Scottish Parliament, 9 October 2019

701 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Government Business and Constitutional Relations

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

The first item of business is portfolio questions on Government business and constitutional relations. I remind members that questions 3 and 8 will be grouped together.

Brexit (New Agreement)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what communication it has received from the United Kingdom Government regarding proposals for a new Brexit agreement. (S5O-03635)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Although the UK’s exit from the European Union was discussed at the meeting of the joint ministerial committee (European Union negotiations) on 12 September in London, we received no correspondence from the UK Government on its proposals for a new Brexit agreement ahead of their announcement by the Prime Minister.

I spoke to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union shortly after the proposals’ publication, at his request. As has been the case throughout the negotiations, the Scottish Government has not been treated as a trusted partner; indeed, we have had to keep abreast of events through media reports. It is disappointing and frustrating that, yet again, the devolved Administrations have had no meaningful opportunity to influence discussions—a point that I will raise again at tomorrow’s meeting of the joint ministerial committee (European Union negotiations), which will be held in Edinburgh.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I share the cabinet secretary’s disappointment.

Yesterday, we heard from number 10 an extraordinary briefing about a telephone conversation with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in which the UK Government claimed that what she had said had put the kibosh on its achieving a deal. That claim was widely refuted, and led to an unprecedented intervention by the President of the European Council, who cited a “blame game” being played by the UK Government. Does the cabinet secretary share my belief that that briefing simply represented Boris Johnson’s and the Tories’ attempt to shift the blame for the Brexit fiasco to anyone but themselves?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes. I think that there is a general view that whatever is taking place at 10 Downing Street is so outside the norms of behaviour for a Prime Minister—or, indeed, for any civilised Government—that we have to wonder what will come next.

I noticed the question at the end of Donald Tusk’s tweet yesterday. We do not know where the Prime Minister is going or where Brexit itself is going, but the damage that it is doing is immense.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary mentioned that a meeting of the joint ministerial committee (European Union negotiations) will take place in Edinburgh tomorrow. Does he not welcome that, and the fact that he will, as I understand it, be in the chair? I think that I am correct that it will be the first time that a minister who is not from the UK Government will chair such a meeting. Are those facts not to be welcomed, and do they not offer opportunities for the cabinet secretary

to raise with UK Government ministers and officials precisely the sorts of questions that he mentioned?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the fact that the JMC(EN) meeting will be held here. I pay tribute to the Welsh Government, which was due to host it. Because of its other commitments, I and my colleagues have stepped in to host the meeting here. I also welcome the fact that, provided that the meeting takes place, I will be the first minister who is not from the UK Government to chair the JMC(EN) since it was commenced at devolution.

However, who is in the chair and where the meeting is held are minor matters in comparison with what its outcomes might be. I will be satisfied tomorrow only if I find that we have made progress on the key issues on the agenda. So far, I am not hopeful that we will, although I remain hopeful that Michael Gove and Stephen Barclay will prove me wrong.

No-deal Brexit (Possible Disruptions at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions regarding possible disruptions in the event of a no-deal Brexit it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. (S5O-03636)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has had regular discussions with the chairs of all NHS Scotland boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, about their preparations for the United Kingdom’s exiting the European Union. In addition, officials are in regular contact with the health boards. All such discussions have covered a range of risks and issues, including the potential for disruptions to supplies and the impact that those might have on service delivery.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that we cannot believe a word that Prime Minister Boris Johnson says, especially in relation to his promise that Brexit would bring the national health service an extra £350 million a week. Does the cabinet secretary

agree that, in stark contrast to that promise, Brexit uncertainty and the threat of there being no deal have put the NHS and social care under even more pressure? Given the challenges that health boards already face, and with Brexit uncertainty creating staff shortages, the possibility of a lack of medicines and there being less money to invest in the sector, will he outline how the Scottish Government will prioritise our NHS and ensure that health boards get the support that they need in the run-up to the Brexit deadline?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I appreciate that the issue is very important, but I would like to hear shorter supplementaries.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with Johann Lamont. I point out that the publication yesterday of “Scottish Government Overview of ‘No Deal’ Preparations”, to which the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills spoke in the chamber, indicates the priority that we have given the matter. Clearly, there are issues to do with the workforce and with medicines and other crucial supplies.

In addition, we must be realistic with people. We will do everything that we can to avoid disruption, but we cannot do everything. Therefore, people should take the position that a no-deal Brexit, or, indeed, any Brexit, will be immensely damaging.

European Union (Future Relationship)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports that Northern Ireland will be given powers to shape its future relationship with the EU, what representations it has made to the UK Government regarding similar powers being given to Scotland. (S5O-03637)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government has long argued for Scotland to have its own arrangements for Brexit, recognising that the vote in the referendum here was comprehensively against leaving the EU.

As far back as December 2016, we set out in “Scotland’s Place in Europe” comprehensive proposals to achieve that, including the powers that should be transferred to this Parliament to enable us to implement our proposals.

The UK Government has not shown the slightest inclination to have serious discussions on what Brexit means for governance in these islands, beyond its instinct to centralise and control. The proposals that the Prime Minister set out this week seem to be designed to fail, as they are demanding that the EU abandon some of its core principles.

The best way to protect our place in Europe and our relationship with the EU is for Scotland to become an independent member in our own right.

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

As the cabinet secretary said, the Scottish Government was the first in these isles to publish a Brexit plan, which the UK Government ignored. The Scottish Government then put forward a compromise position, which the UK Government also ignored. The Tories have ignored the voices of the 62 per cent who voted to remain—

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Question?

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

—

and they ignored their trouncing earlier this year in the EU elections.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Question?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me. I will decide when the question is to come. I do not need you to tell me.

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

Is not it the case that the people of Scotland should have their say

on their own future? If the UK Government continues to—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—that is long.

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

—ignore the voters, they are the ones who will take the future into their own hands as an independent country—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Naughty, naughty, Ms Watt. That was a long question. I do not want long supplementaries. I know that you will be good, cabinet secretary.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am almost too nervous to speak, now. [

Interruption

.] I said, “almost too nervous to speak”, just in case Johann Lamont thought that I might be wishing not to.

One of the many tragedies of the Brexit situation is the refusal of the Prime Minister—of any Prime Minister—to listen to what is being said to them by Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, their own party. That is one of the root causes of our finding ourselves in this position. It is essential that Scotland’s voice be heard on a simple question: does it want to exit the EU with the UK, with all the chaos, or does it want to be a normal independent state in the EU? That is the core question. I know which side I am on.

Northern Ireland (Impact of Relationship with the European Union)

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact on Scotland of Northern Ireland having a different economic relationship with the EU to the rest of the UK. (S5O-03642)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have raised that issue with the United Kingdom Government at meetings of the joint ministerial committee (European Union negotiations) and bilaterally.

We have always made it clear that we support the Good Friday agreement absolutely and in its entirety, and the need to maintain the invisible border on the island of Ireland.

However, it should be noted that as far back as 2016, and completely separate from any discussion about Northern Ireland, the Scottish Government put forward plans to keep Scotland in the single market, but the UK Government rejected them out of hand.

Any form of Brexit will be damaging to Scotland, and it is now clear that the UK Government favours a much more distant long-term relationship with the EU even than that which was envisaged by Theresa May. That will have a very damaging impact on Scotland and the Scottish economy.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Whether we end up with the UK Government’s latest half-baked proposed deal, or crash out in a devastating no-deal Brexit, there will be a unique impact on the Cairnryan ferry port in south-west Scotland. What support is the Scottish Government providing to best mitigate the impact of that challenge on communities in south-west Scotland?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am fully aware that each part of Scotland will have its own questions and difficulties. Today we have released an online tool that will allow any member and anyone in Scotland to look at the impact on their communities. It is interesting to see how varied the impacts will be, although all the impacts will be negative.

Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister said that the unused parts of Stranraer port, in the south-west, will be used for marshalling lorries in the event of there being demand. There are security issues that will need to be addressed, if there is to be a border in the Irish Sea. A range of other issues need to be addressed for each part of Scotland. We will do that.

However, I stress the point that I made to Johann Lamont: we will work with members and others to do everything we can, but we cannot do everything, in the circumstances.

European Union Citizens (Assistance to Stay)

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

4. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to EU citizens to stay in Scotland ahead of 31 October. (S5O-03638)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Scottish Government has committed over £1 million to support EU citizens, including £800,000 over three years to Citizens Advice Scotland’s EU citizens support service, which provides advice and information.

In April, we launched the stay in Scotland campaign to provide information, advice and practical support on the EU settlement scheme, including £250,000 for community support across Scotland.

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

In Fife, less than a third of our 10,000 EU nationals have applied for settled status. Would it not provide much more security and peace of mind for thousands of my constituents if the Tories scrapped the scheme? If they will not scrap it, does the minister agree that voters should have the chance to throw Boris Johnson’s party out of number 10 and to decide Scotland’s future as an independent member of the European Union?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I know that Jenny Gilruth has sought to provide peace of mind for her EU national constituents, as far as that is possible, by holding her own advice event and I commend her for that. I know that a number of members around the chamber have done something similar.

The UK Government should be providing certainty on this issue; it could disapply the requirement for five years’ residence and remove pre-settled status altogether. I was struck by the comments of Daniel Hannan, a Conservative member of the European Parliament and a leave supporter. He said:

“I have had constituency cases of EU nationals being denied settled status despite living here for years. This is a breach of the assurances I and other Leavers gave during the referendum.”

On the point about Boris Johnson and independence, it will not surprise anyone in the chamber that I concur with the views of Jenny Gilruth.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

What steps is the Scottish Government taking to encourage and support EU citizens in rural Scotland to apply for settled and pre-settled status?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Immigration is a reserved matter under the devolution settlement, including the operation of the settlement scheme. However, we are taking a number of steps, including those that I mentioned earlier. I encourage everyone in the chamber to actively promote the stay in Scotland campaign in their constituencies. That campaign was launched by the First Minister in April to raise awareness of the settlement scheme in Scotland. There is a good deal of publicity around that, and there are a number of different elements to the scheme, which covers EU nationals who are based in rural and urban areas. Emma Harper is right to highlight the issue of rural-based folk, because often, as well as being valued friends and neighbours, they are particularly important to those rural local economies.

