Scottish Parliament, 18 June 2019

349 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Good afternoon. Our first item of business is time for reflection, for which our leader is Father Mark Kelly, parish priest for the parish communities of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour in Beith, St Brigid’s in Kilbirnie and St Palladius in Dalry.

Father Mark Kelly (Parish Priest, the Parish Communities of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Beith; St. Brigid’s, Kilbirnie; and St. Palladius, Dalry)

Presiding O?cer and members of the Scottish Parliament, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Jesus said:

“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

In addition to my parish duties, I am chaplain to a large Catholic secondary school, where I work with the young people and experience their joys and sorrows and their hopes and fears, as well as supporting the sta? who educate the next generation and help it to grow and ?ourish. I therefore speak from experience when I invite you to re?ect on what I describe as the current crisis in teenage and young adult mental health. It is undoubtedly a positive development for us as a society that physical health issues and mental health issues now have parity of esteem and that much of the stigma or taboo about mental health has been lessened, but that welcome change has had unintended consequences.

First, since that long overdue development has happened relatively rapidly, it has meant that the way in which we address and open ourselves up to the challenges in mental health has involved a fairly steep learning curve. Secondly, while ignoring our mental health is disastrous, addressing it in an unstructured or uncontrolled fashion can also be damaging. Thirdly, I fear that the unique fragility and vulnerability of teenagers and young adults during this societal change have yet to be fully recognised in the overall positive step of us all being more willing to discuss and seek to address mental health concerns.

A rapid, unfocused and general opening up of mental health has left some feeling adrift or overwhelmed—albeit that that has never been anyone’s intention or policy—and that disconnect is particularly acute among the young. In addition to the provision of extra support for those who are in immediate crises, I invite you to consider what can be done to provide progressive and long-term developmental help so that all children can gradually adapt into this field as they become teenagers and young adults.

I thank you for the opportunity to address you and I wish you success in your deliberations as you seek to enhance the common good of all while leaving no one behind. Please be assured of people’s continued gratitude and good wishes—and, from those of faith, prayers—for you and the good work that you do. May God bless you all.

Football (Sectarianism)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it has reportedly agreed with the Scottish Professional Football League to keep information regarding the extent of sectarianism at football confidential, and whether it will publish this data. (S5T-01718)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I strongly agree that we need robust data to understand unacceptable conduct at football and to take the necessary action to address it. The data is collated by the football authorities, not by the Scottish Government, and was provided only on the basis that it is

“confidential and is not published.”

However, our clear and consistent preference has been for the data to be published. Therefore, I have spoken to SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster today to reiterate that point once again, and I will follow it up in writing. He and the SPFL have committed to discuss the matter at the next board meeting.

It is only through open and honest discussion, based on robust evidence, that we can work with all our partners to tackle the unacceptable conduct by a minority of spectators that, unfortunately, continues to shame our national game.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The recommendation from Professor Duncan Morrow could not be clearer: ministers, football authorities and the police should work together on the monitoring of sectarian incidents, and findings should be

“published annually to allow for a genuine debate about the extent of sectarian behaviour and attitudes in football”.

A joint Liberal Democrat and Nil By Mouth investigation shows that the Government reached agreement with the SPFL and the football authorities have been collating data for the past two seasons in secret. Nobody but ministers and the police has ever seen the data, and they never will unless something changes. Will the cabinet secretary rip up the secrecy agreement and publish, today, the contents of the sectarianism database in full?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I recognise Liam McArthur’s interest—and the general public’s interest—in the issue. I agree that the data should be published. That is not only the view that I hold, as the cabinet secretary for the past year; it was the view of my predecessor, with whom the agreement was reached, who wrote to Neil Doncaster in 2017. His letter, a copy of which I have given to the Scottish Parliament information centre, said:

“It is difficult to see how the building of public confidence can be achieved without being open and transparent with the data gathered. I am therefore disappointed that the data gathered will not be publicly available and I hope that you will reconsider this decision.”

The serious point—I know that Liam McArthur understands this—is that the data is not the Scottish Government’s data; it is data that is collated by match officials. The proviso in the agreement that was reached was that, if we wanted to have the data, it must be confidential and could not be published. It is not in my gift to rip up, as the member suggests, an agreement with a stakeholder, because doing so could be actionable.

Instead, I have spoken to Neil Doncaster this morning and asked him once again to reconsider the SPFL’s objection to publishing the data. In fairness to Neil Doncaster, he took a very constructive approach during our telephone conversation, and he has agreed to put the suggestion forward at the next board meeting. Through such dialogue, I hope that the data will be readily published. However, I hope that the member understands that it is not within my gift to rip up the agreement and publish the data today.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It seems inconceivable that the Government would sign up to an arrangement that means that it has, in effect, been gagged by the SPFL. The Scottish Government’s independent commission asked for the data to be recorded and published annually to inform a proper public debate. It is impossible to have serious conversations about options such as strict liability if the figures are kept secret. That calls into question how seriously those who have the data are working to lift the curse that is affecting Scottish football. I, too, would like to hear from Neil Doncaster, because the SPFL’s response to date has been, frankly, pathetic. Is it not the case that, if the SPFL’s response to sectarianism is dependent on secrecy and gagging orders, it does not deserve to be running the game?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I say to Liam McArthur, once again, that we are in agreement that the data should be published. There is no disagreement on that point. However, for us to get the data, which has helped us to focus on where our interventions should be and to focus our discussion on what he rightly calls the “curse” of our national game, we had to agree that it would not be published. It is not our data to publish; the data is collected by match officials and it belongs to clubs, the SPFL and—in relation to cup games—the Scottish Football Association.

I had a very positive conversation with Neil Doncaster this morning. As I said, he is taking the suggestion forward to his board, and I hope that his board will see sense on the issue by agreeing to publish the data.

I could mention a number of projects, including the one that Liam McArthur mentioned, that we are funding to lift the curse from our game. The Government has taken action. The Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 was part of that action, but Parliament chose to repeal it. We will continue to intervene when we think that it is appropriate to do so. Once again, I agree with Liam McArthur that there should be transparency. Therefore, my wish and desire is for the SPFL and the SFA to publish the data.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

People feel as though this is secret Scotland again. It feels to them as though not only is the SPFL keeping the dossier secret, the

Scottish National Party

Government is sticking by it in not forcing its hand, while admittedly making the right noises. They feel that sectarianism is being swept under the carpet.

Is there a signed agreement not to publish, which could be—to use Liam McArthur’s words—ripped up? Can the cabinet secretary promise that there are no other instances of the

SNP

Government covering up or withholding information in this way?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The hyperbole with which the member asks the question does the issue a disservice. The data belongs to the SPFL—it belongs to the clubs. The only way in which we could get the data was by signing an agreement not to publish it. That data has helped us to plan our interventions.

I say again that my predecessor as justice secretary, Michael Matheson, who is sitting on my right, wrote to the SPFL in 2017 saying very clearly that our position was that the data should be released. Indeed, he expressed the hope that the SPFL would reconsider its decision not to release the data. As I said, if we were to release the data, that could be actionable.

We understand that there is a real public interest in this issue and we absolutely understand why that is the case. The onus is on the SPFL to reflect on its position. It has said that it will; Neil Doncaster has said that the issue will be presented at the next board meeting and I hope for a positive conclusion from that.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

As the cabinet secretary is aware, I have been leading a campaign for Scottish football clubs and authorities to introduce strict liability to crack down on trouble from fans.

Although I am looking at introducing legislation to achieve that, it has always been my preference for Scottish football to implement the measure itself. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about his discussion with Neil Doncaster, but does the cabinet secretary not agree with me that it is incumbent on the SPFL and the SFA to publish their data? If they do not, people will continue to think that Scottish football believes that it is a law unto itself and has real inclination to make the necessary changes to clean up the game, or they will think that Scottish football has something to hide. Will the cabinet secretary continue to push the SPFL and the SFA to release these figures before that something to hide starts to look like something serious to hide?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The SPFL and the SFA would do well to reflect on just how they will be viewed not just by parliamentarians but by the public on this issue if they are not as open and transparent as I and, clearly, the Parliament would like them to be with the data. That is an important point.

On the flipside, I will say to James Dornan that I have had some positive and constructive conversations with the SFA, the SPFL and wider stakeholders in football, from the Professional Footballers Association Scotland and the referees associations to supporters organisations and individual clubs. From my conversations with them, I detect a desire to do something about unacceptable conduct. Of course, what people think should be done varies. However, I will take those conversations forward.

I reiterate that we want the SPFL to publish this data; I hope that it will and I hope that it comes to that conclusion at its next board meeting.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

To ensure that there is a positive and constructive discussion about tackling unacceptable conduct and promoting a positive, supportive experience, all verified and accurate data should be in the public domain.

It is fair to say that the engagement from some clubs and football authorities has been inadequate in recent times, so what action is the Government taking to ensure that clubs and football authorities engage more positively in this debate in order to ensure a more positive atmosphere across football?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank James Kelly for the constructive manner in which he asked that question. I have taken a range of actions; there have been many lessons to learn over the years on how we approach this subject. I am trying to take as many people as possible with us on that journey. James Kelly will understand that there is a range of views on how to tackle unacceptable conduct, including the option of strict liability.

I have had some good ideas; I am happy to talk to James Kelly offline about the lay of the land among the clubs and the various stakeholders. However, we are starting to build a coalition of those who are building consensus about what we need to do. Those conversations will continue. I hope to have those conversations well into the summer, ahead of the start of the new season.

I detect that there is some movement and there is a willingness to take action, but I agree with James Kelly’s central premise that whatever we do should be done in an open and transparent way. Therefore, I hope that the SPFL will reflect on this session in the chamber and that it will come to a positive conclusion at its next board meeting and release the data into the public domain.

Caledonian Sleeper Service

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

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Serco regarding the recent disruption to the Caledonian sleeper service. (S5T-01727)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Government is in daily dialogue with Caledonian sleeper on the issue and receives daily updates on train operations and new train status. The current disruption has been caused by damage to train wheels following an incident last Tuesday night, forcing withdrawal of a number of carriages. Caledonian sleeper is contacting affected passengers with service updates and with the offer of alternative travel or refunds. We anticipate that services will return to the normal schedule by the end of this week.

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

Is the technical fault with the carriage wheels believed to be a result of a one-off incident or a design flaw, or is there some other reason?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Although Serco has yet to reach a 100 per cent certain conclusion on the matter, its initial finding is that the cause of the incident leading to

the wheel damage was incorrect setting up of the train control and management system, rather than a technical failure. Serco is continuing to investigate the matter.

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

Does customer feedback on the new sleeper rolling stock indicate that the service will continue to be an important contributor to our tourism industry once we have put the current difficulties behind us?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Although there have been teething problems with the new rolling stock, there is positive feedback from passengers. Caledonian sleeper reports that, in the four-week period from the launch of the new trains on 28 April, sale levels were 13 per cent higher than in previous years. There is no doubt in my mind that the new rolling stock on the Caledonian sleeper is increasing the confidence of those seeking to make use of the service. I have absolutely no doubt that the service will continue to be a significant contributor to tourism and the wider economy in the years ahead.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will agree that new services invariably have teething issues. Serco is not the only company that has suffered from manufacturing issues in delivering new carriages and services. I hope that there is a shared desire among all members for the new service to succeed and to deliver for passengers on both sides of the border.

