Scottish Parliament, 20 June 2019

332 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The first item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-17860, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 20 June 2019—

delete

2.00 pm Ministerial Statement: 2018-19 Scottish Government Provisional Outturn

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:

Health and Sport

followed by

Ministerial Statement: Update on Scottish Government Review of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act

followed by

Stage 3 Proceedings: Planning (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

2.00 pm Stage 3 Proceedings: Planning (Scotland) Bill

followed by

Portfolio Questions:

Health and Sport

followed by

Ministerial Statement: 2018-19 Scottish Government Provisional Outturn

followed by

Ministerial Statement: Update on Scottish Government Review of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act

followed by

Stage 3 Debate: Planning (Scotland) Bill

5.30 pm Decision Time—[

Maurice Golden

]

.

Motion agreed to.

Social Security Scotland (Disability Pay Gap)

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason there is a median disability pay gap of 26 per cent in Social Security Scotland. (S5O-03421)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Social Security Scotland was established on 1 September 2018 and the majority of its workforce have been recruited since that date. The data that was used to determine the median disability gap is from December 2018 and is based on voluntary self-declaration. At that time, the disability status of 62.5 per cent of the agency’s rapidly growing workforce was unknown.

The most recent staff survey highlighted that 22 per cent of employees in Social Security Scotland who have completed the survey identify as having a long-standing physical or mental health condition, illness, impairment or disability.

I am proud that we have sought to recruit people to Social Security Scotland who are reflective of the society in which we live.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary knows that I have taken a keen interest in whether the new agency employs, and is representative of, the disabled people whom it will be supporting with billions of pounds of assistance.

When I previously raised concerns about the agency’s struggle to recruit disabled people, a member of Social Security Scotland’s executive advisory body told me that I had a

“focus almost entirely upon the external attributes”,

which is

“a judgmental approach”,

and they accused me of

“misinformation and casting such deep aspersions publicly”.

I trust that the cabinet secretary will agree that attempts by a member of the executive advisory body to suppress legitimate and substantiated concerns about the recruitment of disabled people and, by extension, about equal pay and promotion are simply unacceptable. Will she today commit to introduce a plan to close the pay gap at the agency and get more disabled people into positions of leadership at all levels in the organisation, so that it represents the disabled people whom it will serve?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Mark Griffin for his question, as I know that it is on an issue that he is particularly interested in. I hope that he listened to my original answer, in which I talked about the fact that the staff survey highlighted that 22 per cent of the employees who completed it have a long-standing physical or mental health condition, which means that they are representative of the communities that we serve.

The agency has already made great efforts in recruitment to ensure that we are employing people who have a disability. For example, in Dundee, we are working with Remploy, and in Glasgow, we have recently had taster sessions with the Glasgow Disability Alliance. All the taster sessions were exceptionally successful. In addition, Inclusion Scotland is offering placements for disabled candidates.

We are working internally to ensure that there is great deal of focus on encouraging people who came into Social Security Scotland on entry-level jobs, which are the vast majority of jobs in the agency, to improve their prospects of internal promotion. I would be more than happy to share with Mark Griffin the information about what is already in place, because I appreciate that he is very interested in the subject.

I am proud of what the agency has delivered and what it will continue to deliver in this area.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that disabled staff at the agency do not earn less than other people who are doing the same job? Will she also outline how the Scottish Government is working with disabled people’s organisations to ensure that Social Security Scotland is seen as an attractive and inclusive place for disabled people to work and, importantly, that we are not missing out on their talent and skills?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I can confirm that staff working for Social Security Scotland are employed under the Scottish Government’s main terms and conditions, which includes standardised pay scales. Therefore, we are very confident that we provide equal pay for equal work. In my answer to Mark Griffin, I mentioned some of the work that we are doing with disabled organisations to attract diverse talent. The agency is also a disability confident employer and we take part in a guaranteed interview scheme for people with disabilities, reducing barriers to employment.

I hope that that gives the member and Parliament some reassurance about the great amount of work that the agency is undertaking in this important area.

Equally Safe

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it is meeting the objectives of its equally safe strategy. (S5O-03422)

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

In November 2018, the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities published our first equally safe annual report, which highlighted progress made on implementing the strategy and delivery plan. Work is continuing to take forward important measures, including building understanding of consent and healthy relationships, tackling women’s inequality, ensuring early and effective interventions for victims and survivors, and holding perpetrators to account for their actions. We will continue to report on progress annually for the lifetime of the delivery plan.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

One of the objectives of the Scottish National Party Government strategy is that men who carry out violence against women and girls are held to account by the justice system. However, the same SNP Government is letting the vast majority of domestic abusers avoid jail, by favouring soft-touch community sentences, which—[

Interruption

.] According to Scottish Women’s Aid, such community sentences put women and children in danger. Why is the SNP refusing to exempt domestic abusers from its plan to abolish jail sentences for up to a year, as Scottish Women’s Aid and others have asked?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

You want a UK ban on short-term sentences.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Mr Yousaf, Ms McKelvie is answering the question.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer—it is all teamwork in our Government.

I emphasise the important relationships that the Government has with Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations, which it values. Those organisations will continue to hold us to account and encourage us to do more to support victims of domestic abuse and tackle perpetrators. We will continue to work constructively with them, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Humza Yousaf, is currently doing.

I want to make clear our commitment to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls through our equally safe strategy, for which I have responsibility. That includes action to support perpetrators of domestic abuse to change their behaviour. We have committed an additional £2.8 million in the period from 2018 to 2020 to expand the innovative Caledonian system for domestic abuse programme, so that more male perpetrators of domestic violence can receive specific rehabilitation services.

That complements our approach to holding perpetrators to account through the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. I know that our justice system will continue to give such matters serious attention.

I gently remind Annie Wells about the proposal from the UK Government to ban short sentences. I will remind her not so gently that our policy is for a presumption against short sentences, which gives sheriffs the discretion to put away domestic abusers as they see fit.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

For a long time, coercive, controlling behaviour has been a hidden aspect of domestic abuse. Does the minister believe that the first conviction under the new

Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 sends a clear signal that domestic abuse in any form will not be tolerated? I hope that it will provide assurance for victims and give them greater confidence to report all forms of abusive behaviour.

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

The commencement of the

Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 was a great event in the Scottish Parliament and marks a new era in Scotland in tackling domestic abuse. Coercive and controlling behaviour, which has long been a hidden aspect of domestic abuse, is increasingly being brought to the fore and highlighted as absolutely unacceptable.

The first conviction under the 2018 act is a positive start and sends a clear and unequivocal message that domestic abuse, in any and all of its forms, will not be tolerated in Scotland. There is only one person responsible for abusive behaviour: the perpetrator. I hope that the first conviction will provide reassurance to survivors that we take such abuse seriously and will hold perpetrators to account for their abusive behaviour.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Earlier this week, I met White Ribbon Scotland, which recently teamed up with bookies across Renfrewshire as part of a campaign that saw scores of men sign the White Ribbon Scotland pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women in any of its forms. Will the minister join me in thanking White Ribbon Scotland and all involved for running that positive campaign? Does she agree that the work of White Ribbon Scotland on changing men’s attitudes makes a vital contribution to our shared goal of ending male violence against women in all its forms?

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

I whole-heartedly join Tom Arthur in extending my thanks. I am extremely grateful for the work of White Ribbon Scotland in highlighting the important role that men and boys have to play in promoting positive role models, changing men’s attitudes and encouraging men and boys to recognise and call out male violence against women and girls in all its forms.

I have taken a keen interest in the initiative, including taking part in its work in my constituency. I look forward to continued engagement with White Ribbon Scotland, which undoubtedly has a vital role to play in our shared goal of preventing and, ultimately, eradicating, that type of violence.

Domestic Abuse

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce domestic abuse. (S5O-03423)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

It is a Scottish Government priority to tackle both the causes and the impacts of domestic abuse. We just heard about the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which came into force in April and which reflects the full spectrum of abuse that victims might suffer. Criminal proceedings using the new legislation are on-going in courts across Scotland. As Shona Robison rightly said, one person has already been convicted and sentenced for the new offence.

We have supported the delivery of training to more than 14,000 officers and front-line staff in Police Scotland to support them to recognise the dynamics of trauma and abuse. We are also investing significant levels of funding in front-line services to support survivors of domestic abuse.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The Caledonian programme already seems to be making a huge difference in the areas in which it has been rolled out, and it is gaining the confidence of sentencers up and down the country. Will the cabinet secretary advise when it is likely to be rolled out across the country, including in North Lanarkshire?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Fulton MacGregor’s question makes an important point. Community disposals are available; however, they are always at a sheriff’s discretion. The community alternatives and disposals that could be available include the likes of the Caledonian project, which works with the perpetrators of domestic abuse on rehabilitation to change their behaviour. That is why we have invested £2.8 million to expand the Caledonian system domestic abuse programme, from which 19 local authorities now benefit. We support local government, including North Lanarkshire Council, with £100 million for criminal justice social work. On the specific question about the Caledonian project, I will write to Fulton MacGregor in more detail about the plans to roll it out to the remaining local authorities.

The Presiding Officer

Question 4 was not lodged.

Marine Mammals (Entanglement)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to protect marine mammals from entanglement. (S5O-03425)

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

The Scottish Government supports the Scottish marine animal strandings scheme, which investigates the causes of death of marine animals, including entanglements. Through that work, the scheme contributes to the Scottish entanglement alliance project, which aims to monitor and, ultimately, mitigate entanglements.

Mandatory bycatch monitoring is carried out across the United Kingdom under European Union regulations and is delivered under contract through the bycatch monitoring programme of the University of St Andrews. The Scottish Government is leading the development of the UK dolphin and porpoise conservation strategy, which includes actions on bycatch and entanglement. The strategy will be subject to public consultation later in the year.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

A European maritime and fisheries fund-funded research project that is looking at cetacean

entanglement is under way. Members of the project have called for the piloting of measures to prevent and mitigate entanglement due to fishing gear, but they have been told that they need to establish its extent.

Over the past couple of months, two humpback whales have drowned as a result of entanglement. Last month, another juvenile humpback whale that was entangled in fishing rope and netting was spotted in the Firth of Forth. Does the cabinet secretary support the calls for the pilot? What other measures are in place to prevent whales, dolphins and seals from becoming entangled in our litter?

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

My first answer outlined a range of on-going work. Obviously, I fully support the work of the Scottish entanglement alliance project to investigate the extent of the problem and to provide an evidence base for proportionate mitigation strategies. However, any pilot fisheries measures should first be discussed with the regional inshore fisheries groups before they come to the Scottish Government.

In 2017, the Scottish Government signed up to the global ghost gear initiative to tackle ghost fishing gear, which is often the reason for the problem. Of course, it is a global problem that needs global action.

Women Prisoners (Support and Services)

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to ensure that the most appropriate support and services are in place for women in the prison system. (S5O-03426)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

In 2015, my predecessor announced ambitious new plans for the future of the female custodial estate. The Scottish Prison Service has a dedicated team and programme in place to deliver the Scottish Government’s vision of transforming how Scotland cares for women in custody.

The SPS is working with a range of partners and stakeholders to develop a new model for managing and supporting women in custody, which has included developing new custodial arrangements for women to ensure that both the physical environment and the available services are gender specific and trauma informed. The SPS works with a range of statutory and third sector partners to deliver women’s services that address learning and skills, employability, physical activity and wellbeing, health—including mental health and support for addictions—and support for family engagement. Further needs-based services are available, including behavioural change programmes and bespoke trauma and bereavement services.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his informative answer. However, at the moment, changes to public policy on gender recognition are taking place without there having been a change in the law. Those changes are unregulated and unscrutinised, and they specifically affect women in prison who are especially vulnerable. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the SPS implemented its policy on gender identity with an equality impact assessment that neither considered the effect on women prisoners nor consulted them? Does he agree that that process was deeply flawed? Will he ensure that the current review, which was referenced in the report by Women and Girls Scotland, will carry out proper equality impact and risk assessments on any new policy proposals and involve a wide-ranging consultation that includes female prisoners?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will ensure that the concerns that Elaine Smith has reflected are part of that review. She is right to say that a review is going on. It should also be said that the SPS gender identity and gender reassignment policy, which was published in 2014, was developed in partnership with a number of organisations including Stonewall and the Transgender Alliance. Five years on, it is right that it is under review, which is happening. The review will include a consultation that will be open to members from across the chamber to feed into. Notwithstanding that, I will ensure that a transcript of what Elaine Smith has said is passed on to the SPS for its comment.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Given the high incidence of women in prison who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, does the cabinet secretary a

gree that cutting the availability of prison-based specialist services such as those provided by Open Secret, which is now Wellbeing Scotland, is a retrograde step that has resulted in such prisoners’ underlying problems, which have often led to their using alcohol and drugs to self-medicate, not being addressed?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Of course, it would be better if the vast majority of such women were not in custody. Some 90 per cent of women who are in custody are there for 12 months or less, so they would be affected disproportionately—in a good way—by the application of the presumption against short custodial sentences, which Margaret Mitchell does not support. It would be better if Ms Mitchell and the Conservatives supported the presumption, which would mean fewer women being in custody and, instead, being treated in the community for their problems with substance abuse and so on.

On the premise of Ms Mitchell’s question, which was about the services that are available, I advise her that we will always continue to fund the SPS for the important services that it provides. However, it would be much better if the Conservatives supported our presumption so that, instead of sending women to prison, we could treat them in the community, addressing the root causes of their offending instead of merely the symptoms.

Modern Apprentices (Dundee)

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the number of people starting modern apprenticeships reportedly fell by almost 12 per cent in Dundee between 2017-18 and 2018-19. (S5O-03427)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Modern apprenticeships are demand led. As employers—including those who offer modern apprenticeships—often recruit in cycles, the number of starts in any area can fluctuate from year to year. We have seen growth in the number of apprenticeship starts throughout Scotland, and there has been a record number of starts for the eighth year in a row. In Dundee, Skills Development Scotland is working with employers, partners and individuals to promote work-based learning opportunities, including apprenticeships.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The 12 per cent drop is particularly worrying, given the economic situation in Dundee, where, as the minister knows, there will be even fewer apprenticeship opportunities when Michelin closes, next year—and 70 fewer after the minister’s failure to support the McGill electrical services company. Will the Government now designate Dundee as a priority area for apprenticeships, and will he meet me as soon as possible to discuss taking special measures to get young Dundonians into work?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In respect of McGill’s, which the member has mentioned, of the 72 modern apprentices who were employed there, 70 are no longer seeking alternative employment and the two who are continue to be supported.