No-deal Brexit (Environmental Governance Mechanisms)

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, what immediate environmental governance mechanisms it will put in place. (S5O-03639)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

In the Scottish Government consultation paper that was published in the spring, we made it clear that we were considering appropriate interim governance measures should the United Kingdom Government take us out of the European Union without a withdrawal agreement. The Scottish Government is totally opposed to a no-deal outcome because of the severe damage that it will cause. We will, however, do all that we can to protect the natural environment in that eventuality.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

A no-deal Brexit would leave our environment at risk in many areas, not least at risk of potential unscrupulous actors. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to interim governance arrangements in a no-deal scenario. Although I strongly believe that there should not be a no deal and I will campaign on a public vote for remain, in this instance will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Scottish Government will publish its interim and long-term proposals for

environmental governance quickly if we have the dreadful no deal?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Indeed—it is minister, not cabinet secretary. However, I appreciate the promotion.

The Scottish Government will make an announcement on interim governance arrangements if and when a no-deal exit appears inevitable. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform will shortly write to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, of which Claudia Beamish is a valued member, to update the committee on the issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 was not lodged.

Veterans (Historic Allegations)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of his recommendations in the chamber on 4 December 2018, whether the minister for veterans raised with the UK Government members’ views regarding historic allegations involving Army veterans from Scotland who served tours in Northern Ireland. (S5O-03641)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not know what is in your copy of the

Business Bulletin

, Mr Mountain, but, in the text that I have, the question says “comments” rather than “recommendations”. However, that is a small change.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I recognise the genuine passion that the member has for the subject. I took the view that the issue should be raised face to face at ministerial level, and I planned to do so with United Kingdom ministers at the intended meeting of the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board. However, that meeting was postponed by the UK Government and, for a variety of reasons, including ministerial changes at Westminster, it has still to take place. I also planned to meet the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans, Johnny Mercer, on Monday of this week in Glasgow and to discuss the issue then, but that, too, fell through.

Efforts are still being made to stage an MCVB meeting that accommodates the availability of all participants. I hope to meet Mr Mercer face to face before too long, and the same applies to Ben Wallace, who is the third defence secretary to occupy the post in my 15 months in my role. At whichever of those opportunities arises first, I will pass on the views that Edward Mountain expressed in the debate last year, and I will write to him once that has been done.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Mountain, you looked a bit bewildered earlier. My point was simply that, in my script, the question says:

“in light of his comments in the chamber on 4 December”.

There is a difference between comments and recommendations. I do not know whether that was just a slip of the tongue. You looked a bit lost.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will bow to your position on that. I think that you are right. If I misread the question, I apologise.

I thank the minister for his efforts. The issue is vital, as veterans are living in fear of historic allegation inquests being driven by political motives. I therefore urge the minister to continue with the process. I ask him to confirm not only when the meetings have taken place but when they are going to take place, so that I can exert as much pressure as possible to ensure that they happen.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am more than happy to give that undertaking. We all recognise that Mr Mountain has deeply held and genuine views on the issue. That is why I decided that the conversation was best held face to face. I have to say that, when I took the decision, I never imagined that, 10 months on, there would have been no face-to-face opportunity. However, I absolutely give that undertaking and I will keep Mr Mountain apprised of the outcome.

Culture, Tourism and External Affairs

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that questions 4 and 8 have been grouped.

Tourism (Inverclyde)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is giving to Inverclyde Council to increase the area’s tourism offering. (S5O-03643)

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

Through the Glasgow city deal, we are investing over £7 million in Greenock ocean terminal, which will see an estimated 150,000 passengers disembarking each year, contributing £26 million to the Inverclyde economy. Through VisitScotland, we support the local authority, Tourism Inverclyde and Inverclyde Tourist Group to help steer strategy and tourism activity. We recently awarded Scotland’s boat show almost £32,000 to mark the year of coasts and waters, which will greatly enhance one of Scotland’s largest marine events. I send my best wishes to the show, which I believe starts on Friday.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the minister’s comments regarding Scotland’s boat show, which takes place in Inverkip this weekend.

The minister will be aware that Inverclyde Tourist Group consists of volunteers who direct cruise ship visitors and provide tours. Does the minister agree that, with the new ocean terminal being built in Greenock, more support must be provided to retain visitors in Inverclyde in order to boost the local economy? Any additional support for the Inverclyde Tourist Group and Tourism Inverclyde would certainly be warmly welcomed.

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

The Scottish Government shares the industry ambition to see the benefits of sustainable tourism spread across Scotland. The new ocean terminal offers an excellent opportunity for Inverclyde to benefit directly from the growing cruise market, which operates in a highly competitive global market. We are all aware that building or renewing infrastructure does not on its own inevitably lead to a thriving tourist destination, particularly in the case of our many visitors on cruises who disembark and take excursions. It is equally important to ensure the excellence of the overall experience for visitors and host destinations.

The new developments around the ocean terminal and the continued work of local businesses and volunteers will encourage greater numbers of visitors from whatever source to stay and experience what Inverclyde has to offer. I am confident that VisitScotland and other agencies will lend their support to help the sector realise the opportunities that arise around the new ocean terminal and the wider Inverclyde area.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 2 is not lodged.

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Relations)

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it is developing relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. (S5O-03645)

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

The Scottish Government values Scotland’s good relations with our European neighbours and is determined to maintain open and constructive dialogue in the coming months and years. In November 2017, the First Minister and Cabinet Secretary Hyslop met the former ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Kingdom in Edinburgh, and, last year, Ambassador Marincic attended our St Andrew’s day reception at Scotland House in London, where I met her briefly. In August 2016, the First Minister visited Srebrenica to learn at first hand about the genocide and the lives of its survivors.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The Scottish Government has been very supportive of the

charity, Remembering Srebrenica Scotland, including through the visit that the First Minister made to Srebrenica.

Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica. Will the Scottish Government make contact with Remembering Srebrenica Scotland, to see what support it can give for events that are planned to commemorate the occasion?

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

We support Remembering Srebrenica Scotland and allocated funding of £25,000 for 2019-20, through the promoting equality and cohesion fund, to support the charity’s work. The charity organises events to mark Srebrenica memorial day and raise public awareness, with the aim of countering discrimination and building stronger community relations. The wider Government and I would welcome correspondence from the charity about its plans for the 25th anniversary. I am sure that, as a country and as a Parliament, we will come together to mark that significant anniversary.

Brexit (Decline in European Tourists)

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

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the reported decline in the number of European tourists visiting Scotland due to negative perceptions associated with Brexit. (S5O-03646)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Again, I ask members to read what is on the

Business Bulletin

, please.

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs meets the United Kingdom culture and tourism minister regularly, when that is possible. Most recently, she had meetings in June and August to discuss a number of issues, including the potentially damaging impact of any Brexit on our tourism industry, in Scotland and in the UK as a whole.

Visitors from the European Union are vital for Scotland’s tourism industry and wider economy, so we will continue to raise awareness of our serious concerns. Six of our top 10 markets for overseas visitors are in the EU. Those markets accounted for 44 per cent of our overseas overnight visitors and for spending of more than £800 million in Scotland in 2018.

The Scotland is open campaign, which ran in March and early April this year, was an important step in reaching out to key markets in Europe to remind people that Scotland’s doors are open. It has been our best-performing marketing activity to date, reaching more than 80 million people—some 27 per cent of the population in key tourism markets.

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

Does the minister agree that the bungling Brexit approach of the UK Government is unlikely to create a more favourable impression of the UK and Scotland, and will limit the opportunity to recover from the £193 million drop in associated spending that has come with this decline?

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

There is no doubt that continuing Brexit uncertainty poses a threat to Scotland’s tourism industry. Figures for the year to March 2019, which the Office for National Statistics published, showed a 3 per cent decrease in European visits to Scotland and a related fall in expenditure, and a recent study that VisitBritain published earlier this year indicated that 44 per cent of European respondents expressed concern about the uncertainty around travel arrangements, due to the on-going negotiations.

Scotland and the Scottish Government did not choose to leave the EU, and we continue to oppose Brexit. However, as a responsible Government we will continue to do everything that we can to prepare and to support Scotland’s tourism industry.

Brexit (Impact on European Union Tourists)

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

8. With incredible similarity—to ask the Scottish Government what the impact has been on the number of EU tourists coming to Scotland this year of any uncertainty caused by Brexit. (S5O-03650)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is why the questions were grouped, Mr Beattie.

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

As I indicated in my response to Mr Stevenson, European visitors are essential to the success of Scotland’s tourism industry, with EU countries accounting for six of our top 10 overseas markets in 2018. Although overseas visitor numbers have increased in recent years, data for the year to March 2019 suggest that European visitor numbers fell by 3 per cent, compared with the previous year.

It is clear that continuing Brexit uncertainty

poses a threat to our vital tourism industry. That is why we will continue to support the industry, to ensure that Scotland offers a warm welcome to and a high-quality experience for all visitors.

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

It is hard to deny that Brexit will result in barriers to those visiting Scotland and all that we have to offer here. How is the Scottish Government mitigating the negative effects of Brexit on tourism, which is one of Scotland’s vital industries, and welcoming those who wish to visit?

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

I mentioned the Scotland is open campaign, and Visit Scotland has produced a guide for EU citizens in six different languages which offers practical advice on travel to Scotland after Brexit

. It will help to ensure that potential travellers are not deterred by uncertainty relating to visas and/or other issues.