Will the cabinet secretary give an update on discussions with the operator about the Fort William and Inverness routes? The new carriages were due to come into play, but I believe that that has been delayed. When will the new service come on line? What further measures will the Government take to ensure that all Scotland benefits from the new carriages?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is not uncommon for technical problems to occur with new rolling stock. Indeed, not just on the railways but in any walk of life, there can be technical issues when new equipment—such as boats or aeroplanes—is initially rolled out.

At present, Serco advises that it continues to expect the final introduction of the carriages on the Highlander service to be on 7 July this year, which was the timeframe that Serco initially set. The delay in all this has been down to CAF, which is responsible for manufacturing the new rolling stock—there has been a significant delay in that. The carriages were to be introduced in April last year, but CAF’s failure has resulted in a marked delay.

I know that the member has made use of the new facilities on the Caledonian sleeper, which are far superior to the previous facilities and which will provide a very good service for the years ahead. As it stands, Serco expects the new Highlander service to be introduced on 7 July.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The sleeper service has been plagued by the late delivery of rolling stock. Almost a third of new services have been late or cancelled and workers are on the verge of strike action because of rising stress levels. Does the cabinet secretary accept that it is another example of a rail franchise in which a private firm has overpromised and underdelivered, despite significant levels of taxpayers’ money being invested? Does not that highlight the failure of the franchise system itself?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It will come as no surprise to Colin Smyth to hear that I am not a fan of the use of franchising in rail services and wish that the Scottish Parliament had the power to change it. I hope that Mr Smyth will support the Scottish Government in making a case to the Williams review so that, in future, the Parliament might choose the best route for providing rail services in Scotland, which would not necessarily include franchising.

Mr Smyth will recognise that the primary reason for the delay has been the performance of CAF, the manufacturers of the new carriages, which has had a marked impact on Serco’s ability to roll out the new sleeper service. Serco is pursuing with CAF the technical issues that have been identified with the new rolling stock, but the franchise agreement contains penalties to deal with issues such as delays. The issues with CAF are matters for Serco to pursue, but arrangements are in place to apply penalties to Serco for its failure to deliver the services that it undertook to deliver under the franchise agreement.

Tourism Businesses (North-east)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what consultations it has had with tourism businesses in the north-east regarding factors that can impact on the effectiveness of their operation. (S5O-03397)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

First of all, Presiding Officer, I wish you, and all members in the chamber, a happy Linlithgow marches day. Long live Linlithgow and long live the marches.

The Scottish Government recognises the growing importance of tourism to the north-east’s economy and is committed to its sustainable development. In March, I had the pleasure of visiting Aberdeen and of giving the keynote address at VisitAberdeenshire’s conference, at which I met and heard at first hand from key individuals in the industry about not only the issues that they face but the area’s wider ambition. We will, of course, continue to engage with all stakeholders, including those in the tourism sector, in delivering our policies and functions.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Recently, Charles Skene, the founder of the Skene Group and a key individual in the industry, warned of the devastating impact that the Scottish National Party’s approach to business rates is having on his and other hospitality businesses in the north-east. Has the Scottish Government considered the effect of such policies on the north-east’s tourism economy? If so, what does it propose to do about it?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In Scotland, the poundage for 2019-20 will be set at 49p, which is an increase lower than the rate of inflation. That will ensure that, next year, more than 90 per cent of properties in Scotland will pay a lower poundage than they would in other parts of the United Kingdom. In 2019-20, we will also continue to offer the most generous package of reliefs in the UK, which is worth more than £750 million. We will also maintain the unique business growth accelerator, which encourages new business investment by

temporarily suspending rates liabilities on new-build properties and non-domestic property improvements. Further, we will continue to apply transitional relief for all but the very largest hospitality industry organisations in Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire until 2022. That means a 12.5 per cent real-terms annual cap, which is confirmation that we value the hospitality sector across Scotland, but especially in the area that Mr Kerr represents. Not only are our business rates generally competitive; we offer additional support for the tourism sector in Aberdeen. Some of the higher-end organisations in the hospitality sector might have their own issues, but I say to Mr Kerr that the vast majority of tourism and hospitality businesses in the north-east welcome those measures.

Historic Environment Scotland (Foreign Visitor Numbers)

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the percentage change in foreign visitor numbers at Historic Environment Scotland sites has been since 2014. (S5O-03398)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Historic Environment Scotland’s general visitor numbers have been steadily increasing since 2014. The number of overseas visitors to sites in its care has increased by an estimated 41 per cent in five years. That figure, which is based on visitor sampling across the estate, clearly indicates the growth of the organisation’s international market in recent years. The reduction in the value of the pound since 2016 and the expansion of passenger numbers through Edinburgh airport are two of the driving forces behind the increase. Historic Environment Scotland seeks to maintain that by working with partners, communities and stakeholders to develop a strategic vision and plans for prioritised sites.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I welcome the higher figures for visitors to historic sites, which are a welcome boost to our economy, especially locally, with a number of such sites having benefited from being film locations for United States-financed dramas such as “Outlander”. However, the cabinet secretary will be aware of an increase—in both her constituency and mine—in the number of foreign visitors visiting film locations at points of historic interest, which has resulted in increased traffic on local roads. Is she aware of any plans that Historic Environment Scotland or the National Trust for Scotland might have to erect “keep left” signs at exits from their properties, similar to those that are located at sea ports and airports and on tourist routes, to act as a reminder to foreign drivers who might be unfamiliar with driving in Scotland and the wider UK?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The National Trust for Scotland is, of course, independent of the Scottish Government.

I am aware of the issue, and I have contacted Historic Environment Scotland about local issues in my constituency.

Transport Scotland is not aware of any general plans to install “keep left” signs at properties. Before anything was to be placed on a public road, consultation with the roads authorities would be required. However, the member may be aware that, yesterday, at Urquhart castle, Police Scotland and road safety Scotland launched a new campaign to remind tourists to drive on the left. The campaign, which coincides with the peak tourism season, encourages visitors to enjoy Scottish roads safely.

A new-look tourist information leaflet on driving in Scotland will be distributed when people pick up hire cars, and an electronic version will be issued at the time of booking. In addition, “drive on the left” wrist bands in multiple languages, which are to be worn on the left wrist by drivers, will be distributed via car rental companies to remind and prompt visitors to keep left.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Although it is good news that Historic Environment Scotland has seen a 5 per cent increase in visitor numbers in the past year, with Blackness castle having seen a 36 per cent increase, that will add to the infrastructure and maintenance costs at sites. Over the past two years, Historic Environment Scotland has seen a 12 per cent cut in its budget, and, although the increased revenue is important, it does not compensate for that reduction.

What discussions is the cabinet secretary having with the heritage sector about its ability to meet visitor demand, including for improved accessibility?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As we speak, the eastern borders of Linlithgow are being inspected at Blackness, which is the port for the town. As the member said, there has been a major increase in visitor numbers, which is related to “Outlander”.

Last week, at Doune castle, which doubles as Castle Leoch in “Outlander”, I announced the latest round of our rural tourism infrastructure fund, which exists precisely to make sure that there is added investment. Doune village will be better connected to the castle so that it can benefit from the increasing tourist numbers. Given the

increasing pressure of numbers, we are working with local communities across the country to ensure that there is infrastructure such as car parking, facilities, signage and paths.

Historic Environment Scotland’s overall spend has been maintained, partly because it has seen an increase in visitor numbers and, indeed, because the generation of its external funding has increased. We are very conscious of that. However, I stress that, at a time of difficult financial pressures, we have managed to maintain the grant funding that Historic Environment Scotland gives to others. It has been able to maintain its investment precisely because of the increased tourist numbers complemented by the investment by the Scottish Government.

In recent years, the Scottish Government has, for the first time, provided capital investment to Historic Environment Scotland specifically to help with its infrastructure needs. That has been welcomed by the Historic Environment Scotland board.

Edinburgh Festivals (Artists’ Visas)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it is aware of any action being taken to ensure that the Edinburgh festivals do not experience the same difficulties as last year regarding complex visa rules faced by some artists. (S5O-03399)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

At the end of last month, I was pleased to close the members’ business debate on the important topic of visa issues for festivals. For the benefit of those who were not in the chamber on that day, I repeat that I have written to the Home Secretary as well as to other ministers, inviting their attendance at an international festivals visa summit here, in Edinburgh. I have reiterated that a better solution for visiting artists, performers and others must be integral to any future immigration system.

The United Kingdom Government’s current visa application process for visitors who come to Scotland for our festivals is lengthy and complex, and there is a catalogue of examples of poor decision making. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland’s voice and that of our internationally renowned festivals is heard in the discussion on the future immigration system.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for her efforts to address the problem. The issue needs to be addressed for the long term. Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on the UK Government to make the visa process for this year’s festivals more transparent and

to allow festival organisers a chance to put any errors or omissions right before a visa refusal is received?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I will, indeed. We have reminded the Home Office that it needs to address that for this year, not just for future years. The member will have heard about the real concern of two Indian artists who have come as part of a UK-India cultural exchange programme, which was set up by the UK Government with funding from the British Council, Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government. Paragon, a charity that promotes Scottish inclusive music and dance, was involved in that particular programme.

The galling thing is that the artists’ non-disabled colleagues from the charitable foundation in Chennai, who were travelling to Glasgow with them to support them, were granted entry without any trouble but the two young artists were not. We are looking into the issue and we are asking the Home Office to look into it. As of now, and as of this weekend, we are continuing to see the issues that are faced by cultural artists who want to come and perform here. They should be made welcome, and we should celebrate our international musical connections. The Home Office really must pay special attention to those issues this year.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I am aware that we are well over halfway through portfolio questions time-wise but not question-wise, so I ask members to be a bit sharper, please.

Remembering Srebrenica Scotland (Meetings)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Remembering Srebrenica Scotland and what was discussed. (S5O-03400)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

There are regular discussions with

Remembering Srebrenica Scotland on all matters of interest. Most recently, we discussed how ministers could participate in its lessons from Srebrenica delegations. I understand that Ms Todd, the Minister for Children and Young People, attended earlier this month. The First Minister visited Srebrenica in 2016 and described it as an incredibly powerful experience. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of learning from what happened so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Last week, I was in Sarajevo. In 1984, it hosted the Olympic games and was seen as a multi-ethnic, multifaith city. By 1992, it was a city under siege. In the four years that followed, 160,000 people lost their lives. In these times of rising division and prejudice, can the cabinet secretary set out how we are learning lessons from that in our classrooms and communities across the country? It was best put by Rashad, a survivor, who said:

“We must not just live next to each other but live with each other. We must stop the ‘us v. them’ and the othering, and we must speak out against prejudice no matter whenever or wherever it takes place.”

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I followed the member’s own contribution to his visit with interest. The message is one of how rapidly a community and a society can descend into hate, and that is something that we must all learn from. I know that other colleagues are pursuing the issues in relation to classrooms and communities.

On the matter of bringing people together, the point that it is not a case of “us v them” is precisely the message that we have put into our “We are Scotland” campaign on social media, to ensure that we, as a Government, stand firm. Standing firm and showing leadership at this time is so important. In the society that we live in, what has been fomented by some in the far right in this country, in particular, should lead us to be always vigilant. That means tackling issues up front rather than when they actually arise. As we have seen in other countries, a society can descend into such situations very quickly, and we should definitely guard against that.