In relation to the wider labour market position, and in the context of record high employment in Scotland of 75.9 per cent and record low unemployment of 3.3 per cent, Dundee last year saw the third highest increase in the employment rate of any local authority area. With the support that we are giving to Michelin and the £150 million that we are putting into the city, and in that labour market context, there are plenty of opportunities for employers to take on apprentices in Dundee.

Rather than get her latest press release lined up, why does Ms Marra not join me in congratulating those employers who provide modern apprenticeship opportunities in Dundee and in encouraging other employers to take on more apprentices in Dundee and across Scotland?

St Ambrose and Buchanan High Schools

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

1. I am sure that I am not alone in having received correspondence in recent days from parents of pupils of St Ambrose and Buchanan high schools in Coatbridge who are concerned about the environmental safety of the site. Teachers are out on strike, and further reports in today’s press detail concerns that were raised a decade ago, before the schools were built.

I would like to examine some practical issues with the First Minister. Will the Scottish Government confirm that its review will be wide enough in scope to examine all the evidence that is coming to light, from the time when the school building was planned right through to the present day? (S5F-03441)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Ruth Davidson for raising the issue. If I may Presiding Officer, I will take a bit of time to address some of the serious concerns that have been expressed.

I fully understand the concerns of parents, staff and pupils at the schools, and the Government and I are determined to do everything that is necessary to allay those concerns, to address issues and to re-establish confidence. That is why we have established the expert review team to carry out a thorough independent investigation. The answer to Ruth Davidson’s question is yes—the review team will be able to look into any relevant matters.

The review team visited the schools yesterday and will conclude its work before the end of the summer holidays. It will be for the review team to consider what further tests of pupils, staff and, indeed, the site itself are required.

We are liaising closely with North Lanarkshire Council and NHS Lanarkshire, and will continue to do so. The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I will meet officials later today to get an early update on the work that is being done, and the Deputy First Minister will meet parents next week.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the First Minister for her response. It is important that we put on the record that the council and the national health service board are insisting that the site is safe.

The First Minister will know, however, that confidence among parents is low, and that many feel that their concerns are not being taken seriously. As Professor Andrew Watterson of the University of Stirling has said:

“Trust, transparency and good communication should be the key to dealing with these issues. The Buchanan High School case almost looks like a case study in how not to deal with the public.”

The teaching unions at the school have asked for updated testing to be carried out in order to give people further assurances, but they say that that request is being denied. It is a sensible idea; is it something that the First Minister might be able to address?

The First Minister

Yes—I am more than happy to address that point specifically. I say directly to the parents of children at the schools that the Government and I are taking their concerns extremely seriously. We will not rest until we have ensured that all the issues have been properly investigated, that any issues that are identified are addressed, and that every single parent of a child who is at St Ambrose high school and Buchanan high school has confidence in sending their children to school.

On testing, it will, as I said in my initial response, be for the review team to decide what further tests of pupils, staff and the site itself are required. Anything that the review team considers to be necessary should happen—the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I have been clear about that.

Apart from that, any parent who has concerns should discuss them with their general practitioner. The Government is already liaising with NHS Lanarkshire to ensure that resources are in place to deal with any consequent increase in demand for NHS services. As I said a moment ago, the Deputy First Minister and I will meet officials to get an early update on the work, and to look at whether it is required that further actions be taken, at this stage. The intention is to get to a point at which we can assure parents about the safety of the school that their children go to.

Finally, I want to reiterate the point that Ruth Davidson rightly made. It is the view of the NHS board and the local authority that the schools are safe for pupils to attend, but it is not enough for us to say that. We have a duty to convince and to assure parents of that, and that is what we are determined to do.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the First Minister for addressing the issue of the review team looking again at environmental tests.

Another way to restore trust is to give parents clear assurances that their children have not been affected in any way, but parents tell us that they are finding it difficult to get medical tests carried out. Some are, in order to put their minds at rest, paying to have tests done privately. Can the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport look into the matter to see whether parents are able to access tests that might reassure them that their children are well and that the school is safe?

The First Minister

As I indicated in my previous answer, we are already taking steps to do that. Scottish Government officials are liaising with NHS Lanarkshire to make sure that the increased demand from requests that are being made is understood, that it is able to respond to demand, and that we put in place the resources that are required to deal with the situation.

The view of the local health board is that there is no need for population testing, but we want the review team to consider that. If it comes to a different conclusion, its recommendation will be implemented. However, in the meantime, concerned parents should be able to discuss the matter with their GPs and take informed decisions. We are working to make sure that the local health service is able to deal with and respond to requests for testing.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

I was asked to raise the matter today because trust is breaking down between parents and staff at the school and local government and health authorities. I hope that the assurances that the First Minister has given today will help to restore that trust.

It is worrying that concerns were raised in 2009, when the plans for the schools were first proposed.

I hope that the on-going review, to which the First Minister referred, and which is due to be published over the summer, will give the local community the assurances that it needs. If it does not, does the First Minister agree with me, and with the local community, that a full independent inquiry might be required, in order to help those excellent schools to come back together?

The First Minister

I will take those points in turn.

First, I am aware that there is, rightly or wrongly, an issue of trust on the part of parents in respect of what they are being told. That is why we took the decision last week to establish the independent review to address directly such issues. I hope that, through the process of the review, we can do exactly that.

What happened and the information that was available in 2010 were part of the planning process, which was the responsibility of the local authority. Reports were issued and considered then. My understanding is that the local authority took full account of the information. Of course, if it is required that those issues be looked at by the independent review team, that is exactly what should happen.

On the last part of the question, I want to ensure that the independent review process, which we set up last week, does what we want it to do, which is to get to the heart of the issues and to reassure parents. I will not, however, rule out anything beyond that. I said at the outset that we will not rest until we have got to the heart of the issues, addressed and allayed the concerns of parents and re-established confidence. We will do whatever it takes to do that. I hope that it can be done through the independent review, and I hope that all members will support it in the weeks ahead, as it gets on with its work.

Scottish Welfare Fund

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. In 2013, the First Minister said:

“We set up the Scottish welfare fund ... to ensure that we are doing everything we can for the most vulnerable across Scotland.”—[

Official Report

, 23 April 2013; c 18827.]

I repeat: “everything we can”. Can the First Minister tell us how much is in the Scottish welfare fund this year, in comparison with 2013, when it was first launched?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

If memory serves me correctly, we fund the Scottish welfare fund to the tune of around £38 million a year, I think. Since 2013, through the welfare fund, more than 600,000 crisis grants have been awarded. From 2013 to December 2018, almost 240,000 community care grants have been awarded. We will continue to do what we can to provide support for individuals and families in need through the welfare fund and through the money that we are spending to mitigate the impact of Conservative Government welfare cuts.

As Richard Leonard and I have spoken about previously, much of the driver of increased poverty in our country comes from those welfare cuts. With every day that passes, it becomes more urgent that we join together to get those powers out of the hands of the Tories and into the hands of this Parliament.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The answer to the question that I asked is, “Not a penny more.” It was £33 million in 2013, and it is £33 million today.

Members should not just take my word for it. A new report out today—“The Scottish Welfare Fund: Strengthening the Safety Net” by the menu for change campaign—concludes that:

“The overall SWF budget ... including both the administration budget ... and programme budget ... has remained unchanged since 2013/14 when it was first introduced. This represents a real-terms cut”.

In fact, the Scottish welfare fund has suffered a real-terms cut of £3.5 million since it was introduced. Just last month, the Scottish Fiscal Commission revealed that the Scottish Government has no plans to change the level of funding over the next six years. At that rate, by 2025, that would mean a real-terms cut in the Scottish welfare fund of more than £7 million. Remember: this is a fund that helps some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland.

At a time of rising poverty, what is the First Minister’s justification for year-on-year cuts to the Scottish welfare fund?

The First Minister

For the period in advance of us and the budget for the year that we are now in, Richard Leonard and the Scottish Labour Party did not raise the issue of the Scottish welfare fund with the finance secretary on even one single occasion. In fact, the only submission that was made to the finance secretary was from Alex Rowley. To his credit, Mr Rowley made a submission. In it, he suggested that there should be an across-the-board cut in budgets of 3 per cent in order to protect local government services.

We have protected the welfare fund in the face of cuts to our budget from the United Kingdom Government. In addition to the welfare fund, we are investing £125 million this year to mitigate welfare cuts from the Tories. We are investing £350 million in our council tax reduction scheme, £64 million in discretionary housing payments to mitigate the bedroom tax that was imposed on us by the Tories, an additional £2 million in our fair food fund and £1.5 million in our financial health check service, and we are investing in a range of other initiatives, including the best start grant, to help families in poverty. We will continue to do that, because that is our obligation.

However, the sooner this Parliament is able to attack poverty at source and to take into its hands and out of the hands of Westminster the ability to tackle the causes of the increase in poverty, the better. The sooner Richard Leonard supports that, the better it will be for families all over this country.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The First Minister is defending her Government’s decision to freeze the Scottish welfare fund, for which it has responsibility.

Members should not just listen to me; today, Oxfam, the Poverty Alliance and the Child Poverty Action Group all recommend that the fund should be increased. Although the Government has reformed the formula, it does not address what today’s report calls “fundamental under-resourcing”. In fact, the fund is so fundamentally underresourced that local authorities do not even advertise it, for fear of being unable to cope with demand. We are talking about the fund that hands out crisis grants to families in emergency situations.

Will the First Minister do everything she can? Will she listen to today’s report? Will she provide additional lifeline support? Will she, at the very least, finally increase in real terms the Scottish welfare fund provision?

The First Minister

We have protected the Scottish welfare fund in the face of cuts to our budget from the Conservatives. I stand to be corrected if I have got this wrong, but I am not sure that Labour in Wales has a national welfare fund. Perhaps Labour should look to its own record where it is in government.

I again make a genuine offer to Richard Leonard. Every penny of this year’s Scottish budget is accounted for. Richard Leonard wants us to give more money to the Scottish welfare fund this year. If, later today, tomorrow or even next week, he wants to bring me proposals on where we should take that money from within the already allocated Scottish budget, I will listen to what he has to say. I am prepared to have that discussion. However, the problem is that we never hear that from Richard Leonard.

We will continue to protect the poorest in our society. I look forward to making a statement to Parliament next week setting out our plans on the income supplement.

However, I say again that Richard Leonard will have little or zero credibility on these issues for as long as he is prepared to defend the powers that determine all these things lying not with this Parliament but in the hands of a Conservative Government at Westminster.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

We have a number of constituency questions.

Liberty Steel (Redundancies)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The First Minister will be aware of the redundancies that have been announced at Liberty Steel Dalzell works, in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency. Our thoughts are with the 18 workers who have been affected and their families.

Can the First Minister outline what support can be given to those facing redundancy? Does she share my disappointment in the United Kingdom Government, which has failed to listen and failed to act to support the steel industry in the United Kingdom?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Clare Adamson for raising this issue, which is of huge importance in her constituency. It is of course concerning that Liberty Steel has announced redundancies at the Dalzell plate mill as Brexit uncertainty impacts on its orders. This will be an anxious time for employees, and the Scottish Government has offered support to those who are facing

redundancy through our partnership action for continuing employment initiative.

As our actions show—and Clare Adamson is right that they stand in stark contrast to the inaction of the Tory Government when it comes to the steel industry—this Government is committed to a sustainable future for the steel sector and to helping the industry compete in the global market.

The firm has said that it has confidence in the underlying health of the plant and hopes to begin recruitment again when the market improves. The Government will do everything that it can to support it in that endeavour.

NHS Highland (Data Breach)

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be well aware of an alleged data breach by NHS Highland, which exposed the confidential names and email addresses of 37 people living with HIV. Although I welcome the apology by the board of NHS Highland, does the First Minister share my view that confidentiality is a core principle of the national health service and that the decision to disclose HIV status is a matter for the individuals themselves and is theirs alone?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I strongly agree with that view and with the sentiments behind Dave Stewart’s question. The safety of patient data is of the utmost importance and, as required, the incident has been reported to the information commissioner—that happened within 24 hours.

NHS Highland has rightly taken steps to apologise to patients and to respond directly and speedily to any concerns raised. A formal, internal review of the incident is being conducted to understand any failings—and clearly there have been failings—and to consider what steps to take to ensure that such a breach does not happen in the future.

North Lanarkshire Council (Redundancy Payment)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

It has recently been reported that an official has received a substantial redundancy payment of between £400,000 and £800,000 to leave North Lanarkshire Council.

What is the First Minister’s view on the matter, given that that Labour authority suggests that it does not receive enough funding from her Government? What, if anything, can be done to stop such excessive payments to local authority officials to leave their posts early?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I understand that Audit Scotland is aware of the payment and that it will be looking at it as part of its annual audit work. That is only proper, given the apparent scale of the settlement. It is understandable that questions are being raised by Richard Lyle and by others.

Although the Scottish Government has no direct role in the matter, I am clear that there is a duty on all bodies to ensure that public money is spent appropriately and to be able to justify the decisions that they take. As well as Audit Scotland looking into the matter, I am sure that the Accounts Commission will also give it consideration.

Don & Low Ltd (Job Losses)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On Monday, employees at textiles company Don & Low in Forfar discovered that 55 jobs are to go. The employer says that other countries are much more competitive to do business in. That has been a real shock to the community. What is the Scottish Government’s response to it and what will it do to support those affected?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank the member for raising this issue. Any job losses are deeply regrettable, including in the case of this company in Forfar. As we do in all such situations, the Scottish Government will, first and foremost, liaise with the company to see whether there is any action that we can take to avert the need for redundancies. If that does not prove possible,

our partnership action for continuing employment initiative will work with affected employees to help them into alternative employment. I am happy to ask the employment secretary to write to the member updating him on the actions that we are taking in this particular case.

Glasgow Life (Golf Course Closures)

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I draw the First Minister’s attention to the consultation being run by Glasgow Life, proposing the closure of six public golf courses in Glasgow, including the popular courses at Linn Park and Littlehill. Given the success of the Commonwealth games and the European championships, and the legacy of increased sporting participation, it is astonishing that the Scottish National Party Glasgow City Council is proposing the closure of those popular sporting facilities. Does the First Minister agree that the proposals should be ditched and replaced with a strategy to increase participation at golf courses and get more young and older people out on to the courses and enjoying that popular sport?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Before I come on to the specific issue, as a general aside I say that the current administration of Glasgow City Council is right now, rightly, having to raise the revenue to pay the equal pay claims for female employees that the previous Labour administration shamefully failed to do over so many years. Therefore, sometimes, a little bit of self-reflection and humility on the part of Labour members, before they raise issues such as this, would be appropriate.

On the issue, it is vital that we have a range of sports facilities available in the city of Glasgow and across the country. It is for Glasgow Life to carry out a proper consultation, listen genuinely to the views of local people and then make those decisions. I trust this administration of the city council to take a range of decisions much better than its predecessors in the Labour Party did.

