Scottish Parliament, 21 January 2020

218 contributions from 43 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The first item of business this afternoon is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader is Father John Eagers of St James Roman Catholic church in Renfrew.

Father John Eagers (St James RC Church, Renfrew)

Deputy Presiding Officer and members of the Scottish Parliament, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

All of us, I hope, have our heroes; not necessarily people whom we aspire to become like, but those who inspire us to become better. One hero of mine is Nelson Mandela. It was once reported that a journalist said to him,

“Mr Mandela, people say that you are a saint,”

to which he replied,

“I am not a saint but rather a sinner striving to be a saint.”

Nelson Mandela was aware of his human frailties and wished to go beyond them, and, in doing so, to grow in holiness. After being released from 26 years of imprisonment, he could—justifiably—have looked for revenge, yet he chose to bring about peace and reconciliation for all people living in South Africa. He was a man of resilience and dignity who brought about immense change for his country and his people. That change was witnessed at the recent rugby world cup, which was won by a South African team captained by a black South African.

Another hero of mine is Pope Francis. It is his compassion, above all, that makes him inspirational. Last year, the BBC followed a number of celebrities making a pilgrimage through Italy. When they arrived in Rome, they received an audience with Pope Francis. During the audience, Pope Francis listened to them and responded to their questions. When Stephen K Amos, a comedian, said to Pope Francis,

“As a gay man, I don’t feel accepted,”

Pope Francis responded by saying,

“Giving more importance to the adjective rather than the noun, this is not good. We are all human beings and have dignity. It does not matter who you are or how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity. There are people that prefer to select or discard people because of the adjective—these people don’t have a human heart.”

Pope Francis shows that it is in treating people with compassion, and in respecting their dignity, that we act with dignity. It is that dignity that makes us all better and more joyful people. I hope that we are inspired by heroes to be better and happier people; and also that we, as people who are called to serve, will inspire others to become better and happier in the lives that they lead—whoever and wherever they may be.

Parliamentary Bureau Motion

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Our next item of business is consideration of business motion SM5-20538, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out revisions to this week’s business.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 21 January 2020

delete

5.30 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.45 pm Decision Time

(b) Thursday 23 January 2020

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Ministerial Statement: Providing Financial Stability for Scotland’s Farmers and Crofters

after

followed by

Stage 1 Debate: Consumer Scotland Bill

insert

followed by

Financial Resolution: Consumer Scotland Bill.—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

Police Scotland Budget

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the chief constable’s recent remarks to the Scottish Police Authority regarding the Police Scotland budget. (S5T-01957)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Before I answer the substance of the question, I record my and the Government’s condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Police Constable Lynch, who lost his life late on Sunday night. Also, today is the funeral of PC Natalie Faulds—a young officer who tragically lost her life a few weeks ago. I offer the Government’s condolences to their family and friends, and to the wider police family on those two losses.

On Liam Kerr’s question, the annual budget for policing has increased by more than £80 million since 2016-17, which brings the budget to more than £1.2 billion in 2019-20. That includes a £12 million increase in capital funding, which was focused on the introduction of mobile devices for front-line police officers.

Despite there being constraints on Scotland’s public services through a decade of United Kingdom austerity, the Scottish Government has worked with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority to maintain and improve policing services, including by providing significantly more officers than at any time since before 2007. Current officer numbers stand at 17,256, which is 1,022 more officers than we inherited, while in England and Wales the number has reduced by 20,000.

Discussions around the Scottish budget for 2020-21 continue, but we will continue to ensure that the Police Service of Scotland is supported to keep people and communities safe. As well as pursuing the UK Government to ensure that it meets the full costs of European Union exit and of hosting the

26th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity—COP26—

we will continue to press it to pay back the £125 million of VAT that was paid by Police Scotland before the Treasury reversed that unfair policy, in 2018.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The chief constable was utterly scathing about the Scottish Government’s funding of Police Scotland. The cabinet secretary has referenced capital funding; Police Scotland’s capital funding has already been cut to the bone. The chief constable has said that it is “derisory”, and is leaving facilities unmaintained, vehicles unreplaced and police numbers in jeopardy. Is it not the case that, if the Scottish Government had taken only £100 million out of the budget, instead of £200 million, Police Scotland would have a balanced budget by now? Will the cabinet secretary at the very least give in to our demand and give Police Scotland the £50 million that it needs to maintain officer numbers?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Again, for wider context, I will make sure that Liam Kerr understands the investment that we have put into the police. Our investment includes real-terms protection of the police budget and a 52 per cent increase in the capital budget, which has meant 1,000 more police officers for Scotland, versus the 20,000 cut in officer numbers in England and Wales. Crime rates in Scotland remain among the lowest, and we have 32 police officers per 10,000 head of population versus 23 in England and Wales.

The UK Government stole £125 million out of policing, but Liam Kerr is asking us to put £50 million back in. If he really wants to be helpful, he could use his enormous influence with his UK Government colleagues to get them, at the stroke of a pen, to reverse that decision and give us back £125 million.

While he is at it, will he ask them to give us the £200 million that Police Scotland has asked for to cover the UK Government-hosted COP26? Police Scotland is already having to spend money and use resources, but has not had a single copper penny from the UK Government.

If Liam Kerr really wants to be helpful, he can get on the phone to his friends in Westminster and ask them to return some of the money that they have stolen from Police Scotland.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

There was no answer in that at all to the chief constable’s point.

The cabinet secretary has clearly put some work into his defence and obfuscation. If only he would give the same attention to our police officers. He referenced crime rates. Under the Scottish National Party, crime has been rising for the past two years and violent crime has been rising for the past four years. The SNP Government keeps asking our brave policemen and policewomen to deal with increasing crime with fewer resources. Surely the cabinet secretary accepts that that is totally unsustainable? When will our police officers be able to say that they are working from and with an estate that is fit for purpose?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I really struggle to take lessons from Liam Kerr on this topic. If he wants to talk about what we have done for police officers, I will tell him: we gave them a 6.5 per cent pay award, compared with a derisory 2 per cent pay award that was given to police officers in England and Wales.

Liam Kerr’s demand is that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work put £50 million towards policing. If that was to be done, would he say right now that he would vote for the Scottish Government budget? I suspect that there would be no answer to that question—that he would obfuscate and equivocate.

Liam Kerr mentioned crime rates. We have one of the lowest crime rates in more than four decades. The Scottish violence reduction unit, which is being hailed across England and Wales, including in London, is doing phenomenal work. However, last week, statistics showed that knife crime incidents in England and Wales are at their highest rate for 10 years, so he will forgive me if I do not take any lessons from him on crime rates.

I ask Liam Kerr to answer one question. If that £50 million were to be put towards policing, would he vote for the budget?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have two supplementaries that I wish to take. Can we have shorter answers, please, cabinet secretary?