In addition, our new tourism strategy, which was developed in partnership with the Scottish Tourism Alliance and other key partners, was recently launched and places meeting visitor expectations at its heart. We will continue to build Scotland’s international reputation as a warm and welcoming destination for visitors from across the globe through our Scotland is now campaign.

Culture and Heritage (Engagement by Young People from Disadvantaged Backgrounds)

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to encourage young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with culture and heritage. (S5O-03647)

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

The Scottish Government and Creative Scotland fund and deliver a wide range of programmes that encourage young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with culture and heritage. Examples include our national youth arts strategy, time to shine, and the youth music initiative.

Other examples include our funding for Sistema Scotland, the work with young people from disadvantaged backgrounds by organisations that receive regular funding from Creative Scotland, outreach and engagement work from our national collections, and Historic Environment Scotland’s education visits policy.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The Scottish Government promised a cultural youth experience fund in its 2016, 2017 and 2018 programmes for government, although it did not, apparently, do so in this year’s document. When will that fund be set up?

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

As the cabinet secretary Fiona Hyslop indicated in the chamber during portfolio questions on 12 September and at the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee’s

pre-budget scrutiny meeting on 26 September, we have deferred the introduction of the fund as budget constraints continue.

We continue to work with partners, including Education Scotland and Creative Scotland, to explore the barriers to young people experiencing culture and the actions for tackling those. Officials are carefully considering how best a cultural youth experience fund might enhance existing provision and how to ensure that location is not a barrier to experiencing culture. We intend to introduce the fund once budgets allow.

Historic Buildings and Landmarks (Dundee)

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the National Trust for Scotland regarding the preservation of historic buildings and landmarks in Dundee. (S5O-03648)

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

The National Trust for Scotland is a charity that is independent of Government and Scottish ministers. Ministers have not held recent discussions with the trust about historic buildings and landmarks in Dundee.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Alongside the great strides that have been taken to develop Dundee’s waterfront, we need to make sure that we do not lose sight of our city’s history and historic culture.

Dundee’s Camperdown house, which was built in 1828 and transferred along with the adjacent park into the city’s ownership in 1946, has fallen into disuse over the past few years. Following the recent decision by Dundee City Council to close the adjacent Camperdown golf course, will the minister have discussions with national bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland to protect the house and bring it back into public use?

It is also my understanding that the National Trust has no properties in the Dundee City Council area, which is perhaps the only local authority area without such a property.

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

Historic Environment Scotland currently provides Dundee Historic Environment Trust with an annual grant of £250,000, which is used for the organisation’s running costs and to award grants to benefit the historic environment in Dundee.

Also, as I said, as a non-departmental public body, Historic Environment Scotland operates at arm’s length from the Scottish Government. The organisation’s priorities for the support that it offers for the presentation of historic buildings such as Camperdown house is an operational matter for it. I encourage Jenny Marra to contact the organisation directly through the chief executive’s office. I would be happy to be copied into that correspondence, along with the cabinet secretary, so that we can be kept informed and learn more about the issues that Jenny Marra has raised.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The minister may or may not be aware of the historically significant Union chain bridge, designed by Samuel Brown, which is in my constituency. It spans the River Tweed and links England and Scotland. What engagement has the minister had with the Friends of the Union Chain Bridge? Will the minister look into supporting the bridge as it celebrates its bicentenary in 2020?

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

Just a minute—where was Dundee in that question? I got a wee bit lost. The original question related to

“the preservation of historic buildings and landmarks in Dundee”.

I did not know that the Tweed ran through Dundee, but I learn things every day.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Presiding Officer, it—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Don’t bother answering.

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

I refer the member to my previous answer about the relationship between Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Government, and, in particular, the point about Historic Environment Scotland being an arm’s-length body. As I did with Jenny Marra, I encourage her to contact the organisation directly through the chief executive’s office and to relay full details of the project that she mentioned.

Culture and Tourism (Participation by Disabled People and People with Long-term Health Conditions)

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports the participation in cultural and tourism-related activities of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions. (S5O-03649)

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

Inclusion is central to the artistic purpose of all Scottish Government-funded culture bodies, and they all share a desire to communicate with as large and diverse an audience as possible, running a range of associated activities. The public bodies that are responsible for culture and heritage are, of course, also subject to the Equalities Act 2010, and report on progress against objectives frequently.

Inclusive tourism is hugely important for Scotland’s offer as a welcoming destination. VisitScotland runs several programmes that advise about and provide support for inclusive practices that benefit the widest possible range of customers and businesses.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

According to the 2018 household survey, the only category of cultural participation in which the participation rate of people with a minor incapacity was higher than that of people without such an incapacity was library attendance. When we look at the attendance of people with long-term health conditions at museums, galleries and historic places, we can see a big gulf between them and other people, particularly for those whose disability has a major impact on their daily life.

The minister will know about Historic Scotland’s admissions policy, which offers no discounts for disabled people but allows a carer to attend for free. The National Museums of Scotland has the same policy. With the new disability assistance system being built on dignity and respect, will the Government explore extending concessions for those on the new benefits, so that disabled people can enjoy our culture and heritage independently and in their own right?

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

The Scottish Government knows that actions are important in terms of making a difference when it comes to accessibility and the 2010 act and also with regard to ensuring that we are taking forward the disability delivery plan. We need to know that our actions are making a difference, and, where we see that they are not making a difference, we need to do something about that. We will report on progress in relation to the United Nations’ examination of the United Kingdom under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will take place next year, and through the progress reports on the fairer Scotland action plan and the mainstreaming equality policy, both of which are due for publication in 2019.

I note the points that Mr Griffin raises in his question about the application of social security and its relation to the wider questions of the accessibility of cultural activities. The Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs and I—as well as, potentially, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People—would welcome any further correspondence that Mr Griffin would like to provide on those points.

Business Motion

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

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-19337, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

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

Groups 1 to 4: 1 hour

Groups 5 to 10: 2 hours

Groups 11 to 15: 2 hours 50 minutes

Groups 16 to 19: 3 hours 30 minutes

Groups 20 and 21: 4 hours 15 minutes

Groups 22 to 24: 5 hours 45 minutes

Groups 25 and 26: 6 hours.—[

Graeme Dey

].

Motion agreed to.

Transport (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

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

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Transport (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP Bill 33A—the marshalled list, a corrections slip to the marshalled list, and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of 1 minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Group 1 is on the national transport strategy. Amendment 38, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, is grouped with amendments 38A to 38F, 39, 39A, 39B, 40, 40A, 41, 42, 42A, 42B and 132.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendment 38 builds on Colin Smyth’s proposal at stage 2 for the introduction of a set of underpinning transport principles. It requires the Scottish ministers to produce a national transport strategy that sets out their strategic vision for transport in Scotland. In doing so, they must have regard to the contribution that transport can make to a range of important issues, including the realisation of human rights, social and economic wellbeing, the environment, and health and wellbeing. That demonstrates the importance that the Government places on transport as a key enabler in respect of those matters.

Amendments 39 to 42 set out the consultation, publication and reporting requirements in relation to the strategy. Amendment 132 is a consequential amendment to the long title of the bill.

We are consulting on our draft national transport strategy, which will ensure that protecting our climate and improving lives will be at the heart of future strategic transport planning. The Government will ensure that the requirements that are imposed by amendments 38 to 42 are met through finalising the strategy post consultation and reporting to Parliament on the final strategy and the consultation process. I urge members to accept the amendments in my name in the group.

Jamie Greene’s amendments seek to adjust the content, consultation and reporting requirements of the strategy. We envisage that the national transport strategy will guide us over a 20-year period. I do not support setting timescales or cost estimates at the start of a 20-year strategy. In the strategy, we note the need to be flexible, given the lack of future certainty, and actions will be best developed over the lifetime of the strategy through the monitoring and delivery plans. A more appropriate source to determine future costs to Government for strategic transport interventions will be contained in, among other things, the second strategic transport projects review, which will be published during this parliamentary session. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 38B and 38C. For similar reasons, neither can I support amendments 42A and 42B.

On amendment 38A, developing “measurable policy objectives” for a 20-year strategy would not be analytically robust, given the broad range of factors that may impact on the complex and multifaceted issues that are highlighted in amendment 38. The monitoring framework, which the Government has committed to taking forward, will contain measurable indicators that will demonstrate the progress of the strategy and its contribution to those issues. Therefore, I cannot support that amendment.

I am happy to support amendments 38D and 38E, because I consider that the needs of older people and the importance of education are already implicit in references to social and economic wellbeing. The same is true of economic development and growth, but I am concerned that a specific reference to that as a driver of social and economic wellbeing might be too narrow a focus. The Government takes a more holistic approach to inclusive growth and a broader approach to outcomes through the national performance framework, and therefore cannot support amendment 38F.

Amendments 39A and 39B seek to add further consultees, including Parliament. However, amendment 39 already requires ministers to consult widely, including with the general public. That is sufficiently flexible, and there is no need to specify any particular consultees.

On amendment 39A, establishing Parliament as a consultee would be unusual, as Parliament is, of course, not a stakeholder, but exists to hold the Government to account. Moreover, it is not clear how Parliament could be expected to speak with a single voice for the purposes of any consultation. I agree that the Government must seek to take account of the views of members of the Scottish Parliament on the draft strategy—in fact, we have already written to all MSPs for that purpose. I will welcome any views that members might have before the consultation on the strategy closes on 23 October.

I propose to make a statement to Parliament when the strategy is laid, of course. Although I see no need for that to be a statutory requirement, I am willing to support amendment 40A, to reaffirm my commitment in that regard.

I urge members to support all the amendments in my name in the group and to support Jamie Greene’s amendments 38D, 38E and 40A, but to reject his other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 38.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary. It is good to get off to a good start by supporting some of my amendments, especially as they were lodged quite late in the day. We had to respond fairly quickly after

the Government lodged a large number of amendments on the national transport strategy on the Tuesday evening before the midday deadline the next day. We read through the Government’s amendments and they were warmly received by the Conservatives. There is a lot of good stuff in there. In the final hours, we sought to amend what was proposed and tinker with it slightly to see whether we could improve it constructively in any way.