Space Industry

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The First Minister will be aware of the importance of Scotland’s space industry, its potential for growth and our expertise in satellite technology. Does she, therefore, share my disappointment with the decision by the Natural Environment Research Council, overseen by the United Kingdom Government, to withdraw funding for Scotland’s only satellite receiving centre at the University of Dundee, which has been praised for the work that it has done by NASA—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—and others, bringing the future of the centre into question? Is the First Minister aware that discussions between the university, Clyde Space and others with a commercial interest in maintaining the station appear to have reached an impasse and will she, therefore, ask her minister to work with parties involved in the hope of finding a way ahead that could safeguard the future of the centre, which has faithfully served the space community for more than 50 years?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Shona Robison for raising the issue and agree whole-heartedly with her about the huge potential of the space and satellite industry in Scotland. We already have a very visible presence in the space sector globally, more small satellites are manufactured in Glasgow than in any other place in Europe and almost one fifth of the UK’s space-sector jobs rest here in Scotland.

I share the member’s concerns about the implications of the Natural Environment Research Council decision to cut funding to the station. I am also aware of the apparent impasse in discussions with commercial parties. Scottish Enterprise is engaged to find a way forward that preserves the assets of the satellite receiving centre and retains the related expertise in Scotland. I am somewhat constrained in what I can say, and what we can disclose, in terms of the content of on-going commercial discussions, but I will ask the relevant minister to look into the matter further and write to the member with an update as soon as possible.

Paddle Steamer Waverley

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Since its restoration 45 years ago, the historic paddle steamer Waverley, a symbol of Scotland, has sailed every summer on the Clyde coast and beyond, until now. Expensive boiler repairs likened to open-heart surgery have put the Waverley’s future in doubt. That is why I, Jackie Baillie and many others are supporting a £2.3 million boiler refit appeal. Given the need to preserve the last sea-going paddle steamer in the world, the tourism that the Waverley brings to towns and villages across the west coast and the fact that next year is the Scottish Government’s year of coasts and waters, will the First Minister assure us that Government support is available to help with those repairs and save the Waverley?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Neil Bibby for raising the issue. The Waverley is, of course, a tremendous asset and a great national treasure; we should all want to see it preserved and continue for many years to come. I know that there is a fundraising campaign under way and I undertake that the Scottish Government will be happy to speak to the people involved in that and in efforts to fix the Waverley, to make sure that the Government is doing everything that we can to support their efforts. The relevant minister will be happy to write to the member to update him on progress in due course.

NHS Borders

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

Even with a £10.1 million bailout from the Scottish Government and another bailout expected, NHS Borders is making cuts. The gynaecology ward at Borders general hospital has closed, and the switchboard, which covers 20 wards, the pharmacy and other services, is on a so-called hit list. If calls are to be instead processed in Edinburgh, I foresee the possibility of serious healthcare concerns at the hospital, given the lack of local knowledge and so on.

The health secretary is well aware of the issues that arise from the board failures that led to the bailouts, but can more be done?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The health secretary will continue to work with NHS Borders to ensure that the issues are addressed. This year, the Government is investing more than £207 million in the board. The medium-term financial framework for health and social care sets out the approach that we are taking to increase investment further and deliver sustainable services across the country.

As I said, the health secretary will engage with NHS Borders to reiterate our expectation that, within the three-year flexibility that is open to it, it will work towards a sustainable financial position and ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the quality and safety of patient care. The health secretary would be happy to discuss the matter further with Christine Grahame.

Nursery Education (Provision for Two-year-olds)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

3. In 2014, after months of refusal, Alex Salmond eventually agreed to introduce free nursery education for two-year-olds who are in poverty. Five years later, only one third of those children are getting that foundation. Why is the current First Minister failing those children?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I do not accept that. Childcare is available across Scotland for vulnerable two-year-olds, in addition to the provision for three and four-year-olds. We continue to encourage parents who want to use that provision to do so. Our job is to ensure that the provision is there. As well as doing that, we are working with local authorities and investing significant sums of money in them to transform childcare and double the provision that is available by the end of this parliamentary session.

That is a big success story of the Parliament that we should be proud of and continue to work to build on, as the Government is determined to do.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is simply not good enough when this is supposed to be the Government’s most transformative infrastructure project. A new report was published this morning by the charity Save the Children, which is not impressed. In page after page of evidence, it says that two-year-olds who are in poverty are missing out, which could jeopardise the closure of

the poverty-related attainment gap.

In England, 70 per cent of two-year-olds who are in poverty are receiving free nursery education, which is double the rate in Scotland. It is unbelievable that the Conservative Government is reaching more children in poverty than the Scottish National Party is.

It has been five years. Does the First Minister think that she should have made more progress by now?

The First Minister

It is good to see Willie Rennie back to his usual role of defending a Conservative Government.

The Scottish Government is doing significantly more to expand early years education and childcare than the Government south of the border is, and that will continue to be the case. We will look carefully at Save the Children’s report and we will continue to work with it and other organisations to ensure that the roll-out of the expanded hours is effective.

As part of the expansion, the target for two-year-olds is higher, but we will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that for two, three and four-year-olds, Scotland is the part of the United Kingdom that leads the way on giving our children the best start in life.

Workplace Parking Levy

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Yesterday, the Scottish National Party voted against exempting police officers, care assistants, volunteers, firefighters, shift workers and those on low incomes from having to pay a workplace parking levy. Given that, does the First Minister still agree with her party colleagues who called the levy a progressive “tax on the elite”?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are giving councils a discretionary power. That is the empowerment of local councils that the Tories used to demand of us. No council has to use that power. Councils that decide to use it will be required to do a full consultation, part of which will be to look at the exemptions that they apply in their local areas.

I am interested in the position of Jamie Greene, who has stood up today to oppose a workplace parking levy, as he has done many times in recent weeks. The reason why I am interested in that is that, earlier in this session of Parliament, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which is chaired by the Conservative Edward Mountain, said in what was, as far as I am aware, a unanimous report:

“The Committee is of the view that demand management measures such as ... workplace parking levies have potential to make a significant emissions reduction contribution. It therefore calls on the Scottish Government to consider whether these measures should”

have greater prominence in the final climate change plan. I mention that because one Jamie Greene is a member of that committee.

Care System (Outcomes for Young People)

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Despite the limited progress that has been made, in this country we still have a care system in which more than 60 per cent of children do not attain even one national 5 qualification

, care-experienced young people are around 10 times less likely to go on to higher education and, in every age group and at every level, young people are behind their peers in literacy and numeracy. Those statistics embarrass me, and they should embarrass Scotland. If they embarrass the First Minister, what is she going to do about it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am grateful to Kezia Dugdale for raising that issue, which is very close to my heart. I have made it clear that I consider that I have made not just a political commitment but a personal commitment to improve the outcomes of young people who grow up in care. On Friday last week, I attended a Who Cares? Scotland event to talk about the actions that that organisation thinks we should take now while the independent care review is under way, and I gave a commitment that we would do exactly that. We have already taken action—for example, by introducing the bursary for care-experienced students—and we will continue to do so.

The outcomes are not good enough, not just on school qualifications but on university access and a range of other indicators. There is work to do, and the Government and I take the issue incredibly seriously. I know that Kezia Dugdale will recognise that, although there is a gap as she has described, the recent statistics show that the gap is closing. Our responsibility is to continue to work to close that gap even further and, ultimately, as soon as we can, completely eradicate it. That is what we are focused on achieving.

Scotland Women’s Football Team

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The First Minister will share the heartbreak of many in the chamber who watched last night’s Scotland match but, my goodness, our women’s team has done us proud at our first world cup in 21 years. Will the First Minister join me in congratulating the team on that fantastic achievement and will she set out how we can build on that success, raise the profile of the women’s game in Scotland and get more girls into sport?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Everyone who watched the match last night will have experienced the rollercoaster emotions and the heartbreak of the final result. In recent weeks, we have also watched a young talented national team take us to our first world cup in 21 years, entertain us with some brilliant football, score five great goals and, most important of all, inspire the country and the next generation of wee girls and boys who dream of pulling on the Scotland shirt. We will do everything that we can to support the development of the women’s game. I spoke to Shelley Kerr just a wee while ago and said to her what I will say publicly and directly to the team now and which I am sure I say on behalf of all of us. They are feeling very sore this morning, but I say to all of them: you should be very proud of your achievements—you have done Scotland proud and you will be back stronger than ever in future.

CYBG (Clydesdale Bank Brand)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yesterday, the banking group CYBG announced that it would be dropping the Clydesdale Bank brand after 175 years. Does the First Minister share my concern about the loss of that historic and iconic Scottish brand? Although CYBG says that it intends to continue issuing Clydesdale Bank notes despite the rebrand, is she as worried as I am that that important part of Scottish banking heritage could be under threat in the longer term?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The decision is for CYBG, not the Scottish Government, but all of us want important Scottish brands to be preserved. I hope that CYBG will think about that as it makes the changes that it has announced, so that the brand of Clydesdale Bank notes can continue. As we do with all banks and companies, we will continue to discuss such issues, to raise any concerns that we have and to support them as much as we can as they take decisions that they consider to be right for their own business interests.

Refugee Week

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

4. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is marking refugee week. (S5F-03455)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government is delighted to support refugee festival Scotland, which begins today, on world refugee day. The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government will be visiting an exhibition in Glasgow that has been designed and produced by refugees, and she will be hearing from those who are involved in the festival. The festival is co-ordinated by the Scottish Refugee Council, and it provides an opportunity for refugees to tell their stories and for us to recognise their courage, strength and resilience. It also gives us the opportunity to recognise the contribution that refugees and asylum seekers from all over the world make to life here in Scotland.

We must remember that refugees have sought sanctuary from war, terrorism and torture, and I am proud that they are welcomed here and can begin to rebuild their lives. I thank all those who are involved in supporting refugees across our country.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

People in Scotland should feel proud that we have lived up to our global responsibility to find homes for thousands of refugees. However, because of the callous Tory Government, we still have lock-change evictions by Serco, children and pregnant women behind barbed wire at Dungavel and a hostile environment that persecutes rather than protects vulnerable people.

In a few weeks, we will have a new Prime Minister. What should their priority be when it comes to fixing that broken system?

The First Minister

The implications of the policies that Ruth Maguire has just narrated to the chamber should shame the Conservative Government at Westminster, and I hope that the new Prime Minister will think again, fundamentally and very quickly. I call on the incoming Prime Minister to immediately overhaul the current failed asylum system. We urgently need a new process that is based on some important and basic principles: fairness, dignity and respect for human rights. We need a system that does not leave people at risk of destitution and homelessness, with other public services having to pick up the pieces. There should be a 28-day time limit on detention at immigration centres and a ban on the detention of children and pregnant women.

Today, the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary could take action to ensure that local authorities that voluntarily participate in asylum dispersal are provided with adequate funding to allow them to support people, from the very first day of their arrival, to rebuild their lives in communities.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The First Minister is right to say that the policy levers are at Westminster, but the responsibility to support people who are being failed in our communities lies with us, too. While we celebrate the refugee festival, hundreds of asylum seekers in Glasgow will face the threat of mass evictions and destitution. Does the First Minister agree that what they need in the coming weeks is not just a restatement of the existing Government commitment to provide, with Glasgow City Council, emergency accommodation but for that emergency accommodation to be available now? When will such accommodation be available? What can the First Minister tell us about the work that is on-going?

The First Minister

The Scottish Government will continue to work with Glasgow City Council and with any council that is in a similar situation to ensure that the support that asylum seekers need is available. That is an on-going obligation and responsibility, which includes the need to provide asylum seekers with access to accommodation.

It is essential that the point that I made a moment ago—I know that Patrick Harvie agrees with this—is understood by the United Kingdom Government. Local authorities that voluntarily participate in asylum dispersal, which we encourage local authorities to do, must get adequate funding from the UK Government to support those people. Let us absolutely live up to our responsibilities, but let us continue to press the UK Government to live up to its responsibilities, too.

Lyme Disease

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that cases of Lyme disease are diagnosed and treated as early as possible. (S5F-03459)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are committed to raising awareness of Lyme disease and to supporting those who are affected by what is a complex infection. We have a multidisciplinary expert group dedicated to Lyme disease that is part of the Scottish health protection network.

Last week, the chief medical officer wrote to all NHS Scotland health boards and general practitioner practices to highlight the important role that they play, not only in the early diagnosis and management of Lyme disease cases, but in promoting awareness among their patients of ticks and tick-borne infections.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Public Petitions Committee has heard evidence from those with lived experience of the chronic debilitating effects of the disease, who said that their illnesses are not even being acknowledged. What can the Scottish Government do for those patients who are bitten by a tick, are infected with Lyme disease and multiple unidentified co-infections and who miss their early treatment window because of lack of recognition and then develop the chronic disease?

The First Minister

My initial answer set out what the Scottish Government is doing. Awareness in order to aid prevention is vital, which is why that will be a focus of the multidisciplinary group. We are making sure that front-line clinicians have the information that they need to diagnose, detect and therefore treat the illness. The letter that the chief medical officer wrote last week was designed to raise that awareness and to ensure that those working across our health service—particularly GPs—have the information and awareness that they need to ensure firstly prevention, but also early diagnosis and access to treatment for those affected.

Prestwick Airport

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s plans to sell Prestwick airport. (S5F-03444)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Since the Scottish Government purchased Prestwick airport, we have been clear that our intention is to return the business to the private sector when the time is right. The team at Prestwick has continued to engage with potential buyers and investors to discuss proposals for developing the business under new ownership. The airport is making good progress to increase revenue, deliver operating efficiencies and pursue opportunities for the future.

In the light of that progress, the airport has now placed an advert in the

Official Journal of the European Union

, inviting expressions of interest. Any proposals that are submitted would be considered carefully before a decision was taken to divest our shareholding or any part of it. In the weeks ahead, it is important that we protect the integrity of that process.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Given that there are over 300 direct jobs and thousands more indirect jobs at Prestwick airport, all of which are crucial to the Ayrshire economy, can the First Minister assure those workers that there will be no sale to a company that does not guarantee to secure and grow those jobs? Will she ensure that there will be full consultation with the trade unions before any sale goes ahead? Will she also give an assurance to the taxpayer that any sale will be subject to agreement that the £40 million-plus that was loaned to Prestwick airport will be paid back in full by any new owner, should one be found?

The First Minister

I hope that the member will appreciate that I will not go into too much speculative detail about any bids that might come in and the consideration that would be given to them. It is important that we protect the integrity of the process, and any decisions that are taken will have to be in the overall interest of Prestwick airport and those who work in it. I fully expect engagement with trade unions, and given that the Scottish Government’s purpose in bringing the airport into public ownership was to protect jobs, clearly that will be a key consideration for the Prestwick team in the future.

