrochemical plant. (S5O-03334)

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

We are aware of the motion that Fife Council passed on 2 May. We have not received any formal request from Fife Council regarding Mossmorran since then.

The Mossmorran complex is subject to regulation by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as an independent environmental regulator. On 25 April, SEPA announced a formal investigation at the site. Calling for a further inquiry at this time could prejudice any potential enforcement action that SEPA may take. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Switch off recording, please. [

Interruption

.]

I have forgotten where I was. Was I calling you, Ms Ewing?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You were, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was a senior moment from me. I call Annabelle Ewing.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. It is perhaps a wee bit disappointing to know that Fife Council has not yet managed to forward to the Scottish Government its motion, which calls on the Scottish Government to commit to an independent inquiry.

However, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be aware that one of the strands of Fife Council’s motion—and an issue that constituents raise with me—is the need to have empirical data as regards health impacts. Can the cabinet secretary clarify whether any work is on-going with regard to that matter?

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

I have seen the motion, although there has been no formal approach from Fife Council. I understand that SEPA is sharing information with NHS Fife where possible while carrying out its on-going regulatory investigation. Once NHS Fife has assessed that data, an attempt will be made to address the most common health concerns in the local community in the most appropriate way.

NHS Fife has not been contacted by any local general practitioners specifically regarding the Mossmorran complex. However, it is reviewing published health data with a view to engaging with local representatives and making information accessible for communities.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At a recent public meeting in Lochgelly, we heard powerful testimonies from hundreds of local residents, including families coping with autism, whose lives have been made a misery by the noise, light and vibration from the plant. Is the cabinet secretary aware of any equality impact assessments that SEPA has carried out in relation to the operation of the plant? How will the Government support those families?

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

I do not have detail on the specific meeting that the member mentioned. He raised

some very specific issues, which obviously have some health impacts. I do not know that it would have been within SEPA’s purview to have looked at the kinds of impacts that the member talked about, but I will go back and ask whether or not that is part and parcel of, for example, some of the work that NHS Fife might be considering, and I will ensure that the member is kept aware of that.

On-going work is being done by SEPA. It is monitoring and looking at the situation within the regulatory set-up that it is required to consider, and we will estimate whether there are other things that need to be done by other public bodies, perhaps once that work is done.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Alexander Stewart. Please be brief, Mr Stewart.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given the recent difficulties at the plant regarding environmental health and social impacts, can the cabinet secretary indicate what further assistance can be given to ensure that local residents have confidence and trust in the operation of the site?

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

As I indicated, SEPA continues to provide updates on its dedicated Mossmorran hub and on-going monitoring will inform its investigation. So far, air quality monitoring information continues to show no cause for concern. However, other activities are being taken forward—following previous enforcement action, both operators have submitted to SEPA assessments of the best available techniques for carrying out their activities, which are currently being reviewed and, on 23 May, SEPA served further permit variations.

Work is constantly on-going and, as I indicated in my response to Annabelle Ewing, NHS Fife is also looking at the specific aspects that are more properly for it to consider. The information will all be brought together at an appropriate moment.

Low-carbon Infrastructure and Homes

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the climate emergency, what action it is taking to act on the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change to deliver low-carbon infrastructure and homes. (S5O-03335)

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

The Scottish Government has acted immediately in response to the committee’s advice, with amendments to our Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill to set a net zero emissions target for 2045 and to increase the targets for 2030 and 2040.

We are now looking across our whole range of responsibilities, including infrastructure and homes, to make sure that we continue with the policies that are working and increase action where necessary. Our high ambition will be matched by on-the-ground delivery and we will update the climate change plan within six months of the bill receiving royal assent.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There are tens of thousands of houses across Scotland that are described as being too expensive to insulate. If not in the Fuel Poverty (Target, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Bill or in the climate change bill, when will the cabinet secretary legislate to address the state of Scotland’s existing homes, the poor state of which is one of the key drivers of both fuel poverty and climate change? Does the cabinet secretary agree that doing so would be a win-win on both issues and that the sooner that we get those houses insulated, the better?

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

The Government is doing an enormous amount of work on energy efficiency and a huge amount of finance work is on-going, which I think will be well over £1 billion by the time we get to 2021. That work is very much part of the answer to Mr Rowley’s question.

There are some very significant issues when it comes to retrofitting housing, which I think the member is probably well aware of. “Energy Efficient Scotland”, which was published last year, is our route map to making all our buildings warmer, greener and more efficient, by ensuring that homes meet energy performance certificate band C by 2040. We are already consulting on the impact of bringing forward that date, if possible, and we are also consulting on how to decarbonise the heat supply in buildings that are off the gas grid. A review of energy standards in building regulations is under way, to consider further opportunities to reduce emissions from new homes, and there is continuing work on energy efficiency.

If Mr Rowley is asking when I will introduce housing legislation, I am sure that he is absolutely aware that doing so would not be for my portfolio, but I will make sure that his request is relayed to the housing minister.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If we have brief questions and answers, I can get the last three members’ questions in.

Deposit Return Scheme

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it believes the proposed deposit return scheme will have in tackling climate change. (S5O-03336)

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

There is a global climate emergency, and the Scottish Government is acting accordingly. Our first step has been to immediately lodge amendments to the targets in our Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, in line with the independent, expert advice of the Committee on Climate Change.

By enabling more, higher-value recycling, Scotland’s deposit return scheme will contribute to those efforts by reducing emissions by around 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over 25 years. That is an average of 160,000 tonnes each year, which is the equivalent of taking 85,000 cars off the road.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that groups such as St Eunan’s primary school in Clydebank, whose students are on a mission to reduce plastic use in all primary schools throughout West Dunbartonshire, will have an opportunity to become involved in the deposit return scheme?

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

I thank the pupils of St Eunan’s for their efforts in this important area and echo the comments that Mairi Gougeon made earlier about primary school children being very exercised about such issues at the moment.