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

According to the Fraser of Allander institute, the tax plans that have been outlined by Conservative leadership candidate Jackson Carlaw would take £270 million from the Scottish budget. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Liam Kerr, as Jackson Carlaw’s campaign manager, might have wanted to reflect on the impact that the Conservatives’ tax plans would have on the Police Scotland budget before raising the topic in the chamber today?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that Liam Kerr is very fond of the work of the independent Fraser of Allander institute: he quotes it regularly. The institute’s analysis is that Jackson Carlaw’s tax plans would take £270 million out of the Scottish budget. Despite that, Liam Kerr expects us to spend more on policing. I will continue my discussions with the finance secretary about the justice budget. From looking at the tax plans of the man whom Liam Kerr wants to be leader, it seems to me that he will have to borrow Labour’s magic money tree sometime soon.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

The issue is not just the number of front-line police officers, but the conditions in which they are having to work. The Scottish Police Federation has reported that 25 per cent of police stations are in poor condition. David Hamilton of the SPF tweeted a video of a police station in Paisley where water was leaking in through the roof. Does the cabinet secretary accept that it is completely unacceptable that some of our police stations are falling apart? What action will be taken in the budget to ensure that our police estate is fit for purpose?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Describing police stations as “falling apart” is unhelpful hyperbole. [

Interruption

.] I do not doubt that the Scottish Police Federation has a job to do, particularly pre-budget, to ensure that the maximum amount of resource comes to the police. It would not be doing its job if it did not do that.

I ask James Kelly and his finance colleagues in the Scottish Labour Party to engage positively with the budget on the matter. When he was shadow finance secretary, before he was moved to the shadow justice secretary position, he never asked for more money for justice. In fact, Labour made no proposal on policing in Scotland—all that it did was suggest that there should be a 3 per cent cut to every department, including the justice department.

We have continued to invest in policing, including in the capital budget, which has had a 52 per cent increase. We will continue to look at any proposals that Police Scotland makes for the budget.

Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd regarding the announcement of plans to centralise air traffic control services. (S5T-01956)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Government has regular discussions with HIAL about how best to ensure a long-term sustainable future for air services in the Highlands and Islands. The decision was made and announced by HIAL early in 2018 to modernise air traffic control, a key feature of which was to establish a central surveillance centre rather than retaining individual towers at each airport. That decision—which is one part of a wider programme—was based on an independent analysis of the different options available and careful consideration by HIAL and its board.

Both the Scottish Government and HIAL are clear that this is a major change, both technically and personally, for the staff involved, and its success will depend upon continued engagement with staff, airlines and the Civil Aviation Authority.

Forthcoming regulatory changes and the general shift in the industry away from more traditional air traffic control procedures mean that doing nothing is not an option. The option chosen by HIAL, after very careful consideration, embraces new technology, future proofs operations, improves safety and will benefit the communities served by the airports involved.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Operating air traffic services across the Highlands and Islands via a remote tower in Inverness was identified by HIAL’s independent consultants Helios as the riskiest and costliest option.

Helios identified alternative options that would achieve the much-needed modernisation at a fraction of the cost or risk. Despite that, HIAL has spent more than two years ploughing ahead while ignoring the serious concerns that have been voiced by its own staff.

Does the cabinet secretary honestly believe that the project can be delivered when 82 per cent of HIAL’s ATC staff have stated that they will leave the organisation should it continue down this path? Will the cabinet secretary, even at this late stage, call a halt to enable a proper islands impact assessment to be carried out, given the significant implication of these plans for lifeline air services and employment in our three main island communities?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The priority for HIAL was to make sure that it chose the best option in order to help to sustain and support the modernisation of air traffic control services at HIAL airports. Any new approach that is taken to the delivery of air traffic control services at HIAL airports

will have to be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the safety expert in assessing these matters and the regulator that will have to consider any changes that are introduced by HIAL.

On Mr McArthur’s wider reference to employment and the island communities, key aspects of making the necessary changes to air traffic control are recognising the regulatory changes that are taking place and addressing issues of resilience at the existing facilities, which will have controlled airspace. The new centralised surveillance model will provide a greater level of resilience than we currently have, or would be provided in any of the other models that were considered.

I confirm that HIAL intends to undertake an island impact assessment in line with the legislation—the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018— in the coming months.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome at least the latter part of the cabinet secretary’s response. However, as one local ATC staff member in Orkney told me earlier this week, HIAL’s

plans offer no additional safety benefits over the other options available, while introducing serious additional risk, including a complete reliance on information technology infrastructure that no one who lives in the Highlands and Islands believes can be delivered for anything like the costs that are being quoted.

By the time reality catches up with the rhetoric and assertions that are being made by HIAL—or the CAA has any involvement in the process at all—millions will have been wasted and staff will have voted with their feet. Can the cabinet secretary therefore guarantee Parliament that Orkney’s lifeline air services and those across the region will not face major disruption as a result of this remote tower project? Will he, at the very least, look again at the phasing of the project, so that breaks can be provided that would allow independent assessments to be made of the technology before any final decisions are taken to close air traffic control services at Kirkwall or other airports across the network?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I expect HIAL to continue to engage with staff and trade unions on this matter in the way in which it has done over the past two years. In my discussions with HIAL it has been clear with me that it intends to continue that engagement with staff and with interested stakeholders.

It is worth keeping in mind the views of others in the aviation industry. For example, I was struck by comments from Jonathan Hinkles, the chief executive of Loganair, who said:

“Loganair’s view is that the technological improvements and airspace changes will enhance safety and we see no credible safety based argument against the remote ATC proposals.”

He went on to say:

“Having seen the remote ATC technology in action I can confidently say that it represents a quantum leap forward from what we have today in relation to safety.”

A number of airports across Europe and North America use that particular technology. What is important is that I recognise that with a significant change of this nature, there is a need for HIAL to remain engaged with local communities to provide them with the assurances that they require. I will certainly ensure that HIAL continues to undertake that work in the months ahead.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary says that HIAL has engaged with its staff and with local communities. I can assure him that that is not the case. HIAL needs to speak to the specialists on its own payroll, who are totally ignored and whose concerns are not being listened to. There is no connectivity. This is just another vanity project that will cost a huge amount of money, provide less service and damage our island and rural economies at the same time.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Taking forward an approach that will enhance safety in air traffic control systems in HIAL airports cannot be described as a vanity project. As I have outlined, any changes that are introduced will require to be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA must be satisfied that those changes meets its strict safety regulations.

If there is engagement with local communities that the member believes HIAL should undertake, over and above the action that it has taken to date, I would be more than happy to hear from her. Alternatively, she can contact the chair and chief executive of HIAL directly to suggest further actions that it could take.

HIAL has provided me with details about the extent of its engagement. I recognise that some air traffic control staff will not support HIAL’s approach, which is why it is important that HIAL continues to engage with the staff who are affected and their union representatives. I have impressed upon HIAL the need to ensure that engagement is maintained and, where necessary, extended as HIAL takes the modernisation programme forward.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes topical questions. I apologise to John Finnie and Jamie Halcro Johnston that I was unable to take their supplementary questions. I suggest that those who took part today go away and look up “succinct” in the dictionary, please.

Veterans

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by Graeme Dey on

“The Strategy for Our Veterans: Taking the Strategy Forward in Scotland”.

The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

In December, during my annual update to Parliament on the Scottish Government’s support for veterans and the armed forces community, I committed that I would return to the chamber to apprise members of the Government’s response to the veterans strategy consultation. I am delighted to announce today that we have published “The Strategy for Our Veterans: Taking the Strategy Forward in Scotland”, which sets out how the Scottish Government and our partners will deliver across all of the strategy’s key themes and cross-cutting factors in Scotland.

The strategy builds on the work that the Scottish Government is already undertaking to support our veterans and armed forces community, which is set out in “Our Commitments”, published in 2012, “Renewing Our Commitments”, published in 2016, and our annual updates to this Parliament, the most recent of which was only last month.