The eligibility questionnaire, which was published in the official journal, sets out some prime objectives for bidders, one of which is maintaining Prestwick as an operational airport. The interests of the local economy, the workers at the airport and the taxpayer are all factors that will have to be take into account before future decisions are taken.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. After a short suspension, we will move to members’ business

12:44 Meeting suspended.

12:46 On resuming—

Glasgow School of Art Fire

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-17623, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on the first anniversary of the Glasgow School of Art fire.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with regret the first anniversary of the second devastating Glasgow School of Art fire; notes the deep and long-lasting damage that it has caused to the businesses and residents of Garnethill, Sauchiehall Street and the surrounding area; acknowledges the trauma experienced by displaced residents of Garnethill who were prevented from returning to their homes to collect their belongings on the night of the fire and for the following three months; understands that businesses and residents are still experiencing problems with vehicle access, refuse collection and insurance claims; recognises the severe impact on the local business community and is concerned that some businesses have been unable to reopen while others have had to relocate elsewhere at a huge loss to their business; welcomes the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee report,

The Glasgow School of Art Mackintosh building: The loss of a national treasure

; notes the belief that it is the shared responsibility of the UK Government, Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council to secure the recovery and long-term future of Sauchiehall Street as an area of economic and cultural importance for Glasgow; acknowledges the concern that such a long-term plan is not yet in place a year on from the fire, and notes the calls on all political parties and relevant agencies to work together to ensure that a full recovery can be made as soon as possible.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I lead this cross-party debate on the first anniversary of the Glasgow School of Art fire, and I have been working closely with Adam Tomkins, Sandra White and Patrick Harvie to represent the people and the businesses of Garnethill and Sauchiehall Street that have been devastated. It is important to highlight that the fire destroyed not only the much-loved Mackintosh building, but the O2 ABC, Campus and the entire block.

On 15 June 2018, Abdeh Mahmood and her family went to celebrate Eid at their uncle’s house in the south side of Glasgow. The family returned home at about 11.30 that night, all dressed in their Eid best—Abdeh told me that she was wearing her fancy high heels. As they got closer to home, they saw that, across the motorway, the skyline was ablaze. Soon after, they were told that they could not return home because, for the second time in four years, the Glasgow School of Art was on fire and the street had been cordoned off.

All that Abdeh had on her was one bank card. Like all the other families affected, there was no time to collect important personal belongings—all the things that they would need in their lives. Abdeh, for example, needed her autistic son’s guardian documents, passport and medication in order to look after him. In the days after the fire, she was refused money from a bank—an experience that she said made her feel like a refugee in her own city.

Families were split up due to difficulties in getting emergency accommodation. A total of 67 residents were shut out of their homes for three months without being allowed a single visit to collect their personal belongings. In my opinion, that was unacceptable. In total, 33 businesses were devastated. Some of the residents were running their business from home, so members will appreciate the devastation that the fire has caused them.

The blaze was fought by 120 firefighters, who are to be congratulated on their incredible stamina and expertise in fighting the fierce and enormous fire.

The people affected by the fire know that it has changed their lives and will continue to do so for a very long time.

I will never forget walking down Sauchiehall Street, months after the fire, with Councillor Frank McAveety, counting the number of closed businesses and meeting the devastated owners who had lost so much—owners who still risk losing everything as they face continuing problems even today.

Any resident or business, when asked whether they believe that the authorities’ response was adequate will say that they felt abandoned, because it took five weeks before anyone senior from the council came to speak to them. Contingency plans were slow and information was unsatisfactory. Lessons must be learned.

Amir, a resident, said:

“They did not provide the leadership that was needed to help us navigate this crisis ... we, as displaced residents, had to reach out to the Scottish Government asking them to step in and take control. The situation was so dire that we needed our belongings and all we got were threats of arrest”

for trying to breach the cordon. Amir is referring to residents’ call for one-hour access to get essentials. Such access has been allowed after disasters in other cities, so why was that not allowed in Glasgow?

I want to thank John Sherry, who was appointed as the central point of contact for residents and businesses. His job was not an easy one. I would also like to thank Raymond Barlow, from building control, who took my calls when I had some questions to ask. We as a city must learn lessons from this.

The disaster has also exposed Glasgow School of Art’s poor relationship with the local community. Indeed, as an elected member, I find it staggering that most residents had never been invited into the school. The commitment by Muriel Gray, who I wish well in her retirement, to never let this happen again must be honoured by the new chair and director.

People do not feel safe in their own homes now, and they will not feel safe until there had been some accountability for this fire. New-build plans for the school must be shown to be robust both in the materials that are used and in the approach to construction.

As we all have many questions about what actually happened on that night, we must see the fire report as soon as is practicably possible. We need answers. I also commend the sterling work of Joan McAlpine and the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee. They have helped enormously, and I back their call for a public inquiry.

Battles are still on-going with insurance companies, some of which are trying to recover the support provided by the Scottish Government. In other words, they are trying to take back the money that Derek Mackay granted to help the affected businesses that I and the MSPs whom I have mentioned are supporting. I acknowledge the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work’s help for those businesses by setting up the fire recovery fund in response to our demands, but they have had only a 10 per cent reduction in their non-domestic rates and they are struggling to survive. Wok to Wok, a well-known eating place in Sauchiehall Street, is gone; Campus is shut; Bagel Mania is struggling to stay; and the newsagent in News Box, who has been there for 20 years, told us very recently that he is battling to survive.

My heart also goes out to all those who had been working on the £35 million restoration just before the fire. Many, like myself, are very proud of our heritage in the Glasgow School of Art. As for the future, the public must be fully involved in any decisions that are made, and that involvement must be taken forward with the utmost sensitivity. The relationship between the Glasgow School of Art and the local community must start afresh, and the new frontage that is being planned and the on-going work must be live to the trauma that people have experienced. The motion signed by members calls on the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council to work together to safeguard the area and secure the short and long-term future of Sauchiehall Street, because there is deep concern that because so much has happened, it might not fully recover.

The O2 ABC, which was a magnet for entertainment in the area, was utterly destroyed in the fire. When I met the owner, Michael Haddock, last month, he confirmed that it was his intention to rebuild what was an extremely important venue for Glasgow’s music scene as a modern, fit-for-purpose building. He has completed a detailed report on the structural damage, which is severe; importantly, he also confirmed that the plans will include an option to retain the façade, if that is at all possible. We need swift action from the council with regard to the viability of the façade, because the timescale for rebuilding the O2 ABC is absolutely critical.

If Sauchiehall Street is to have a strong and secure future, we must all work together over the next couple of years to ensure that that part of the city thrives again. The Centre for Contemporary Arts, the Garage and the O2 ABC will need to have their loading spaces returned so that they can run their events. In time, we might even be able to have a street festival to bring people together—although I realise that that is a longer way off.

I want to thank all the local people—Gillian, Adrian, Chris, Julie and so many others—who rose to the challenge of being leaders in their local community. I ask Scottish ministers not to abandon Sauchiehall Street but to be an active player in the recovery of one of Scotland’s most famous streets, to work with the United Kingdom Government and Glasgow City Council and to give more help to the people and the businesses that desperately need to put their lives back together.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you very much. Seven members wish to contribute to the debate.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Pauline McNeill for that excellent speech. We have worked together and collectively for the good of the Garnethill area, Sauchiehall Street and the residents and businesses there.

First of all, I, like Pauline McNeill, thank the fire service for its absolutely heroic actions not just in 2018 but during the 2014 fire—and I will come back to the fact that there have been two fires. The fire at the Mack on 15 June 2018 was so fierce that people described looking into it as looking into a furnace, and there is no doubt that without the skills and bravery of our firefighters, it could have been so much worse.

The fact that water had to be pumped from the River Clyde, down at the Broomielaw, all the way up the hill, to Garnethill, shows us the enormity of the task that our firefighters faced. We all owe them an enormous thank you for the work that they carried out.

As I said, there have been two devastating fires: one in 2014 and one in 2018. As we await the fire report, we can only speculate on whether that was unfortunate or due to negligence, bad management or criminality. We must have a public inquiry into the two fires to find out exactly what happened at the Mack, and I thank Joan McAlpine and her committee for their work in that regard.

Although the focus has been on the art school, we must not forget the local community, including the local businesses that have suffered—and are still suffering—due to the devastating fire and which have had to relocate, close down or see their takings diminish, as Pauline McNeill mentioned. I thank Derek Mackay and the Scottish Government for initiating the scheme that Pauline McNeill mentioned, which gives money to local businesses to help them along. Unfortunately, the insurance companies have decided to use the £20,000 that the Scottish Government gave to local businesses as a reason not to pay out. That issue has been raised in the House of Commons by Alison Thewliss MP.

The local community, which was already facing disruption due to the avenues project—which, I must admit, is now looking good and is moving along—must also deal with the aftermath of the art school fire, which affected the O2 and devastated that area of Sauchiehall Street and Garnethill. People were unable to access their properties, even to get their pets. A cat was left there for a couple of days and somebody had to break through the barrier—sleekitly—to rescue it. People had to leave behind medicines, personal effects and work belongings. Although we all understand the safety reasons for that, the issue that has come up time and time again during meetings that I have had with the local community is the lack of communication and information, not only from officials, but from the art school as well.

As Pauline McNeill said, lessons have to be learned. People were out of their houses and could not access anything—they were very worried. They could see people wearing hard hats behind the barriers, having their lunch, so why could someone from a residents’ committee not be allowed in to look at the place? Lessons have to be learned.

When Muriel Gray was asked by the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee whether she had any regrets, she said that she regretted not working enough “with the local community”. That is absolutely essential.

I note that the Glasgow School of Art now has a community engagement officer, Harriet Simms—who was appointed in November 2018—and her role is to help better connect the Glasgow School of Art with the local community. I have met the group that has been set up, which has put forward a number of ideas, having worked with students, the local community and Glasgow Kelvin College on various projects—skills, apprenticeships and so on. That is a step forward and perhaps lessons have been learned.

The one lesson that must be learned—and the issue that must be sorted—is that Sauchiehall Street must be restored to its former glory. To Glaswegians, Sauchiehall Street is a jewel in Glasgow’s crown and it must return to being that jewel.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I commend Pauline McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank her for her leadership in ensuring that MSPs from all four political parties that represent Glasgow in Parliament have been able to work together in the public interest, and in the city’s interest, to hold decision makers to account for what has been a devastating time for Sauchiehall Street and Garnethill.

I strongly associate myself with Sandra White’s remarks at the beginning of her speech about the debt that we all owe to the courage, bravery and commitment of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in putting out the fire a year ago.

The past 12 months have been profoundly difficult for the businesses and residents of Sauchiehall Street and Garnethill. They have been pushed to breaking point through no fault of their own. Like Pauline McNeill and others, I have been deeply struck by their resilience and tenacity over the past year.

It has to be said that there has, right from the beginning, been an alarming lack of a coherent or joined-up plan from Glasgow City Council to deal with the consequences of the fire. In the days and weeks that followed, information was allowed to trickle down to traders and residents only in the most piecemeal way, and it was clear that the council was constantly on the back foot. One year on, there is still, as far as I can see, no long-term strategy for the recovery of Sauchiehall Street. No one blames the council for the fires, but from that time of crisis, it is clear that Susan Aitken’s administration is one that runs for cover when the going gets tough. That is just not good enough.

We await the findings of the SFRS investigation, which is taking an inordinately long time. In addition to that report—whenever it is published—there is a compelling case for a full independent public inquiry into not only the causes of the fire but the future of the site and the Mackintosh building. I called for such an inquiry in February and was delighted when the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, which is convened by Joan McAlpine, echoed my call in its report, which was published in March. I commend the work that Joan McAlpine and the committee have done.

As many members are, I am concerned by Glasgow School of Art’s continuing apparent lack of civic duty in respect of the area that is serves. Just five days after the blaze, as businesses and residents were prevented from returning to their premises and homes in the immediate aftermath of the fire—as Pauline McNeill has vividly told us—the GSA’s focus was on providing public assurances that the Mack would be rebuilt, that all would be okay and that it would be in charge. That shows blatant disregard for the GSA’s neighbours and does not sit comfortably with the local community.

Let me tell members about the first time I went to see the GSA in the aftermath of the fire, last summer. In the first five minutes of that meeting I was told two things: first, that the fire had nothing to do with the GSA because it did not have stewardship of the building at the time—it was under the stewardship of Kier Construction; and secondly, that the GSA alone would determine how, where and when the building would be rebuilt. That is not leadership, stewardship or custodianship; it is arrogance, and it has no place in decision making about the future of Glasgow School of Art and Garnethill.

We need a full public inquiry, not only to think about the future of the building, but to establish the full facts underpinning what happened a year ago. The fire engines that were sent out from Cowcaddens fire station, just seconds away from Garnethill—it is just around the corner—were there within minutes of the alarm being raised. However, when the fire brigade arrived at the site of the fire, it reported that the building had been ablaze for at least 45 minutes, and perhaps as long as an hour. How on earth, in the middle of Glasgow city centre, could our national treasure, the Mackintosh building of the Glasgow School of Art, be allowed to burn for an hour before an alarm was even sounded? That is a question that Joan McAlpine’s committee rightly identified as needing answers. We need a full independent public inquiry—not to ask those questions but to answer them.

Under the Glasgow School of Art’s stewardship, the Mackintosh building has been allowed to burn down twice in the space of four devastating years. The GSA has failed in its custodianship of a national treasure. I want an inquiry into the future of the building. My personal preference would be for it to be rebuilt as a public asset for us all to enjoy, and as a magnet to draw tourists from all over the world to Glasgow to celebrate the heritage of Charles Rennie Mackintosh. It should not be rebuilt as a private art school.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing this important debate. I compliment Pauline McNeill, Adam Tomkins, Patrick Harvie and Sandra White for working closely with the communities around the Glasgow School of Art, and for providing much-needed support.

On 15 June 2018, I was on a night out in Glasgow. I dropped off a friend on Sauchiehall Street at about half past 11 or 12 o’clock at night, and I could sense that there was a bit of a commotion building—I could hear fire engines. I made my way home, where I was shocked to see the images on social media of the GSA ablaze, and of the chaos unfolding for the people who live in the community.

Three key points must be drawn from the debate. First, we need to learn the lessons from the fire. Adam Tomkins just said that it took 45 minutes for the alarm to be raised. I did not know that until he spoke about it, so when I was down on Sauchiehall Street that night, the fire had probably been ablaze for about an hour, but the fire engines were only then reaching it. That is a matter of real concern.