I thank the Government for responding to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s concerns about the lack of a transport strategy in the bill. The bill is a transport bill and, although there will certainly be a lot of political back and forward and discourse today, we have to remember that it is, in effect, a bill of many smaller bills and that its purpose is to make improvements to transport in Scotland. The national transport strategy sits at the heart of that.

For the sake of brevity, I will not speak to all the amendments in the group. However, I would like to speak to the ones that the cabinet secretary has asked members to reject.

Amendment 38A says that it is okay to have a vision. I appreciate that the strategy is a long-term one, but I would like to see in it measurable policy objectives that are linked directly to the outcomes. Yesterday, we talked about the national islands plan and stakeholders’ feedback that it had lots of warm words and aspiration but lacked substance. We have an opportunity to avoid doing exactly the same with the NTS. The Government should introduce measurable policy objectives, and I would like them to be put in the bill. The key word is “measurable”. We and members in future sessions need to be able to look back and see whether the Government has kept to its outcomes. I appreciate that something so wide ranging will potentially span multiple sessions and Governments, but that should not let any future Government get out of having their performance measured and monitored. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 38A.

I turn to the other amendments in the group, and specifically amendment 38E. I have asked the cabinet secretary to take into account

“access to further and higher education via public transport”

as a key component of the national transport strategy. We commonly get feedback on how important transport is for people to get to their place of education. We took evidence on that in relation to the south of Scotland enterprise agency, and I am sure that my colleague Liz Smith has taken a lot of evidence on it over the years. Good access to decent public transport is vital for young people who are looking to go to college, university or indeed their place of work, and I would like the Government to put that into the bill.

I am pleased that the Government supports my amendments 38D and 38E. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking them, and amendment 40A, on board.

Amendment 38F seeks to add to the transport strategy a requirement on “economic development and growth” in relation to some specific metrics, which I think are commonly used ones. Including that would enable us to consider how we can use transport to boost the economy. Ultimately, what is transport? It is about getting people from A to B—from their home to their place of work or study, and vice versa. I do not see why we should not put that into the strategy. It might end up there, but I would like the requirement to be up front in the bill. Again, the objectives that I have specified are measurable ones so that the Government of the day can be held to account.

I turn to a few of my other, smaller amendments. I hope that my amendments that focus on the elderly and the disabled will be well received. I have had some communication with Age Scotland, which has actively contacted members, and I thank it for its support for the amendments. I hope that the Government will reflect on that support outside this building.

I am pleased that the Government is willing to come back to the Parliament and make a statement on the contents of the strategy. In addition to that, however, I hope that we will give it the place that it deserves, as there is a place for proper debate about the contents of the strategy. I know that the cabinet secretary is always willing to listen to ideas from across the Parliament, and I hope that we will move forward in that positive mood with the rest of the stage 3 consideration of the bill.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I

welcome Michael Matheson’s amendment 38. As he said, it was lodged in response to a stage 2 amendment in my name that aimed to ensure that we set high-level principles for our transport system in legislation. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary’s officials for liaising with me when determining the wording of the amendment.

Transport has a key role to play in realising human rights, improving health, tackling air pollution and climate change, promoting economic growth and equality and supporting social inclusion. I believe that it is right that we are clear about the relationship between our transport system and our society more broadly, and the aims that are set out in subsection (5) in amendment 38 capture that well.

In particular, I draw attention to the inclusion of fair work, which again responds to a stage 2 amendment in my name. We have seen a race to the bottom in areas such as staff terms and conditions in the privatised, fragmented transport system that we have, and that needs to be addressed. Any company or organisation that receives public money should be required to deliver decent terms and conditions for its workers. I hope that we will see a strengthened fair work framework in the future that will properly include collective bargaining and trade union representation as part of the requirements that are placed on those who receive public money to deliver transport services.

Amendment 38 makes it clear that the principles that are set out in the bill should be delivered through the upcoming national transport strategy. That clear statutory underpinning is useful, and I hope that the new national transport strategy and the policy and budgetary decisions that follow will be consistent with the values and aims that are set out in this welcome amendment.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Green Party will support amendment 38 and Jamie Greene’s amendments 38D and 38E.

The national transport strategy will be fundamental. We will come on to talk about the workplace parking levy and the role that the strategy will play in that, but the strategy is not being proposed simply for the sake of it. It will inform what is done and enable us to be creative, innovative, inclusive and interconnected, and that is to be welcomed.

I concur with Colin Smyth on the inclusion of fair work. The inclusion of the environment and emission reduction targets in subsection 5(c) in amendment 38 is also important, as is the inclusion of health and wellbeing in subsection 5(d). This is not just about words.

We will not support Jamie Greene’s amendments 38A, 38B or 38C. I consider them to be bureaucratic, and we can scrutinise the things that they mention in any case.

I warmly accept the inclusion of elderly persons. Their demographic is growing and that must be reflected in all our deliberations. The inclusion of access to further and higher education via public transport is very important. The committee heard how that can be turned around; Lothian Buses did so in East Lothian. That was about getting young people involved. There are a lot of positives in some of the amendments.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I will focus on two of Jamie Greene’s amendments.

On amendment 38A, objectives need to be measurable. Yesterday, we saw the publication of the national islands plan. I am critical of that plan because none of its objectives are SMART—specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-bound. They are aspirational in nature.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As the member might recall from yesterday’s statement, we are developing an implementation strategy that will have SMART objectives. I hope that he will take satisfaction from that.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Yes, but that will be further down the line and it will not take the same legal approach to the islands plan as was in the bill. The situation with the Transport (Scotland) Bill is reminiscent of that. In the Islands (Scotland) Bill, we had legislation that requires such objectives to be set and we have found that they are not SMART.

The Government might very well come up with them later on down the line, but an awful lot of work has gone into the national islands plan to produce aspirations. I do not think that we should be producing aspirations. We should be producing specific and measurable objectives, which is why Jamie Greene has lodged amendment 38A and why the Liberal Democrats support it.

I also support amendment 39A, which says that the Scottish Parliament should be a consultee. We already have a good system in which the Scottish Parliament committees can investigate anything that the Government proposes, but would it not be novel to have the Scottish Parliament involved in consulting on the formulation of the national transport strategy? That is an innovative measure that we certainly support.

The Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary has indicated that he does not wish to wind up. Jamie Greene, please wind up on amendment 38A and indicate whether you wish to press or withdraw it.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have not much to add. I thank Mr Rumbles for his warm words on what I think are fairly constructive amendments. I note the cabinet secretary’s comments and that he has asked members to vote against some of my amendments, but I ask members to reflect on the intent behind them, and on the fact that I hope that they will strengthen the national transport strategy so that we can get it to a good place and the Parliament can be proud of it.

The Presiding Officer

Are you pressing amendment 38A?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Yes.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 38A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. This is the first vote of the day, so I suspend the meeting for five minutes while we call members to the chamber.

13:53 Meeting suspended.

13:58 On resuming—

There will be a division. The question is, that amendment 38A 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 54, Against 63, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38A

disagreed

to.

Amendment 38B moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 38B 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 27, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38B disagreed to.

Amendment 38C moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 38C 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 26, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38C disagreed to.

Amendments 38D and 38E moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.

Amendment 38F moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 38F 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 50, Against 68, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38F disagreed to.

Amendment 38, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 39 moved—[Michael Matheson].

Amendment 39A moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 39A 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 31, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39A disagreed to.

Amendment 39B moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 39B 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 31, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 39B disagreed to.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment 40 moved—[Michael Matheson].

Amendment 40A moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to.

Amendment 40, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 42 moved—[Michael Matheson].

Amendment 42A moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 42A 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 31, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42A disagreed to.

Amendment 42B moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 42B 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 27, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 42B disagreed to.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Group 2 is on the purpose of low-emission zones. Amendment 135, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 137, 49, 54 and 55.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

This is a short group on low-emission zones. It comes back to an issue that we discussed at great length at stages 1 and 2: what is the purpose of a low-emission zone?

At stage 2, there were amendments on this issue. I and the Labour Party presented further detail on what, for the avoidance of doubt, should be in the bill about the purpose of a low-emission zone. In its feedback at stage 2, the Government suggested that what we were proposing was perhaps overly prescriptive, and I accept that. It was perhaps unwise to put into the bill the technical standards and the emissions that low-emission zones should seek to reduce; there are better places to put those stipulations. That said, I still think that is important to push amendment 135 at stage 3, which would put into the bill an overarching message about the purpose of a low-emission zone. The reason for that is the avoidance of doubt among the general public about the purpose of a zone.

Like many others in the chamber, I want low-emission zones to succeed, but they will do so only if the public understand what the purpose and benefits of the zones are and if they have measurable objectives. Amendment 135 clarifies that

“The purpose of a low emission zone ... is to reduce transport-related emissions within and in the vicinity of the zone.”

It is not just the cities that operate a zone that will see a reduction; we also hope to see improvement in areas on the periphery of cities that operate such a zone. I have intentionally taken out any form of prescriptive data on what scientific evidence would define such a reduction. There are other ways that the Government can address that.

Amendment 137 follows on from that and states that the Scottish ministers should set out a report—basically, an updated scientific report—that states what should be included in the emission specification and standards for a low-emission zone. That is my new approach, which has the support of many organisations outside Parliament. Many of us have been speaking to organisations such as Friends of the Earth Scotland, which I thank for their involvement on the issue. I know that they wanted us to push the Government harder to be more specific about what sort of emissions we want to see reduced in Scotland, but I felt that I needed to take some of that out in order to have the best opportunity to have an amendment agreed to at stage 3. I hope that those organisations support the fact that we are debating the matter this afternoon and that the Government will include an overarching objective for low-emission zones.