The strategy recognised the importance of supporting our armed forces veterans and their families, and it sought to build on the work by organisations across the public, private and charitable sectors to support and empower current and future veterans by setting clear goals for the period through to 2028 and beyond.

The aim is to ensure that every veteran feels even more valued, supported and empowered and never faces disadvantage as a result of their service. It also represents a rare occurrence of the Governments of the United Kingdom working closely to develop and jointly own a strategy, which demonstrates how much we value our shared commitment to supporting the veterans community now and in the future.

After the strategy was published, each Government conducted its own consultation to ensure that the views of veterans, their families and those who support them from across the UK were heard, as well as to explore how the strategy might be implemented in response to the specific needs of the veterans population and the distinct mechanisms for delivery in each nation.

Our consultation highlighted that the cross-UK approach to the strategy created a strong joint foundation for achieving its outcomes, and there was consistent feedback from stakeholders praising that collaborative approach between the Governments. I am committed to continuing that inter-governmental approach, so welcomed by the sector, where appropriate and possible.

That was, I hope, demonstrated by my decision to delay publishing our response to the strategy from early December to the new year, following a request from the UK Government as a result of restrictions that were created by the general election. That was an attempt to align the timing of our response with that of other Governments across the UK. The UK and Welsh Governments will publish their responses this week.

The document that was published today is the culmination of the work that the Scottish Government has undertaken since the strategy was launched, in November 2018, which included consulting extensively across the country on how to take the strategy’s aims forward.

I was clear from the beginning that our response needed to be driven and informed by those with lived experience of the armed forces in Scotland—most importantly, veterans themselves and the organisations that support them. More than that, I wanted to ensure that we examined and addressed the needs of the wider armed forces community in Scotland, including the families who play a vital role in supporting veterans during and after service and whose lives are often impacted as a result of the demands of service on family life, including in relation to mobility and separation.

The Scottish Government has a close working relationship with stakeholders across the veterans and armed forces community. In addition to the UK public consultation, we conducted a series of face-to-face engagements with veterans stakeholders in Scotland across the public, private and third sectors, including groups of veterans. Those engagements ran until April 2019 and involved over 60 organisations and groups the length and breadth of Scotland, including charities large and small, local authorities, health boards, armed forces and veterans champions, organisations involved with housing, skills and employability, as well as the groups of veterans that I mentioned earlier. The engagements covered more than 450 individuals and supplemented the approximately 10 per cent of respondents from Scotland in the more than 2,000 responses to the public consultation.

Working with the Ministry of Defence, we participated in several of its resettlement workshops across Scotland, which were run on its behalf by the career transition partnership, to directly canvass the views of service leavers who were going through the transition process, which provided a valuable insight into their experience. That again demonstrates the cross-governmental ownership and approach. I am grateful to all those who contributed their views to the consultation process, which were invaluable as we developed our response.

Our engagements recognised that some of the detailed questions in the public consultation had already been addressed by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner and his reports. That, and the overall positive picture in Scotland that was shown by the feedback, reinforces the benefits of the Scottish Government’s decision to establish a veterans commissioner here in 2014—it is still the only such appointment in the UK.

The inaugural commissioner’s reports and recommendations on the transition process, housing, employability, education and skills, and health and wellbeing, as well as the current commissioner’s independent assessment of our progress across all those areas and his recent paper on transition, have helped to focus our activity over the past six years, ensuring that our policies have been developed with the views of the wider veterans sector being represented. Of course, that information will continue to influence our thinking.

I was pleased to participate in many of the consultation events that we conducted across Scotland, which ranged from small gatherings of veterans to larger-scale meetings and conferences with organisations including veterans charities and local authorities. My direct engagements included a visit to HMP Glenochil, where I heard directly from a group of veterans who, sadly, had fallen foul of the law.

Throughout my time in post, I have welcomed the honest and constructive nature of the opinions that have been presented to me, which was apparent at the consultation events that I attended. I continue to be impressed with the passionate and enthusiastic way that views are presented, and, most importantly, with the fact that the needs of veterans and their families are always at their heart. I never fail to be humbled by the tireless dedication of so many people in Scotland’s veterans charities and organisations, who continually look to improve the lives of veterans.

The comprehensive consultation process and the feedback that it has amassed in Scotland, combined with that which was collected by the UK Government during the wider public consultation, gives me a degree of confidence that we now have a clearer picture of the veterans community’s needs than we have ever had before.

As I have noted, overall, the feedback about support for veterans in Scotland was positive. The process has reinforced my view—I have said this many times before—that veterans are assets to our society. The vast majority thrive and make a significant contribution to the success of our country, from the knowledge and skills that they offer employers and businesses through to the positive impact that they and their families have on local communities.

Although no significant gaps were identified, there were a number of areas where potential improvements were suggested. Our strategy response, which we published today, summarises those areas and sets out what the Scottish Government and its partners are doing to address them, set against the cross-cutting factors of collaboration, co-ordination, data, perception and recognition, and the key themes of community and relationships, employment, education and skills, finance and debt, health and wellbeing, making a home in civilian society, and, of course, veterans and the law. Specific issues that were highlighted included the transition process, improving data, better understanding the principles of the armed forces covenant, and support for families.

As I said, the strategy sets out its aim and objectives over an extended period, and our response is, similarly, a long-term piece of work. Although we have identified some areas in which rapid progress can be made, there is clearly a need for continued engagement with the sector and our partners over the period that the strategy for our veterans spans and beyond. Therefore, we will report progress against the strategy through the existing annual update to the Parliament.

Going forward, the Scottish Government will continue to give the utmost importance to improving support for our veterans community. We owe our veterans and their families nothing less, and I, as the veterans minister, and this Government will do all that we can to ensure that they receive the recognition, support and care that they deserve.

I am happy to take questions from members.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister will now take questions on the issues that have been raised in his statement, for which I will allow around 20 minutes.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and join him in celebrating what our veterans have to offer and exploring how they—and, importantly, their families—can best be supported here, in Scotland.

All MSPs will be grateful that the Scottish Government has taken a consensual approach to veterans affairs and that it has co-ordinated its response with those of the UK and Welsh Governments. Will the minister commit to that consensual attitude guiding implementation of the responses’ recommendations and of any further steps on veterans affairs? Does the Scottish Government intend to respond to the UK and Welsh Governments’ responses to the strategy?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As Maurice Corry has acknowledged, I try to take a consensual approach. I commend him, too, for his approach to this very important issue.

In short, the answer is yes, we will do what he asks about, in so far as that is possible. We are all trying to clarify further the role of the new Office for Veterans’ Affairs that the UK Government has set up—how it will work in practice and how it will interact with the devolved Governments.

I am pleased to say that I will meet Johnny Mercer, the UK Ministry of Defence’s Minister for Defence People and Veterans, in London next week. One of the subjects that we will discuss is how we can work effectively together to improve the lives of veterans. We must be alive to the fact that often, veterans who have chosen to settle in Scotland with their families were not based here when they made that decision, so interaction between the Governments is incredibly important if we are to get right the initial phase of their resettlement and transition.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome the statement and thank the minister for early sight of it.

I am delighted, first and foremost, that the strategy recognises that veterans are an asset to Scottish society. In February last year, the Government issued advice for social landlords on giving priority in allocations to services leavers, to ensure that former services personnel are not disadvantaged when they apply for social housing. How many local authorities and social landlords have amended their allocation policies to reflect that guidance?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I thank Mark Griffin, too, for his constructive tone, and I agree with him that veterans are overwhelmingly an asset to our communities.