There has been discussion about potential negligence by the contractors who were reconstructing the building, which might have contributed to the fire. Other fires in the Sauchiehall Street area in recent years—the previous fire in 2014 and the fire at the Pavilion theatre—also need to be considered. In addition, there have been a number of fires throughout the Glasgow area, including at the old vacated Scottish Power site in Cathcart. We need to examine why we are suddenly seeing greater frequency of fires.

The second matter that needs to be considered is how we support the community and businesses. The whole area that runs from the Charing Cross end of Sauchiehall Street down to Buchanan Galleries has had a devastating time in recent years. Between the first GSA fire to the Pavilion theatre fire, many businesses have closed down and tried to reopen. The area is a real hub in Glasgow’s city centre, so we should seek to rebuild it. The comments that members have made about the slow and inadequate response in relation to supporting businesses and people who have been displaced from their houses are absolutely correct.

The third point to make is that the pace of the operation needs to be quicker. It is not good enough that one year down the line we still do not know the reason for the fire. I support the calls for a public inquiry. It is clear that more needs to be done by Glasgow City Council and other authorities to support businesses and local people. Clearly, the debate has shone a light on fundamental issues including why the fire occurred, the role of the GSA in relation to interface with the local community and rebuilding the legacy, and how we support businesses and the community.

I hope that the points that are being made in the debate are taken forward and considered seriously and quickly.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

“Oh, no! Not again. God. Not again.” That is about the only thing that I kept saying to myself when I first saw the images of that fire. Everybody who was seeing the images and remembering the fire a few years previously, felt tragic loss. “Not again,” I said to myself.

Whatever criticisms—I will come back to them—have been made of the art school and of the poor communication after the fire, every one of us knows that everybody who was involved with the building or the wider community must have felt as if their hearts were being ripped out of their chests when those first images were shown, or—as Pauline McNeill said in her opening speech—when they were trying to travel home to the community.

First, we need to remember what an utter tragedy it has been not just for those individuals but for our whole city. As others have done, I strenuously thank Pauline McNeill for working to ensure cross-party dialogue, and for bringing today’s debate to the chamber.

I also want to echo other points that have been made. I extend my thanks to the people in the emergency services who responded so quickly, and my empathy to the people who have been directly affected. I also thank the Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee for the work that it has done.

The word “iconic” is overused—everything is described that way, so it has become almost a throwaway term. However, the Mack building absolutely was iconic of Glasgow’s architectural, cultural and creative heritage, and of the hopes for the future generations of young people who would study in our city and their contributions to its cultural life, our country and the world. Sauchiehall Street—where high and low culture are thrown together in a creative way—is also globally iconic of Glasgow’s cultural vibrancy, and of the city itself.

More than just a building was lost. Pauline McNeill reminded us about the O2 ABC and other businesses—either destroyed or still closed—that were directly affected by the fire. However, we lost more than those buildings and businesses. There has been a loss of trust in institutions, through poor communication and dialogue at local government level and, perhaps, at central Government level. Trust in the institution of the art school itself has been severely damaged. I hope that that damage is not irreparable and that trust can be rebuilt. However, we—and the art school’s management—need to acknowledge that that will not happen overnight. Sometimes, trust is harder to rebuild than a physical structure.

Adam Tomkins expressed his disappointment and anger that, a year on from the second fire, no credible long-term plan is in place for the art school or for revival of the wider community, which is such a vital part of Glasgow’s commercial, cultural, social and night-time economy. That community is an important part of the life of our city. It needs a long-term plan and it needs every level of government—UK, Scottish and local—to play its part. It also needs the art school, as an institution, to do so.

However, the community needs them not to dominate the process. Development and implementation of a plan must be led by the whole community that has been affected. The residents, who have been treated poorly throughout the past year, and the businesses—those that survived and others that might return—need to be in the driving seat in developing that plan, which should be about revival of the wider area and not just of one building or institution.

I call on every level of government to commit not only to holding a public inquiry—we need far more than the SFRS’s report—but to development of a plan that is led by the community. That is the only way that we will rebuild the trust that has been lost, which will—as I said—be harder to rebuild than bricks and mortar.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I, too, congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing the debate. My remarks will be informed by the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the loss of such a national treasure. I thank Pauline McNeill, Sandra White and Adam Tomkins, who do not sit on the committee but who engaged with our inquiry as well as with all the committee members, its clerks and the witnesses who gave evidence.

The committee members were driven by the fact that, like everyone else, we were shocked that one of our greatest cultural treasures had been destroyed so shortly after the first fire, in 2014. I think that it was the artist Lachlan Goudie who said that the Glasgow School of Art’s Mackintosh building was the greatest piece of art that has ever been produced in Scotland. I feel that there is a very strong case for saying so.

Of course, the building was in our custodianship—or, more directly, that of an institution that is largely publicly funded—so it was absolutely appropriate that the committee looked into the events leading up to the second fire. We were probably driven by people saying that the shock of the first fire and the understandable sympathy right across the world might have meant that not enough questions were asked about the origins of that fire. If that fire had not happened, the 2018 fire would not have happened during the restorations.

We are the culture committee, so the focus of our inquiry was on the loss of a cultural treasure. However, it soon became apparent that there was considerable concern about the impact of the fire on the residents of the area. That was made clear by the residents themselves, in their written submissions to the committee, and the engagement of Glasgow MSPs. It was clear from the written evidence that there was a lack of engagement with, respect for and duty of care towards the residents from the GSA.

Witnesses talked about feeling conflicted about the Glasgow School of Art. They love the building, its history and its origins, but they also said that it represents a distant, selfish, inward-looking and thoughtless neighbour. The committee was struck by the written evidence of the residents. One of our recommendations is that more needs to be done to rebuild trust with the community, and that must be done in a formal way. Formal methods of engagement must be drawn up between the management of the art school and the community.

At this point, it is important to say that, whatever decision is made about the rebuilding of the art school, it should not be done by the GSA. It should not be in its custodianship. Two former directors of the Glasgow School of Art told our committee that they do not think that the GSA has the capacity to take on a project of that nature.

We do not have time to go into the detail of the committee’s report, but I hope that we will be able to debate it more fully in the chamber at a later date. We do, however, stand by our key findings. We noted that,

“having clearly identified the risks posed by fire, via a number of reports directly commissioned by the GSA Board, in the period up to 2014, the GSA appears not to have addressed specifically the heightened risk of fire to the Mackintosh building.”

We also noted that

“the GSA Board consider that the fire safety measures that were taken went above and beyond the standards required”,

but the committee was

“unable to obtain any evidence, beyond the decision to eventually install a water mist system in 2008.”

We know that, despite that decision having been taken, the water mist system was not installed before 2014, and it was still not installed before the 2018 fire. During that whole period, knowing the risks to the building, the GSA embarked upon major conservation and capital expenditure projects and, in our view, it did not involve adequate fire protection.

The committee made further recommendations about preserving historic buildings that are at particular risk, and about the Government’s responsibility for doing that. The Government has given a helpful response to the committee’s report, including on regulations, and some commitments that I find constructive and hope to debate at a later date.

In concluding, I return to the SFRS’s response to our report. It is clear that, when it comes out, the SFRS’s report will look only at the causes of the fire and the reasons for its spread. It will not look at the events leading up to the fire and the management of the building. It will not look at the context of the fire. That is why our main finding that there has to be a public inquiry into the fire must stand. It is only through a public inquiry that we can get to the bottom of the events that led to these devastating fires, their effect on the local community and the future of the art school.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I, too, associate myself with the remarks from across the chamber regarding the immense bravery that was shown by the emergency services on that night. I thank Joan McAlpine and the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee for the work that they did regarding the Glasgow School of Art.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank Pauline McNeill for shining a light on an issue that, one year later, still affects Glasgow. I am concerned that businesses and residents in Garnethill, Sauchiehall Street and the surrounding areas are still experiencing the effects of the fire, and I hope that the debate will refocus our attentions on sorting the issue for the long term.

One year ago, on 15 June, sadly, the Glasgow School of Art’s Mackintosh building caught fire. As we have heard, it was the second fire to hit the building in just four years, and it resulted in extensive and long-lasting damage. Designed by one of Glasgow’s biggest icons, it is a special building that everyone in Glasgow loves and is proud of. I am concerned that residents and businesses are still experiencing problems associated with the fire. Local residents expressed their frustration over feeling as though they were dumped back in their homes after three months and expected just to get on with it. Earlier this year, residents stated that, when it came to making longer-term plans for regenerating the area, they felt they were shut out.

As Pauline McNeill pointed out, on top of that, there have been issues with vehicle access, refuse collection and insurance claims—problems that, one year on, we would not expect to see. Local businesses have also been severely affected by the cordon that was put in place after the fire. Some have relocated, and some have reported losses of up to 75 per cent on the previous year. Sauchiehall Street is of paramount importance to the city’s local economy, and I am concerned that, without bold action, an iconic street is being left to decay. Only last week, retailer Lush Ltd announced the closure of its branch on the street—one of many closures in the past couple of years.

This week, the fire inquiry moved into its final stages. As we have just heard, the main focus is on the likely origin and cause of the fire. As my colleague Adam Tomkins stated, first and foremost, we need a full public inquiry into the events that took place. Serious concerns have been raised over key documents being hidden from public view, and there have been questions about the management and oversight of the restoration by the Glasgow School of Art. With that inquiry, we can also begin to learn vital lessons that have wider significance for historic buildings across the world. As we saw with the Notre Dame cathedral fire in April, buildings can be so much more than the materials that they are made from. They can embody the essence of a city and the pride of the people who live there.

That leads me to my second point. Should we be having wider discussions about what is best for Glasgow in the long term when it comes to the Mackintosh building? The Glasgow School of Art recently reaffirmed its intention to restore the Mackintosh building, but, as Adam Tomkins pointed out, there is the potential to move the building to a different area of the city, to make full use of economic and tourism opportunities.

I will finish by offering my sympathies to those who, one year later, are still affected by the Glasgow School of Art fire. Glaswegians are proud people, and we are proud of our city and its heritage. It is important that local residents do not lose out for reasons that are outside their control and that we restore that iconic building to its former glory.

The Presiding Officer

I would like to accommodate one more member who wishes to contribute, as well as the minister, so

I will accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Pauline McNeill to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Pauline McNeill

]

Motion agreed to.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the motion and I praise my colleague Ms McNeill for her powerful and detailed speech, which highlighted the serious issues that her constituents face as a result of the devastating fire at Glasgow School of Art. I recognise that she also gave credit to the cross-party efforts in raising those concerns.

The trauma for local residents who were unable to return to their homes for an extended period shows the individual consequences of such a significant event, and it is important that we address the difficulties that the residents have experienced.

The location of the school of art means that, a year on, residents continue to face challenges with vehicle access and services such as bin collections. There have also been significant consequences for local businesses, with some relocating and others unable to reopen, both of which are options that have notable financial impacts. I agree with Pauline McNeill that the council and the Scottish and UK Governments need to make a joint effort to ensure that the Sauchiehall Street area has recovered and to continue to support those who are affected.

I am pleased by the reports that the art school has been working more with the Garnethill community to improve relations, and I hope that that continues, as it has been made clear that there was a failure in communication. That relationship is particularly important in relation to any proposals for the restoration of the Mackintosh building and the carrying out of such work.

As a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, I welcomed our inquiry. Although its timing—it was held ahead of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s report on its investigation—meant that, to some extent, our work was limited by our not knowing the cause of the more recent fire, the committee’s ability to respond to such issues of public interest and to provide a forum for exploring matters and providing scrutiny is definitely welcome.

With more than 47,000 listed buildings and more than 3,500 category A listed buildings, Scotland is a country with great built heritage, and historic properties are a key contributor to our reputation as a desirable tourist destination. However, the listing system that is used by Historic Environment Scotland, which covers a vast number of properties, currently lacks a formal means of recognising the smaller subset of category A properties that are so culturally and historically significant that they are of national importance, such as the Mackintosh building. As such, the system offers no ability to provide them with enhanced protection.

Work could be done to identify which of the A listed buildings are of critical importance, with a view to compelling owners to take additional steps, such as providing enhanced fire safety measures, and related public funding could be provided with the flexibility to allow that. The committee recommended that the Scottish Government, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Historic Environment Scotland should review category A listed buildings to assess whether interventions are required to reduce fire risk and to provide other specific protection.

A related issue is the remit of Historic Environment Scotland, which is to perform a leadership role in the conservation and preservation of historic buildings, but that remit does not provide the organisation with a clear role in ensuring that there is adequate fire prevention for buildings such as the Glasgow School of Art. The committee called for a review of HES’s remit and the possible extension of its powers in areas such as the taking of measures to safeguard against fire in buildings that are recognised to be of national and cultural importance.

Although the school of art has repeatedly stated its intention to rebuild the Mackintosh building, there is debate about whether the current arrangements for the management of the site are the most suitable. Given the other responsibilities of GSA board members, are they able to give sufficient priority to the safeguarding of the site? Would more specific expertise at board level, or alternative arrangements such as those that could be provided by the creation of a trust, better reflect the building’s importance? As with the issue of fire protection, that is not just a question for the art school; it is one for all custodians of historic buildings of national and cultural importance. We need to ensure that adequate protection is provided to such buildings.

The committee recommended that, once the investigation is concluded and the SFRS report has been published, the Scottish Government should establish a public inquiry, with judicial powers, into the 2014 and 2018 fires. I believe that there is merit in that proposal for the reasons that have been outlined by other members. Such an inquiry would also provide an avenue for considering the fire risks at historic buildings nationally and the ability of custodians to manage those properties.

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

I thank members for taking part in the debate, and I thank Pauline McNeill for lodging such an open and collaborative motion that reflects on the cross-party work that has been done over the past year.

I found the speeches quite moving in places; they were also practical in describing the challenges that residents and businesses face and the actions that are required as we look to the future. It is poignant and fitting that the debate is taking place within a week of the first anniversary of the fire.

As an aside, I mention that my sister was a resident on Sauchiehall Street, about a minute away from the art school, when the fire spread. I know that she and her wider family felt a sense of fear, worry and panic; that must have been a tiny iota of what it must have been like for the many people who saw the spread of the fire and who have had to face the consequences of it for months—indeed, for a year.

I am responding to this debate because of the wider economic implications of the fire, which shows the breadth of the issues. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs has already responded formally to the committee’s recent report, which was welcomed by the Scottish Government.

The culture secretary has said that she will await the outcome of the SFRS’s investigation before responding in greater depth to all the committee’s recommendations in the report, including the recommendation for a public inquiry.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I am pleased that the minister recognises the wider implications in relation to the Sauchiehall and Garnethill area. That is the primary concern for everyone. Will the minister address what the role of the Scottish Government could be? I just want to make sure that she will cover that point.

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

Yes, I will certainly come on to that point.