We recognise the potentially significant role that schools and other community services can play in making the DRS a success, which is why we intend to allow for those facilities to act as voluntary return points for containers that are captured through the scheme. I also encourage all school pupils to consider the benefit to their schools of encouraging the donation of deposits to their schools, for instance, or litter picking to claim deposits.

Air Quality (Urban Areas)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to improve air quality in densely populated urban areas, such as Coatbridge. (S5O-03337)

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

The Scottish Government’s cleaner air for Scotland strategy sets out a series of actions for Government, Transport Scotland, local authorities and others to further reduce air pollution across Scotland. An independent review of the strategy is currently under way, which will identify priorities for any additional action.

The Scottish Government works closely with North Lanarkshire Council to provide practical and financial assistance to monitor air quality, support the delivery of measures and implement its air quality action plan to improve local air quality.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

It is great to hear the assistance that is being provided to make my constituency and the wider area a cleaner and healthier place to live and grow up. The minister will be aware of a controversial and long-running proposal to build an incinerator between Carnbroe and Shawhead next to the busy M8/A8 in Coatbridge. I do not expect her to comment on the application, which is subject to appeal, but she may be aware that that particular area—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No. I need a question.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

That particular area is one of the most polluted areas in the country and number 1 in North Lanarkshire. Has the Government any data about the impact of incinerators on air quality in areas where pollution is already known to be high?

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

The responsibility for air quality monitoring and data lies with individual local authorities, but I am not aware of any local authority having identified as a result of that work any significant impact from incinerators on local air quality.

On general air quality in North Lanarkshire, the latest data shows that air quality there continues to improve year on year in most locations. A few hot spots of poorer air quality remain, as they do in many other Scottish towns and cities, but we are absolutely determined to tackle those remaining hot spots as soon as we possibly can. North Lanarkshire Council has produced an air quality action plan that covers the authority’s three traffic-related air quality management areas. The plan contains a comprehensive range of measures and the council is working closely with the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and other partners on its implementation.

Climate Change Plan (Glasgow)

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on Glasgow’s progress in meeting the policy outcomes in its climate change plan. (S5O-03339)

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

Progress in meeting the policy outcomes in Scotland’s climate change plan is monitored nationally. The Scottish Government acknowledges the ambitious approach that Glasgow has taken to establishing its low-emission zone and the recent announcement by Scottish Power in support of the city’s ambition to become the first in the UK to achieve net zero emissions. Those are positive steps for the whole of Scotland.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government’s climate change plan states that its

“ambition is to reduce emissions from transport in ways that promote sustainable environmental and socio-economic wellbeing.”

How will active travel contribute to realising that ambition and how, in particular, will the cabinet secretary ensure that active travel will be available not only in the less deprived areas of cities such as Glasgow but in the more deprived areas?

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

That issue is fundamental to what my colleague Michael Matheson is promoting with active travel and, indeed, the whole of the Government is promoting. The active travel budget was doubled recently, so a great deal of money is going into it. We are very cognisant of the need to consider active travel in terms of not just recreation but actual access for local people, particularly in the circumstances that Adam Tomkins has raised. I will be meeting Glasgow City Council next week to discuss its proposals for being a net zero city by 2030, and I undertake to specifically raise active travel with them when I do.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Point 1 on Glasgow City Council’s climate emergency working group terms of reference emphasises renewable heat. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, over the next few years, we will need to take very large numbers of residential and non-residential properties off the gas grid and give them access to heat networks, and that that will happen only with a much more ambitious approach from the Scottish Government as well as local government?

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

That will indeed be required, but I note that Patrick Harvie missed out the other Government that will be necessary to achieve that, which is the Westminster Government. Without decarbonisation of the gas

grid, the logistical issues of doing what is required for domestic heating in Scotland would be very considerable. I hope that he will join me in calling on the Westminster Government to get a move on and do its part of what is required to be done if all of us in the United Kingdom are going to achieve our climate change ambitions.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-17555, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 4: 1 hour

Groups 5 to 8: 1 hour 35 minutes.—

[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

South of Scotland Enterprise Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on aims. Amendment 9, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 2, 3 and 10 to 12.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendment 9 amends the agency’s aims so that it is clear that it should further “sustainable” social and economic development rather than simply social and economic development. At stage 2, the bill was amended to call for sustainable economic growth, which was a welcome addition. However, amendment 9 makes clear that, when it comes to the implementation of the agency’s aims, the principle of sustainability should inform decisions across the board, not only those that are expected to secure economic growth. For example, that includes environmental sustainability and support on the sustainability of communities or the sustainability of vital but not necessarily profitable services, if that furthers the aims of the agency. Therefore, sustainability should be a key priority for the agency. Amendment 9 will ensure that the legislation reflects that.

By adding reference to it in the agency’s aims, amendment 2 clarifies the importance of

“supporting rural businesses, enterprises and communities”.

It reflects the fact that large parts of the region are rural and, as a result, those communities have specific challenges and opportunities. That support can take several forms, such as recognising the importance to the region of rural-based industries, such as forestry, aquaculture and agriculture, or recognising that creating a handful of jobs in a small rural community by supporting many small and micro businesses could be as important to the sustainability of that community as creating 100 jobs in a large town. Amendment 2 makes clear that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work in the south of Scotland and ensures that we learn from the difficulty that the current Scottish Enterprise model has had in properly responding to the unique needs of different parts of the area that it covers. It is essential to ensure that the agency delivers for our rural communities and recognises that that will require a different approach. Amendment 2 emphasises that aspect by placing it on the face of the bill.

The cabinet secretary’s amendment 3 tidies up the language used in my amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which ensures that supporting “social enterprises and co-operatives” is a key aim of the agency. I am more than happy to support that amendment.