I do not have to hand an exact answer to his question about how many local authorities and registered social landlords have amended their allocation policies, but I undertake to write back to him, because he has touched on an important issue. The guidance that was issued to RSLs and local authorities included best-practice examples and encouraged them to follow those examples. A particularly good example of how people should be supported to leave the armed forces came from South Lanarkshire

.

Mark Griffin’s question gives rise to the thought that perhaps we need to take another look at the issue in the context of the changing dynamics in respect of people who are leaving the services. The idea that they are always part of families and have served for 20 years is not the reality. Single early services leavers are leaving the forces in increasing numbers, so we might want to reflect on the issue with housing colleagues to ensure that we are assisting them as a group.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The minister will remember his visit to Scottish War Blinded’s centre in my constituency—not least because I beat him in the shooting competition. There, the minister saw a wide range of activities that reduce the loneliness and isolation that too many veterans experience. Does he agree that the strategy should, as well as ensuring effective access to mental health services, support community groups that bring veterans together and prevent the poor health that is often associated with loneliness and isolation?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I thank Angela Constance for reminding me of the gubbing that she gave me at the shooting competition. That was very kind of her.

However, she made a good point: veterans groups at all levels play an important role in addressing the needs of our veterans. Often, through interacting with smaller community groups, individuals begin, perhaps for the first time, to acknowledge their health issues. Social isolation in particular is an increasingly identified problem across society in general, in which veterans are recognised as a significant cohort.

The Government recognised that in the formulation of the social isolation strategy, through which we will work with partners including Legion Scotland, which already does fine work in the field. An example is the workstream that has been developed to provide formalised training on befriending and on mental health first aid to individuals who might deliver breakfast club activities across our communities. I absolutely acknowledge the important role of those groups.

Tom Mason (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his statement and for the constructive tone with which the Scottish Government has approached the issue.

On data collection, the report states that if veterans’ questions are included in the 2021 census—as, I hope, they will be—analysing the data might take some time. Can the minister provide an estimate of when that data might be available to use?

Also, we all recognise the good that the Veterans First Point network has done over the years. However, despite its reliance on £2.4 million of Scottish Government funding since 2017, the report states only that funding discussions are ongoing. How far have those discussions gone and does the minister expect to be able to continue to fund the service in the years ahead.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I do not mean to deflect the question on the census in any way, but that is a matter for Parliament. The Government will bring that question to Parliament, and I am pretty confident that there will be support for a veterans question.

However, Tom Mason has made an important point. Gathering data through the census will be important, but it will take time, as will analysis. That long-term work is needed, so we are looking at how to improve data collection in a variety of other ways, and at cross-referencing different data sets to enhance our understanding.

To be honest, we have a rough idea of the number of veterans in Scotland: it is rough because many veterans choose not to identify as having a services background when they are taking up employment or registering for the health service. We need to work to encourage them to feel more enabled to give that information so that we can provide the support that they require.

I acknowledge the importance of the V1P model. The Government has undertaken live work on that and recognises that the funding runs only until the middle of this year.

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

Sadly, all too often, veterans suffer from a number of mental health issues as a result of trauma that they have experienced. Many do not access the support that they deserve. I welcome the progress that has been made in taking forward the Scottish Veterans Commissioner’s recommendations to produce a mental health action plan for the health care of veterans. What progress has been made on that action plan, and when might it be implemented?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

In December 2019, the Government announced the creation of the Scottish veterans care network. The network is charged with development of a veterans mental health action plan, which will complement the 10-year mental health strategy, and will begin its work in a little over two months.

Beneath that work stream and overarching strategies, small but significant measures can be implemented. That has been brought home to me on my travels around various health services in Scotland.

For example, the establishment of pathways from respected and highly regarded veterans charities to the national health service’s mental health services would enable the former to refer the individuals whom they encounter. As many of us know, troubled veterans very often do not have general practitioners, so reliance on traditional referral pathways does not work for them. That stream of work, which is being done through the Scottish veterans care network is under way and will be taken forward as a matter of priority. Other measures are being undertaken beneath that. I am happy to write to the member to outline how we are on the case on that.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcomed the opportunity to attend the launch of Defence Transition Services in Erskine last week, when I had first-hand experience of the fact that the quality of a service leaver’s transition to civilian life can vary from one local authority to the next, even though the armed forces covenant has been widely adopted across Scotland; the minister made that point earlier.

In addition to working with local authorities, will the minister engage with the new service to develop a more consistent approach and ensure that no service leaver anywhere is disadvantaged by the time that they give to our armed forces?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Nothing came out of the strategy consultation that was more to the fore than the transition experience. We will work closely with the new transition service that the UK Government has launched, because there is a need to get this right. To be honest, collectively, we are not getting the transition right at the moment. I am happy to commit to that on behalf of the Government.

Neil Bibby makes the very good point that there are variations in the levels of support that are provided, but we are working on that. There are terrific examples of local authority champions across all parties who are setting examples of how we can get it right in each council area.

Mr Bibby might be aware that, last year, the Government brought together the local authority champions to look at how we could get a more consistent approach. We committed to working with them on a number of their reasonable asks on job description, training and so on. We will reconvene early this year to look at how we support local authority champions and how we can improve the services that are offered by councils at all levels. The councils are key delivery partners for this Government, and the partnership approach is important if we are to get this right.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

On the important issue of employment, the minister will be well aware that veterans are a significant asset for Scottish businesses. What is being done to encourage veterans to take up funding and access courses to develop their skills? What support is available to those businesses that seek to recruit veterans?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Another important aspect of the strategy is that it might not be right for a service leaver to immediately go into employment, so it is important to ensure that people have clear sight of the opportunities to learn that exist through further or higher education.

We are working collaboratively with colleges and universities on that and are making some progress.

We have also been developing training opportunities for veterans in all situations. For example, in 2019-20, we provided £800,000 to the workplace equality fund, the purpose of which is to work with employers to address long-standing barriers to particular groups, including spouses. Scotland’s Bravest Manufacturing Company, an organisation that I recommend that people visit, has successfully secured funding to work with Balfour Beatty, BEAR Scotland and other leading small and medium-sized enterprises to help them to create best practice in their organisations.

I think that Annabelle Ewing asked what the Scottish Government was doing with regard to business. Actually, to be honest, we need to tap into what business is doing. There are some fantastic employers in Scotland—large, medium and small—that proactively recruit from this cohort. We are working with them to encourage them to evangelise on the subject and reach out to employers that do not currently do that and to explain to them what the benefits are of recruiting from the veterans community. I am quite encouraged by the work that is going on in that sector, directed by us and by businesses themselves, and I am optimistic about the future in that regard.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Page 31 of the document that the minister kindly provided in advance—I thank him for that—says:

“With six local health boards the Scottish Government has provided joint funding for the Veterans First Point Network”.

The minister knows that I have been pursuing that issue for some time. All our health boards should be providing a first point of contact service. Can the minister say when we are likely to achieve an effective first point of contact service for all our veterans, whichever health board area they live in?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I acknowledge Mike Rumbles’s championing of this cause.

The Scottish Government has been working through an assessment of existing veterans first point services and exploring how services have been and are being delivered. We have also been considering those health board areas that do not have V1P services or which no longer have them—as Mike Rumbles knows, there are areas that used to have V1P services but which have lost them. As Mike Rumbles also knows, I have been visiting many health boards to examine the situation with regard to service delivery. I have to say that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport has been incredibly supportive of that approach.