Tourism Careers

Tom Mason (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support the tourism industry in championing the sector as a career destination of choice. (S5O-03401)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government has committed to promoting tourism as a career of choice and has set aside £100,000 to develop a campaign to support that commitment. The campaign will build on the existing tourism skills investment plan led by Skills Development Scotland. It aims to address existing and future skills challenges across the sector, particularly those that will arise as a result of exiting the European Union. The Scottish Government has also engaged with the Poverty Alliance, with the aim of increasing payment of the living wage and enhancing fair work practices within the sector in order to support that aim.

Tom Mason (Conservative, North East Scotland)

A vital part of encouraging people to work in tourism is ensuring that people are studying courses on the industry at further and higher education levels. However, according to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, in North East Scotland College in 2017-18 2,648 people were enrolled in health studies courses, 748 were doing hair or personal care courses and only 178 were studying tourism. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need more people to take tourism courses? What does she plan to do to make that happen?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

That is precisely why we are having a campaign to promote tourism as a career of choice. As Tom Mason might be aware, the number of young people is reducing, so we need to encourage people of all ages into the tourism sector. However, the sector is, of course, in competition with the health sector, among others. It is therefore more important than ever that we embark on such a campaign, and that we have champions who can show how tourism can be a very successful career choice. People can go very far in the sector at a very young age, which should make it very attractive to that market.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take a short supplementary from Stuart McMillan.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

How will the tourism sector be affected by Brexit and visa restrictions?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The sector will be severely restricted. Six of our 10 key markets are in the European Union, and 12 per cent of our workforce are non-UK EU nationals. It is essential that we retain those who are already here and that we make clear their importance to our society and economy, but we also need a future pipeline of EU nationals. The current United Kingdom immigration white paper, which I sincerely hope is withdrawn and rewritten, proposes a £30,000 minimum salary, which will cause severe issues and difficulties in recruiting into the sector in the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I call Willie Rennie, I have to point out that we are not going to get to the end of the questions, which is a mark of people giving statements as well as asking questions, and of rather long answers, too.

Scottish Fisheries Museum

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to the Scottish fisheries museum in Anstruther. (S5O-03402)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government continues to provide support to the Scottish fisheries museum. In the current financial year, a total of £109,000 has been allocated to the museum, with £75,000 for operational costs and £34,000 for capital expenditure. In 2018-19, the museum received additional in-year funding of £75,000 and a further £330,000 to assist in the refit of the museum’s flagship, Reaper, bringing the total investment from the Scottish Government to £830,000.

The museum celebrates its 50th anniversary this year, and I look forward to joining the celebrations, which will begin on 4 July with Reaper returning to its home port of Anstruther.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I declare an interest as a trustee of the museum.

The cabinet secretary is right to highlight the fact that the national museum has been going for 50 years. It is grateful for the support that the Scottish Government has provided in that time—not just to the museum but to the Reaper. The special occasion will be marked by a number of special events, including a flotilla of up to 50 boats in early July.

Will the cabinet secretary set out whether there are any further opportunities for the museum to engage in the wider community across Scotland in order to ensure that communities can engage with our seas and the fishing industry?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Willie Rennie is quite right to advertise that fantastic celebration, in which I hope everyone can take part. However, we have to do more. At yesterday’s strategic historic environment forum meeting, we had a session on industrial heritage, with a particular focus on how we might engage more people in sites and museums such as the fisheries museum to ensure that they know about the very rich heritage that we have not just in places in Fife, but further afield.

Tayside Tourist Numbers

Bill Bowman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it plans of the impacts on tourist numbers in Tayside. (S5O-03403)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I was very pleased to speak at the Dundee and Angus tourism conference in March last year, which brought together the area’s tourism interests and bodies, with a focus on the wider tourism opportunities ahead. We understand from figures supplied by the Moffat centre that visitor numbers in the Dundee and Angus area have increased 13.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year compared with last, and that the V&A Dundee has had a wider impact by supporting visitor numbers elsewhere.

VisitScotland is supporting businesses and local authorities in the Tayside area in developing a regional tourism strategy.

Bill Bowman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Although Tayside has international attractions including the V&A, there are no international air connections from Dundee airport. Given the millions of pounds that it has poured into Prestwick airport without that figure being matched in Dundee, will the Scottish Government commit to investing in Dundee airport in order to bring international tourists to the heart of Tayside?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am not the transport secretary, but Bill Bowman is correct to highlight the importance of bringing in direct flights, wherever they come from. Some creative work has been done for some airports in that respect. As tourism secretary, I would support the suggestion, but I cannot tell the member about any particular plans. If colleagues can contribute anything in that regard, we will communicate that to the member.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take a very quick question from Kenneth Gibson.

Còig Tourist Trail

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with devising and implementing the Còig tourism trail. (S5O-03404)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In January, I announced £300,000 from the Scottish Government to support Còig feasibility work, and that money has enabled the establishment of a partnership steering group between industry and North Ayrshire Council. We are also providing North Ayrshire Council with a further £400,000 for 2019-20 to progress the project.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Extremely quickly, please, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for the financial support. The Còig—the Five—is expected to attract an additional 80,000 visitors to North Ayrshire next year, supporting 168 jobs and allowing for an extra £4.5 million of economic impact.

Will the cabinet secretary expand on how the timescales for the devising and implementation of the

Còig tie in with 2020 being the year of Scotland’s coasts and waters?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I understand that the Ayrshire tourism action plan, called “Making Waves in North Ayrshire”, runs from 2018 to 2020. Of course, we have designated next year as the year of coasts and waters, which is a fantastic opportunity to advertise the Còig and to ensure that people visit Ayrshire to celebrate everything that it has to offer—maritime and otherwise.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was not bad. That concludes portfolio questions.

Cycling Action Plan

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the cycling action plan for Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on the cycling action plan for Scotland and the work that we are doing in partnership to realise the active travel vision. The Government remains strongly committed to delivering an active nation, and the vision of Scotland’s communities being shaped around people, with walking and cycling the most popular choices for everyday short journeys.

The “Cycling Action Plan for Scotland” was originally published in 2010. It set out a shared vision that, by 2020, 10 per cent of all journeys in Scotland would be by bike. That vision was intended to be bold, aspirational and challenging. We have seen significant progress in some areas, such as cycle commuting in Edinburgh, which is now at 9.8 per cent. However, progress towards the overall figure has been slow, and it is unlikely to be met by 2020. We recognised some time ago that the speed of change was not good enough. That is why, last year, we doubled Transport Scotland’s active travel budget from £39 million to £80 million.

In order to make best use of that investment to bring about the transformative change that is needed, we are working with our partners to develop a monitoring framework. It will define a range of important outcomes, including to ensure that cycling is accessible to all, and to improve safety, health, the economy and the environment. The framework will be a key new measure to drive forward active travel policy, and it will inform on-going work with our partners on developing a reliable and nationally consistent way of measuring progress towards 2020. We are also undertaking a broad programme of analytical work and engagement with our delivery partners to better understand where we and others are succeeding in making progress, and to apply those lessons elsewhere.

With the doubling of Transport Scotland’s active travel budget, we have levels of investment in active travel that match our ambitions. Including match funding from local authorities, Scotland’s investment in walking and cycling in 2018-19 was £135 million, which is more than £25 per capita. That is far more investment than there is in the rest of the United Kingdom, and a similar level of investment to that of our northern European neighbours, such as the Netherlands and Denmark.

As well as our £80 million of active travel funding, we have allocated a further £5 million for sustainable travel behaviour change projects. We also offer £950,000 worth of loan funding for electric bikes, and we have secured a further £7.6 million from the European regional development fund for low carbon and active travel hubs. We have used those increased budgets to step up support for local authorities to build safe, segregated walking and cycling infrastructure, and to expand and improve our behaviour change programme. That integrated approach is crucial—evidence shows that combining training and advocacy with high-quality infrastructure and places that are designed for people is the best way to enable more people to walk and cycle for everyday journeys.

We see some signs of progress. As well as the increase in cycling in Edinburgh, we have seen similar increases in Glasgow, Moray and Highland council areas, and 10 per cent of people who live in small remote towns cycle at least once a week as a means of transport.

Since 2011, more than a quarter of a million schoolchildren have participated in Cycling Scotland’s bikeability Scotland cycle training. The percentage of schools participating has risen from 29 to 42 per cent, and nearly 500 schools have received cycling friendly status through Cycling Scotland’s cycling friendly scheme.

All that is before the effects of our record capital investment are truly being felt.

It will take time to build the quality, transformational places and infrastructure that we need. It is important that we take the time to work with communities to ensure that the projects are right, but we will look at ways to streamline the process.

Last year, we invested £36 million in Sustrans’ community links programme and a further £9 million to commence the design of six larger, ambitious and high-quality segregated cycling infrastructure projects. I look forward to seeing the first of those—the south city way in Glasgow—being delivered in 2019.

This year, I am delighted to announce that we are allocating a record £51 million from our active travel budget for 2019 to our new, combined infrastructure programme called places for everyone, which is administered on our behalf by Sustrans. As part of the programme, 10 ambitious projects are being considered for large-scale, multiyear funding. So far, Sustrans has received funding bids from 30 local authorities for segregated paths, improvements to the public realm and projects that would make our towns and cities safer and friendlier places in which to live, work and spend time. We hope to announce those projects in the next few months.

However, it is important to recognise that investment in active travel facilities and behaviour change projects will not, on its own, bring about the step change that we want. In all this Government’s work—on bus services and public transport more generally, health and wellbeing, planning, the environment and climate change—we need to consider how we can support active travel.

The broader, more strategic approach will be supported by the national transport strategy and the second strategic transport policy review. Both will set out a compelling vision for the transport system that we want for Scotland over the next 20 years and the type and scale of interventions that we will deliver to achieve that.

The draft national transport strategy, which we will consult on this summer, sets four priority areas: taking climate action, improving our health and wellbeing, promoting equality and helping our economy prosper. Those priorities recognise the importance of enabling people to make active travel choices to improve their health and wellbeing.

The Transport (Scotland) Bill will be an enabler of change. It aims to improve journeys for people across the country by supporting the development of a cleaner, smarter and more accessible network. By seeking to improve bus services and introducing low-emission zones, it promotes active and sustainable travel and, for cyclists, the prohibitions on double parking will assist in keeping roadways clear.

In addition, we have agreed to support a Scottish Greens’ amendment to the bill to enable local authorities to introduce workplace parking levy schemes. That would be a discretionary power. It has the potential to encourage modal shift towards public transport and active travel, including by supporting improvements to transport infrastructure and services in local areas to provide alternatives to car use.

Better integration between modes is important. Buses have a key role to play in joining up active journeys and in spreading the benefits of active travel more widely. If integrated active travel infrastructure and bus routes offer people faster, easier, healthier and more sustainable means of getting to their destination, they are much more likely to use them, and I am keen to see how the new internal bike racks introduced by Borders Buses earlier this year will be taken up.

On rail, ScotRail has delivered more than 1,500 additional cycle spaces at stations and provided bike & Go cycle hire facilities at 12 stations across Scotland. Overall, 97 per cent of stations have cycle parking, with more than 5,000 customer cycle spaces in total.

On climate change, this Government reacted to the declaration of a global climate emergency with amendments to our Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to set a net zero target for 2045 and to increase the target for 2030 to 70 per cent.

Scotland already has an ambitious agenda for decarbonising transport, but transport is Scotland’s biggest emitting sector, and it is clear that further action will be required to meet the new targets.