My amendment 10 adds the need to promote

“the development of affordable housing”

to the agency’s aims. At stage 2, amendments relating to promoting digital connectivity and transport infrastructure were added to the agency’s aims on the basis that those are key challenges in the region that the agency will have a role to play in tackling. I believe that the shortage of affordable housing is the other major issue of that kind, so there is again a role to be played by the new agency. As with transport and digital connectivity, I am not suggesting that the agency should be the only body to deliver on such an aim. In relation to social housing, for example, the main role will be played by the local authority and social housing landlords, but amendment 10 calls for the agency to promote

“the development of affordable housing”

in order to reflect the leadership role that it should have in tackling problems in the area that are having an impact on things such as economic growth.

This week, I met the largest social housing provider in the region. It highlighted the skills shortage facing the area in various trades and the need for the new agency to work with it and the local colleges to support and grow a programme for tradespeople. The role of the agency in fulfilling the aim in amendment 10 would be to work with stakeholders to develop solutions to the challenges that the region faces with regard to affordable housing. Making it an aim of the agency stresses the importance of the issue to the south of Scotland.

Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11 adds a reference to “cultural heritage” to the agency’s aims, calling on the agency to maintain, protect and enhance that heritage. Members will not be surprised that I fully support that addition to the bill, having lodged the same amendment. The region has a rich cultural heritage and it is one of our key social and economic assets. It is right, therefore, that maintaining, protecting and enhancing our cultural heritage as well as our natural heritage is reflected in the agency’s aims.

Finally, Emma Harper’s amendment 12 clarifies the language of my stage 2 amendment on the agency’s responsibility to support the transition to net zero emissions. That is a crucial aim, so I am more than happy to support that small but important amendment.

I move amendment 9.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Amendment

3 is a technical, tidying-up revision to ensure that the bill’s terms are reflective of the full range of models that co-operatives and social enterprises come in. It is to do with a technical defect in Mr Smyth’s amendment at stage 2, which we welcomed. I am pleased to hear that he agrees that the form of amendment 3 is acceptable.

Turning to amendments from other members, I am happy to support amendment 9 lodged by Colin Smyth. I agree that the agency should be involved in furthering development in the region that is both economically and socially “sustainable”.

I am also happy to support Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11, which emphasises the importance of

“protecting and enhancing the ... cultural”,

as well as the natural heritage. I thank Finlay Carson for highlighting the issue at stage 2. It builds on the good work of members of the south of Scotland economic partnership such as Paula Ogilvie and Dame Barbara Kelly in bringing experience of book festivals and arts trusts to the south of Scotland. I will also be supporting Emma Harper’s amendment 12, which brings the bill’s wording into line with climate legislation.

I am getting off to an extremely positive start, Presiding Officer, which I hope is appreciated by all. However, I have some concerns about Mr Smyth’s amendments 2 and 10. I start by saying that I understand what he is seeking to do, but I do not think that the amendments are technically felicitous.

I understand the point that Mr Smyth is making with the reference to “rural businesses”, but I contend that all businesses in communities in the south of Scotland are predominantly rural, including those based in some of the bigger towns such as Dumfries and Galashiels. If, by rural, Mr Smyth means those businesses that are considered to be rural industries, such as farming, forestry and fishing, it is absolutely the case that the agency will take a closer-than-ever interest in those industries, which are vital to the south of Scotland. I hope that members would expect nothing less and they are right to do so.

I appreciate the aim of amendment 10 about “affordable housing”, which is key to inclusive growth as well as to achieving the aims of the proposed agency. However, I am sure that Mr Smyth would not want to rule out supporting other types such as mid-market housing and housing developments, not all of which may be affordable.

Although his amendment is not intended to rule that out, it may have that effect.

I do not consider it necessary for the bill to refer to the promotion of affordable housing, because that is already absolutely clearly implicit in the aims that are set out in the bill and the ways in which those aims will be supported. For example, I refer members to sections 5(2)(f) and 5(2)(ba), which are already in the bill and through which the agency will support communities

“to help them meet their needs”,

which of course incorporates affordable housing, and increase

“the number of residents in the South of Scotland who are of working age”.

I encourage members to support amendments 9, 3, 11 and 12 and to resist amendment 2.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

My amendment 11 emphasises the importance of protecting and enhancing the cultural as well as the natural heritage of the south of Scotland. During stage 2, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was keen that cultural heritage be included in the bill in recognition of the role of culture alongside that of natural heritage. That resonates with people across the south of Scotland, who are rightly proud of their culture, which is why I would like amendment 11 to be supported.

The vibrancy of our area’s culture is renowned locally, nationally and internationally. From the abbeys in the Borders to the castles and standing stones of Dumfries and Galloway, the south has a heritage of which to be proud. That heritage spans centuries, and many genres and forms. In 2021, we will celebrate the 250th birthday of Walter Scott and, next year, we will celebrate the 160th birthday of J M Barrie. I was pleased to attend the opening of Moat Brae storytelling centre, which is in the house in Dumfries in which J M Barrie found inspiration for Peter Pan.

In the south of Scotland, our summer starts with the Borders book festival and closes with the Wigtown book festival. Kirkcudbright thrived as an artists’ town, leading Dorothy L Sayers to say:

“in Galloway, one either fishes or paints.”

Of course, that historical success is being built on through the wonderful new art gallery that recently opened in Kirkcudbright. Coming right up to date, our success continues with the Dumfries born and Brit award-winning DJ Calvin Harris.

Culture and the creative economy are more than simply means in themselves, and are more than means of boosting tourism; they are also ways of developing community capacity and aiding regeneration. I cite the work of the Stove Network, which is an artists collective in Dumfries, in driving the Midsteeple quarter initiative, which is aimed at regenerating the High Street through housing and other economic activity. Part of the Stove’s work includes the creative futures project, which is building community capacity in west Dumfries. That is a good example of art and culture playing an important role in engagement and in energising communities and community development—which is, of course, very much in the spirit of what we are doing with the bill.