I know that there are no adequate words to capture the sense of disbelief, which Patrick Harvie outlined very well, and the devastation wrought by the fire, both to the physical fabric of the historic building and to its significance as a cultural and educational institute. However, it also caused acute difficulties for residents and businesses in the area and although some issues were quickly identified, clearly some were not identified or responded to as quickly as they could have been.

That is partly due to the inescapable consequences of such a large fire and the efforts of the emergency services in its aftermath. However, some of the issues were due to the uniqueness of the site. It was in the face of that unprecedented situation that the Scottish Government agreed to become involved. I can vouch for the personal support and interest of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work, having seen some of his efforts and interventions over the past year.

Recognising the enormous challenge that is still at hand, we will not abandon

Sauchiehall Street; we remain

absolutely committed to our active involvement and will continue to work collaboratively with Glasgow City Council and others. We need to reflect on the actions to date and build on them. For example, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government created a joint emergency fund for households that were suddenly uprooted and displaced by the fire, and £123,000 has been paid through that fund to support 32 separate affected households.

In June 2018, the finance secretary announced a £5 million recovery fund for businesses, and more than 200 businesses have received over £3 million in grant support from that fund. In December 2018, the finance secretary announced that the remaining balance of around £1.85 million would be made available to Glasgow City Council to support further business recovery. That has allowed the council to ensure that eligible businesses were not liable for business rates to the end of the last financial year.

I know that those actions and that support do not diminish the enormous challenges that are still faced by residents and businesses, but I hope that they have provided them with a little bit of breathing space during a very difficult time. However, a lot of speakers have identified problems with insurance. My officials were in contact with the Association of British Insurers in the immediate aftermath of the fire and that dialogue continues; I would be happy to offer Pauline McNeill and others the opportunity to connect with the ABI directly, if they have not already spoken to it directly, to identify some of the challenges with insurance.

Sandra White identified the bigger priority of ensuring that Sauchiehall Street recovers. It must be restored to its former position as the significant retail, trade, and cultural location that it has been known as for so long. That is of course the primary responsibility of Glasgow City Council as the local authority, but the Scottish Government will work with the council in any way that we can. Work on the Sauchiehall and Garnethill regeneration framework will continue; it is a 10-year plan and includes the avenues that have been identified, as well as a range of other local improvements.

Nevertheless, the effects of the fire will continue to be felt for some time, and the memory of such fear and worry cannot be erased quickly.

I do not say this lightly, but my hopes for the future are exactly those that Adam Tomkins identified: to find a way to restore Sauchiehall Street to make it even better than it was before; to restore the Mack building to make it even better and more accessible than it was before; and to ensure that we restore the sense of community so that there are no awkward neighbours, as was identified in the committee’s report. We must ensure that we do not go through that sense of disbelief and devastation ever again, and ensure that lessons are learned and that there is collaboration. I hope that the political leadership that has been shown across different parties in the past year can take us forward into the future.

13:35 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Planning (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 (Day 3)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is the continuation of stage 3 proceedings on the Planning (Scotland) Bill. We pick up where we left off last night. I remind members that we have 45 minutes to deal with the remaining amendments.

Group 38 is on forestry and woodland strategy. Amendment 207, in the name of Andy Wightman, is the only amendment in the group.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

The third national planning framework highlights trees, woodlands and forests as economic and environmental assets. In addition, it reiterates the aim for the expansion of woodland over the next 10 years to support carbon emission reductions and wider land use objectives.

Current Scottish planning policy says that local planning authorities should do the following:

“identify woodlands of high nature conservation value and include policies for protecting and enhancing their condition”

and

“consider preparing forestry and woodland strategies as supplementary guidance to inform the development of forestry and woodland in their area, including the expansion of woodland of a range of types to provide multiple benefits.”

I am pleased to note that all planning authorities, with the exception of those in Aberdeen city, Shetland and Orkney, have such a strategy already. Councils such as Highland Council have sophisticated strategies; Highland Council’s is in its second or perhaps its third iteration. The three councils that do not have strategies do, however, have supplementary guidance.

Amendment 207 requires all planning authorities

“to prepare a forestry and woodland strategy”.

Importantly, that requirement is to be fulfilled as the authority sees fit, provided that it covers the key elements in subsection (2) of the amendment. Given that planning authorities already publish either a strategy or supplementary guidance, the amendment merely gives those a statutory footing and ensures that they will continue to be produced.

I move amendment 207.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Andy Wightman’s amendment 207 is really useful. It says that planning authorities

“are to prepare a forestry and woodland strategy”,

that they should

“identify woodlands of high nature conservation value in”

their area and that they are to

“set out the planning authority’s policies and proposals in their area, as to—

(i) the development of forestry and woodlands,

(ii) the protection and enhancement of woodlands”.

As a member of the Woodland Trust and the species champion for the holly tree, I welcome this addition to planning law. I want to see woods and forests protected. If there is a climate emergency, as the First Minister says, our planning system should not be making it easy to chop down trees. We need more of them, not fewer, and we should plan for that. I say “Well done” to Mr Wightman for introducing this amendment. We shall be whole-hearted supporters of it.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Forestry and woodlands are an integral part of both our urban and our rural landscapes. I agree that it is important that strategies are prepared for their protection, enhancement and resilience. The amendment will introduce a requirement for planning authorities to prepare and consult on forestry and woodland strategies for their areas or, in collaboration with other authorities, across a wider area. However, that is not new. Strategies are already prepared as a matter of course by the majority of our planning authorities, as Mr Wightman pointed out, either singly or in collaboration, as is encouraged by Scottish planning policy and guidance in “The right tree in the right place”.

Amendment 207 takes that position a step further, and I agree that the time is right to do so in the context of recent changes that have been made through the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, through the new Scottish forestry strategy and in response to climate change. I thank Mr Wightman for working with us on the subject, and I am happy to support his amendment.

The Presiding Officer

I call Mr Wightman to wind up.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I have nothing to add other than that I welcome members’ support.

Amendment 207 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 39 is on mineral and peat working. Amendment 208, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 209 to 211.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

This suite of complementary amendments would update and modernise the planning system in relation to Scotland’s peatlands. That special habitat’s importance has grown in recent years because of its capacity to be a vital natural carbon sink. Members will recall that I spoke to similar amendments at stage 2 but, after listening to the minister’s concerns, I did not press them.

I thank the minister for discussing the stage 3 amendments with me; I have also had support from civil servants, including Andy Kinnaird. After further work, I remain convinced that the system of permissions and extraction rights for the habitat is out of date and no longer fit for purpose. I intend to listen carefully to what the minister says before I decide whether to press the amendments.

Many local authorities do not have comprehensive information about existing permissions, never mind the fact that many permissions should not exist at all in the context of Scotland’s climate emergency. I commend the Scottish Government for giving a high priority to phasing out peat use and peat extraction, in recognition of their significant climate change impacts and of the adverse effects on water and wildlife from damaged peatlands.

However, about 500,000m3

of peat is still extracted annually in Scotland. That removes a carbon store that takes thousands of years to form and results in the loss of almost all biodiversity value on the sites involved and in changes to hydrology that can have negative effects on flood management for our communities and populations. The Scottish Government is right to spend millions of pounds per annum on the peatland action fund to restore degraded peatlands across Scotland, so it surely makes sense, for coherent policy, to prevent the degradation of further sites, whose restoration costs could well lie with the public purse.

At stage 2, a target of net zero emissions by 2045 has been accepted for the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. The word “net” is important. The United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change’s advice on net zero targets says that it is

“confident that Scotland could feasibly achieve”

a higher target than the rest of the UK because of its greater sequestration capabilities.

Given increasing global recognition of the need for carbon reductions from land use activity, the proposals in the amendments would offer a relatively quick and cost-effective opportunity to address the issue in the public interest. The Scottish Government supports the UK Government’s target for retail soil supplies to be peat free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end the use of peat by 2030. The Scottish Government has also set a target of restoring 250,000 hectares of peatland by 2030. The amendments are entirely in line with that policy position, so I want to know clearly whether the minister thinks that amendment 208 should be pressed and the other amendments moved.

I hope that members will bear with me as I discuss these technical amendments in turn. Whether or not I move them all, it is important to put the issues on the record, so that we can move forward together as a Parliament, with the Scottish Government in the lead—particularly if I do not press all the amendments.

Amendment 208 would allow planning authorities to impose nature conservation as a recognised aftercare condition. Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 sets out three uses—for agriculture, forestry and amenity. A note from the Scottish Government on the amendment, for which I thank the minister, explained that the 1997 act defines a use for amenity as meaning that the land is

“suitable for sustaining trees, shrubs or other plants”,

which is dealt with in planning advice note 64, on the reclamation of surface mineral workings. That is welcome, but the critical omission from the list in schedule 3 is peatland restoration. Amendment 208 would remedy that by introducing a broader definition.

Planning advice note 64 was up for consultation and revision in 2015 and has not been updated since January 2017. Can the minister confirm whether he still intends to update PAN 64, as recommended by the opencast coal review? Will he commit to consulting on the adequacy of the advice on aftercare and the priority that is given to nature conservation, particularly if my amendment is withdrawn?

I highlight that, since stage 2, on the advice of the minister, I have edited the amendment that I lodged then to remove the involvement of Scottish Natural Heritage. I will not go into the details of that, but it is appropriate, because SNH has only an advisory role. The amendment is reasonable, given the environmental and climate emergency. The Scottish Parliament information centre has confirmed that the amendment would strengthen the status of nature conservation, particularly in light of developments in understanding about the importance of peatland and other issues that I have highlighted. For a number of mineral extraction sites, nature conservation is indeed the most appropriate and locally desirable afteruse. If I withdraw amendment 208, I urge the Scottish Government and members across the chamber to take forward the issues that are raised in it.

I come to amendments 209 to 211. Following comments from the minister at stage 2, I altered the similar amendments that I lodged then to limit their scope to peatlands, rather than all mineral extractions. There are two difficulties. The onus is wholly on planning authorities to monitor whether sites are lying dormant, and the power does not prevent operators from leaving sites dormant for years and then restarting operations without input from the planning authority. Under amendment 209, where an operator has left a site dormant and ceased operations for two years or more, the planning permission would automatically be suspended and the operator would need to proactively apply to the planning authority to resume operations. That would rebalance the situation and would put some onus on operators to keep their permissions up to date, and it would improve the ability of planning authorities to become aware of dormant sites. However, there may be a different solution to that issue.

Amendment 210 would introduce a sunset clause. It aims to simplify and clarify the process of the review of old mineral planning permissions by introducing a sunset clause for all old peat extraction consents, setting a time by which they must all be reactivated or they will permanently expire. Current permission periods are lengthy and poorly regulated. I will not go into the detail but, in the 23 years for which the processes have been in place, there has been ample opportunity for site operators and local authorities to make use of them. However, in a report in 2003, which was a significant number of years ago, SNH struggled to draw conclusions about progress with ROMP, having encountered difficulties obtaining information from local authorities.

That is another concern. The Environment Act 1995 introduced a requirement for the periodic review of mineral permissions, but only 15 sites are known to have gone through that review process, and there is no penalty or mechanism to enforce those statutory requirements. I would appreciate hearing from the minister whether a more robust mechanism might be put in place. It tends to be developers that trigger the process voluntarily. There is no centrally available information on sites where planning permission has ceased to have effect, and existing planning permissions act as a barrier to obtaining funding for restoration through mechanisms such as peatland action.

The bill presents a logical opportunity to simplify those procedures and to align planning with other areas of Government policy on peatland. Setting a clear end date for old planning permissions by introducing a sunset clause for extraction permissions would deliver that. Under amendment 210, all companies that have consents in the phase II and III lists or sites that were consented before 1982 would need to reactivate them—which seems a reasonable stipulation, considering how long ago that was—by a fixed national date or lose the consent permanently, although restoration and aftercare conditions would still apply.

That would remove long-term uncertainty around the status of the carbon in the soils and it would remove the burden on local authorities to instigate the process, thereby overcoming issues with lack of enforcement and clear data collection. The sunset clause does not pose a risk of encouraging developers to start production at unworked sites with old permissions, as it would simply require companies to reactivate consents.

Some members will be relieved to hear that we have come to the final amendment in the group. Amendment 211 clarifies that any calculation of compensation for restrictions on working rights for peat extraction should assume that there will be no UK “market for horticultural peat”—I will not repeat the dates. That would give planning authorities the confidence to consider restricting working rights in strategically important areas to allow for peatland restoration, because authorities would have greater clarity on the scope of possible compensation claims. Amendment 211 would not result in a ban on the sale of the products, but it would prevent peat extraction sites from claiming compensation on the assumption that there will still be markets for the products beyond the dates specified. Rather, the damaging products will have been phased out.

There is a presumption against new commercial peat extraction in the planning permission system and, in particular, in planning policy. Schedule 8 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 allows local authorities to order that mineral extraction be discontinued if that is in the interest of their districts, but any such order could trigger a claim for compensation by the holder of the extraction rights. Schedule 10 to the 1997 act, on periodic review of planning permissions, provides that compensation provisions are applicable when working rights to mineral extraction are restricted as a result of new conditions, except those relating to restoration and aftercare. In practice, that provision has been cited as a deterrent to planning authorities considering limiting the length or size of peat extraction sites, even when the peat extraction is clearly not in local interests or in the interests of meeting biodiversity targets. I gave an example at stage 2, so I will not go into details. Auchencorth Moss in Midlothian, in my region, is one such example. RSPB Scotland states that the site accounts for an enormous one fifth of Scotland’s total carbon emissions from peat extraction, and it is adjacent to a site of special scientific interest. I will not go into more detail, but the site is very precious.

I thank the minister for meeting me to discuss my amendments and for sending over information. I understand that the Government has concerns about amendment 211 in relation to the European convention on human rights, and I will listen carefully to the minister’s response.

However, there is clear public interest in ensuring that peatlands are safeguarded, and that there is a more transparent and realistic basis for compensation claims to prevent instances such as the one that I have highlighted from taking place. The Scottish Government has supported targets for ending horticultural peat sales, due to a significantly increased understanding of the importance of protecting and restoring peatlands for reasons relating to carbon and the wider ecosystem. I very much hope that the minister will consider those points.

I thank those members who have been able to listen for listening.

I move amendment 208.

The Presiding Officer

I say not only to Ms Beamish but to other members that these are the sort of detailed arguments that should be explored at stage 2 of a bill. I do not want to diminish the arguments that Ms Beamish has made in any way. She made it clear that she wanted to put her arguments on the record and I will certainly not curtail the speech of any member who wishes to do so. However, it is disappointing that there is such a level of detail at stage 3. I note that, already, the chances of keeping to our timetable this afternoon have been highly diminished. I make that point not only to Ms Beamish but to all members.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am very grateful to Ms Beamish for the co-operation that there has been. I really appreciate the fact that she mentioned Andy Kinnaird, the bill team manager, who has been a stalwart during the bill’s progress and has helped a great deal.