We will not support amendments 49 and 55, in the name of Colin Smyth. I will let him speak to those and comment later. My understanding is that they introduce an automatic trigger that means that a local authority will have to set up a zone if there is a reduction in air quality, but I do not think that an automatic trigger is the way to do it. Low-emission zones should be set up with the purpose of targeting problematic areas. Automatic triggers will prove onerous to local authorities outside our bigger cities, which do not have the infrastructure to operate such schemes. We know that there can be small zones within local authority areas that have air quality issues; we have often talked about that in Parliament. Colin Smyth’s amendments would require local authorities to set up a low-emission zone to combat such air quality issues, but there are other ways that they could do that. An automatic trigger is not the way to do it, so we will not be able to support Mr Smyth.

I am happy to support amendment 54, in the name of the cabinet secretary.

I move amendment 135.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendments 49 and 55 will strengthen low-emission zones. When the First Minister declared a climate emergency she said that every policy area must be looked at, but that does not seem to have included the Transport (Scotland) Bill and, in particular, low-emission zones. When taking evidence on the bill, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was told that LEZs are the one clear measure in the bill that could make a real difference to emissions. However, despite the fact that this year’s programme for government included a commitment to

“consult on Scotland’s ambition to make the transformative shift to zero or ultra-low emission city centres by 2030”,

the bill as it stands does not allow for the creation of ultra-low-emission zones. C

ity centres and other areas with particularly severe air pollution problems will not be able to go any further than those dealing with more moderate air pollution issues.

If the Government is serious about the commitment in the programme for government, local authorities should have the power to introduce targeted

ultra-low-emission zones

in the parts of their area with the most severe air pollution. Amendment 55 would allow that, subject to ministerial sign-off. That added layer of scrutiny will ensure that the power is not used inappropriately. Failure to agree to the amendment means that the programme for government commitment is an empty promise.

With regard to amendment 49, the recent review of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy described LEZs as

“a necessary and important commitment in delivering cleaner air”,

particularly with regard to air quality management areas, stating that

“AQMAs can and need to be operated more effectively and overall this, with effective LEZ implementation, will lead to necessary further improvements in air quality in the next three to five years”.

Given the clear role for LEZs in

air quality management areas

, their implementation should not be optional but should be the default position. Amendment 49 would make that the case. However, I have suggested a commonsense provision to give the Scottish ministers the power to waive that requirement, so that if the breach in air pollution was clearly an anomaly or the local authority was able to illustrate how it was otherwise dealing with the issue, it would be exempt.

The two amendments in my name will ensure that the bill reflects the severity and urgency of the climate emergency that we are facing and that the eventual legislation is fit for purpose in the long run and is flexible enough to meet our changing needs.

Amendment 135, in the name of Jamie Greene, introduces a clear statutory purpose for LEZs, and is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. It implements a unanimous recommendation by all members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in our stage 1 report, and I am happy to support that amendment.

Although LEZs can deliver a wide range of social and environmental benefits, we should be clear that, fundamentally, they must deliver a reduction in transport-related emissions. Placing the provisions of amendment 135 in the bill ensures that LEZs must be developed in line with that aim.

I am also happy to support amendment 54, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which reflects the role that LEZs have to play in helping Scotland to meet its climate change targets.

Transport is Scotland’s biggest emitter and is responsible for more than a third of all our greenhouse gases. Mechanisms such as LEZs should help to deliver national priorities as well as tackling local issues. Let us strengthen them today to ensure that we achieve that.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendment 135 would set the purpose of a low-emission zone as the reduction of

“transport-related emissions within and in the vicinity of the zone.”

This topic was raised throughout stages 1 and 2. However, the bill already provides a clear mandatory requirement, which is set out in section 9(4): that low-emission zones must help to meet the air quality objectives that are prescribed by the Environment Act 1995. In addition, amendment 54 will add a further mandatory objective for low-emission zones of contributing towards meeting the climate change targets that have been set this year in the Parliament. We will outline the purposes of a low-emission zone and how to set objectives in the forthcoming low-emission zone guidance.

Amendment 135 is therefore not needed. It is unduly narrow in its stated purpose.

Amendment 137 would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and lay a report in the Scottish Parliament no later than five years after the bill has received royal assent outlining any new or existing pollutants that should be considered when setting the emission standards for low-emission zones. Again, that is unnecessarily complex, as these matters are already dealt with by the existing environmental legislation as well as by the bill as it stands.

Amendment 49 would introduce a requirement on local authorities to implement a low-emission zone in any area that does not meet the air pollution limit values as stated in the Air Quality (Scotland) Regulations 2000. The Scottish Government is committed to introducing low-emission zones in other air quality management areas by 2023 where the national low-emission framework appraisals support that. Those appraisals will be conducted this year for all air quality management areas other than in the four main cities, where low-emission zones are already being prepared. As such, we are already taking steps to ensure that low-emission zones are implemented in air quality management areas where the scientific evidence supports such action.

With the First Minister declaring a climate emergency, amendment 54 brings the crucial issues of climate change and air quality together. Low-emission zones will be required to contribute towards meeting the emissions reduction targets that are set out in part 1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Those objectives dovetail with the existing mandatory objective of contributing to an improvement in air quality, as prescribed in section 87(1) of the 1995 act. I therefore encourage local authorities to adopt a pragmatic but ambitious approach to the new climate change objective.

Amendment 55 would introduce a power for local authorities to alter their emission standard for their local low-emission zones, such that they could make emission standards more stringent than the forthcoming national standards contained in regulations. The amendment is unhelpful, as it has the clear potential to cause confusion for people driving between zones. It is unnecessary, as the regulation-making power to set the emission standards as a national standard already allows for the possibility of more stringent standards being set over time.

I therefore ask members to support amendment 54, and I ask Jamie Greene and Colin Smyth not to press amendments 135, 137, 49 and 55. If they are pressed, I urge members to reject them.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Greens will not support amendment 135.

We believe that the objective that is mentioned in amendment 54,which is in the name of the cabinet secretary, should be self-evident if everything that we are doing in the bill is intended to achieve the aims of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. However, we want not just to hear words but to see actions.

We will also not support amendment 137. Knowledge is an evolving thing, and we would not be looking for a reference in the bill to pick up on that.

We will support Colin Smyth’s amendments. Amendment 49 is pragmatic and responsive. With regard to amendment 55, there is clearly a place for addressing difference: we are talking about people’s lives. We know that every year tens of thousands of people across the United Kingdom lose their lives because of poor air quality, so there is certainly a place for the ultra-low-emissions standard. It is appropriate that there should be the power to alter that is inherent in Colin Smyth’s amendment 55, so we will support it.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I will comment on three amendments, the first of which is amendment 135, in the name of Jamie Greene. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee discussed the issue and felt that it is important to make the purpose of a low-emission zone explicit.

“The purpose ... is to reduce transport-related emissions within and in the vicinity of the zone.”

That is quite clear, and I do not see what objection anybody could have to it. I must admit that were it not to be set out in the bill, that would make no difference to a zone’s operation, but having the purpose set out in the bill would be helpful. Why members might consider not voting for that, I really do not know.

Liberal Democrats will not support amendments 49 and 55, which are in the name of Colin Smyth. Section 4(3) as proposed in amendment 49 is almost contradictory. It says that where such pollutants happen

“a local authority must—

... make a low emission zone scheme”,

but subsection (4) says that

“The Scottish Ministers may ... exempt a local authority”

from doing so. To me, that is not at all logical and would add to confusion.

Talking of confusion, if Colin Smyth’s amendment 55 were to be agreed to, there would be real confusion across the country. I support the cabinet secretary’s comments in that regard. We want to see LEZs being successful; we do not want to see people driving from one city, in which their vehicle’s emissions level might be perfectly fine, into another LEZ in which it is not and in which they would be breaking the law. Amendment 55 might be well intentioned, but its drafting is completely wrong.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will not support amendments 49 and 55.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jamie Greene to wind up, and to say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 135.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will comment on members’ feedback on the Scottish Conservative amendments.

I thank Colin Smyth, of Scottish Labour, and Mike Rumbles, of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, for saying that their parties will support amendment 135, which I appreciate. As they said, it is important that the bill says up front what the purpose of a low-emission zone is.

In his response, the cabinet secretary said that amendment 135’s focus is too narrow. I argue that it is purposely narrow because, by default, the point of such a zone is surely to restrict the entry of vehicles that do not meet emissions criteria. The bill’s intention is to lower emissions in and around the zone in which it operates. By making that clear and defining what the purpose of such zones is, we are more likely to achieve the buy-in of the general public to support them and to be positive about them, as many members are. Other parts of the low-emissions zone provisions might refer to other pieces of legislation, so that, if we were to dig deep enough, that might enable us to find out what they are about.

I have no problem with putting the purpose of low-emission zones on the face of the bill—the effect would be to say, in very simple terms and with no ambiguity, what the purpose of LEZs is.

I appeal to the Scottish Greens to work with Scottish Conservatives on that, given the broad range of support by others—not just political support, but support from organisations with which we have been working for a number of months to try to get something in the bill. Members now have a chance to do that, so I appeal to them to do so.

I sympathise with the cabinet secretary’s comments on national standards. It would be very confusing for drivers if different zones were to operate to different technical standards. If a person were to drive from Aberdeen to Dundee and on to Edinburgh in the same vehicle and could enter one LEZ but not another, that would create confusion.

I have other amendments coming up on signage, which would help to inform the public. They will fall nicely together as a package with the amendments that we are debating now. It is a simple proposition: my amendments would enable motorists to understand exactly what they are getting. Unfortunately, in that case, we should not support Colin Smyth’s amendments.

However, it is worth noting that cites—including Edinburgh, which might be the first to introduce an LEZ—are already looking at how they could use the legislation, if it passes as it is currently drafted, to operate different geographical zones, which would allow some vehicles to enter one zone but not another. The legislation has flexibility built in through which to do that; I do not think that differing technical standards is the way to achieve that.