Amendment 11 makes it clear that one way in which the new south of Scotland enterprise agency can further its aims is through maintaining, protecting and enhancing the cultural heritage of the south of Scotland. I urge members to support the amendment.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcomed the amendments at stage 2, first from the Scottish Government and then from Colin Smyth, that committed the new south of Scotland enterprise agency to working to support our climate change ambitions.

Although Colin Smyth’s amendment at stage 2 helped to move the framing of the provision into the appropriate net zero space, the language is not quite appropriate. My amendment 12 would therefore revise the language that was agreed to at stage 2: its aim is to bring it into line with current terminology in environmental legislation, and to provide better alignment with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

Parliament is also considering the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which would set a world-leading statutory target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and is the flagship legislative response to the climate emergency. It is appropriate that we link what we are trying to achieve on environmental policy and legislation with the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, so I encourage members to support amendment 12.

I support amendment 11. It is essential that the new agency supports the wide-ranging cultural aspects of the region, which Joan McAlpine described so clearly.

I agree with the cabinet secretary about amendment 10, which could lead to duplication in relation to housing developments, given that local authorities, housing authorities and the Scottish Government all share an aim to build affordable housing. Duplication is not the goal.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does Emma Harper agree that social housing and the role that it plays not only in retaining the population but in encouraging population growth is worthy of mention in the bill, given that an aim of the agency is to promote the south?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I thank John Finnie for making that point. The Scottish Government is committed to building affordable housing in rural communities; that essential programme is in place. I am not keen for there to be duplication, and there are already concerns about multiple agencies and people not knowing what is the best direction in which to go. Affordable housing is essential, but its promotion does not need to be mentioned in the list of the agency’s aims.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The Liberal Democrats will support Colin Smyth’s amendment 9, Fergus Ewing’s amendment 3, Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11 and Emma Harper’s amendment 12.

Like the cabinet secretary, we have issues with amendments 2 and 10. Amendment 2 is too restrictive. It would include in the bill the aim of “supporting rural businesses”. We all want to support rural businesses, of course, but if we were to put that in the bill, what would we be saying about urban businesses? I do not think that amendment 2 would achieve what Colin Smyth is aiming for, and I do not think that such a provision should go in the bill.

Amendment 10 would add the aim of

“promoting the development of affordable housing”.

Liberal Democrats very much believe that mixed housing provision is necessary to support employment and to bring people into the south of Scotland. Reference to just affordable housing, important though it is, is too restrictive.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I represent that part of the world, where there is an acute problem with affordable housing. The arguments that Mr Rumbles and other members have made have not convinced me that any harm would come from making such an aim explicit in the bill. Will he explain his position?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

That was a helpful intervention; maybe I should explain more. Housing is a really important issue. Everyone deserves to live in a decent house. It is a fundamental human right, and we are not currently meeting that need. However, I think that the aim in section 5(2)(f), which is

“supporting communities to help them meet their needs”,

is an enabling element.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I have just taken an intervention on that point, but I will take one from Mr Smyth.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Two members have referred to other aims of the agency in relation to support for communities. The same argument could have been made about the changes that we made at stage 2 to include transport and digital connectivity—and digital connectivity is a reserved issue. Will Mr Rumbles explain why he thinks it appropriate for the new agency to have aims that are about promoting improvements to transport and digital connectivity, but not to have an aim that is about promoting housing? Housing, transport and digital connectivity are probably the three biggest issues that face the south of Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Colin Smyth has misunderstood me. I just said that everybody needs a decent house to live in. I said that it is a fundamental human right, on which we need to focus. However, I am worried about including in the bill an aim that is about only affordable housing. We must have affordable housing, but if we are to attract employment to the south of Scotland we need to promote a mix of housing, for everyone. The Government has taken the right approach with section 5(2)(f), which talks about

“supporting communities to help them meet their needs”,

That is the enabling provision that I prefer to support.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I have finished.

The Presiding Officer

In that case, I ask Colin Smyth to wind up the debate.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome the support from the cabinet secretary and other members for some of the amendments in my name in the group, but I am disappointed that there is no support for my substantive amendments on

“promoting the development of affordable housing”

and

“supporting rural businesses, enterprises and communities”.

I have to say that the arguments against the housing amendment are exactly the same ones that the Government put at stage 1 against including transport and digital connectivity, which is a reserved issue. One of the aims of the agency will be to improve connectivity, so it is disappointing that the Government does not believe that housing—which is probably the third major problem that the area faces—should be included.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The reason why we think that amendments 2 and 10 should not be accepted is that affordable housing already falls within the definition of communities, and the matters that are to be pursued. The agency will already deal with that. Also, as Mr Rumbles indicated, singling out one type of housing, could—

[

Interruption

.]

We are hearing a lot of noises off.

By including one type of housing—which we all in the chamber absolutely support—we run the risk that the interpretation of law by the courts would be that the agency should not promote other types of housing. Surely that is not something that any member would wish.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Nobody is suggesting that the agency will take the lead on housing: it will not take the lead on transport, which is the role of Transport Scotland. The point is that we in the region have a challenge in respect of affordable housing. Housing is being built across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. Where the shortage exists, where we need intervention and where there is market failure is in affordable housing. That is one of the reasons why every day we see young people leaving the south of Scotland and moving to the central belt to get jobs and educational opportunities. They cannot afford housing in the south of Scotland and there are not job opportunities for them there.

Everybody recognises that that is a big challenge for the area. We should be recognising it by putting it on the face on the bill and making it an aim for the new agency.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I agree that it is crucial that we bring young people back to the south of Scotland, but the situation is that they cannot find affordable housing. That is a crucial part of economic growth, so the Conservatives will support amendment 10.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

On amendment 2, which would include “supporting rural businesses”, it has been implied that that would somehow mean not supporting urban businesses, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the rest of the aims in the bill, which include

“supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth”

and

“encouraging business start-ups and entrepreneurship”

The bill already covers all businesses, but there is a specific challenge when it comes to rural businesses. Amendment 2 recognises that sometimes, to make a small community sustainable, four or five jobs might need to be created, which is as important as creating 100 jobs in a town or city. That is missing from the current economic development support that our region receives.