The Scottish Government is committed to making Scotland an active nation, and we are now matching that ambition with record levels of funding. There are positive signs of progress, but less than we would like and there is much more for us to do. I am confident that our ambitious programme of active travel investment will play a key part in delivering the greener, safer, happier and healthier Scotland that we all want to see.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement, for around 20 minutes. A lot of members wish to ask questions, so questions and answers will have to be concise if we are to get through them.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will start by being positive and thanking the cabinet secretary for his statement. However, the reality is that, in this

1,230-word statement, there is little to be cheerful about. Quite simply, we learned from it that, on the Transport (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish National Party confirmed its support for the much-critiqued and hated car park tax; and, on active travel, it announced an £80 million budget that we already knew about but which has been miraculously reannounced today. Further—this is the big announcement—we learned that there will be continued funding for a policy that we already know about, delivered by an agency that we already know and funded by a budget that has already been announced.

Perhaps the real news today, buried away in the statement, is the cabinet secretary’s admission that the Government will spectacularly fail to meet its flagship cycling action plan target of 10 per cent of journeys being made by bike. Let us give the minister a chance to give some substance to his statement. What percentage of journeys does he expect to be made by bike by the original 2020 target? When does he expect the 10 per cent target to be met? If, after 10 years, his current cycling action plan has failed, will he publish a new one, and, if so, when?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As it stands, around 4 per cent of journeys are made by cycling, in the way that was set out in the plan. That is a record level, but it is clearly very far from the target that was set when the action plan was published in 2010, which illustrates the need for us to take further action on the matter. That is why I am putting in place a framework in order for us to monitor implementation and ensure that there is a much greater focus on the outcomes that are being achieved as part of the plan. In addition, we are undertaking a review of the existing cycling action plan, which is being conducted by Cycling Scotland and will inform our thinking about what further actions we need to take as part of that review.

The member suggested that the announcement of £80 million was a reannouncement. It is important to recognise that we are talking about a record level of funding that is being invested in active travel. Given that that funding is match funded by local authorities, it represents a significant amount of on-going investment in active travel—the highest level in any part of the UK. We need to ensure that we start to see the benefits that come from that capital investment in order to encourage people to make greater use of active travel options when they are travelling.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

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

Almost 10 years ago, the Government set a target to increase the share of everyday journeys that are made by bike to 10 per cent by 2020. Since then, the proportion of all journeys that are taken by bike has increased by just 0.7 per cent to a woeful 1.5 per cent. It is difficult to imagine that we will reach even half the level of the Government’s target by 2020. That failure needs to act as a wake-up call to the Government.

I welcome today’s announcement about the places for everyone infrastructure programme. Consideration of significant projects for funding will be essential if we are to increase the active travel rate in Scotland. However, given the climate emergency that we face and the slow progress in increasing the number of journeys that are made by bike, does the cabinet secretary accept that all viable projects in the programme, and not just a select few, should be funded?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is important that we recognise the need to take concerted action to tackle the climate emergency, including by ensuring that local authorities have the power to take forward measures that can assist them in tackling issues that relate to climate change.

I hope that the member will reflect on what I think was a knee-jerk response from the Labour Party to the proposal to give local authorities powers to introduce the workplace parking levy, given that I understand that such a policy was in the Labour local government manifesto for the Glasgow area at the most recent elections, in recognition of the levy being an important measure that can assist in tackling issues to do with climate change, air quality and modal shift. No doubt we will see the colour of Labour’s money tomorrow, when the amendments to the Transport (Scotland) Bill in that regard are considered; we will find out how committed Labour is to tackling the climate emergency.

I assure the member that we have made record investment in active travel infrastructure and maintained that this year. The proportion that is going to capital investment projects has increased as well, to support the transformational change in infrastructure that we need, which is a key part of what is necessary to address the low number of individuals who take up active travel options. We will continue to do that, and for local authorities that want to make additional investment, there is the option of using the workplace parking levy and investing the money that comes from it in their local areas. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not want to cut people off—[

Interruption

.] Mr Smyth, please be quiet.

I do not want to cut people off mid-stream, so please be concise with your questions and answers.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Cabinet secretary, there was more spin in your statement than you will see in a peloton. You have a vision for 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike by next year, and you have declared a climate emergency, yet you have announced nothing new beyond more monitoring and analysis. You even failed to acknowledge that, with just six months to go, the rate sits at just 2 per cent, which is even lower than the 3 per cent of the huge transport budget that you invest in active travel.

Is it not high time that the vision became an actual target? Will you tell the Parliament, in response to the question that Jamie Greene asked, just when you intend to meet it?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that they should always speak through the chair.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have asked Cycling Scotland to review the action plan and consider what further measures need to be taken to address the issue that the member raised.

We are committed to continuing our record investment in active travel provisions, investing £80 million.

I often hear the member say that we should use a larger proportion—at least 10 per cent—of our roads budget in Scotland for that purpose. The Transport Scotland budget for our trunk road and motorway network is £800-odd million, and £80 million is actually more than 10 per cent of that particular budget.

No doubt people will call for greater investment in the area. We have sought to make the matter a priority, which is why we doubled the budget. It is extremely disappointing that we have not achieved the target over almost 10 years, and that is why it is important that we have a clear focus on ensuring that we take the right measures, which will deliver the type of change that we want to see. That is exactly—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

When?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

That is exactly what the framework and the review are about. I heard Mr Harvie ask, “When?” from a sedentary position; we are doing that right now, to get the matter addressed.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

A safe route to school is a right for children. Can the cabinet secretary give details on how we can ensure that a child has the right to a safe cycling route to school?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Through the £51 million places for everyone programme, we are encouraging all local authorities to submit proposals for projects that will deliver safer routes to school for children. In 2018-19, we invested some £2.5 million in infrastructure in and around schools and more than £2 million on behaviour change and cycle training programmes for children.

This year, Sustrans has received proposals from 25 local authorities for safer routes to schools and other infrastructure projects around schools. The proposals are currently being evaluated.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Two years ago, this Parliament agreed to a motion that every schoolchild should have the opportunity to benefit from cycle training. Then, only 62 per cent of schools offered cycle training; now, the figure has fallen, when it should have increased. How will the transport secretary ensure that we make cycle training available to all our schoolchildren, as we unanimously agreed in this chamber two years ago?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I mentioned, the number of local authorities and schools that are participating in the bikeability Scotland scheme and the cycling friendly programme has increased. Local authorities need to buy into the scheme and we will continue to work to encourage them to do so, because the scheme can help ensure that their pupils understand the risks and benefits of cycling on the roads and that they think about the options for cycling. The scheme is available for local authorities to buy to into and we continue to promote it to them and ask them to do so. However, it is ultimately down to local authorities and schools to decide whether to make use of it. The funding continues to be available for them to participate in the scheme.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the commitment to additional funding. Will the cabinet secretary consider infrastructure spending to improve the cycling network along the south-west Scotland coast, so that it can be better connected and more accessible and attractive to people in Scotland as well as folks who are looking to holiday in and visit South Scotland?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I just mentioned, the £51 million places for everyone programme is operated by Sustrans on our behalf. Local authorities can bid into it for cycling infrastructure, and I encourage local authorities in the south-west of Scotland to consider putting forward proposals to that fund.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last week, I made the point—with which I think the cabinet secretary agreed—that a 20mph limit would be ignored and would not get more people cycling. What would get them cycling are safe segregated cycle lanes, which I think Gillian Martin spoke about.

The cabinet secretary spoke about money to Sustrans, but that is in the context of massively constrained local authority funding. What role will the Scottish Government play in ensuring that proper cycling infrastructure is put in place, and how much money is the Government directly committing to that?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Government commitment is £51 million, which is match funded by local authorities. The vast majority of funding in the £80 million active travel budget is capital investment, most of which is match funded by local authorities. This year, that has resulted in about £135 million being invested by the Government and local authorities.

I disagree with those who say that the Government should pay for it all, because local authorities have a key role to play in taking ownership of the delivery of the type of infrastructure that is necessary. The reason for that is one on which I agree with the member. Segregated infrastructure for cycling and walking is one of the critical elements in supporting people to make that modal shift, which is why we have supported local authorities by increasing our funding for that type of provision in this year’s budget and why we have set them the target of match funding it so that we see even greater investment in that type of cycling and walking infrastructure.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Neilston Development Trust in my constituency of Renfrewshire South delivers a range of services in Neilston and across East Renfrewshire to promote cycling, including repairs and maintenance, reconditioning donated bikes and providing training. How will work to deliver the ambitions of the cycling action plan support local community-led groups such as the Neilston Development Trust to promote cycling in their areas and how will such groups contribute to reaching our national targets for increased cycling?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The cycling action plan underpins the grant funding mechanism for a range of cycling funds. In 2018-19, we have invested £7.28 million in behaviour-changing activities to encourage more people to walk and cycle safely and confidently. That includes £300,000 in grant funding that is issued through the cycling friendly community development fund, which can support small local initiatives of the nature that Tom Arthur highlighted. I encourage the Neilston Development Trust to consider making an application to the fund for support for its valuable work in his constituency.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary utterly failed to even refer to the question that my colleague Colin Smyth asked. Let me give him another chance. Given the woeful progress in raising the number of journeys by bike and the need—by his own admission—for more segregated on-road cycle lanes, does the cabinet secretary accept that all the viable projects in the places for everyone infrastructure programme should be funded?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am conscious of the number of calls that are made on Government funding for a whole range of initiatives. It would be great if we could provide funding to them all, but we have a limited budget and make investments in areas where we can get the best and greatest benefit. That applies to the transport portfolio as it does to health, justice and education.

I recognise that the Labour Party works in a world in which there is a money tree at the bottom of the garden that can fund anything and everything that anybody requests, but the reality is that we have a limited budget. We have made record investment in cycling infrastructure—no doubt the member will welcome that. We will do as much as we can to get the infrastructure right by supporting the various initiatives right across local authorities in Scotland. I will leave Labour to deal with the money tree at the bottom of the garden and with how they would fund all those things.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Alasdair Allan, to be followed by—[

Interruption

.]

Mr Smith, please stop being so rude to your colleagues when they are called for their questions by shouting from your seat.

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

The

Hebridean way

cycling route

has successfully drawn more and more cyclists to the Western Isles since it was opened by record-breaking long-distance cyclist Mark Beaumont three years ago. What action is the Scottish Government taking on infrastructure to make provision for that growth, in both the islands and other rural areas of Scotland?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am well aware of the increasing number of people—not only from Scotland and the UK, but from elsewhere—who are attracted to and make use of the Hebridean way, which is proving to be extremely popular. Within our active travel funding, the funding for the £51 million places for everyone programme allows local authorities to submit proposals for delivering paths for walking and cycling in rural areas of the nature that Alasdair Allan referred to. For example, in the Highlands, we continue to develop the Caledonian way, which is being invested in to support the route link between North Connel and Oban, and we want to see an expansion of those types of strategic tourist routes that will encourage people to travel to Scotland. Local authorities can submit proposals to the places for everyone programme in order to get funding support for walking and cycling initiatives.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Cycling Scotland published its own progress report on the cycling action plan in 2016, which stated even then that the 10 per cent target would not be met. It said that

“A long term increase in sustained funding is required, with year-on-year increases over time towards a 10% allocation of national and council transport budgets”

Does the cabinet secretary agree with that?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Last year, we doubled the active travel budget, and this year, we have sustained that in order to see greater capital investment. Therefore, I recognise that greater funding should be made available to provide the type of infrastructure that supports people to make a model shift from using cars to cycling or walking, alongside continued investment in other options such as bus and rail travel. All those things will contribute to this agenda, and we continue to make significant investment in them from an active travel point of view and as part of Scotland’s wider transport infrastructure.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

A number of schoolchildren have just joined us in the gallery. I would be surprised if even one or two of them cycle to school. In terms of the safety of cycling to school, does the cabinet secretary agree that a 20mph limit might be better for children?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

That is why, as a Government, we support the introduction by local authorities of 20mph zones in the right places, particularly around schools. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we want to ensure that local authorities introduce the zones in the right areas. A number of local authorities already do that. I am sure that the member would want to acknowledge that, and that she would want to ensure that councils have the powers and the ability to do that and that she would support them in doing that.