I appeal to members for their support for amendments 135 and 137. I press amendment 135.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 135 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 55, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 135 disagreed to.

Group 3 is on exemptions in low-emission zones. Amendment 136, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 43 and 44.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Group 3, which is on low-emission zone exemptions, is a small group. I am happy to support amendments 43 and 44.

As I said earlier, the purpose of a zone is to restrict entry into it. Basically, a motorist will be restricted from entering a zone if their vehicle does not meet the specified emissions standards. However, I think that certain vehicles should be allowed to enter LEZs, if they have to. Amendment 136, which is short and simple, states that vehicles that are being used

“for police purposes ... for ambulance purposes”

or for

“any function of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service or HM Coastguard”,

should be allowed to enter a zone if they require to do so, and should not be subjected to fines and/or penalties. That seems to be common sense. There is not much more to say than that.

I move amendment 136.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am aware that we have heard a lot of views during stages 1 and 2 on proposed low-emission zone exemptions. Let me be very clear: I absolutely accept that there will have to be exemptions from low-emission zones, and they will be captured in secondary legislation.

At stage 1, we stated that the emergency services and blue badge holders are high in our consideration. At stage 2, a number of amendments proposed exemptions in niche areas: in particular, Richard Lyle lodged an amendment that was agreed to relating to transportation equipment for funfairs. That has resulted in an anomaly in the bill, because the committee did not agree to the related substantive amendment.

In order to rectify the situation, I have agreed with Richard Lyle that an exemption from low-emission zones for showmen’s vehicles will be introduced through secondary legislation. Richard Lyle is content with that approach. As such, I have lodged amendment 43, which will remove section 1(1)(c), which introduced a low-emission zone exemption for funfair vehicles.

More generally, in respect of amendments 136 and 44, the topic of national exemptions for LEZs needs careful thought and consideration in conjunction with interested parties that have specialist knowledge. My officials are therefore engaging with key stakeholders on proposed regulations on LEZ exemptions. That will include discussions with the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs, and with the emergency services and associated organisations including the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Her Majesty’s Coastguard.

I can, however, provide some clarity for Murdo Fraser and Jamie Greene. The specific issue of an exemption for historic vehicles and the emergency services are among the key topics for consideration in development of regulations; I am strongly minded to include such exemptions. It is worth noting that an exemption for historic vehicles has been granted for the English clean-air zone areas, but emergency services have not been exempted from the London ultra-low-emission zone. However, we need to give careful consideration to those matters before drafting the regulations.

I urge members to support my amendment 43 and to reject amendments 136 and 44.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 44 mirrors amendments that I lodged at stage 2 but did not push to a vote, and with which I sought to exempt historic vehicles from the rules on LEZs. I support LEZs. I declare an interest as the owner of an historic vehicle. I know that I am not alone in that in Parliament. As is the case for many historic vehicle owners, mine does no more than a few hundred miles a year, so it can hardly be classed as a major polluter of the atmosphere.

There are more than 250,000

historic vehicle owners and enthusiasts across the United Kingdom. The vehicles include not just cars but

motorcycles, buses, coaches, lorries, vans, military vehicles, tractors and steam engines

.

The issue is that without an exemption from LEZs, individuals who live within a designated LEZ would not be able to own or operate an historic vehicle, which would be an unreasonable restriction. Moreover, historic vehicles would not be able to drive through LEZs, which would mean that historic vehicle exhibitions, rallies and events could no longer be held in venues in those areas.

Also, people who are getting married and who want to have a historic car—[

Interruption

.]—or a steam train, as the justice secretary said from a sedentary position—pick them up from their church or their wedding venue would not be able to do that if they were being married within an LEZ. I am sure that that is a tragedy that members would want to avoid at all costs.

There is a strong case to be made for exempting historic vehicles. I do not believe that they are major contributors to pollution; in fact, in total, historic vehicles represent just 0.2 per cent of total traffic on UK roads and, as the cabinet secretary said, they have already been exempted from the LEZs south of the border.

I lodged amendment 44 essentially as a probing amendment. I am very encouraged by the cabinet secretary’s comment that he is “strongly minded” to grant the exemptions in regulations after further discussions with stakeholders. On that basis, I intend not to move amendment 44.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

We will not support amendment 136. The organisations that are listed in the amendment should not be granted exemptions. Quite the reverse is true; they should be setting an example. Likewise, Greens will not support Murdo Fraser’s amendment 44, although I do not suppose that that will surprise him.

I was gratified to hear the cabinet secretary’s words about amendment 43 because I know that it caused some surprise when I lent my support to that exemption. I know that Mr Lyle is not with us today—he is elsewhere—but I did not want to have to call the cabinet secretary a spoilsport. The particular historic vehicles to which the amendment relates have been responsible for a lot of community jollification, so I am glad that that point has been picked up. On that basis, we will support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 43.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am surprised that members are not queuing up to tell us about their historic vehicles and steam engines. I think that Murdo Fraser made his points very well and is admirably looking after the huge number of enthusiasts in Scotland. He made some valid points.

I will reflect on the cabinet secretary’s comments. I give him the opportunity to say on the record that he will address seriously the question of emergency vehicles in low-emission zones. The discussion on the issue is on-going, and I do not want us to miss an opportunity. I do not see a problem with putting the measure in the bill, but if he thinks that it would be better in regulations, and we can take him at his word on that, I am happy to seek to withdraw amendment 136.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I have stated, we are giving careful consideration to provisions that should be in regulations, and to which services should be included. The matter is better dealt with through regulations, because that will give us greater flexibility to respond to changes in the future. That is the most pragmatic way to deal with the issue. We need to take a careful and considered approach so that we do not create any unintended difficulties as a result of the decisions that we make in relation to regulations.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

On that basis, I am happy not to press amendment 136.

Amendment 136, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 43 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 44 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is called “Ministerial powers and duties: consultation and publication”. Amendment 45, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 47, 48, 64, 81 to 83, 85, 90, 92, 93, 109, 111, 119 and 120.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

All 15 amendments in the group are in my name and aim to improve transparency and accountability under the bill.

The bill will give ministers significant powers to introduce secondary legislation in a range of areas. Generally speaking, those powers are necessary for delivering the aims of the bill, and I am not opposed to their inclusion. However, we should be clear that those decisions should be taken following appropriate consultation. Most of the amendments in the group simply seek to put that commonsense responsibility in the bill.

Amendments 64 and 85 apply to ministerial guidance rather than to regulations, but serve a similar purpose. As the bill stands, local authorities will have a duty to “have regard to ... guidance” that is issued by ministers on LEZs and pavement parking. That is fair, because guidance will help to ensure consistency across the country. However, we should be clear that that action should be taken only after consultation: amendments 64 and 85 clarify that.

Amendment 120 would require ministers to publish any code of practice that they introduce as soon as possible. The bill will give ministers the power to introduce or approve a code of practice on safety measures relating to road works, but it does not make it clear that the code of practice should be published, or how it should be published. The amendment would make it clear that the code must be published, which would remove ambiguity from the bill and improve accountability in relation to the guidance that will be produced under part 5.

I move amendment 45.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendments 45, 47, 48, 81 to 83, 90, 92, 93, 109, and 111 all seek to require the Scottish ministers to consult

“such persons as they consider appropriate”

before making regulations on low-emission zones, parking and workplace parking. Consultation of stakeholders is vital to the success of any secondary legislation, and the process is undertaken as a matter of Scottish Government policy. Therefore, I understand the intention behind the amendments.

Amendments 64 and 85 seek to give the Scottish ministers powers to issue guidance on low-emission zones and parking. Again, that is already standard practice: the Scottish ministers have an inherent power to issue guidance. In relation to parking and low-emission zones, the bill requires local authorities to take any such guidance into account. The Scottish ministers will always consult prior to issuing guidance, and consultation of key stakeholders has been on-going for some time on low-emission zones and parking guidance.

Amendments 119 and 120 would introduce a requirement on the Scottish ministers to consult on any revision or update to the safety code of practice for roads authorities, and to publish that code. Again, the Scottish ministers would, as a matter of routine, consult the industry and roads authorities during preparation of such a code. The existing safety code for undertakers is already published, and the same is intended for any roads authority code.

Although existing measures mean that the intention behind the amendments in the group would be achieved, I have no issue with the requirements being expressed in the bill. I therefore support the amendments.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his support for the amendments. They will make small but important changes to protect transparency and accountability, now and in the future, thereby enshrining best practice in law.

Amendment 45 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We allowed an hour for the debate on group 4, which is supposed to have finished; we are almost four minutes over time. I used my powers under rule 9.8.4A to allow the debate to continue, so I ask members to note that we are four minutes behind schedule.

Group 5 is technical amendments on low-emission zones. Amendment 46, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 53, 56 and 178.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The amendments in this group are designed to help to demarcate the difference between low-emission zone scope and low-emission zone exemptions.

At stage 2, the bill used the terms “vehicle” and “type of vehicle” interchangeably in relation to low-emission zone scope, exemptions, including time-limited exemptions, and grace periods. Unfortunately, that approach might cause confusion.

The amendments in this group seek to address that language issue by ensuring that the bill describes vehicles in terms of, first, their use, secondly, their construction, or, thirdly, a combination of their use and construction, specifically when referring to low-emission zone scope or exemptions. That means that low-emission zone scope and exemptions can be set in a way that accurately describes the vehicles to which the scope of the low-emission zone applies and the vehicles to which the exemptions apply, thereby making clear that low-emission zone scope and low-emission zone exemptions are separate concepts.

The same principle is applied to the creation of grace periods, which are linked to the scope of low-emission zones and, as such, are applicable only to a vehicle’s construction, rather than its use.

I urge members to support amendments 46, 53, 56 and 178.