Likewise, amendment 2 recognises that in rural communities additional support is needed to make that happen and to make a difference. That is why it is important that the bill specify rural communities. It also encompasses the importance of the industries—from forestry, to agriculture, to aquaculture—that will make a big difference to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, going forward. That is why so many organisations, including the NFU Scotland, very much support the amendment.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Colin Smyth said that it was “implied”, but it was not implied: I said straight out that just putting “supporting rural businesses” into law

could easily be interpreted as saying that urban businesses may not be supported. That is the point. We have no revising chamber, so it is really important that we get it right at stage 3.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

That interpretation means, frankly, that Mike Rumbles has not looked at the rest of the aims of the bill, which talk about

“encouraging business startups and entrepreneurship”

Those are covered, but the distinctive way in which we need to support rural business is not. One could argue, in the same way, that we should not include transport or support for digital connectivity because they exclude other things. That would be a ridiculous statement to make. Amendment 2 emphasises the importance of the new agency focusing on rural businesses. That is why I am happy to support amendment 2 and amendment 10, which, disappointingly, other members do not appear to support.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the day, there will be a five-minute suspension while I call members to the chamber.

15:04 Meeting suspended.

14:11 On resuming—

We move to the division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Joan McAlpine]—and agreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Group 2 is on collaboration and co-operation with other bodies. Amendment 13, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 14 and 19.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative group of members of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 13 would add to the aims in section 5 a requirement to encourage

“persons and bodies with an interest in the environment to co-operate in achieving environmental objectives”.

I have brought the amendment back from stage 2 because I strongly believe that the requirement should be in the bill. It would enable and facilitate—the cabinet secretary is not listening—a whole range of bodies and individuals, such as farmers, land managers and communities, urban and rural, to work together. The amendment would encourage groups to take environmental projects forward on a co-operative model.

I emphasise that it is about not only co-operation but a more robust model of co-operation. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not grasp the importance of that. In commenting on the amendment at stage 2, he stated:

“It is essential that everyone works together and co-operates, but that is not really about the agency. The bill is not really about telling third parties what to do—that does not really come under the scope of the bill. People need to work together across the whole scope of government—that is expected and desirable—but it is not really within the scope of any bill that establishes a new body to state that third parties should co-operate. That should happen anyway”.—[

Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

, 8 May 2019; c 36-7.]

The “persons and bodies” that would be interested in the model would be self-selecting; there would be no obligation. The amendment is not about “should”, but “could”. It is not about telling people what to do, as the cabinet secretary stated was his interpretation at stage 2, it is about facilitating co-operative action.

The cabinet secretary also stated at stage 2 that the term

“with an interest in the environment”

is vague. I disagree with that, and I will give examples of things that would be far more difficult for individual, small-scale farmers, land managers and community groups to do without support and advice on working co-operatively.

One example is river basin-wide work—including such actions as riparian tree planting—to mitigate flooding and bring shade to salmon spawning grounds.

Another example is the removal of non-native invasive plant species, such as giant hogweed, from a wide area. That is less worth doing on a small scale because of the likelihood of the species continuing to spread despite being tackled.

Another example is agroforestry schemes, which would enable action that would, because of economies of scale, make tree planting more possible across smaller landholdings in a way that would otherwise be more difficult.

My final example is woodland planting. There are already many good examples of communities doing that, in Peebles and other places in South Scotland. That would be further enhanced. My amendment would support and facilitate communities working on that and many other issues with advice and support from the agency.

In view of the recent United Nations report on nature and the extinction warnings therein, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning about remaining below an increase of 1.5°C, the new commitment by the Scottish Government to net zero emissions by 2045, which is welcome, and, more broadly, the climate and environment emergencies and the cabinet secretary’s commitment to look at all policies in those contexts—certainly in the context of climate change—I am clear that amendment 13 adds to the aims in a way that would facilitate a co-operative approach to positive environmental and climate change objectives.

That support for co-operation for environmental purposes is surely exactly the sort of policy marker that the Scottish Government should make explicit in this relevant bill. In view of those imperatives, the amendment is in the public interest. I hope that, even at this late stage, the cabinet secretary will reconsider his position and agree to my amendment, in view of the arguments that I have put forward.

The Presiding Officer will be pleased to hear that I will leave the other two amendments in the group to the members who lodged them.

I move amendment 13.

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

During the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s consideration of the bill, it was clear that, with a number of bodies operating in the south of Scotland, it would be important to ensure that the new agency did not duplicate existing activity, but enhanced the current landscape. My amendment 14 makes it clear that, in working to deliver its aims, the new agency should encourage and facilitate collaboration. Collaboration can effectively contribute to advancing the agency’s aims, whether the collaboration and co-operation are between the various agencies that operate in the region, or other persons or bodies.

Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth similarly recognise the need for collaboration and co-operation to be mentioned in the bill, but their amendments place a narrower focus on the purpose of that collaboration and the bodies involved. Collaboration will be important to the delivery of all the aims of the new agency, whether they are environmental, economic or social aims, and we should not be prescriptive about that collaboration.

My amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of the new agency working collaboratively and promoting collaboration in pursuit of its aims. It provides the necessary flexibility to drive collaboration and co-operation in the most appropriate way and with the most appropriate bodies.

I ask members to support amendment 14.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

My amendment 19 places a duty on the new agency to facilitate co-operation between relevant bodies. That serves a specific purpose that relates to the practical operations of public bodies in the region. It is about not just supporting the broad concept of co-operation but making co-operation a requirement.

There is no doubt that one of the key concerns that local stakeholders raised with the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee during stage 1 was how the new agency would work with existing bodies. The risk of duplication or gaps was raised, and most stakeholders stressed the need for a cohesive and collaborative approach to achieving aims.

The new agency will work alongside Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, the business gateway, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, two local authorities, whatever governance structure is introduced to run the Borderlands initiative, and many others.