I am afraid that the member is misguided if she thinks that we do not support 20mph zones—we do; we just do not believe that the one-size-fits-all approach of Mr Ruskell’s bill is the right way of going about that.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the fantastic work being done by Forth Environment Link and Stirling cycle hub to promote and encourage cycling in the Stirling area and make Stirling the most cycle-friendly city in the country? The city-wide bike sharing scheme is an important part of that.

What more can the Scottish Government and local government do to help to develop more protected cycle lanes? In Stirling, 83 per cent of residents support building such lanes, despite the impact on traffic.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am very much aware of Forth Environment Link’s work in Stirling and its active travel hub there, which I believe may be as good as its active travel hub in my constituency, just along from my constituency office in Falkirk. I am also aware that Forth Environment Link is taking forward work on the community links plus project, which is aimed at delivering safer roads and segregated cycle paths, and improving the local public realm for pedestrians and other users. I have no doubt that Forth Environment Link will continue to pursue that.

Additionally, Forth Environment Link is developing the first regional electric bike scheme in Scotland, which will support modal shift and sustainable travel options in the area. I would certainly want to continue to encourage Forth Environment Link on that very important work, which I have seen at first hand in my constituency, and which is taking place in Mr Crawford’s constituency.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement on the cycling action plan for Scotland. Other members would have liked to have asked questions but were unable to do so. I would ask all members to consider that when they are asking questions and providing answers, they should be a bit more concise.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-17782, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Planning (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Planning (Scotland) 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: 55 minutes

Groups 5 to 8: 1 hour 40 minutes

Groups 9 to 11: 2 hours 30 minutes

Groups 12 to 15: 3 hours 20 minutes

Groups 16 to 18: 3 hours 50 minutes

Groups 19 to 22: 4 hours 45 minutes

Groups 23 to 25: 5 hours 45 minutes

Groups 26 to 28: 6 hours 15 minutes

Groups 29 to 32: 7 hours 5 minutes

Groups 33 to 37: 7 hours 45 minutes

Groups 38 to 40: 8 hours 30 minutes.—

[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Planning (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, the corrections to the marshalled list, and the groupings of amendments. For the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. That first division will last for 30 seconds, but thereafter the first division after every debate will last one minute. Any member who wishes 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 the purpose of planning. Amendment 113, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendment 114.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is a pleasure to be the first speaker in what is going to be a bit of marathon for members of the Scottish Parliament. I will

attempt to keep all my comments in all the groups that I speak on as brief as possible.

At stage 2, we ended up with two purposes for planning. Clearly, there is not a lot of sense in that. One purpose was from me and one was from the Government. As you might expect, Presiding Officer, mine was rather shorter than the Government’s and was much to be preferred.

The Presiding Officer knows that I am up for compromise; that has been a hallmark of the bill. In that spirit, I agreed to consider lodging something between the two. I have come up with something that is nearer to my original version than the Government’s. I commend it to Parliament, because it is not Governmentspeak. Amendment 113 removes section A1, and amendment 114 replaces the second purpose, and is the new purpose. If Parliament goes along with that, we will have a purpose of planning that is fit for purpose.

I move amendment 113.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

We support a purpose of planning for the whole planning system. Section A1 of the bill as amended provides for that, so we oppose its removal and we will vote against amendment 113.

Section A2 provides a purpose of planning in relation only to the national planning framework and development plans. It is our view that we need to retain an overall purpose, hence our support for retaining section A1. If we were to have a narrower purpose, it would be to reflect our international commitments, especially in the context of a climate emergency and the First Minister’s commitments on human rights leadership. However, those are being stripped out, so we will vote against amendment 114.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The purpose of planning is about much more than the development and use of land. It is about the development and use of land in the public interest. A progressive and transparent planning system has the potential to transform lives. Spatial planning can affect the environment and our physical and mental health and can bring about equality. We welcome the capturing of that by the inclusion of “sustainable development” and “the national outcomes” in amendment 114. Therefore, we will support amendments 113 and 114.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I welcome Graham Simpson’s statement that he will keep his comments brief. I will follow suit.

I welcome Mr Simpson’s amendments 113 and 114. If we are going to have a purpose of planning, we must have a single purpose. I agree that it should apply at the strategic level to development planning, which sets the context for individual decisions. By making reference to “the national outcomes”, the version in amendment 114 incorporates the achievement of human rights and the United Nations sustainable development goals, and avoids any risk of confusion or possible discrepancies between those requirements. That purpose will support the planning system in achieving better outcomes for our communities. I hope that Parliament will support it.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 113 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. I suspend the proceedings for five minutes to allow the division bell to be rung and members to return to the chamber.

15:18 Meeting suspended.

15:23 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 113.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 108, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 113 agreed to.

Amendment 114 moved—[Graham Simpson].

The question is, that amendment 114 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 110, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 114 agreed to.

Group 2 is on the national planning framework’s preparation and content. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 186, 20, 21, 173, 23 to 26, 187, 7, 27 to 29, 32, 174, 174A, 174B, 174C, 174D, 174E and 36.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The national planning framework is a long-term spatial plan for Scotland. It will set out national policies for the development and use of land, and it will play a critical role in our planning system.

The amendments in the group focus on the content of the national planning framework. Many stage 2 amendments highlighted issues that members wanted to be addressed in the bill. Such matters usually related to policy rather than to primary legislation, but I have listened carefully to the debate, and I understand why members want to highlight in the bill the issues that are important to them. My amendments do not seek to remove such references, but it is important to ensure that duplication is avoided, terminology is tidied up and procedures are clarified.

This part of the bill looks very complex, with provisions being deleted from one place in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and put back in another, so I hope that members have had the chance to look at the version of the 1997 act that officials have produced, which shows how it would look if the amendments were agreed to.

At the top level, in section 3A of the 1997 act, we have brought together some of the key priorities for the framework and listed them as outcomes. Ministers will have to include a statement in the framework about how development will contribute to the outcomes. I will briefly set out the approach to each of them.

I agree that the framework should have regard to

“meeting ... housing needs ... in particular, the housing needs of older people and disabled people”.

That reflects the principle that drove multiple amendments on the topic from members at stage 2. The requirement for the framework to contain targets for use of land for all types of housing was inserted at stage 2, and my amendments will not change that.

Also,

“improving the health and wellbeing of people”

is a clear priority. That outcome reflects Monica Lennon’s amendments at stage 2. At stage 2, there was support for

“increasing the population of rural areas of Scotland”.

Including that as an outcome reflects previous amendments from Rhoda Grant and Alasdair Allan. Another outcome is

“securing positive effects for biodiversity”,

which recognises the point that was made by Graham Simpson in his amendment at stage 2. My amendment 28 defines “biodiversity”.

I have made one important addition to the list of key outcomes. I am sure that members will agree that the national planning framework must do all that it can to help us to achieve our ambitious targets for tackling climate change. Amendment 173 will add that outcome to the list.

Amendment 27 to the end of section 3A of the 1997 act clarifies that the Scottish ministers can set out wider

“policies or proposals that relate to the development and use of land outwith the National Planning Framework.”

That will ensure that the Scottish Government can continue to produce, for example, circulars relating to specific policy areas.

Agreement to amendment 186, in the name of Claudia Beamish, would mean that the lifecycle emissions from national development must be assessed during the preparation of the national planning framework. I see merit in that proposal, so I will support amendment 186.

Planning brings together policies and applies them to places in a joined-up way, so links with wider policies and strategies are essential. My amendment 174 would retain the list of strategies and plans that the Scottish ministers must have regard to in preparing the national planning framework, but it would move the list to proposed new section 3CZA of the 1997 act.

I am happy to support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 174B and Rhoda Grant’s amendments 174C and 174D, which would add to that list

“any national strategy in respect of improvement of air quality”,

the land rights and responsibilities statement, and

“any national strategy for the ownership or use of land”.

The framework should naturally take account of all the things that affect the development and use of land.

Alongside the list of strategies and policies, we have included other policy objectives of resettling previously populated rural areas, preserving disused railway lines for future public transport links, and preserving peatland.

I support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 187, which requires that the framework include maps or other descriptors of rural areas where

“there has been a substantial decline in population”.

I thank Ms Grant for working with the Government on that amendment.

I cannot, however, support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 7, which would take those requirements further, with detailed timeframes for the “maps ... and descriptive matter”. Before we go too far down the track of including such detail in legislation, there needs to be fuller debate on how best to support our rural communities. Unfortunately, amendment 7 runs ahead of that, so I cannot support it.

I am not convinced by Mr Rowley’s amendments 174A and 174E. I find it hard to envisage the Scottish ministers wanting to adopt a national planning framework that is “not compatible with” their wider policy areas, so I cannot see much practical benefit from the amendments and, because I do not want to add unnecessary procedures, I do not support them.

Proposed new section 3ZAC of the 1997 act also brings together requirements for consultation in preparing the framework, including the requirement for a participation statement. Among those who must be consulted is the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change. Amendment 36 will remove a fuller set of requirements that was introduced by Monica Lennon at stage 2. To be absolutely clear, this is not a watering down of climate change requirements—I propose including this as a high-level outcome for the framework. As agreed with the Committee on Climate Change, amendment 174 provides a much more practical, flexible and effective approach that will avoid extra costs and delays.

There is a requirement

“to involve the public at large in the consultation”,

and

“persons or bodies ... that have a role in the delivery of the outcomes”

that are listed in amendment 173. That will overturn more detailed requirements to consult particular officers or groups of people.

My amendments do not propose to change any of the matters on which Scottish ministers may direct planning authorities to provide information to assist in the preparation of the NPF under proposed new section 3AA of the 1997 act. All the stage 2 changes to that list will remain as they are.

I move amendment 19.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

My a

mendment 186 relates to the content of the national planning framework and requires an assessment

“of each proposed national development’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions”

and their impact on achieving our national emissions reduction targets.

My amendment 219 defines “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as those that are “associated with” a development’s “construction, operation, and decommissioning”. It is vital to consider the impact of developments in this holistic way, because lighter construction phases of ultimately heavily emitting projects can be misleading.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, and the drafting of amendment 219 comes direct from the minister’s comments at stage 2, which I have taken on board. He said:

“I agree that it would be useful to undertake such an assessment of all the proposed national developments to be included in national planning framework 4 and I would be happy with an amendment in those terms, so that the most significant long-term infrastructure projects ... would be assessed in that way.”—[

Official Report

,

Local Government and Communities Committee

, 31 October 2018; c 25.]

Parliament this morning agreed, at stage 2 of the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, to set a target of net zero emissions by 2045. That means that we all need to invest in developments that will serve us well into the future. We have a climate emergency, so the duty on the Scottish ministers properly to future proof national developments is absolutely vital, so I am delighted that the minister has accepted amendment 186.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak to amendments 187, 7, 174C and 174D. Most of my amendments to the bill cover declining populations in rural areas. As this is the first time that I have spoken during consideration of amendments, I will take a little time to point out why that issue is of concern and why we should remedy it.