I move amendment 46.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

Amendment 137 moved—[Jamie Greene].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 137 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 47, Against 66, Amendments 0.

Amendment 137 disagreed to.

Section 2—Proving contraventions and issue of a penalty charge notice

Amendment 47 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Enforcement

Amendment 48 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on enforcement of low-emission zones. Amendment 138, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 139, 151, 126 and 176.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendments 138 and 139 relate to the creation, in the bill, of an unclear situation on LEZ enforcement. The bill does not make driving in an LEZ a criminal offence, but it introduces

a vague power for ministers to create criminal offences by regulation. I am genuinely concerned about the ambiguity that that creates. If it is the Government’s intention to create a criminal offence, that should surely be in the bill. I would therefore be grateful if the cabinet secretary could clarify the intent behind those enabling powers, and what he envisages them being used for.

Likewise, I am keen to know why a decision was not taken to make driving in an LEZ a criminal offence from the outset.

Amendment 126 calls for regulations setting or changing penalty charges related to LEZs to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and my amendment 176 calls for regulations setting out who might be liable for LEZ charges to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Those are two important details, with significant consequences for drivers, and the decisions made in those regulations must be subject to adequate scrutiny. For that reason, I believe that they should have to be agreed by Parliament, under the affirmative procedure.

I welcome amendment 151 from Jamie Greene, which calls for regulations on traffic signs to be used in LEZs. The need for consistency in signage was a key issue highlighted to the REC Committee throughout the progress of the bill, and there is widespread agreement that that would be key to raising public awareness and encouraging compliance. I am happy to support amendment 151, which would ensure that that is the case.

I move amendment 138.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 151 and the other amendments in this group.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will just speak to amendment 151. As was said in the conversation that we had in a previous group on national standards, it is right that we should set a national technical standard for the zones, but it is also really important that we have national signage standards.

Amendment 151 would provide in the bill that ministers will introduce regulations that will ensure that there will not be different traffic signage used in different zones. I lodged the amendment for the reason that Colin Smyth gave—I thank him for his support—which is to ensure that there is consistency across all the zones and

that drivers understand the signage and know exactly when they are entering or exiting a zone, and the rules that operate around it. That consistency of message, whether at the side of the road or in road markings, would ensure that no matter which city someone was driving in, they would know exactly when they were in or out of a zone.

Anyone who has driven through London congestion charge areas will know that when the areas were introduced, there was ambiguity about which side of a street was in or out of a zone, and that was an opt-in scheme so people needed to know whether they were going to pay the fee accordingly. The difference here is

that people will not know until they get the fine through the post a couple of weeks later.

This is an important, small but useful amendment that will ensure consistency across all low-emission zones as they are introduced across Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I confirm our support for the amendments on the ground of consistency. I support Colin Smyth’s amendments, particularly amendment 138. I agree that the regulations are not the right place to create offences, because, as we know, regulations can only be approved or removed by Parliament—

we cannot amend them. The criminal offence really should have been created in the bill, so we agree with the position that Colin Smyth outlined.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

This group of amendments addresses the enforcement of low-emission zones.

Amendment 138 seeks to remove the ability of Scottish ministers to create criminal offences for non-payment of the low-emission zone civil penalty charge. Amendment 139 would result in there being no maximum criminal fine for non-payment of low-emission zone penalties. The bill provides for criminal sanctions against non-payment as an important means of ensuring enforcement of the low-emission zone regime. These amendments would undermine the system, as they would remove that enforcement option.

Amendment 151 is unnecessary. The Scottish ministers already have statutory powers to amend the existing Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 to prescribe traffic signs for low-emission zones.

Work to design low-emission zone signs at national level is already being progressed by my officials using the powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Amendments 126 and 176 both seek to make the regulation-making powers under section 1(4)(c) and 2(4)(b) subject to the affirmative procedure. Although I consider the matter to be somewhat finely balanced, I am content to agree that the powers should be subject to the additional parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded by the affirmative procedure. I therefore support amendments 126 and 176, but I ask that Colin Smyth and Jamie Greene do not press the other amendments in this group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I am a bit disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not really clarify the purpose of the ministerial power to introduce regulations creating criminal offences under this section. I still believe that the approach in the bill creates a degree of ambiguity and confusion, but I do not wish to limit enforcement powers with regard to LEZs by removing that power, so I will seek members’ agreement to withdraw amendments 138 and I will not move amendment 139. However, I wish to move amendments 126 and 176, which would make regulations on penalty charges and liabilities subject to the affirmative procedure, as I believe that that would provide a useful additional layer of scrutiny to two key elements of LEZ enforcement.

Amendment 138, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 139 not moved.

Section 4—Power to make or modify a low emission zone scheme

Amendment 49 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 49 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division following a change of group, it will be a one-minute division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 49 disagreed to.

Group 7 is concerned with process issues in low-emission zones. Amendment 140, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 141, 50, 51, 142 to 144, 52, 63.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

As amended at stage 2, the bill states that if a scheme is to be created, amended or revoked, ministerial approval is required. My amendments in this group—specifically, amendments 140, 141, 143 and 144—remove the “revoke” element. The reason for that is simple, and concerns something that I raised at stage 2.

It is absolutely fair that Scottish ministers should have a say in the setting up of the zones—they are quite substantial pieces of infrastructure and operations—and it is important that the local authorities that set them up do so following the required due diligence. However, concerns have been raised. If a scheme has been in operation for a number of years and has either met all its objectives or is deemed to be inoperable for any reason, a local authority might choose to close down or revoke a zone and go down a different path in tackling emissions in its area. Indeed, we hope that the zones might be victims of their own success and there will not be a need for them in the future. At the moment, the ability to revoke requires ministerial approval, which means that we could end up with a scenario in which a city such as Dundee or Glasgow would like to cease to operate a zone but is overruled by the Government.

It is important that the local authority that sets up and operates the zone—and is financially responsible for it—should have the right to unilaterally close down the zone, if it deems it appropriate to do so. It is not appropriate for the Government to have the final power to decline the revocation of a zone. The amendments address that.

Another amendment in the group—amendment 142—sets out that there are national rules around the zone. We have talked about signage and national vehicle standards, and the cabinet secretary spoke about regulations around national exemptions. However, the design of the geographic area of a zone, and the days and times of operation, should be left to local authorities. Although it is likely that the zones will be in operation 24/7, that may not be required. There are many reasons—including economic reasons—why a local authority may choose not to operate a zone on a Sunday, for example. I am not saying that a local authority should do that; this is about giving local authorities the flexibility and freedom to design a zone that works for them.

Local authorities need flexibility on where the zone is—in other words, which streets are in it and which are outside it. Edinburgh has been having a proactive conservation and engaging with the public in that regard already.

As I said, the other aspect on which local authorities need flexibility is the dates and times of a zone’s operation. If a local authority chooses that a zone should operate 24/7, so be it. However, that power should not lie centrally or be centrally decided—again, that should be up to those who create the zone. Although I am happy to hear comments on the amendments, I hope that they are seen as a welcome improvement to the process of operating the zones.

I move amendment 141.

The Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 50 and the other amendments in the group.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Amendments 140, 141, 143 and 144 from Jamie Greene are similar to amendments that were lodged at stage 2. They seek to remove reference to revocation from sections 5, 6 and 7 of the bill. As a result, ministers would have no powers to consider proposals to revoke a low-emission zone, statutory consultees would not be consulted on any such revocation, and Scottish ministers and local authorities would have no powers to call for an examination into a proposal to revoke a low-emission zone.

Proposals for low-emission zones, including revocation, should always be subject to the scrutiny of ministers and consultees.

Amendments 50 and 51 fulfil a commitment that was made at stage 2 to consider the amendments that Jamie Greene lodged at stage 2. Amendments 50 and 51 hold ministers and local authorities to account in demonstrating that consultation responses have been considered when such a scheme is made and approved.

Amendment 142 from Jamie Greene would have the same effect as another amendment that he lodged at stage 2, and would remove the requirement for ministers to approve proposals in relation to the area and days and hours of operation of a low-emission zone. Amendment 142 should be rejected, because the days and hours of operation are among the most significant elements of a scheme, and ministers should, therefore, approve proposals in that regard.

Amendment 52 offers a significant reworking of section 7 to allow for procedural flexibility in the examination of low-emission zone scheme proposals. It does not dilute the premise of a local inquiry, but enables an examination to be conducted by an independent reporter by way of written representations, hearings or an inquiry. The new section 7 also gives Scottish ministers a regulation-making power to outline procedural and financial matters in relation to those examinations.

Amendment 63 deals with an anomaly in section 24 that resulted from the committee agreeing to an amendment at stage 2, whereby section 24(1A) allows local authorities to carry out, at their own instance, a review into a low-emission zone, rather than only by direction from Scottish ministers.

I urge members to reject amendments 140 to 144 in Jamie Greene’s name, and to accept amendments 50 to 52 and 63 in my name.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments. Where there is disagreement or, perhaps, confusion as to the effect of amendments, I am keen

to ensure that we do not amend the bill in a way that leads to unintended consequences.

My interpretation of the drafting of my amendments is that they remove Scottish ministers’ ability to overrule a decision by a local authority to revoke. My understanding of the cabinet secretary’s response is that he would like to retain the power to overrule, but I do not think that he has given a sensible argument for why he would like to retain that power.

As I have said, it is important that the local authority concerned goes through due process in coming to an arrangement. However, once it has done that, it should be for the local authority, which is, ultimately, financially responsible for operating the scheme, to take the decision to close it down. We could end up in a scenario in which the Government says no to the revocation of a scheme that has perhaps proven to be financially onerous for the local authority, which may have struggled to meet the zone’s operational costs. The minister could still say that that does not fit in with the national objectives, so the zone will have to be kept. I do not want local authorities to be in that scenario. That was the premise behind my proposal.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

We will support Jamie Greene’s amendments. To answer his point—which the minister did not, of course—all ministers want to retain the powers that they have. That is the simple answer to the question why the minister did not agree to what has been proposed. He wants to hold on to the powers that he has. It is very simple.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Mr Rumbles has been in this building for a lot longer than I have, and I thank him for his wisdom. I could not agree more.