The cluttered landscape and concerns about poor co-operation between existing bodies have been real problems in the region in the past. As we add a new agency to the list of existing bodies, we cannot afford a repeat of such a situation in the future. Simply saying that co-operation will take place is not as robust as it being underpinned in legislation. The REC Committee recognised that in its stage 1 report, which called for

“the development of appropriate mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and coordination between the new agency and all of the various existing agencies operating in the region, including the Strategic Board.”

An example of such a mechanism was provided by the leader of Dumfries and Galloway Council, Elaine Murray, who gave evidence on behalf of the council and all the groups on the council. She suggested that there should be a memorandum of understanding between the various public authorities.

Amendment 19 is not prescriptive about the approach that should be taken. We can talk all we like about promoting improved transport and digital connectivity, but that will be meaningless unless we make it a priority—indeed, a legal requirement—for there to be clear collaboration and co-operation across agencies. The best way to focus minds on the need for such collaboration is by making it a legal requirement.

Amendment 13, in the name of Claudia Beamish, calls for the agency to take a role in encouraging co-operation to achieve environmental aims. Such co-operation could cover a range of models, from formal co-operatives or catchment-based co-operation to more general collaboration, and that would clearly be a positive move. Given that the new agency will have a social and an environmental remit as well as an economic remit, it is fair to ask the agency to play a role in encouraging such co-operation.

Likewise, amendment 14, in the name of Maureen Watt, calls for the agency to facilitate collaboration in the region. Amendment 14 would be a worthwhile addition to the bill, and I lodged an amendment with the same wording. However, the new agency needs to have a leadership role in the region on issues that are relevant to its aims, and I do not think that amendment 14 goes far enough in delivering that. I do not believe that amendment 14 is in any way a substitute for amendment 19, as Maureen Watt seemed to imply; it will complement amendment 19.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In differing ways, amendments 13, 14 and 19 all seek to impress upon the new agency the importance of working collaboratively and promoting collaboration. A culture of co-operation has been a key characteristic of the work across the south to date that has been taken forward by the south of Scotland economic partnership. Indeed, we have already seen the willingness of the partnership to work with other agencies and communities to deliver for the region. I am confident that the relationships that it has forged and the fresh dynamic that it has brought to discussions and activities will continue.

The Government strongly encourages co-operation and alignment in order to deliver maximum impact. First, we highlight that theme in the strategic guidance letters that we issue to agencies, and I intend to do the same in the guidance letters that we will send to the south of Scotland enterprise agency. Secondly, co-operation is a key theme of the work of the enterprise and skills strategic board, which, by its very existence, is concerned with creating greater synergy and alignment across the planning of our enterprise and skills agencies. In addition, the chair of the new agency will be a member of the strategic board. Thirdly, we are committed to establishing regional economic partnerships across Scotland.

It would not make sense for all three amendments in the group, which seek to do the same thing, to make it into the bill. Saying the same thing in legislation several times in slightly different words tends to make the law not clearer, but more confusing. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 14, in the name of Maureen Watt, and to reject the other amendments in the group. I will set out the reasons why.

Amendment 14 is the most complete statement about the sort of collaboration that I am sure everybody in the chamber wants the new agency to engage in and promote. The amendment makes it clear that the new agency should work collaboratively with others and that it should encourage and facilitate others to work co-operatively among themselves to support the delivery of all the agency’s aims, including furthering sustainable “economic and social development” and improving

“the amenity and environment of the South of Scotland”.

In contrast, amendment 13, in the name of Claudia Beamish, relates only to collaboration on achieving environmental aims. I welcome the fact that Ms Beamish has lodged the amendment to highlight the undoubted importance of collaboration on environmental goals. However, if the bill were to underscore the importance of collaboration on environmental matters only, it would suggest that collaboration on economic and social development was less important. I do not think that that is the message that anyone, including Ms Beamish, wants to send through the bill, which is concerned with setting up an enterprise agency.

Amendment 19, in the name of Colin Smyth, is also narrower than amendment 14. Whereas amendment 14 and, for that matter, amendment 13 are rightly concerned with the promotion of co-operation among all persons, be they public, private or third sector, amendment 19 is limited to dealing with co-operation in the public sector and makes no reference to bodies in the private or third sector. It further confines the agency’s role to facilitating co-operation between itself and other public authorities operating in the region instead of acknowledging that the agency might also wish to encourage co-operation between and with any public body that might play a part in achieving the agency’s aims, even if that body operates or is based outwith the region. As a result, amendment 19 ignores the importance of the agency working co-operatively with, for example, neighbouring local authorities in Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire, in spite of the committee’s strong view at stage 1 that it would want the agency to work in co-operation with them.

For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 14, in the name of Maureen Watt, which will be helpful in fostering co-operation and collaboration in an expansive way, and to reject the other amendments in the group.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

As Colin Smyth said on amendment 19, stakeholders have stressed the need for the new agency to work in a cohesive and collaborative way with existing bodies. However, his comment about a cluttered landscape is really important. With any form of collaboration, the lines of communication have to be really clear.

As a resident of Clydesdale who represents the whole South Scotland region, I take the point about working with other local authorities that are not included in the area covered by the agency, but I do not think that amendment 19 excludes anything. In fact, it is inclusive with regard to collaboration, and it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary is not prepared to support it. Including it in the bill would have brought clarity.

I do not want to add very much to what I have said about my amendment 13, but given the climate and environment emergencies that have been called, I believe that it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Scottish Government not to support it, given what it says about environmental co-operation. My amendment is not exclusive and it does not prevent social and economic co-operation. It simply emphasises the importance of this particular aspect in light of the climate emergency.

I will leave it at that, Presiding Officer. We will see where we go.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a one-minute division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.