As we have heard, existing funding continues only until the middle of this year, so this is a matter of urgency. I can tell Mike Rumbles that the Minister for Mental Health and I are actively considering the issue and will meet later this week to examine progress on it.

Mike Rumbles is right that there is no doubt that the V1P approach is one that veterans have faith in. Through the establishment of the care network, the aim is to get to a point at which a consistency of service and service type is available to veterans the length and breadth of Scotland. I will not pretend that that will happen overnight, but we have made a commitment to deliver that kind of service.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Last year, the minister visited Dumfries to meet my constituents, including Robin Hood, a veteran who runs a charity called South West Scotland RnR, which helps former servicemen and servicewomen gain skills for employment by, for example, helping veterans to obtain their heavy goods vehicle licences. Robin Hood has recently commenced work with Dumfries and Galloway Council and local NFU Scotland representatives to help veterans to access jobs in agriculture.

I thank the minister for his visit. Will he join me in congratulating Robin Hood on his work, and can he outline how the veterans strategy will be able to support organisations such as South West Scotland RnR in the future?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I congratulate Robin Hood and his colleagues on their work. I very much enjoyed my visit to Dumfries and Galloway, at Emma Harper’s invitation, not least because it introduced me to Councillor Archie Dryburgh, the local authority veterans champion, who is something of a force of nature and is one of the very best examples of someone acting in that capacity.

With regard to how the strategy supports organisations such as the one that Emma Harper referred to, I can say that one of the aims of the strategy is to bring a greater coherence to the employment opportunities and pathways into employment that exist, whether they involve training, education or immediate routes into employment. The veterans employability strategic group is leading on that work.

I can give Emma Harper further examples of some of the things that are happening. In terms of mainstream employability, there are funding initiatives such as fair start Scotland and specific work such as the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework’s partnership project to map military qualifications against those that are recognised by employers. That is a fantastic piece of work that is changing the lives of those who are participating, because there is a real problem with translating military skills, particularly infantry skills, into civilian qualifications. The work will benefit not only the employees but also the employers.

A number of workstreams are under way. It is important that we build on those because, as I said earlier, transition into employability is incredibly important.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The statement identifies some areas in which rapid progress can be made, but there is clearly a need for continued engagement with the sector and partners. A progress report against the strategy is welcome, but will the minister clarify the actions that will be taken to ensure that continued engagement is achieved for the veterans and their families?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I refer Alexander Stewart to the foreword that is provided by Chris Hughes of Veterans Scotland, where Chris says:

“It is encouraging to see such a comprehensive list of measures planned in response to the Strategy”.

That is not just a reflection on where we are. A series of short-term, medium-term and long-term measures have been identified, and I guarantee to Alexander Stewart that there will continue to be direct engagement with veterans. We know that there is a changing demographic, and needs will be different in different parts of the country.

Engagement will also continue with the relevant organisations. I appreciate being given the opportunity to make a point that I did not make in my statement. In Scotland, we are absolutely reliant on partnership working. The charitable sector in this country deserves enormous credit for the way that it goes about its task in supporting our veterans, and I am happy to put that on the record.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the minister’s statement on the strategy for veterans. I apologise to Ruth Maguire for being unable to call her.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-20519, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Scottish National Investment Bank Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Scottish National Investment Bank 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 3: 55 minutes

Groups 4 to 7: 1 hour 55 minutes.—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

Scottish National Investment Bank Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish National Investment Bank bill.

Members should have with them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings.

When we come to the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and there will be a five-minute suspension to allow us to call members to the chamber. That first division will last for 30 seconds, but thereafter the first division in a group will last one minute.

Any member who wishes to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.

The Presiding Officer

We turn to the marshalled list and group 1, on the bank’s vision and objects. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 30, 30A and 31 to 33.

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

I am pleased to open this afternoon’s deliberations on the bill in a consensual spirit—as is usual for me. We will support a number of amendments in the group.

Amendment 4, in my name, will make a change to the statement on the vision for the bank. It will update the reference to a low-carbon economy, so that the statement will refer to a “net-zero emissions” economy, to align with the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, which the Parliament recently passed, and the amendments that were made at stage 2 to the bank’s objects.

Amendment 30, in the name of Maurice Golden, will make technical changes to the bank’s objects, as amended at stage 2, to ensure that they have the intended legal effect. We will support amendment 30, and I am grateful to Maurice Golden for his work on the issue. We will also support amendment 30A, in the name of Claudia Beamish. We are grateful to Claudia Beamish for her collaborative approach on the amendment.

I regret that I cannot support amendment 31, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on technical grounds, as we have concerns that it relates to reserved matters. I make clear that the Scottish Government strongly supports increasing the number of workers in Scotland who are covered by collective bargaining. We are working with the Scottish Trades Union Congress to deliver that. The percentage of workers who are covered by collective bargaining is one of the indicators that we use to measure performance against the Scottish national performance framework.

I assure all members that, despite our not being able to support amendment 31, my expectation is that the bank will contribute to the promotion of collective bargaining. The Scottish Government is committed to doing everything that it can to promote collective bargaining, within the limits of its legal powers. We will support the bank to contribute to that agenda, including in its promotion of fair work. I hope that that gives Jackie Baillie some assurance. I will be happy to work further with her on the issue, but I ask her not to move amendment 31, for the reason that I have given.

We will support amendment 32, in the name of Jackie Baillie. Promoting the fair work agenda will be a key part of the bank’s work. For that reason, at stage 2, we supported the addition of provision for a ministerial fair work direction. Amendment 32 is drafted in such a way as not to exclude organisations that are improving their working practices from accessing bank financing.

The Government will support amendment 33, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which will refine the wording of the bank’s ancillary object to promote

“the advancement of equality and non-discrimination”,

which was added at stage 2 by an amendment in my name.

Amendment 33 finds a compromise between the wording inserted by the amendment in my name and that of an amendment on the subject that Jackie Baillie lodged at stage 2. In particular, amendment 33 addresses our concern at stage 2 that if we agreed to the amendment in Jackie Baillie’s name, the bank might be seen to be entirely responsible for eliminating discrimination. Of course, the elimination of discrimination is a worthy goal, and the bank can contribute to achieving it, but such a goal can be achieved only by the actions of many different actors. Amendment 33 provides a better formulation, and I am grateful to Jackie Baillie for her joint working on it.

I move amendment 4.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

Amendment 30 is a technical amendment that ensures that the amendment in my name that was agreed to at stage 2, which requires the bank to support “circular economy initiatives”, has the intended effect. I thank members for their cross-party work on the amendment.

We will support amendment 30A, in the name of Claudia Beamish, which is about promoting biodiversity.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendment 30A proposes a further addition to the bank’s ancillary objects, as set out in section 2, by amending Maurice Golden’s amendment 30, on the circular economy, about which I feel very positive.

Amendment 30 will expand the bank’s ancillary object of promoting “environmental wellbeing” by highlighting the promotion of biodiversity as a particular aspect of environmental wellbeing. It will mean that, when investment decisions are made, consideration will have to be given to how the financing of activities, or lending to or investing in them, will contribute to the promotion of biodiversity.