I was brought up in Wester Ross, so I am painfully aware that population decline poses a real threat to the very existence of many rural communities, and not just in the Highlands and Islands but throughout Scotland. Of course, there is much to celebrate in what our rural areas contribute to Scotland, including spectacular landscapes and natural heritage that draw visitors from home and abroad. Rural areas are also where most of our food is grown and where most of our carbon is sequestrated. Rural Scotland is important to the whole of Scotland.

Recent research by the James Hutton Institute paints a grim picture of the future for Scotland’s sparsely populated areas. The report’s key finding is that those areas

“have a demographic legacy which, in the absence of intervention, will result in decades of population decline, and shrinkage of its working age population, on a scale which implies serious challenges for economic development, and consequences for its landscape and ecology which are poorly understood.”

The report also states that we risk losing more than a quarter of the population from such areas by 2046, which will threaten the very existence of the communities there.

When I spoke to amendments that I lodged at stage 2, I argued that it is time to give the people dimension of the countryside greater status in developing future planning policy, because people are the life-blood of those places. It was therefore encouraging that my stage 2 amendments on rural repopulation attracted cross-party support.

The challenge is to ensure that Scotland’s planning system facilitates rural repopulation that balances sustainable economic development with protection of our landscapes and natural heritage. The amendments that I have lodged for stage 3 are intended to help the planning system to do precisely that.

Amendment 187 would enhance the national planning framework’s content by allowing for the production of

“maps, diagrams, illustrations and descriptive matter ... of rural areas”

where

“there has been a substantial decline in population”.

That would provide useful indications of places where rural repopulation might be desirable and feasible.

Amendment 7 would serve the same purpose in relation to assisting in the preparation of the national planning framework’s content, but it would provide more focus on the timeframe to which such material should relate, and it specifically indicates that the produced material may relate to areas that

“are no longer inhabited”.

However, given the minister’s constructive comments and support for my other amendments, I am minded not to move amendment 7, when the time comes.

Amendments 174C and 174D would reinforce the fact that the bill is concerned with a land use planning system. The amendments would ensure that the Scottish ministers, in revising the national planning framework, must have regard to

“any land rights and responsibilities statement”

and

“any national strategy or action plan for the ownership or use of land”

that they have prepared. That would complement the other strategies and policies that are listed in the bill and emphasise the cross-cutting significance of land reform to development of the planning system.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Barring some fairly glaring and notable omissions, which I will come on to, the Government has done an effective job of building into the bill the diverse and important set of principles that were raised at stage 2

. It is welcome that the national planning framework will include statements on meeting the housing needs of people in Scotland, including older and disabled people, and on improving health and wellbeing. Labour members, in particular Monica Lennon, have argued throughout the passage of the bill that public health and reducing health inequality must be at the heart of our planning system. It is also welcome that there will be statements on meeting emissions reduction targets and on increasing the population of rural areas in Scotland, which is an important issue that Rhoda Grant has raised.

However, equality and non-discrimination is a notable omission from the issues that the national planning framework will address. That was reflected in the Government’s failure to engage adequately with Monica Lennon’s and Andy Wightman’s amendments on gender at stage 2.

The design of Scotland’s urban space and infrastructure has traditionally been based on male need, and so it contributes towards women’s exclusion from public life. The Government has taken a strong line on gender equality, including its acceptance of structural inequality, so it is deeply disappointing that it has not made equality a key outcome of the national planning framework, which is the key expression of its planning policy. I look forward to seeing whether the Government will support Monica Lennon’s amendments on equality and non-discrimination, which we will debate later.

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in the group apart from amendment 29, which seeks to delete the requirement for the Government to consult the chief medical officer and the chief executive of the national health service. If the Government is serious about spatial planning working to help people’s physical and mental health, it must have an idea of the key challenges and how they differ across Scotland, which will require that it take expert advice.

The combined work that has already been done on planning and public health is a great example of what can be achieved when we stop working in silos and bring together people who have different areas of expertise. However, sometimes time and resources can get in the way of that, so a statutory footing is required in order to make partnership working happen. Here is an opportunity for the Government to embrace that approach, and not to run away from it.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I record my thanks to Kevin Stewart for his constructive discussions and engagement between stages 2 and 3 on air quality and pollution. During those discussions, I was able to raise a number of constituency issues—especially issues that affect the community of Scone, which has faced a number of very illogical planning decisions that will make its air quality worse.

Of course, pollution remains a big killer in Scotland. One of the conclusions of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s inquiry into air quality was that we need to embed consideration of air quality further in the planning system, Amendment 174B would do that by ensuring that the refresh of “Cleaner Air for Scotland: The Road to a Healthier Future”, which is our national strategy on air quality, will have increased weight in the national planning framework. That is a positive step forward. I welcome where we have got to with the bill.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I welcome amendment 173, in the name of the minister, which will insert into section 1 a new subsection on the national planning framework. It sets out the outcomes to which the NPF would be expected to contribute, and makes specific reference to housing need, and especially to the needs of

“older people and disabled people”.

It also outlines other key outcomes, including improving health and wellbeing, increasing the rural population, meeting climate change targets and securing positive effects for biodiversity.

Amendment 173 will consolidate a number of amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I am pleased that it positions the housing needs of older people and disabled people as a priority. My colleagues on the Local Government and Communities Committee who looked closely at the bill at stage 2 will know that I pressed for that, given that housing has a key role to play in allowing older people and disabled people to live independent, healthy and active lives. Investment in appropriate housing will save resources that would otherwise be spent on health and social care, will help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and will contribute to improved health and wellbeing.

A number of housing challenges arise from Scotland’s rapidly ageing population, which underlines the need to invest in housing for older people and disabled people. There is therefore a pressing requirement to ensure that their housing needs are explicitly recognised in the planning system. Amendment 173 would mean that, under proposed new section 3A(3)(ba) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, ministers would be required to include in the NPF a statement about how such outcomes would be achieved. That would help to guarantee that the Scottish Government would be held to account on its delivery of key outcomes, including meeting the housing needs of older people and disabled people.

Given the terms of the proposed new subsection that amendment 173 would insert, amendment 21 would remove the change that was made by my amendment 16, which I lodged at stage 2, which would require the NPF to set out what the Scottish ministers consider to be the priorities for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people and for meeting those needs. That amendment is no longer necessary because housing for such people will be included as a high-level outcome of the NPF.

Similarly, amendment 25 will remove section 1(2F) of the amended bill—which was inserted by my amendment 168 at stage 2—which required the Government to set national targets for housing that is suitable for older people and disabled people, and to report on consultation.

Amendment 173 supersedes the need for that provision, removal of which resolves issues to do with definitions and requirements that would make national targets unhelpful.

Overall, the amendments in the group will ensure that providing housing for older and disabled people is a policy principle for development plans nationally and locally, while avoiding the duplication that would arise from multiple amendments that seek similar outcomes, and ensuring that terminology is used consistently throughout the bill. I am therefore happy to support amendment 173.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Greens were pleased to see the amendments that the minister has lodged, and we agree with them all, bar one. They will streamline and consolidate a range of policy changes that were agreed to at stage 2.

Like Alex Rowley, however, we will oppose amendment 29. The fact that the chief medical officer and the chief executive of NHS Scotland happen to be members of staff of the Scottish Government does not remove the value of their being consulted.

We also welcome Alex Rowley’s amendments 174A and 174B, because they will improve accountability and alignment with the matters that are covered in proposed new section 3ZAC of the 1997 act, which will be introduced by amendment 174.

Although we are sympathetic to the intention behind Rhoda Grant’s amendments 174C and 174D, we will not support them. In our view, the land rights and responsibilities statement is not relevant to the planning system, and neither is

“any national strategy ... for the ownership of land”.

The ownership and occupation of land are not matters for the planning system per se, and use of land is already covered by proposed new section 3ZAC(3)(a)(v) of the 1997 act, which will be inserted by amendment 174.

We will, however, support Rhoda Grant’s other amendments.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There is no doubt that after stage 2, the bill was—to use the minister’s word—a bit of a “guddle”, and it certainly needed to be tidied up. Fortunately, the Government took on that work, so I praise the minister for doing a good job in the group of amendments that we are discussing.

I will touch on a few areas. Kenny Gibson mentioned amendment 173, which is on meeting the housing needs of older and disabled people. That subject was inserted at stage 2. A number of members of the committee felt that it was very important, so I am delighted that it will be in the eventual act—as long as the bill is passed, of course.

I also welcome Kevin Stewart’s amendment 28, which sets out a clear definition of biodiversity. I am glad that he has recognised the importance of biodiversity, which was the subject of an amendment of mine at stage 2. That is good.

I also praise Mark Ruskell, who attempted to get something on air quality into the bill at stage 2. It was not agreed to, but he went away and improved his proposal, so the Conservatives can certainly support it at stage 3.

The Presiding Officer

I call on the minister to wind up on the group and then to press amendment 19.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I will be very brief, Presiding Officer. I thank all members who have engaged to improve this part of the bill. Many folks have come through my door, and at the end of that we have amendments that are much better than the original ones.

I will touch on what Mr Rowley and Mr Wightman said about a requirement to consult the chief medical officer and why we have taken that out. The reason is simple: it would not be appropriate for the Scottish ministers to consult Scottish Government officials on a Scottish Government policy. It is also a very narrow provision and, in practice, the participation statement covers everyone. I hope that that leads to some understanding on the issue.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

Amendment 186 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendments 20 and 21 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 173 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question on amendment 173 will be put after consideration of the next group, as it may be amended by amendment 173B.

Group 3 is on consideration of equalities issues. Amendment 173B, in the name of Monica Lennon, is grouped with amendments 189, 190 and 183A. I remind members that, if amendment 33 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 189 and 190, as they will be pre-empted.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Amendment 173B is intended to add

“improving equality and eliminating discrimination”

to the national planning framework outcomes. Amendments 189 and 190 seek to require the Government to produce guidance on equalities in planning. Amendment 183A seeks to make promoting equalities and supporting planning authorities to embed equalities in practice part of the role of the improvement co-ordinator.

I draw members’ attention to the briefing that has been circulated by Engender, which calls on MSPs to back these amendments to ensure that the planning system works for women. I believe that the Planning (Scotland) Bill presents a unique opportunity to make communities across Scotland more equal. Spatial planning at its best understands and responds to the different needs that people have in our public places and spaces. Currently, however, none of the Scottish Government’s documents on planning strategy refer to gender or women, in spite of some very good national commitments to gender equality in the national performance framework and the inclusive growth pillar of the Government’s economic strategy. That is disappointing.

Achieving those goals depends on proactive steps being taken across policy areas by both national and local government. Gender equality must be mainstreamed through planning policy, strategy and decision-making processes. Inequalities are baked into our built environment and shape our patterns of movement. For women, how we move in our society is affected by the inequalities that we face. For example, around two thirds of unpaid care work is carried out by women, and unpaid caring can tie women to residential areas where there are services and amenities linked to their caring and household roles. However, jobs—especially those that pay higher wages—tend to be further away from residential areas, which makes it difficult or, at worst, impossible for many women to access them. The concentration of jobs away from residential areas means that women spend more time and money than they can afford on travel, and some simply cannot afford to be part of the labour market. Planning cannot be just a paper or plan-based technical exercise; it has to be about getting the best outcomes for people.