Group 3 is on consultation on the action plan. Amendment 15, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 16 and 17.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendments 15 to 17 set out requirements and timescales for the new agency to review and consult on its action plan. During stage 2, having lodged a number of amendments on that issue, I agreed to consider the committee’s feedback on them. However, the principle remains exactly the same: consulting communities will be essential to the new agency, and I believe that the bill must include clear requirements in that regard. We need an agency that is for and very much rooted in the south of Scotland. Unless we find local solutions to the local challenges and opportunities facing the economy and communities in the region, the agency will not deliver on its aim. That means listening to the communities in the south of Scotland.

Amendment 17 would place a requirement on the new agency to consult before making its first action plan and a maximum of five years after that. It is important that the agency’s action plan is kept up to date, to ensure that it is always relevant to the needs and priorities of the region, and consulting on the plan regularly would help to achieve that. A maximum five-year window would deliver the flexibility needed to allow the agency to make plans on its own terms and to synchronise with those of other enterprise agencies. I stress that the five-year period is a maximum—we should fully expect the agency to revise its plan often enough that that upper limit does not need to be enforced and to ensure that on-going consultation and community engagement are part of its regular activity.

Local input to any consultation is essential. The agency needs to reflect the views of the people whom it serves. Amendment 17 makes it clear that the new agency would have to consult

“people who live and work in the South of Scotland, and ... businesses and public authorities that operate”

in the south of Scotland. However, I consider it crucial that local authorities in particular have the opportunity to respond, and the amendment would make provision for that in proposed new section 6A(3) by making it clear that the agency must specifically seek views from Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council. Proposed new section 6A(4) would require the agency to report on what it will do in response to the views obtained through the consultation process. In the interests of transparency, that report would have to be sent to Scottish ministers and local authorities and then laid before Parliament.

Amendments 15 and 16 are technical, and are required should amendment 17 be agreed to.

I move amendment 15.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I support amendments 15 to 17, which address key issues of whom the agency should consult, when and how often, and what it should do with the consultation findings. The amendments would give effect to key matters raised at stage 2, but without imposing an unduly bureaucratic burden on the agency.

By stating that the action plan must be reviewed at least every five years, amendment 17 will ensure that the agency’s planning cycle can be synchronised with that of the other enterprise agencies. I am pleased that the amendment also expressly states that the agency must consult those

“who live and work in the South of Scotland”,

as well as

“businesses and public authorities that operate”

in the south, including both local authorities, which are critical partners for the agency.

I hope that members will join the Government in supporting the amendments.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Section 6A—Consultation on action plan

Amendment 17 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on powers not being used to contribute to the arms trade. Amendment 1, in the name of John Finnie, is the only amendment in the group.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Throughout deliberations on and scrutiny of the bill, much has been made of Highlands and Islands Enterprise being a comparator for the new agency. Over a number of years, Scottish Green Party colleagues and I have asked about the role of public moneys provided to companies in the defence sector. In 2017, I asked a series of questions, which culminated in a meeting with the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, where she explained that—she gave a real example—just because a company is manufacturing batteries that are used in motor vehicles but could be used in tanks does not necessarily mean that they are working for the defence sector. I got a breakdown of the moneys that had been provided and I was assured that there was no promotion of such activities. Members can imagine my surprise when I received an invitation from Highlands and Islands Enterprise the following week that highlighted an event on aerospace and defence sector opportunities in the region. It said:

“Businesses in the Highlands and Islands are being invited to a free workshop to find out how the region can benefit from opportunities in the aerospace, defence, security and space industries.”

The event, which was held in Inverness, was organised by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and ADS Scotland. For members who do not know what ADS Scotland is, I will read out what it says on its website:

“ADS is one of the founding partners of the Defence Growth Partnership ... which aims to secure a thriving UK defence sector delivering long-term security, growth and prosperity for our nation. As a partnership between Industry and Government, the DGP is an important part of generating high-tech, export-led growth.”

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am listening intently to what the member is saying. Does he have any examples that relate to the south of Scotland? Why is he using an example from the Highlands and Islands?

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful that the member is listening intently to what I am saying. If she continues to do so, I hope that my reason for using the example will become clear. I started off by saying that HIE and south of Scotland enterprise are comparator bodies.

ADS Scotland’s website goes on to say:

“The DGP is working to:

Grow the UK’s global market share through increased exports Foster greater collaboration and innovation across the sector, bringing products and services to the market that meet customer needs Improve competitiveness through the whole value chain”.

At stage 2, when I lodged an amendment on the issue that covered a range of services that could be made available to the military, I was told by a number of members that it was far too expansive. Therefore, I have lodged a stage 3 amendment that mentions the word “munitions”. Members might ask where that word comes from. It is frequently cited by the Scottish Government. Last year, my colleague Ross Greer asked the Scottish Government

“what information it has regarding whether any companies that it provides financial support to have supplied weapons or equipment that might have been used in the alleged war crimes in Yemen by the Saudi Arabian air force”.

In his reply, Paul Wheelhouse said:

“The Scottish Government has not used public money to support the manufacture or export of munitions from Scotland”.—[

Written Answers

, 23 February 2018; S5W-14272.]

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The member will know that there is great support in the chamber for funding of the spaceport in Sutherland, which HIE has provided great funding for. Does Mr Finnie object to HIE funding the spaceport?

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Stewart will know that there are a number of competitions for space moneys in the Highlands, in which HIE is actively involved. I am talking about the defence sector.

When he was asked what the definition of “munitions” was, Ivan McKee said:

“The ... definition for munition is a ‘weapon or ammunition—particularly for military use’. Scotland’s enterprise agencies do not support the manufacture or export of munitions.”—[

Written Answers

, 28 September 2018; S5W-18505.]

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I understand that the member might have very different views from me on some of these issues, but does he not recognise that it is a bit odd to rule out the making of munitions for UK armed forces anywhere in the south of Scotland?

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

No, I do not think that that is remotely odd.