We face a climate and environmental emergency. Everyone knows what the “State of Nature 2019” reports said about the risk of extinction to many species, so I will not go into detail on that today. Current efforts to protect endangered animals and plants are insufficient to meet 13 of 20 agreed United Nations targets by 2020 in Scotland, and

Scottish Natural Heritage states that it is unclear whether the Scottish economy is operating within safe ecological limits.

Looking after the natural environment is an investment in the future and will, I believe, ensure, that the bank’s investments make strong public-good returns. The approach might also help to promote the physical and mental wellbeing of employees, through the creation of a range of green spaces and other efforts.

The bank can take biodiversity into account in a number of ways. As an example, the Scottish Government has highlighted the bank’s evaluation of the impact of its activities on biodiversity through the use of its balanced scorecard approach to performance reporting.

We can see that other countries’ failure to include biodiversity as a mandatory criterion meant that it could be sacrificed—sometimes, ironically, in favour of low-carbon projects. Regretfully, that was the case with the Green Investment Bank, which approved biomass projects that resulted in the clear felling of wetland forests in Europe and America. We must learn from those errors, and that is one of a number of reasons why amendment 30A is important. We must look to more positive examples, such as the European Investment Bank, which includes protection of biodiversity in its criteria.

References to the nature and climate emergencies must work in harmony.

I thank the Scottish Wildlife Trust and Biofuelwatch for their help with my stage 2 amendment, which I withdrew. My thanks also go to the cabinet secretary for meeting me to discuss the issue ahead of stage 3 and for offering support.

I urge members to support amendment 30A, to ensure that the ways in which we tackle the climate and environmental emergency are absolutely interlinked as the Scottish national investment bank moves forward.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am pleased to speak to amendments 31 to 33, which are in my name.

Amendment 31 would require the bank to ensure that its investment decisions promote collective bargaining. We know that collective bargaining contributes to delivering a fairer economy for the workers of Scotland. In the Scottish Government’s own fair work action plan, it made a clear commitment to promote collective bargaining, stating that it will

“Support union access to workplaces, encourage adherence to existing agreements and support the development of new collective agreements as an integral part of Fair Work First.”

I fully support that approach. Indeed, in the programme for government, we see a commitment to

“working with the Scottish Trade Union Congress to increase the number of workers covered by collective bargaining.”

Therefore, I assumed that I was pushing at an open door. How disappointing that that was not the case.

I cannot help but observe that, if the Scottish Government is truly committed to promoting collective bargaining and to increasing the number of workers who are covered by it—as it says that it is—it should put its money where its mouth is and support amendment 31. Otherwise, the danger is that that commitment becomes meaningless.

I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is right about rejecting amendment 31 on technical grounds, but in the interests of consensus, I will live to fight another day. Alongside the Scottish Trades Union Congress, I will take up his invitation to ensure that the bank promotes collective bargaining.

Amendment 32 covers fair work and payment of the living wage. The Scottish Government rightly talks about making Scotland a living wage and fair work nation. I completely agree with that ambition. How serious we are will be measured by whether we commit today to including living wage and fair work provisions in the bill.

The cabinet secretary knows all too well that about 470,000 people in Scotland earn less than the living wage. The bank should not in any way encourage practices that would see that number increase. It is therefore imperative that the bank is required to promote the living wage in any investment decisions that it takes. We need to reduce the number of workers across Scotland who are languishing on a wage that does not meet the rising cost of living.

Amendment 33 requires the bank to promote the advancement of equality in its investment decisions. After some to-ing and fro-ing at stage 2, I am glad that the cabinet secretary has seen the light and come to a positive compromise that will ensure that the bank will make a substantial contribution to equality.

I urge members to support amendments 32 and 33, and I look forward to meeting the cabinet secretary, alongside the STUC, to give practical effect to amendment 31 on collective bargaining.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I want to make a few comments on behalf of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which should not take up too much time. I will concentrate on amendment 32, in the name of Jackie Baillie, because it mentions fair work.

As members will know, the committee places the need for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny at the heart of its work. Committee members were, therefore, somewhat concerned that the fair work direction, as added at stage 2, would allow ministers to define fair work without any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. The Scottish Government provided some context on what the definition of fair work was likely to include—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I know that Mr Simpson is a great champion of parliamentary scrutiny. However, when the Transport (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament, the Government introduced into it an entire member’s bill on the workplace parking levy without any parliamentary scrutiny. How did the member vote on that occasion?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is an absolutely ridiculous comment from Neil Findlay. As he knows, the context for my remarks is that I am speaking as the convener of a committee. I am surprised at him—as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, he should know how these things work.

I reiterate that the Scottish Government provided some context on what the definition of fair work was likely to include. It said that it is

“work that offers effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect; that balances the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers and that can generate benefits for individuals, organisations and society.”

I will come back to that definition in a minute.

Nevertheless, last week, the committee sought a guarantee from the Government that the Parliament would have an opportunity to scrutinise the definition of fair work to be adopted in the direction. After a flurry of letters between me and the cabinet secretary, the committee was delighted to receive such an assurance.

The committee has no specific comments on amendment 32, but I place on the record my own view of that definition of fair work, which is that it could mean anything to anybody. When we make law we need to be absolutely clear about what it means, which is why I will vote against amendment 32.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I would not normally call Jackie Baillie reticent or withdrawing, but I say to her that, if she were to move amendment 31, Scottish Liberal Democrats would certainly support it.

Despite what Derek Mackay said, it is clear to me that there is no disagreement that collective bargaining, as defined in section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, is clearly a reserved matter—there is no dispute about that. However, how can promoting a reserved issue be regarded as a reserved issue? It simply cannot.

I therefore ask Mr Mackay to give a little more explanation of that point in his closing remarks. I think that he must be somewhat timid in that regard—there’s something that I never thought that I would accuse him of. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if he is able to do so, but I am fairly sure that simply promoting a reserved matter cannot itself be regarded as a reserved matter.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will speak to amendments 31 to 33, in the name of Jackie Baillie. However, before I do so, I take this opportunity to thank the cabinet secretary and other members across the chamber for their constructive engagement during the passage of the bill. The fact that we have a modest 58 amendments before us today reflects the constructive approach that has been taken by the cabinet secretary and members in agreeing to the changes that were made at stage 2.

On amendments 31 and 32, I share Jackie Baillie’s objective of supporting businesses that promote fair work, the living wage and collective bargaining. However, imposing such requirements in legislation, as part of the bank’s objects, could prevent the bank from investing in companies that aspire to become fair work and living wage employers but which require the bank’s support in the first place to achieve those objectives.

It is important that the bank is able to freely invest, as the Scottish Investment Bank does, in companies that are looking to make the transition to the fair work and living wage agenda. The amendments could exclude businesses that the bank could otherwise help on that journey. We believe that there are better ways to promote the fair work agenda outside the scope of primary legislation. For those reasons, we will not support amendments 31 to 33.

We will, however, support amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary; amendment 30, in the name of Maurice Golden, to which he has spoken; and amendment 30A, in the name of Claudia Beamish.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Often in Parliament, we are told that the Government would take action if only it had the power to do so. How many times have we heard that said? The bill was made in Scotland—in this Parliament—and is being pursued by the Government. In it we have the power to make provisions on collective bargaining and the living wage in relation to the bank, but the Government is saying, “We’re no gonnae do that.” That is nothing to do with the Parliament not having the power; it is to do with the Government not following through on its rhetoric that it adheres to a workers agenda.