The Scottish Government recognises and supports the need to phase out the use of peat as part of our ambitions for tackling climate change and promoting peatland restoration. However, I cannot accept Ms Beamish’s amendments, given that there are already mechanisms in place to ensure that such issues can be addressed in a proportionate and fair way. Such mechanisms include existing order-making powers in the 1997 act, which allow planning authorities to deal with issues relating to dormant mineral sites, and a range of policy initiatives to phase out the use of peat in horticulture.

I want to avoid putting additional provisions into the bill when they are already addressed elsewhere. In particular, I am very cautious about forcing all existing sites to close without further consideration of the environmental and compensation consequences. In her speech, Ms Beamish mentioned the peatland restoration fund. Her amendments have the potential to require significant compensation or to prompt legal action from companies seeking compensation. The Government considers that funding would be more effectively spent on the peatland restoration fund. I know that Ms Beamish does not necessarily disagree with that.

Although I cannot support the amendments, I appreciate that Ms Beamish has highlighted very important issues around Scotland’s peatland. The Government recognised them and, in a much earlier group, lodged our own amendment to the bill to place a requirement on Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of preserving peatland when preparing the national planning framework.

Ms Beamish can be assured that when we look at that framework, which we will move on to next, I will pay due attention to what we do in those areas. I know that she will be at me if I do not—and I welcome that.

I am more than willing to look at the current wording of the advice notes that Ms Beamish mentioned, and at whether they require the updating that she referred to. I am happy to have further conversations with her on that.

What we have done reinforces our commitment to ensuring that planning policies on peat extraction are considered in the context of climate change, and I know that Ms Beamish will continue to scrutinise how we move forward on all of those issues. My door is always open.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

As I make a final decision on whether to press the amendments, will the minister clarify the situation in relation to those very long-term, outstanding sites, around which there is a lot of uncertainty and a lack of clarity on what the local government relevant planning authorities are doing? Is it possible for him to highlight the issue to local authorities, because if I do not move the amendments, the possibility of restarting sites is a serious concern?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am happy to talk to local authorities about the issue. There is no problem in that. I would be concerned about the possible compensation consequences.

Ultimately, that is where we need to consider the right choice. I would rather spend money on peatland restoration than on compensation, but I am happy to discuss those matters with local authorities.

The Presiding Officer

There are no other members who wish to contribute. I ask Claudia Beamish to wind up, and to decide whether to press or withdraw the amendments in her name.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I do not intend to press amendments 208 to 211 today. It has been a very difficult decision. A range of non-governmental organisations have had serious concerns about the protections for peatlands in the bill. RSPB Scotland was one that helped to shape the amendments—but certainly not the only one. There is a serious issue around aftercare. We have seen what happened with the opencast industry. It is very important that conservation and those aspects of aftercare are looked at more carefully, so that communities benefit through access to the countryside and better mental health, and most importantly, so that carbon sequestration can happen.

It is also important that those issues are more carefully enshrined in the review of the national planning policy framework, and I would be pleased to work with the minister and others on that.

As I said, I do not intend to

press

my amendments in this group. However, as a final point, I think it strange that, given that peat will have no market value after a certain date, there should be concern about potential compensation.

Amendment 208, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 209 to 211 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 40 is on the infrastructure levy. Amendment 213, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 214, 149, 218 and 150.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Me

mbers will be pleased to hear that I have a short set of speaking notes for this group.

Members

Hurray!

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Hurray—yes, absolutely. My amendment 213 would add “green and blue infrastructure” to the infrastructure list in section 29. Amendment 214 defines green and blue infrastructure as:

“features of the natural and built environments (including water) that provide a range of ecosystem and social benefits”.

At stage 2, members may recall that I lodged a similar amendment, which would have added “nature conservation management measures” to that list. The minister explained that those liable to pay the levy do not want the definition widened too far and that nature conservation measures would not help the levy’s key aim of enabling infrastructure capacity issues to be addressed to allow development.

I have reworked my stage 2 amendment, to bring natural solutions out of the environment silo. Green and blue infrastructure gives scope for infrastructure that helps to address environmental concerns, such as flood defences, water supply, loss of public green space, climate change, and protection of biodiversity and the wider environment.

The policy memorandum states that the levy should capture land value uplift for public benefit

. In that context, the preventative spend angle of the projects should not be disregarded, particularly given that many parts of south Scotland and beyond faced flood warnings only a few weeks ago. Using the levy in that way would contribute to meeting Scotland’s commitment to the United Nation’s sustainable development goals, in particular the UN target to decouple economic development from environmental degradation.

If the infrastructure levy is to achieve its objectives and deliver offsetting public benefits, it must directly address the accumulating public costs of development and economic activity. It is difficult to see how that can realistically be achieved without new investment in green and blue infrastructure, which could offset those costs.

In the face of the climate and environment emergency, I hope that members across the chamber will support my amendments.

I move amendment 213.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The bill does not currently contain provision on the application of the infrastructure levy to developments that are also subject to a planning obligation under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

There is the potential for duplication of conditions on such developments—that is, a contribution being required for the same object or purpose under a planning obligation and by way of the infrastructure levy. It would be inappropriate for persons such as developers to be required to contribute twice for the same object or purpose. That could impact on development.

My amendment 218 seeks to avoid that by specifically enabling any infrastructure levy regulations made by the Scottish ministers to provide for the granting of relief from liability to pay infrastructure levy where the development is subject to a section 75 planning obligation and where the planning authority considers that

“to require payment of infrastructure levy in respect of the development would constitute a duplication ... of contribution by the person who is liable to pay infrastructure levy.”

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The passage of the bill has been a marathon effort, but we have now come to the last group of amendments, and I am delighted to say that I support all the amendments in the group. I should say a little bit more, though—and it will just be a little bit.

The Local Government and Communities Committee highlighted concerns that the power to establish an infrastructure levy might remain in legislation without ever actually being implemented. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to introduce a sunset clause, meaning that the power to establish a levy would lapse if it were not used within 10 years of royal assent. Although the amendment was agreed to, some members still felt that the period was too long. Having looked at the timescales for and feasibility of bringing forward levy regulations, I am happy to lodge amendment 149, which seeks to reduce the time period from 10 to seven years. I am confident that that will still give sufficient time for the additional work and consultation needed to inform the regulations.

Moreover, concerns were raised at stage 2 over the timing of payment of the infrastructure levy and the fact that payment may be sought prior to the granting of planning permission. To address those concerns, I have lodged amendment 150, which seeks to remove paragraph 9 of schedule 1 to ensure that regulations cannot preclude planning permission being granted on the basis of non-payment of the infrastructure levy.

Another concern that has emerged is the potential for overlap between the infrastructure levy and planning obligations under section 75 of the 1997 act, with the issue of duplication and double charging being raised in particular. I believe that it is a reasonable point, and I am therefore happy to support amendment 218 in the name of Alexander Stewart, which will provide the industry with greater certainty.

The bill includes a wide definition of infrastructure that funds from the levy could be used to support. However, there have been calls for the definition to include a specific reference to green and blue infrastructure. Again, I am grateful to Claudia Beamish for her co-operation and communication on all of this; her amendment 213 seeks to do what I have previously set out, and I am happy to support it.

Amendment 214 seeks to introduce a broad definition of what “green and blue infrastructure” consists of. Although I have some concerns about the detail of the amendment, I am content that the bill contains sufficient flexibility, should circumstances change and the definitions need to be amended in the future. I am therefore happy to support that amendment, too.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I am delighted that the minister has accepted the amendments on green and blue infrastructure, which will help tackle the climate and environment emergency as well as help the wellbeing of the people of Scotland.

I have no more to say, other than this has been a tough gig for everybody. Well done, all.

Amendment 213 agreed to.

Amendment 214 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Section 30A—Lapsing of power to provide for levy

Amendment 149 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Section 32—Regulation-making powers

Amendment 215 moved—[Alex Rowley].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 215 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, there will be a five-minute suspension, and I will ring the bell and summon members to the chamber.

14:33 Meeting suspended.

14:38 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 215.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 81, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 215 disagreed to.

Amendment 217 not moved.

Amendment 216 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The question is, that amendment 216 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 28, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 216 disagreed to.

Schedule 1—Infrastructure-levy regulations

Amendment 218 moved—[Alexander Stewart].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 218 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 80, Against 31, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 218 agreed to.

Amendment 150 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The question is, that amendment 150 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 80, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 150 agreed to.

Schedule 2—Minor and consequential amendments and repeals

Amendments 106 to 110 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 219 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 219 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 219 disagreed to.

Amendments 151, 111 and 152 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 159 moved—

[Liz Smith].

The question is, that amendment 159 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 78, Against 31, Abstentions 2.

Amendment 159 agreed to.

Amendments 220 and 221 not moved.

Amendments 153 and 154 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendments 222 and 223 not moved.

Amendment 155 moved—[Kevin Stewart]—and agreed to.

Amendment 185 moved—[Kevin Stewart].

The question is, that amendment 185 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 102, Against 10, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 185 agreed to.

That ends our consideration of amendments. I thank all members and the minister for their time and effort over the past three days.

At this point in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to say whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter: that is, whether it would modify the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Planning (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority in order to be passed at stage 3.

NHS Scotland (Ownership)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that NHS Scotland stays in public ownership. (S5O-03413)

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

The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to the founding principles of a publicly owned, funded and operated national health service that is free at the point of need. We will oppose any attempt, in post-Brexit or other trade talks, to impinge on that in any way. Our NHS in Scotland will not be on the table in any trade deal.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I thank the cabinet secretary f

or her assurance. I am sure that the people of Scotland will be very happy to hear that.

How is the continued integration of health and social care in Scotland assisting the Government in protecting and managing the precious resources of the NHS? What discussions is the Scottish Government having with local health boards to ensure that our NHS is safeguarded against any future proposal by the Tory United Kingdom Government?

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

As Mr Lyle will know from the budget that was agreed in this chamber, the aim of our additional investment in health and social care

, which exceeds £700 million, is to shift the balance of care that people need to their local communities except where it is clinically necessary for them to be in acute settings. The health and social care medium-term financial framework sets out that approach.

I assure Mr Lyle that we will not do what the Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation in England is doing. As has been revealed in the

Nursing Times

, it is now producing a price list for procedures that should be provided free at the point where they are needed. For example, cataract surgery is priced at £1,700 and hip replacement surgery at more than £7,000. Those prices cover only one pre-op consultation, one attendance as a day case and one follow-up attendance. That is what is happening to the health service in England—they are getting it ready to trade off. That will not happen to the NHS in Scotland.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I ask all members to ensure that, if supplementary questions are allowed, they are asked quickly.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In 2017, NHS Scotland signed a contract worth £400 million with a private company for locum staff. Last year, a further contract worth £30 million was signed with six private companies. Does that not illustrate the increasing use of the private sector that is happening under the Scottish National Party?

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

No, it absolutely is not. [

Interruption

.] I will explain to Mr Briggs—and his amused colleagues—why that is the case.

I think that the first contract to which Mr Briggs referred is one with IHI, which is a not-for-profit organisation. The other contracts that he mentioned may, indeed, represent interim use of the private sector to reduce long waiting times for patients, as I set out in the waiting times plan. However, I say to Mr Briggs that that is not selling off sections of our health service to Virgin Health or allowing any of our boards to produce price lists for hip replacement, cataract or knee replacement surgery, which is precisely what his colleagues in England are doing. The day and hour that Mr Briggs defends that practice in this chamber is the time when he and I might have a proper conversation.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Has the cabinet secretary investigated the worrying implications of investor-state dispute settlement being invoked as part of a trade deal? That would give foreign companies the right to sue the Scottish Government for devolved health decisions.

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

Mr Stewart makes an important point that came up previously when deals were being looked at. It is about the vulnerability of the UK being seen as a single state when trade deals are negotiated, and whether that places our NHS in a vulnerable position. We looked at the issue and took up-to-date advice at that time. We are looking at it again to ensure that we are as prepared as possible. I am absolutely certain that, with colleagues in Labour and elsewhere in the Parliament, if not the Conservatives, and with the people of Scotland, we will defend our health service.

Beauty Industry (Regulation)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when beauticians, hairdressers and others who provide aesthetic procedures will be regulated in the same way as medically qualified practitioners. (S5O-03414)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Independent clinics were brought within the regulation of Healthcare Improvement Scotland on 1 April 2016. The policy was to ensure that certain healthcare professionals who are working independently of the NHS do so in a clinic that is registered with Healthcare Improvement Scotland. That work puts Scotland at the forefront of regulating independent private healthcare, mainly in the cosmetic area but also in dentistry, midwifery and slimming clinics, to name but a few areas.

Until 2016, there was no regulation of cosmetic procedures. It is crucial that aesthetic procedures that are currently provided by non-healthcare professionals are subject to a similar level of inspection and scrutiny as those that are provided by medically qualified practitioners. We plan to bring forward a consultation later this year, to inform our legislative amendments.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Will the minister clarify what action can be taken in the meantime to highlight to consumers the risks they face when they submit to procedures such as Botox and lip-filling injections that are carried out by unqualified practitioners who might have no training or insurance and who might not be regulated?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Mr Torrance brings an important point to the chamber. Anyone who is considering undergoing such a treatment should always use a regulated provider, details of which are available on the Healthcare Improvement Scotland website. Unregulated providers will not appear on that list, nor will they have any HIS-accredited literature to prove their competence.

We also urge consumers to carry out due diligence checks on the provider.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Waiting Times (Lothian)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce excessive waiting times for young people in Lothian to access mental health support. (S5O-03415)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Through the mental health access improvement support programme, between 2016-17 and 2019-20, NHS Lothian is scheduled to receive an additional £4.7 million from the Scottish Government to support mental health workforce development and capacity building.

The director for mental health has written to NHS Lothian, seeking reassurance about the approach that is being taken to address long waits and confirmation that patients are kept informed of their situation and provided with support and advice while they are waiting for on-going treatment.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for her answer, but the fact remains that, in the most recent quarter, 85 young people in NHS Lothian waited for more than a year, and 118 young people waited for more than a year across all NHS health boards.

Does the minister agree with me and the Scottish children’s services coalition that there must be a radical transformation of our mental health services?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Long waits for child and adolescent mental health services and support are unacceptable; I have said that on more than one occasion in this chamber. The Scottish Government expects all health boards to meet and sustain performance against mental health waiting time targets. To help to achieve that ambition, our 2018-19 programme for government outlines a package of measures that are supported by £0.25 billion of additional investment. That is in addition to the £54 million that has already been invested to help boards to improve their performance against waiting time targets.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Looking at the broader picture of access to CAMHS across Scotland, the latest figures show that more than a quarter of referred children are not seen within the 18-week target waiting time. When does the minister expect to reach the 90 per cent target for children and young people accessing CAMHS within 18 weeks?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

All boards now have in place improvement plans for CAMHS and psychological therapies, supported by the mental health access improvement team, with milestones to meet over the next two years. The Scottish Government is working with health boards, including in Lothian and Fife, to agree their annual operating plans, which include how they will meet those standards.