Members may ask what violence against women has to do with the planning process. Violence against women persists in Scotland, and we have to root it out. How we plan our communities can make real practical improvements to the experiences that women face, and how we design in safety and build inclusive public spaces is really important. Things such as lighting and the spaces between buildings matter. I have talked about caring and how the burden still tends to rest with women, so access for wheelchairs and pushchairs is important.

All those things are planning issues. As Alex Rowley stated in speaking to amendments in the previous group, the Government has taken a strong line on gender inequality but, sadly, structural inequality still persists. From listening to evidence at stage 2, I picked up that some of the planning authorities do not see that they have a role in this area and that gender equality is not front and centre when they are looking at planning policy and making decisions.

I say that in the context of the diminishing resources that planning authorities find themselves working with. We need the proposed guidance, and the role of the improvement co-ordinator will be crucial in ensuring that planning authorities have the necessary tools and support to bring about real, meaningful change for women and to support diversity and inclusion in all our communities.

I believe that the amendments are proportionate and practical and will make a positive difference. Indeed, Engender has said that, without them, the bill will not deliver improvements to a process that has failed to adequately consider women’s needs or make progress towards gender equality. Let us not miss this opportunity. I ask colleagues to support amendments 173B, 189, 190 and 183A.

I move amendment 173B.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I will make just a few brief comments on these amendments. I commend Monica Lennon for persisting with a topic that we had extensive discussions about at stage 2. There are many examples of countries, such as Sweden and Austria, that have highlighted the highly gendered nature of land use and planning. We have a lot of work to do on the topic, and I hope that, if these amendments are agreed to, it will be the beginning of a new chapter in planning.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I strongly urge Monica Lennon not to move amendment 183A, which relates to the national planning improvement co-ordinator. We will come to that issue later, but there have been a lot of discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the matter and it is now in a happier place with amendment 183. Frankly, if amendment 183A were to be agreed to, it would open up a hornet’s nest.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am happy to support Monica Lennon’s amendment 173B, which seeks to insert the additional outcome of

“improving equality and eliminating discrimination”

into the national planning framework.

However, I am not able to support her amendments 189 and 190. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published technical guidance on how to apply the public sector equality duty, including on collection of evidence, instigation of research or consultation, if appropriate, and consideration of mitigating actions. That is the commission’s responsibility—it is not the role of ministers. However, I assure Ms Lennon that, in preparing the national planning framework and statutory guidance on effective community engagement, we will take account of and draw attention to the commission’s guidance.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I understand what the minister says about the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but it is, as it were, a kind of side body. Planning decisions are being made week in, month out in Scotland that promote the interests of men—who, for example, predominantly drive cars—so we need to have the proposed approach at the heart of the planning system.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am quite sure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not see itself as a side body, and neither do I.

I cannot support amendment 183A, on the role of the planning improvement co-ordinator. As we will see later, we have not proposed to set out any detail of the co-ordinator’s functions on the face of the bill. Instead, we will work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop the role and to determine the detailed functions that are to be set out in regulations.

We consider that the co-ordinator should consider the range of functions that an authority exercises and that the role should be developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Although we envisage equalities functions being included, setting out specific subjects at this stage would pre-empt that collaborative approach.

I support amendment 173B, but I ask Ms Lennon not to move her other amendments in the group.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will press amendment 173B and move the other amendments in the group.

One of the issues raised by Engender, particularly in evidence at stage 2, is that the approach to gender inequalities is one of the weakest aspects of the bill. At committee, I asked the minister several times about the dialogue and engagement that he had had. I have to say that I do not really understand the resistance to embedding equality into every part of the planning system. Andy Wightman is correct to talk about countries across Europe and elsewhere that do that sort of thing really well—indeed, we heard some evidence on that.

I am not sure about the hornet’s nest that Graham Simpson is concerned about. There does not need to be any conflict over this. If we really want to get planning right for everyone, we can find a way of doing so.

Although I am grateful to the minister for the partial support that he has offered, it will be disappointing if these amendments are rejected, particularly if we reflect on the fact that Engender is saying to MSPs that they would be a positive step. All the good work that the Scottish Government is doing on gender equality will be diminished if the Parliament rejects these amendments today.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 173B 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 91, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 173B agreed to.

Amendment 173, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 23 to 26 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

I propose to put the question on all four amendments together. Does anyone object?

Members

Yes.

The Presiding Officer

I will put the questions individually.

Amendments 23 and 24 agreed to.

The question is, that amendment 25 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 97, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendment 26 agreed to.

Amendment 187 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendment 7 not moved.

Group 4 is on national scenic area consultations and reports. Amendment 188, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 11 and 206.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

A research report on community empowerment and landscape that was published last year by Community Land Scotland and the Institute for Heritage and Sustainable Human Development identified a participation gap that is experienced by communities in getting their voices heard in the process of applying landscape designations relating to historical and natural heritage. Ensuring that communities’ views are not airbrushed from those landscape designation processes is vital, and the amendments seek to address that gap as it applies to national scenic areas, which are the only relevant designations in the scope of the planning system.

Amendment 188 would ensure that ministers, when preparing the national planning framework,

“must have due regard to any National Scenic Areas report published by them”.

Amendment 11 specifies who should be consulted in relation to any proposed new national scenic area designation and includes any person

“resident within, or adjacent to, the area of a proposed designation”

and

“a community body (as defined by section 4(9) of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015) with an interest in the land of a proposed designation”.

Amendment 206 requires ministers to

“publish a report on the consultation undertaken in regard to the designation”

of any new national scenic area as soon as is practicable after the year of designation. The report must include

“the ways in which the views”

of

“any person consulted ... were taken into account”,

and

“how ... Ministers intend to improve their consultation process before issuing”

any future such directions.

I move amendment 188.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

We are not keen on and see no need for amendments 188 and 206—consultation and reporting requirements are already in place for such designations. However, the Greens will support amendment 11, which would improve the consultation process.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I agree that it is important to consult residents and communities when an area is designated as a national scenic area. That will help to ensure that any decisions are undertaken with the full and meaningful involvement of local people. Therefore, I am happy to support amendment 11.

Amendments 188 and 206 will ensure that consultation is reported on and taken into account in the national planning framework. I am grateful to Rhoda Grant for working with the Government to improve her stage 2 amendments, and I am happy to support them.

The Presiding Officer

Does Rhoda Grant want to add any comments in winding up?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have no comments to add, but I am grateful for the support.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 188 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 116, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 188 agreed to.

Amendments 27 to 29 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

I propose to put the question on all three amendments together. Does anyone object?

Members

Yes.

The Presiding Officer

I will put the questions individually.

Amendments 27 and 28 agreed to.

The question is, that amendment 29 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 91, Against 38, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 agreed to.

We turn now to group 5, on national planning framework processes.

Members might like to know, just for information, that, according to our predicted times, we are absolutely on target.

Group 5 is relatively long—I say that in case members need to nip out at any stage. I stress that I intend to call relief breaks throughout the afternoon and early evening—not quite yet, but maybe at the end of this group.

Amendment 30, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 31, 33, 34, 37 to 52, 100 to 103 and 111. I point out that, if amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 189 and 190, which have already been debated, as they will be pre-empted.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

At stage 2, there was great interest in the content of the national planning framework and the procedures for preparing it. In particular, Graham Simpson made significant changes to the procedures for preparing and approving the framework. My amendments do not seek to change those procedures significantly. For example, I accept that there will be benefit in giving the Parliament the power to approve the framework before the Scottish ministers can adopt it.

However, there is a need to tidy up the provisions so that the process runs smoothly. The amendments in this group aim to consolidate the changes that were made at stage 2. I will address the significant amendments and not dwell on those that simply rearrange, reword and tidy up the provisions. Most of the amendments in the group are technical and consequential and do not make notable changes.

At stage 2, it was clear that the committee wanted more attention to be given to housing for older people and disabled people. Some of my amendments remove some of the detailed requirements that were added. Amendment 32, for example, removes detailed consultation requirements associated with the topic, as that would be addressed in the NPF participation statement. The issue is addressed instead by other amendments—some that I have already covered in group 2 and others that I will speak to in group 7.

Amendment 34 tidies up the timing of the duty to review the national planning framework. It sets out a 10-year review timescale and carries forward existing arrangements that allow Scottish ministers either to review the framework or to publish an explanation of why they have decided not to revise it. Amendment 49 removes extensive provisions on data protection that were inserted by Graham Simpson’s stage 2 amendments. Those provisions are not needed, as appropriate requirements are already set by wider legislation.

Amendment 51 requires the Scottish ministers to publish the national planning framework as soon as practical following adoption.

Amendment 52 requires the key agencies to co-operate with the Scottish ministers in the preparation, review and amendment of the national planning framework.

To summarise, the amendments, together, will ensure that provisions relating to the national planning framework are practical and easy to follow. I ask members to support all the amendments in the group.

I move amendment 30.

The Presiding Officer

I hope that I did not speak too soon earlier, because no one else wishes to speak on this group. However, there are a number of votes, which might take some time.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The question is, that amendment 32 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

I definitely spoke too soon. There will be a division. I need to call members back. This is a one-minute division.

The Presiding Officer

I apologise to members who have had to run back to the chamber. I was trying to be helpful to members—[

Laughter

.] What I said was clearly very unhelpful. Members will be relieved to hear that it was not a close vote.

The result of the division is: For 81, Against 24, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

I remind members that if amendment 33 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 189 and 190, as they will have been pre-empted.

Amendment 33 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The question is, that amendment 33 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 87, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 174 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

Amendment 174A moved—[Alex Rowley].

The question is, that amendment 174A 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 32, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174A disagreed to.

Amendment 174B moved—[Mark Ruskell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 174C moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The question is, that amendment 174C 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 115, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174C agreed to.

Amendment 174D moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The question is, that amendment 174D 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 115, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174D agreed to.

Amendment 174E moved—[Alex Rowley].

The question is, that amendment 174E 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 32, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 174E disagreed to.

Amendment 174, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 36 to 52 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Group 6 is on open space strategy. Amendment 115, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 116 and 152.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The new duty to prepare open space strategies under section 1A of the bill was introduced by Mr Wightman. Following my remarks at stage 2, he said that he would be happy to consider further amendments at stage 3 to simplify the statutory requirements and provide more flexibility. My amendments 115, 116 and 152 seek to do that.

Amendment 115 seeks to remove from primary legislation the detailed requirements of what an open space audit has to record. Amendment 116 provides instead that regulations can make provision for how planning authorities are to discharge their functions in relation to open space strategies, including how they conduct an audit and assess current and future requirements for open space.

I believe that it is more appropriate to include that level of detail in secondary legislation. That will provide us with the time to engage with stakeholders and set out an informed, practical and proportionate approach—for example, around how planning authorities can record the level of use and the condition of open space and assess future open space requirements impartially and consistently.

The bill’s definitions of “green infrastructure” and “green networks” differ from those that are currently in Scottish planning policy. At this stage, I have not sought to align the definitions, given that we will shortly embark on a wider policy review that will offer lots of opportunity for engagement and in which stakeholders can raise comments on the definitions or highlight new drivers that should be reflected.

Amendment 116 allows ministers to amend the definitions through regulations, should that be necessary. Since those regulations will be able to amend primary legislation, they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 152 will achieve that while also meeting the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s requests after stage 2 that section 275 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 should be tidied up.