The Parliament has the power—and the Parliament includes all the Government’s back benchers. I am looking at Tom Arthur, for example, who is the chair of the Scottish National Party trade union group. Those members have a decision to make today. Will they use their powers to pursue a workers agenda in Parliament, or will they go along with the timidity of the finance secretary?

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

On the only contentious issue in the group, which relates to amendment 31 and collective bargaining, if Neil Findlay will forgive me, I will take legal advice from our legal advisers, not from him, as that puts us in a strong position in relation to the legal enforceability of any bill that we pass. I am sure that I will come back to Neil Findlay’s ability to accurately amend and apply the law when we debate later amendments.

I did a considerable amount of work with all Opposition members who were willing to engage with me. On many occasions, that led to enhanced drafting of amendments in a way that we could support. The evidence of that will be seen in how the Government votes on the amendments today.

On this issue, and on others, Neil Findlay has not engaged with me and, therefore, has not crafted his positioning. That leaves me wondering whether he is more interested in posturing than in delivering legal changes and effective legislation. I am sure that, at the end of the process today, we will deliver a world-leading national investment bank that is ethical and responsible and which speaks to the issues of the day. I think that we will do that with a lot of consensus in the chamber, which is something that Neil Findlay struggles with.

I am advised that the drafting of amendment 31 means that it is outwith the scope of our devolved competence. Otherwise, I would have supported it. I share the aim of promoting collective bargaining, which I discussed, alongside the First Minister, with the STUC just last week. We will take forward actions that will do exactly that, including those relating to the fair work direction, the Scottish business pledge and other issues. We will progress that work, and, as I have said, the area is covered in the national performance framework. However, it is not appropriate to insert such a provision in the bill by amendment.

Jackie Baillie said that she will not move amendment 31 if I commit to work with her and the STUC to progress the issue, and I am clear—categorically—that I will do that. However, I am afraid that the advice that I have been given is that amendment 31, as it stands, is outwith our devolved competence, so I advise members to vote accordingly.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Section 2—The Bank’s objects

Amendment 30 moved—[Maurice Golden].

Amendment 30A moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendment 30, as amended, agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Baillie to move or not move amendment 31.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Not moved.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I move amendment 31.

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 31 has been moved by Mr Rumbles, which is quite in order.

The question is, that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

We are not agreed. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for five minutes and summon members to the chamber.

15:15 Meeting suspended.

15:20 On resuming—

There will now be a division on amendment 31.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 31 disagreed to.

Amendment 32 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 91, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Group 2 is on investment practices. Amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 5, 34, 8 to 12, 1 and 36.

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

We all want the bank to act as an ethical investor, and the bill process has helped us to explore the best way to achieve that. Amendment 5, along with the other amendments that we are supporting, achieves that outcome. It provides that the bank’s board must set ethical standards for the bank. Those standards must align with the bank’s objects and mission, and the bank’s board is responsible for ensuring that they are implemented.

That approach will give the bank ownership of its ethical approach and operational flexibility in how it implements the approach. However, we have commissioned drafting advice on minimum ethical standards from the Ethical Finance Hub, to inform the bank’s eventual approach. That should give members and stakeholders assurance that the bank will not invest in activities or sectors that undercut its objects and missions.

Amendment 34, in the name of Rhoda Grant, covers some of the same ground as my amendment 5. However, it does not provide for the same alignment with the bank’s objects or missions; nor does it anchor that responsibility at board level.

I have concerns about amendment 36, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which seems to follow on from amendment 34. It would require the bank to publish an annual report detailing any of its investments that

“have not met the minimum ethical standards”

required of it by amendment 34. In combination, the two amendments imply that the bank could set out minimum ethical standards for investment but then ignore them. The amendments would also allow the bank to invest in ways that did not meet the standards as long as it then detailed what it had done and why, in an annual report. On that basis, the purpose of the amendments is unclear and they potentially have unintended, counterproductive consequences.

For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 5, which I consider to be stronger, and I ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendments 34 and 36.

Amendments 8 to 12, which were lodged by Neil Findlay, were debated and voted on at stage 2. As I said earlier, when the Government could not support amendments at stage 2, I offered to work with members to address any concerns. Neil Findlay did not take up that offer. His amendments are identical to those that he lodged at stage 2, so I will briefly restate the reasons why the Scottish Government is opposed to them.

Amendment 8 seeks to prohibit the bank from supporting any company that

“enters into a tax avoidance arrangement ... or ... carries out tax evasion.”

I set out at stage 2 that tax evasion is an illegal activity and that the bank will not engage with organisations that evade tax. When a company commits tax evasion after it has received investment from the bank, standard contractual arrangements will allow for the money to be recouped.

The Government’s record shows that we take the issue of tax avoidance extremely seriously. However, amendment 8 is impractical and risks disproportionately impacting on small and medium-sized enterprises that seek finance from the bank. It would require the bank to conduct extensive due diligence into the tax affairs of every company that it considered investing in. Due diligence costs are usually borne by the company that is seeking investment.

Amendment 9 seeks to prevent the bank from investing in companies that do not pay the living wage. However, the living wage as defined in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 is not the same as the real living wage. I consider that we should support businesses that are working towards paying their staff the living wage rather than exclude them. The fair work direction that we will set for the bank can address that issue in a flexible way and is therefore a better approach.

Amendment 10 would prohibit the bank from investing in companies that make use of zero-hours contracts. This Government opposes the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. We are developing our fair work first policy and are engaging with key stakeholders, including the STUC. There is a general debate about how such contracts can benefit the employer and the worker. However, amendment 10 assumes that all zero-hours contracts are exploitative, so it is too blunt and inflexible.

Amendment 11 would restrict the bank from giving finance to a company that

“enters into a contract with an umbrella company”.

That makes the error of judging a company by its structure rather than by its conduct. Umbrella companies are legitimate structures in the eyes of the law. Some companies may act inappropriately in that respect, but it is unfair to paint all umbrella companies with the same broad strokes.

Amendment 11 would likely be highly restrictive. An umbrella company structure is, for example, frequently used in management buyouts, and the bank might want to make investments to facilitate management buyouts.

Amendment 12 concerns trade union recognition. The Scottish Government is committed to increasing workforce engagement and furthering collective bargaining. However, the approach in amendment 12 is similarly blunt to that taken in Neil Findlay’s other amendments.

Amendment 12 would restrict support to companies whose workforce was big enough to be eligible for trade union recognition. Even if that is not intended, that may well be the practical effect. It could also preclude investments in companies in which workers had not sought trade union recognition and therefore a company had not even refused to give that.

Collectively, the amendments in the name of Neil Findlay risk too many unintended consequences. We have tried to address the shared objectives behind those amendments by supporting amendments elsewhere and by supporting the requirements for the fair work direction

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak to amendments 34 and 36, in my name, and the other amendments in the group. A publicly owned Scottish national investment bank must maintain the highest ethical standards. In the past, banks have failed to do that, which is why we must ensure that the Scottish national investment bank does it. We need to ensure a commitment to minimum ethical standards from the very outset.

I lodged amendments to that effect at stage 2, and I listened to what the cabinet secretary said at the time. I then lodged these amendments, which take account of his comments. Amendment 34 ensures that the bank, through its articles of association, must draw up an ethical standards framework that outlines its minimum ethical standards, which will be open to scrutiny by the Parliament.