Mesh Implants

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what work it has done to plan for the lifting of the ban on mesh implants. (S5O-03416)

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

I have been consistently clear that the complete halt to transvaginal mesh procedures, which I announced last September, will be lifted only if a high-vigilance restricted use protocol is developed to my satisfaction. I have not instructed any planning to consider the lifting of that halt and the Scottish Government has undertaken no work to that effect.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I warmly welcome the news that US surgeon Dr Veronikis might come to Scotland to help mesh-injured women. I thank the Scottish mesh survivors, the

Sunday Post

and the parliamentarians who have kept up the pressure on the issue.

In the interests of transparency, can the cabinet secretary ensure that all the minutes of the accountable officer short-life working group and the short-life working group on mesh complications are published today, so that we can clearly see what has been discussed at the groups and whether they are planning for the return of mesh?

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

As I have made clear to Mr Findlay, whether mesh ever returns will be my decision as cabinet secretary. I have been clear in the chamber that I have not instructed any work to plan for it to return and I have not had any work undertaken by the Scottish Government to plan for it to return. It is vitally important that, in the chamber and elsewhere, we are crystal clear on that and that we do not cause further distress to those who would be affected by incorrect information.

Neil Findlay referred to the minutes of the two groups. The short-life working group that I established following a meeting in March with some of the women who are affected by mesh complications published the minutes of its first meeting today. Subsequent minutes will be published when the group approves the minutes. That also applies to the one meeting of the other group, which was set up following my statement in September to look at the high-vigilance protocol and the work in relation to the audit that I committed to have undertaken. That group also has to approve its minutes before they are published. When all that is done, it will all—including declarations of interest—be published on the Government’s website.

Fife Hospitals (Safety)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle safety concerns in Fife hospitals. (S5O-03417)

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

The safety of NHS Scotland’s patients and staff is a key priority for the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government introduced a range of measures to protect and improve patient safety, including the Scottish patient safety programme, which was launched in 2008. The Scottish patient safety programme has contributed to the effectiveness of NHS Fife, with, for example, a fall of 9.8 per cent in hospital standardised mortality ratios, a fall in cardiac arrests and a reduction in falls over a period of six years.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response.

However, during a recent unannounced inspection visit to Glenrothes hospital,

Healthcare Improvement Scotland uncovered a number of concerning issues, including contaminated equipment, used waste and sharps being stored in accessible areas and inappropriate monitoring of water safety associated with legionella. What action will the Scottish Government take to restore patient trust in that hospital?

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

That is precisely why those inspections are so important and why they are undertaken. In fairness to Glenrothes hospital, the inspection report also found a number of areas in which the hospital was satisfactory—it is only fair that we note that in the chamber. Following the report, the board is required to produce an action plan of the specific actions that it will undertake. It has done that, and I am happy to ensure that Mr Stewart sees a copy of it. HIS will go back and report again on the actions. My officials will keep the situation under constant review. If there are matters that require my intervention, I hope that Mr Stewart is assured that I will intervene.

Alcohol and Drug Treatment Strategy

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it will evaluate the delivery of the alcohol and drug treatment strategy, “Rights, Respect and Recovery”. (S5O-03418)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

NHS Health Scotland is leading on the development of a monitoring and evaluation plan that involves the Scottish Government as well as other key stakeholders. The plan will enable the Scottish Government to measure progress and assess the impact of the strategy.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The landscape for treatment and recovery services can be complex, and the process of how funding is allocated for early intervention and recovery work as opposed to core clinical services is a little opaque. How will the Scottish Government address that? Audit Scotland’s report of May 2019 highlights that making performance-related reporting public could help with accountability. Does the minister agree?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

We welcome Audit Scotland’s report, and our national alcohol and drug strategy, which was published last year, set out a number of actions that will address issues that were identified in the report.

In the coming weeks, the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities intend to publish a partnership delivery framework to support local planning arrangements to address alcohol and drug harms. As I mentioned, we are working with NHS Health Scotland to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework for the new strategy. The introduction later this year of the new drug and alcohol information system, or DAISy, will provide clear links between spending and outcomes and will demonstrate how investment in drug and alcohol services contributes to improving health outcomes.

Drumwealth Games (Health Impact)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the health impact of the 2019 Drumwealth games, which took place on 14 June and saw over 500 primary 5 to secondary 1 pupils participate in sport activities. (S5O-03419)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

First, I would like to congratulate everyone who is involved in the Drumwealth games, now in their seventh year, which are a great legacy of the Commonwealth games in 2014.

Being physically active is one of the very best things that we can do for our physical and mental health. The Drumwealth games are testament to what can be achieved through partnerships between schools and clubs, with Drumchapel sport—the Drumchapel community sport hub—active schools and Glasgow Sport working together in partnership. Sport at an early age makes a fun and sustainable contribution to physical activity, which we hope will lead to longer, happier lives.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The Drumwealth games encourage children of all capabilities to try out new sports. Does the minister agree that it is important for all children in Scotland to be introduced to a wide variety of sports and to have the opportunity to pursue those that they find a passion for?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Yes, I do. That is why programmes such as the active schools programme offer more than 100 different activities, ranging from football to dance and movement, which gives children the opportunity to be active and take part in the activities that they enjoy. While I was deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee, I was fortunate enough to visit the Drumchapel community sport hub. I was very impressed by the facility, which provides an opportunity to improve the health and wellbeing of all members of the local community.

Chronic Pain Treatment Waiting Times (NHS Forth Valley)

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is giving to NHS Forth Valley to reduce waiting times for chronic pain treatment. (S5O-03420)

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

As Mr Lockhart will recall, in its initial work, the waiting times improvement plan specifically targets those people who have been waiting the longest and those with a clinical priority. In 2018-19, NHS Forth Valley received an additional £4 million, which it focused on support for general surgery, ear, nose and throat, trauma and orthopaedics.

In this financial year, NHS Forth Valley plans to utilise the additional funding for waiting times improvement to recruit new staff to the chronic pain service so that it can increase capacity by running a pain management programme with extended scope physiotherapists. That programme, which will run in parallel with consultant-led services, will contribute to and complement the national work that we are doing to improve the development of the chronic pain service across the national health service.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, but recent figures show that more than a quarter of patients in NHS Forth Valley have waited more than 18 weeks for treatment for chronic pain. Only 73 per cent were seen within 18 weeks of referral, which is below the target of 90 per cent. That made NHS Forth Valley the second-worst-performing health board in Scotland on that measure.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the provision of additional funding, but what real measures will she take to provide additional support to NHS Forth Valley to improve the situation?

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

I think that the provision of additional funding is one of the real measures that we are taking. It is precisely because of the situation that Mr Lockhart has outlined that, as all boards are required to do,

NHS Forth Valley targets those areas with the longest waits and where there is a clinical priority. That is why it is targeting its chronic pain service in this financial year. We will see the effectiveness of that when the figures come out in due course.

Provisional Outturn 2018-19

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by Derek Mackay on the 2018-19 Scottish Government provisional outturn. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

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

I welcome the opportunity to update Parliament on the provisional budget outturn for the 2018-19 financial year.

The provisional outturn results show that, once again, the Scottish Government has prudently and competently managed Scotland’s finances. These results are in spite of the on-going uncertainty that has been created by the disastrous decision to leave the European Union, the needless continuation of United Kingdom austerity and Tory mismanagement of the economy—I thought that I would start off on a consensual note.

The provisional figures that I am announcing today are set against an extended period of economic turbulence. The global economy is going through a sustained period of weakness. For Scotland, this is compounded by the continuing uncertainty around the UK's exit from the EU. Although leaving the EU without a deal is the worst possible outcome, even a Brexit with an exit deal will result in significant economic loss compared with remaining in the EU.

The UK Government’s decision to take us out of the EU single market and the customs union—the largest market in the world—presents a risk to economic growth, which in turn has an impact on forecast revenues to support our public services and invest in funding programmes, and an impact on migration and our population. Hence, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has downgraded its growth forecast for 2019, citing continued Brexit uncertainty as the cause.

The Scottish Government is using the limited powers at our disposal to mitigate as best we can the economic and employment impacts and to prepare for Brexit. This includes measures such as committing over £1 billion to support our cities and regions through city region deals, increasing capital investment by £1.5 billion per year by the end of the next session of Parliament and a wide range of other economic and social initiatives.

Despite the exceptional political uncertainty, Scotland’s economy enjoyed a positive year in 2018. Gross domestic product growth was 1.3 per cent, surpassing earlier lower SFC forecasts, continuing a pattern of stronger growth compared with 2016 and 2017. For 2019, the SFC predicts that our economy will grow by 0.8 per cent; it explicitly points to Brexit uncertainty as the reason for its more pessimistic outlook. I am sure that all members will welcome the 0.5 per cent growth in the first quarter of this year.

Scotland’s labour market has continued to perform well in the first quarter of 2019, with unemployment falling to a record low of 3.2 per cent, outperforming the UK unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent. Alongside that, labour productivity grew by 3.8 per cent in 2018, which is its fastest pace since 2010.

Despite the challenging environment, we are taking positive action to transform Scotland’s future through our economic action plan. Transformational projects include delivering the national manufacturing institute for Scotland and the Scottish national investment bank.

Scotland’s future budgets will of course be determined by a combination of Scottish and UK Government fiscal decisions. Our funding outlook for the medium term continues to be dominated by austerity at a UK level. The UK Government’s

macroeconomic policy stance since 2010 has been characterised by austerity. In Scotland, we have protected key services despite austerity causing a real-terms reduction of £2 billion in the resource block grant between 2010-11 and 2019-20. [

Interruption

.] Even Murdo Fraser now concedes that point.

The Scottish Government’s second medium-term financial strategy—MTFS—which was published on 30 May, explains the fiscal framework and the funding arrangements that the Scottish Government operates within. It outlines our approach to financial management and fiscal rules and sets out a range of possible funding scenarios for the Scottish budget over the next five years. It sets out our responsible approach to financial planning and fiscal rules, which will allow us to invest in the economy and protect essential public services.

Turning specifically to the provisional outturn, under the current devolution settlement the Scottish Parliament is not permitted to overspend its budget. As a consequence, we have consistently controlled public expenditure to ensure that we live within the budget control limits that apply. I can report that the provisional fiscal outturn for 2018-19 is £32 billion against a fiscal budget of £32.5 billion, resulting in an overall cash variance of £449 million.

That variance includes £148 million of Barnett consequentials funding that was provided very late in the financial year. The Treasury has confirmed that the Scottish Government is not required to carry that funding forward through the Scotland reserve. Rather, the funding will be held within UK reserves and reallocated to the Scottish Government in 2019-20.

The remaining cash variance of £301 million includes £5 million of additional income for devolved taxes that was secured over and above initial budget forecasts. I can inform Parliament today that the total provisional income from land and buildings transaction tax and Scottish landfill tax is £699 million, and the surplus of £5 million will be added to the Scotland reserve. The variance also includes £3 million relating to fees in respect of a financial guarantee, which will also be added to the reserve.

Of the £293 million variance remaining, £171 million is resource funding—all of which has already been committed in the 2019-20 budget—£1 million is in respect of capital and £121 million is financial transactions. Of course, financial transactions funding can be used only for loans to or equity investment in entities outside the public sector. Overall, the cash variance of £293 million represents less than 1 per cent of the total fiscal cash budget. All that funding is carried forward in full through the Scotland reserve and none of it is handed back to the UK Government, so there is no loss of spending power to the Scottish Government.

We have achieved the £1 million fiscal capital underspend while prudently borrowing less than originally planned. The 2018-19 drawdown of £250 million is lower than the £450 million that was initially planned in the published 2018-19 budget. That followed a full assessment of a range of influencing factors including additional capital funding confirmed in-year and only making funding available to match the actual demand from the projects that were confirmed in the original 2018-19 budget.

In finalising arrangements, I also gave careful consideration to building a staggered debt maturity profile. The borrowing in 2018-19 has been undertaken over 10 years, in contrast with the borrowing over 25 years in 2017-18. Although the shorter repayment period pushes up the annual repayment, that is balanced by the lower amount that was borrowed at a lower interest rate and a lower cost of borrowing overall and it is affordable in the context of the sum that was set aside for repayment in the 2019-20 Scottish budget. It also ensures that greater borrowing capacity will be available when it is needed to support the national infrastructure mission.

In 2018-19, we had the first year of operation of the Social Security Scotland agency, which provided over £185 million of support to the people of Scotland. That included more than £35 million of additional support as the first payments of the carers allowance supplement and the best start grant pregnancy and baby payment were made. This year, four new benefits will be implemented to help young carers and low-income families.

Finally, and in addition to the above, there is a provisional non-cash underspend of £142 million. The non-cash budget is used for technical accounting adjustments such as depreciation and impairments, and it cannot be used to fund public services. That represents no loss of spending power to the Government.

In conclusion, the cash underspend is entirely retained by the Government, is less than 1 per cent of the budget, makes the contribution that was planned for the 2019-20 budget and contributes to the reserve, which is prudent, particularly in light of the SFC income tax reconciliation forecasts that are detailed in the MTFS.

The figures that I am reporting to Parliament today remain provisional, as they are subject to change pending completion of the 2018-19 audits. As usual, finalised figures will be reported in the annual Scottish Government consolidated accounts and a statement of total outturn for the financial year 2018-19 later this year.

I commend today’s figures to Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that his statement raised.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the finance secretary for advance sight of his statement, although we had the customary five minutes of blaming everybody else for the state of the Scottish economy and public finances before he got to the substance.

The finance secretary is always complaining that he does not have enough money to spend, but we learned today of an underspend from last year’s budget of nearly half a billion pounds. That is a substantial proportion of the overall sum.

In the meantime, the finance secretary has been hiking taxes on Scottish families. We learned today from the Fraser of Allander institute that the £500 million in extra taxes that he has taken from Scottish families has been completely offset by the relatively weaker performance in the Scottish tax base, so Scottish public services have had no net benefit from the extra taxes that everybody has had to pay.

I am surprised that the statement contained only passing mention of the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s income tax reconciliation forecasts—the projected £1 billion black hole in the public finances that will hit over the next three years. In the light of that, will the finance secretary clarify how much of the underspend in total will be put into the Scotland reserve and at what level the Scotland reserve will stand?