I ask the Parliament to support this group of amendments.

I move amendment 115.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I thank the minister for taking forward further work on these matters since stage 2. Open space strategies have been an important part of the planning system and are in place in the vast majority of planning authorities—at present, under guidance only. The amendments put them on a statutory footing, which I hope will be welcome.

The Presiding Officer

Does the minister wish to add anything?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 115 agreed to.

Amendment 116 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on the housing needs of older people and disabled people and the requirement for a report to the Parliament

. Amendment 53, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I will move amendment 53, but only to allow the matter to which it relates to be debated. I do not intend to press the amendment.

The amendment sought to remove a requirement for ministers to consult and report every two years on the housing needs of older and disabled people. I agree that those needs are very important and that we should monitor progress in meeting them. However, I did not consider the report to be necessary, given the requirements that address the matter that our consolidating amendments have built into provisions for the national planning framework and local development plans.

I lodged my amendments well in advance of stage 3 to allow discussion with members. I have listened to what people said, and I fully agree that we should be planning now to ensure that we meet the future needs of our population. There is no doubt that the needs of older and disabled people will be a significant issue for the national planning framework and local development plans to tackle in the new system.

The provisions include some very bureaucratic and complex procedural requirements; subsection 1B(3) is particularly wide in scope. I am happy to work with officials to try to meet those requirements and to produce the reports.

I move amendment 53.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for not pressing amendment 53 in his name. The approach in section 1B, which was proposed by my colleague Alexander Stewart, helpfully gives Parliament some scrutiny over where we are going, particularly around older people and those with disabilities.

Age Scotland in particular was concerned that if section 1B was not included there would be no future proofing by Parliament. I thank the minister for listening, not only to MSPs but to others outside the Parliament. I think that the bill as it stands—and as I hope that it will be enacted in due course—will strengthen what we all seek to do: to future proof housing needs, especially for the most vulnerable in our society.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the minister for the time that he has given not just to MSPs but to other groups. I am the convener of the cross-party group on older people, age and ageing, and there were concerns about older people and people with disabilities. I am pleased that the minister listened to those concerns. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I am sure that we will all roll up our sleeves and get on with it. I cannot thank the minister enough for listening to us all and not pressing amendment 53.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am delighted that the minister has seen fit not to press amendment 53 and to support Age Scotland’s proposals. The factors that underline the need to invest in housing for older people and address the investment issues will save resources, which can be spent on health and social care, help to tackle loneliness and isolation, and contribute to the greater health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Addressing that issue will require strategic action at the national level through the national planning framework and, at local level, through local development plans and local place plans. I very much support that.

The Presiding Officer

The minister does not wish to press amendment 53. Does any member wish to press it?

Members

No.

Amendment 53, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Presiding Officer

Group 8 is on an account of decline in population. Amendment 9, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 9 seeks to assist in the preparation of policies and proposals for the development and use of land by enabling ministers to prepare an account of areas in which there has been substantial decline in population since 1700.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I cannot hear Ms Grant and I think that I should be able to hear her so that I can respond accordingly.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Grant, make sure that your microphone is pointing straight at you. We will try to turn the sound up.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 9 also enables ministers to specify the meaning of “substantial decline” by way of regulations and to consult persons with appropriate experience or knowledge in preparing the account.

The period since 1700 includes the time of the notorious Highland clearances—a shameful stain on Scotland’s past, which is still felt keenly in my constituency and indeed by politicians and parties across the chamber. Support for amendment 9 would allow the lasting effects of those notorious events to be accounted for as we move forward towards a hopefully more progressive and sustainable future, for both the Highlands and Scotland as a whole. Hopefully, that will lead to future generations seeing lights on in those empty glens again. I look forward to support from other parties across the chamber for my amendment.

I move amendment 9.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

This is an important amendment. We know from forecasts, and indeed our own history, that certain parts of Scotland have historically been depopulated. Some parts remain at substantial risk of losing further population. In our view, that is a matter that properly requires a focus in national planning on topics such as infrastructure. The Scottish Greens will support amendment 9.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Amendment 9 reflects a broader debate that we have had during consideration of the bill on previously populated rural areas. As I made clear at stage 2, I fully support the principle, and a number of relevant requirements will now be included in the bill.

However, I cannot support amendment 9, because drawing up such an account could be an extensive, time-consuming and costly exercise. That would be disproportionate and would add little value. The areas that have been depopulated since 1700 might not necessarily be the areas in which people want to live now. The principle of supporting rural resettlement is already embedded in provisions for both the national planning framework and local development plans. I believe that that is the best way to approach the issue.

I will continue to work with Ms Grant and others on those issues, as we have done during the passage of the bill, but I urge Ms Grant not to press amendment 9, because of the cost.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to support amendment 9. The amendment says that the account would be

“for the purpose of explaining or illustrating”

the policies of the Scottish Government and its

“proposal for the development and use of land”.

The account would be required only when the Government has policies and proposals for the development and use of land. It would also be for the Government to

“specify the meaning of ‘substantial decline’”.

Much of the new section that is proposed in amendment 9 would leave the powers and the amount of work that requires to be carried out in the hands of Scottish ministers. However, it sends a strong signal to Scotland that we care about the clearances that were carried out in the Highlands, that we care about the modern clearances that are caused by economic decline and that we want to make sure that those places are vibrant communities again.

I urge the minister to reconsider supporting amendment 9.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 89, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Rather than guess how long the next couple of groups will take, I suspend proceedings for 10 minutes.

16:37 Meeting suspended.

16:49 On resuming—

Group 9 is on strategic development and regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 55, 56 and 106 to 110.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

These amendments set out a new approach to strategic planning in Scotland.

Amendment 54 introduces a new duty for an authority, or authorities working together,

“to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy”.

This should be a long-term spatial strategy that addresses the need, outcomes and priorities for strategic development and the proposed locations of that development

“in the form of a map or diagram”.

Arrangements for publication of and consultation on regional spatial strategies have been designed to be deliberately flexible to allow authorities to decide appropriate arrangements for themselves.

Amendment 54 clarifies that both the national planning framework and local development plans are to “have regard to” regional spatial strategies, which would act as a strong but flexible bridge between national and local planning.

The provisions in amendment 54 enable Scottish ministers to direct a planning authority or authorities to prepare and adopt, or to review, a regional spatial strategy. Where such a direction is made, authorities must co-operate with one another.

Amendment 54 also allows ministers to issue guidance on

“the preparation, adoption, review and content of regional spatial strategies.”

That will be a priority for us as we take forward planning reform and consider the role of strategic planning in the forthcoming review of the NPF.

Amendments 55, 56 and 106 to 110 are consequential amendments removing provisions relating to strategic development plans.

It is fair to say that it has taken some time to find the right solution in relation to strategic planning. I confess that I have been rather direct in previous debates about the shortcomings of existing arrangements for strategic planning, but I have had to do that to ensure that people understand the importance of change in this area.

I believe that these amendments strike a good balance by ensuring that not only is there a clear duty, but that the detailed arrangements are flexible and can respond to local circumstances. They will deliver on our original aim to modernise strategic planning so that it can unlock the potential of planning and guide our long-term development in a way that can better respond to evolving relationships on a regional scale.

A new approach to strategic planning is a critically important part of our reforms. I have worked hard to ensure that the concerns of the committee and of stakeholders have been addressed in these amendments. I am also grateful for the input that we have had from members of the profession.

I ask members to support the amendments.

I move amendment 54.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

In the committee’s stage 1 report, we recommended against removing the current statutory framework of strategic development plans. It is fair to say that views on that were mixed, but we took the view that in the absence of compelling evidence to get rid of them, it was best to keep them. However, we were clear that we were open-minded about alternatives.

The Greens took the view that any replacement needs to be flexible and enable planning authorities’ agency and autonomy, and it should be universal and have meaningful status in the planning system.

What the minister proposed at stage 2 did not meet any of those tests, so those amendments were rejected. However, I am pleased to see the proposed amendment on regional spatial strategies. Although they will not form part of the development plan, we believe that the strategies will be flexible enough to enable planning authorities across Scotland to collaborate with each other in whatever manner they see fit, whether that be in relation to water catchment level plans, transportation or infrastructure. We welcome amendment 54 and we think that it will be helpful for the planning system. We will be supporting all the amendments in the group.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The removal of strategic development planning authorities with no adequate replacement in the first draft of the bill was indicative of a Government that has an impulse to centralise and has failed to recognise the creative and effective work that is being done at the local level.

Ministers are not best placed to identify the key regional planning priorities in different areas. That responsibility should lie with those who know their areas best, and the strategic development planning authorities have done a job in that regard. For example, the local authorities involved in Clydeplan have praised the contribution that regional planning has made to regeneration and economic growth in the Glasgow city region. Clydeplan demonstrates the brilliant work that can be done by well-resourced regional planning that has the backing of all partners.

Given the stark lack of recognition that the SDPAs received from the Government at stage 1, I thank them for the excellent work that they have done. That work can be recreated only in a political environment in which regional planning and the role of local planning authorities in the process are valued. The Government’s introduction of a strategic planning duty, which was made possible as a result of pressure from the Opposition parties, is welcome. However, as I will say throughout this week’s discussions, planning authorities must be properly resourced if they are to be able to fulfil their duties.

RTPI Scotland told the committee:

“between 2009 and 2016 local authorities on average lost 23% of planning staff, while over the same period planning service budgets were cut by an average of 32.5%. These figures illustrate the resource pressure that local authority planning services are experiencing”.

Staffing levels in the four dedicated strategic development plan teams are down by 60 per cent, and only eight full-time chartered planners are working across the four strategic planning areas. That is not good enough. We cannot expect regional planning to do the groundbreaking and creative work that it needs and has the potential to do to support our local economies while it is working under that kind of resource pressure. The Government needs to get real and realise that a world-class planning system must be properly resourced.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

When the bill was introduced, section 2 proposed to remove the requirement to prepare strategic development plans. The Government said that that would save time and money

and that the plans had become too prescriptive, overly complex, costly and lengthy to produce. However, the committee agreed that views on the proposal were mixed. We concluded that

“To the extent that there is support, it is contingent on a commitment to continue with some form of regional spatial planning”.

Section 2 of the bill as introduced would have removed altogether the requirement for SDPs to be prepared, without providing an alternative. The committee heard no strong evidence that getting rid of regional partnerships was necessary. In fact, as we have seen with city and growth deals, regional working is the way to deliver strong growth. The committee said that things should be left as they are unless something better was proposed.

Andy Wightman introduced an amendment at stage 2 that basically kept strategic development plans. Throughout the passage of the bill, we have maintained our position that if SDPs are to be removed, there needs to be a viable replacement. The Government’s amendments 54 and 55 introduce the idea of regional spatial strategies. Amendment 54 states:

“A planning authority, or two or more such authorities acting jointly, are to prepare and adopt a regional spatial strategy.”

In other words, we are saying, “You must have one, but we’re not going to be prescriptive about it.” Some of our councils cover enormous areas. Highland is perhaps the best example, and we might think it odd if Highland were told to link up with another council to produce a regional strategy when it is in effect a region in itself. Under the proposal, it will not have to do so.

The proposals keep regional working, but with flexibility, and we can support that. We have argued that regions can be the engines of growth, and we know that to be true. Delivering growth is an important role for the planning system. Rather than the sweeping destruction of regional working that we could have faced, the proposals are an important step towards getting Scotland’s economy back on track, so we will support all the amendments in the group.