The subject was discussed during the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 2 consideration of the bill, when, as I mentioned, I lodged a more expansive amendment on the issue. Fergus Ewing said:

“As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions ... our enterprise agencies do not support the manufacture of munitions”.—[

Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee,

8 May 2019; c 63-4.]

If that is the case, I cannot see why there would be any issue with the Scottish Government supporting amendment 1, but I understand that it does not plan to do so.

I turn to the south of Scotland. Penman Engineering in Dumfries received funding from Scottish Enterprise. Penman’s products include armoured vehicles for military purposes. I am told that one of its products is the Penman Metras MRV, which looks similar to a Humvee. [

Interruption

.] The Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands says that it is used as an ambulance, but the company’s promotional material shows it with a machine gun mounted on the top. That is not my idea of an ambulance.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The risk of speaking from a sedentary position is that the member might mishear. I said that Penman Engineering also makes ambulances.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am a big fan of ambulances. If they can be manufactured in the south of Scotland, that is really good.

In 2012, Penman Engineering applied for an export licence for military vehicles for Saudi Arabia, and it had previously applied for export licences for military vehicles for Libya.

We are repeatedly told that diversification is what it is all about, and that is commendable.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Will the member confirm for my constituents whether he intends his amendment to rule out future funding for Penman Engineering or whether he recognises that that company does not make munitions?

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I did not quite catch the end bit. If the member reads amendment 1, he will see that I would rule out any funding for munitions, yes.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

On a further point of clarification, I am saying that Penman Engineering in Dumfries does not make munitions. Does the member agree with that point?

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I have read out the information that I have about that. If the company does not make munitions, that is good.

Given the undoubted support of the Scottish Government for no funding to be made available for munitions, it will have no difficulty supporting amendment 1.

I move amendment 1.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Amendment 1 purports to be about the arms trade, but it is not about the arms trade. In the amendment, the Greens define the arms trade as being the sale of munitions “for domestic procurement”. This is not about the arms trade, and it is a bit false to pretend that it is.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

John Finnie has had his say. He can come back later on, when he sums up.

Amendment 1 is not about the arms trade, despite what we have heard from John Finnie just now. What about domestic munitions such as shotguns for farmers and all that sort of thing? If a company making those wanted to set up in the south of Scotland, amendment 1 would run counter to that.

I spent 15 years in the Army. As long as we have an Army, it will need munitions; I hope that we all agree with that. Do the Greens not want us to have an Army with munitions? Do they not want us to have an Army at all? Let us be honest in this sort of debate.

This is a remarkably daft amendment, if I am allowed to say so, Presiding Officer. It was not supported by anybody else at stage 2 and it should not be supported by anybody other than the Greens at stage 3. I hope that we will send a resounding message that if we have an Army, it must have munitions, for goodness’ sake!

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The Conservatives will certainly not be supporting John Finnie’s amendment, particularly in light of his suggestion that it might affect companies such as Penman Engineering in Dumfries and Helmet Integrated Systems in Stranraer, which produces cutting-edge technology for helmets that go to the American air force and the gendarmes in France. Removing funding from such companies would be disastrous for the south of Scotland, not just for Stranraer.

We will not support amendment 1 because it would not achieve what John Finnie intends.

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

The purpose of the products of Helmet Integrated Systems is safety. In other words, the helmets are for protecting people from incidents that happen in the field of war.

The 100 people who are employed at Helmet Integrated Systems will be listening carefully to this debate. The idea that the south of Scotland enterprise agency should be denied the opportunity to support that company, and other innovative companies that are genuinely saving lives in the most hazardous of conditions, is insupportable.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We cannot support amendment 1, although we acknowledge Mr Finnie’s right to bring it back to Parliament.

Put simply, amendment 1 could prevent the new agency from providing support to companies in the defence sector in the south of Scotland, even for business development activities and development into other areas.

As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions. Our agencies’ support helps firms to diversify and develop non-military applications for their technology. We recognise the importance of the aerospace, defence and marine sectors in Scotland, which employ many young graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. The agencies work proactively with those sectors to help them to diversify their activities and to grow and sustain employment.

That position would apply to the new agency as well. It is important to ensure that we do not restrict the flexibility of the new agency to be able to do that work, which amendment 1 would do. The defence, aerospace and marine sectors in Scotland matter to our economy and we do not wish to damage the contribution that companies in those sectors make, or the ability to respond at a future date, should exceptional circumstances that relate to the defence of the state mean that we wish to provide support to a business to enable it to provide goods and services to the military.

I, too, will mention Helmet Integrated Systems in Stranraer, which is part of Gentex Europe. The company employs more than 100 people, who have a mixed range of skills, and is a living-wage employer. It has been based in south-west Scotland since the 1980s. It currently manufactures safety helmets for police, fire and rescue crews, as well as products for various industrial applications and specialist helmets for civil and military aircrew. In short, it provides equipment that keeps those who put themselves in the face of danger, often daily, safe. The staff use their expertise, skills and knowledge to provide high-quality equipment that those who undertake dangerous and risky work rely on to keep them safe. Far from being an employer that the Government, and indeed its enterprise agencies, should stop supporting, it is exactly the sort of business that we wish to continue to help, should the need arise in the future.

I urge members to oppose amendment 1.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

There have been some interesting contributions, but it would have been excellent if the members who contributed had actually looked at the amendment, rather than presume what it says.

For instance, Mr Rumbles somehow thought that the previous iteration of the amendment was trying to interfere with military involvement in emergencies such as flooding, and another member thought that I was trying to attack the knitwear industry in the Borders. Unless helmets are being used as weapons—and I do not think that any of us would suggest that—I wish all the companies that have been mentioned every success.

Of course, the word “diversification” is bandied about a lot, and we were told in an official answer that Lockheed Martin, which is the largest arms manufacturer in the world, is an information technology company that is based in Aberdeen.

The mantra of the Green Party is people, planet and peace. By supporting the amendment, members will have an opportunity to do something positive. I hope that members take that opportunity.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 107, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 19 moved—[Colin Smyth].