To be serious, I ask members to support my proposal. We have to strike a balance in the discussion about low-emission zones in respect of what local authorities are given the power to do versus what should be centrally decided. There are elements that should be centrally decided, which we have talked about, but I still think that flexibility is required at the local level. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 140, which I will press.

I thank the cabinet secretary for amendments 50 and 51, which I am happy to support, following my discussions with him and the legislation team. I thank him for being flexible, taking on board our comments at stage 2 and lodging those amendments. I appreciate that, and we are happy to support amendments 50 and 51.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 140 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 30, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 140 disagreed to.

Amendment 141 not moved.

Amendments 50 and 51 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 142 moved—[Jamie Greene].

The question is, that amendment 142 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 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 142 disagreed to.

Section 6—Prior consultation

Amendment 143 not moved.

Section 7—Local inquiries

Amendment 144 not moved.

Amendment 52 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Required content of a scheme

Amendments 53 and 54 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

After section 9

Amendment 55 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 55 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 30, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 55 disagreed to.

Group 8 is on grace periods in low-emission zones. Amendment 145, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 146 to 148, 57 to 59, 149 and 150. If amendment 148 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendments 57 and 58.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I know that the group looks long and members are dashing off for coffee, but I will not say very much on the group, so they should not go too far.

Members

Shame.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I know—it is a shame. [

Laughter

.] I hope that we will get to a break soon, Presiding Officer. We are making good progress.

When we looked at the proposals in the bill as introduced, we noted that the Government had rightly recognised that there needs to be a grace period. We cannot vote the legislation through and have zones set up the next day, because people would, in effect, be barred from entering the zones. Outside this building, there are people who drive older vehicles and small businesses that have such vehicles. We want to bring them up to the right emission standards to allow those people to drive in our city centres, but we will need some time to do so.

The concept of a grace period is welcome, but throughout stages 2 and 3 we have sought consistently to tinker with the format. When I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, we did not offer the proposals in a table format and the wording was complex to navigate. I hope that the way in which I have presented the proposals in my stage 3 amendments will make it easier to understand them.

In essence, I want to do two things, the first of which is to have three categories of vehicle—buses and coaches; commercial vehicles; and cars, by which I mean everyday household cars—and to give them different grace periods. The second thing is to separate them into the two categories of residents and non-residents. There is a good reason for that. After discussions with many councillors and local authorities, it was clear to me that people who live and operate in a zone and may be captured by it do not have a choice, whereas people who live outside a zone and want to travel into it have more ability to choose to enter it in a certain type of vehicle. If Edinburgh city centre becomes a low-emission zone, someone who lives there and who has the wrong type of vehicle will by default be breaking the law.

We thought that it would be sensible to give people more time, so we propose periods of one, two and three years respectively for those categories in which people are non-residents, and two, three and four years for residents. The range for grace periods would therefore be from one to four years depending on where the vehicle is registered and what type of vehicle it is. That seems to me to be a sensible proposition.

We know that this will be an issue because the indicative proposals from the City of Edinburgh Council show that it has already identified different types of zones that will allow entry to different types of vehicles.

It is sensible for us to do the right thing. We all support the setting up of low-emission zones, but it should be done in a sensible way. A lot of the small businesses that I spoke to are locked into contracts and leases. They cannot get out of those contracts and change their vehicles overnight. The general feedback that I got was that a grace period of three or four years would probably be long enough to allow those businesses to make those spending decisions and change the vehicles that they invest in, be they lease hired, contracted or purchased. That is important feedback.

We do not want to find out that, as a consequence of the legislation, businesses are stuck in vehicle contracts that they cannot get out of in a short period of time, and that they might have onerous charges or penalties to pay as a result.

This is the right thing to do. I am open to hearing members’ feedback on whether they agree with the concept that people who live in a zone should be given a little more time. I will take a view on where we sit after the debate.

I move amendment 145.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendments 57 to 59 aim to encourage the use of shorter grace periods for low-emission zones, while providing local authorities with the flexibility to make decisions that meet their needs.

As it stands, the bill allows grace periods of up to six years, while forcing a mandatory minimum grace period on local authorities. That does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis that we face in terms of air pollution and climate change, and it does not provide the flexibility that is needed to future proof the legislation.

Six-year grace periods are incompatible with a number of the Government’s aims, such as the review of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy, which states:

“The four first round LEZs need to follow legal and policy timetables and be in place and delivering within four years.”

That will simply not be possible if any local authority chooses to implement six-year grace periods.

Likewise, the Government’s ambitions, from plans to phase out the need for new petrol and diesel cars to the new programme for government aim of zero-emission cities by 2030, will be hindered by the lengthy grace periods in the bill. However, in the interests of flexibility, I have not proposed removing that option entirely. Amendment 59 would simply require ministers to sign off on the use of longer grace periods. That will send a clear message that the maximum grace periods should not be encouraged without removing the option entirely if there was an exceptional reason for such a lengthy period.

Amendments 57 and 58 seek to remove the statutory minimum grace periods to provide flexibility to local authorities and to future proof the bill. While the introduction of an LEZ is a significant change for individuals, and one that requires a fair lead-in period, that will not necessarily always be the case. The legislation needs to be open enough to deal with a range of scenarios now and in the future.

The issue of displacement was raised with the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Providing more flexibility on grace periods would, for example, allow the boundaries of the LEZ to be tweaked slightly without the need for a lengthy two-year delay. That is not to say that it should be common practice to go below the suggested minimums and, realistically, many local authorities are not likely to choose to do that at this point. However, we should trust that common sense will be used in the development of LEZs. Even if local authorities were inclined to use that flexibility inappropriately, ministers will still have sign-off, meaning that an LEZ with unreasonable grace periods would not be allowed, even with these amendments. The amendments are simply about removing something that might act as an unnecessary barrier to a minor change in a boundary at some point down the line.

Amendment 148 and associated amendments seek to replace the range of grace periods with set grace periods, based on vehicle type. Although I prefer the amendments that I have lodged, because they would give local authorities flexibility, Labour will support amendment 148 because it would have the effect of ensuring that LEZs would come into force earlier than the existing provisions in the bill.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

We will not support any of the amendments in the group. We are happy with the grace periods. They are clearly an important part of the bill. As in any proposed legislation, transitional arrangements are important. The issue has been addressed and it was the subject of consultation, so we will not support any of the amendments in the group.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Grace periods are critical to the operation of low emissions, because they will give all road users time to prepare for the introduction of a low-emission zone.

Amendments 145 to 148 seek to place very prescriptive grace periods into the bill. I draw attention to two substantive issues. Amendment 148 does not take account of the full list of vehicle types that are recognised by the Vehicle Certification Agency, which is not acceptable in enforcement terms. The amendments also seek to substantially reduce the maximum grace periods for buses and other commercial vehicles in a way that offers no flexibility for local authorities to set grace periods as they see fit.

Amendment 57 seeks to remove the minimum period for grace periods for non-residents. Removing the minimum would mean that low-emission zones could, in theory, start immediately, which would give those affected no time to adapt to the changes. The grace periods that are currently set out in the bill form the most appropriate and balanced approach, where we can achieve it in the legislation. They are based on extensive engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities.

Amendment 59 would impose a requirement to seek the approval of Scottish ministers around grace periods, which is not necessary because ministers must already approve a low-emission zone scheme under section 5 of the bill.

I have some sympathy with the intent of amendment 58, which seeks to remove minimum grace periods for residents. Local authorities will still have flexibility to set those periods up to two years beyond the grace period that is set for non-residents, so I can support that amendment.

Amendments 149 and 150, which were lodged by Jamie Greene, are concerned with removing section 11 in its entirety. That would, in effect, result in the removal from the bill of substantive necessary grace period provisions, covering situations including those in which two or more local authorities wished to act jointly when making or amending a low-emission zone, or in which newly adopted roads were included in an existing low-emission zone.

Therefore, although I can support amendment 58, I ask Jamie Greene and Colin Smyth not to press their other amendments in the group. If the amendments are pressed, I urge members to reject them.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

One thing that is still unclear—perhaps the cabinet secretary can clarify it—is whether the power to set grace periods will be defined zone by zone by local authorities, or whether there will be a national minimum or maximum for grace periods. My amendments seek to bring clarity on that point.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There is a minimum and a maximum, and also a provision that will allow local authorities to set grace periods that reflect local circumstances.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Right—so there would be a national range, but flexibility at a local level. If a local authority’s proposal for a grace period did not meet the national exemption, would it not be able to introduce it? I still think that that is unclear. For example, does the cabinet secretary envisage a situation in which an Edinburgh resident may have one year but a Glasgow resident may have three years? Might we see such an outcome?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We covered that point at stage 2. As Jamie Greene is aware, there is a minimum and a maximum. In seeking approval from Scottish ministers, a local authority would have to set out what the grace period would be. If the period exceeded what was set out in the legislation, clearly it would not be approved by ministers, but if a lower period was sought, the local authority would have to explain to ministers the purpose of having a timeframe that was lower than the maximum.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s response on those points. I will not seek to progress my proposal on the grace period in the structure that was presented in my amendments, but I will add my support to amendment 58, in the name of Colin Smyth, which the Government has indicated that it will support. I seek leave to withdraw amendment 145 and I will not move my other amendments in the group.

Amendment 145, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 56 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

Amendments 146 to 148 and 57 not moved.

Amendment 58 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 59 not moved.

Amendment 149 not moved.

Section 11—Grace periods: further provision

Amendment 150 not moved.

Section 12—Time-limited exemptions

Amendment 178 moved—[Michael Matheson]—and agreed to.

After section 16

Amendment 151 moved—[Jamie Greene].