The cabinet secretary stated at stage 2 that the bank must develop and take ownership of its own ethical stance, and amendment 34 allows for that. However, like any other aspect of a publicly owned company, the bank’s ethical stance must be open to scrutiny, and that scrutiny is missing from the Government’s amendment 5. I believe that my amendment is better than the Government’s and should therefore be supported.

Amendment 36 foresees that there may be times when the bank’s investments do not meet its ethical criteria, and amendment 34 stipulates that the bank must explain its reasoning and the steps it will take to remedy any damage that is caused. It also allows those decisions to be scrutinised

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I declare an interest as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group and as a member of Unite the union. On the issue of engagement, the cabinet secretary made no effort whatsoever to engage with me on any of the amendments. That is entirely the same valid point that the minister makes. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

That is enough.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

In relation to the drafting of legislation, we also get advice from the Parliament on whether it is competent. We do not just take what the minister says at face value.

Amendment 8 is about the ethical standards that the bank operates in line with, in relation to tax avoidance and evasion—the definition of which is in section 63 of The Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014. In the committee, I highlighted the case of Amazon, a company that paid more tax to Fife Council in the form of rates than it did to the Treasury in the form of corporation tax. That is simply wrong.

The Scottish national investment bank should not lend to companies that engage in such activities; rather, it should encourage good corporate governance and corporate responsibility, which includes paying the taxes that are owed. The bank should not lend to tax evaders or avoiders—we should make that clear and up front in setting the tone for the ethical approach to lending that the bank will adhere to.

In the committee, the cabinet secretary claimed that that approach would place financial burdens on small and medium-sized businesses that seek investment, but I believe that that is a complete red herring. If that approach to lending was made clear from the outset, companies would soon realise that, if they were involved in such avoidance or evasion practices, they need not apply for funding, as those practices would be exposed when they attempted to apply for funds.

Amendment 9 indicates that the Scottish national investment bank will play an important role in the Scottish economy through its lending policy and will be able to exert leverage over those companies that apply for financial support. It will do that by driving the fair work agenda, which enshrines both rights and responsibilities. It should do that by positively prioritising lending to companies that pay the real living wage to their employees, as a minimum, and by making it clear that it will refuse to lend to enterprises that do not pay the real living wage.

The Scottish Government talks a good game about its fair work agenda and, as I said earlier, regularly claims that it does not have the powers to embed such issues in legislation. Well, today, we have those powers. Today, we can take action to advance the living wage. Members have the opportunity to do so by voting for amendment 9.

The aim of amendment 10 is to ensure that the bank does not lend to companies that employ people on precarious contracts and deny them their rights.

On amendment 11, the bank should not lend to companies that use payroll or umbrella companies that are set up deliberately to rip off workers and the taxpayer. We know about the practices of umbrella companies, particularly in the construction industry. They are a scam, and the Scottish national investment bank should not fund or encourage them.

It should also not lend to companies that fail to recognise trade unions, which we know are best placed to guarantee the rights of workers. Unionised workplaces are safer and have better pay, more stable workforces, better staff retention and fairer working conditions. On amendment 12, the Scottish Government’s fair work action plan states that it will

“Continue to support strong trade unions ... Promote collective bargaining ... Promote Fair Work in the collaborative economy”

and

“extend Fair Work criteria to every type of grant, funding stream, and business support budget open to us”.

Here is a great opportunity to do just that. Here is a funding stream. Here is a business support budget—money given to a public sector bank. Will we today see the Government show that it is willing to take action to support its rhetoric? This is a tremendous opportunity to use the levers of Government to promote strong trade unions and collective bargaining and to extend fair work criteria to grants and business support.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am pleased to speak to amendment 1, in my name. The Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee had a strong view that the bank must invest more widely than in the private sector alone. I want the bill to maximise the impact of the bank by developing a financial institution that allows organisations such as co-operatives, social enterprises and the third sector to secure finances.

We know that social enterprises and co-operatives pay a key role in regenerating some of our most hard-pressed communities. By enabling the bank to invest in them, we help our economy to achieve inclusive growth. I hope that members will support amendment 1.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I speak in support of amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which says that the bank may give financial assistance to third sector bodies. As Jackie Baillie has highlighted, one such body could be a co-operative. I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Co-operative Party group of MSPs. Rural and urban co-operatives in many sectors enable member empowerment and support for inclusive action. I ask the cabinet secretary whether he will commit to meeting me and some of those who represent the co-operative sector to take forward discussions about this.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I propose to address amendments 8 to 12, in the name of Neil Findlay, which are intended to prohibit the bank from investing in companies that do not pay the living wage, companies that employ workers on zero-hours contracts, companies that engage umbrella companies and companies that do not recognise trade unions. All of those issues were previously debated at stage 2.

The Scottish Conservatives have a number of difficulties with those amendments, as was debated at stage 2. The bank should not be prevented from investing in firms that aspire to become living wage employers, recognise trade unions or promote the fair work agenda. In fact, investment by the bank may be the transformational change that enables those companies to achieve those very objectives. In all those cases, small companies would be penalised if they could not access financing from the bank. That would be inconsistent with the bank’s overall objectives of increasing economic growth in Scotland and investing in fast-growing SMEs.

We support amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, which clarifies that the bank may give financial assistance to third sector bodies, including social enterprises. That is an important amendment, which will bring social enterprises into the financing remit of the bank.

Amendments 34 and 36, in the name of Rhoda Grant, would impose an obligation on the bank to publish a report each year, setting out whether any of its investments—out of thousands of investments each year—have not met minimum ethical standards. We believe that amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, sets out a better formulation for ensuring that the bank’s investments are made in a manner that is consistent with agreed ethical standards. It would impose an obligation on the bank’s board to have in place proper processes to ensure that the bank’s investment decisions are made in accordance with the agreed ethical standards. Therefore, we will support amendment 5 but not amendments 34 and 36.

The Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary to wind up.

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

I have just a few comments to make, Presiding Officer. I will make a further point on Rhoda Grant’s amendments. It may well be the case that the investment strategy can be reviewed by ministers, as can the ethical statement. There will also be an annual report on investment performance. Therefore, there will be scrutiny by ministers, and, of course, ministers are held to account by the Parliament through committees and in other places, including through questions. I imagine that the Parliament will want to hold the bank to account as well.

The way in which Rhoda Grant’s amendment 36 is drafted almost creates an escape clause—“You can give us reasons why you haven’t kept within our ethical approach if you publish them in a report”—whereas my amendment clearly puts the responsibility on the board. We expect the board to live within the ethical strategy and, as I said, there are many routes to holding the board to account for that ethical strategy, having appropriate governance arrangements and allowing the bank to have operational independence. There are also areas in which we will want minimum ethical standards to apply, but, fundamentally, investments should be made in line with the missions of the bank, which are already set out as we build the bank. Further, we have agreed at stage 2—its

consideration will be completed today, at the end of stage 3—a process by which missions can be changed only through consultation.

I would argue that there is a very strong ethical investment approach in the bill, with strong governance arrangements that ensure that responsibility rests appropriately with the board.

I make the point to Neil Findlay that every other Opposition member managed to find me to make the necessary drafting changes to amendments that would achieve the outcomes that they wanted to achieve. We will not agree on every point, as some of the amendments will show, but, where we have shared objectives, we have been able to craft amendments that can be supported by the Government and members of the Opposition.

That sense of constructiveness was absent from Neil Findlay’s comments. He said that today is “a tremendous opportunity”. I do not think that he shares my view that today is a tremendous opportunity to build a bank to be proud of; I think that Neil Findlay thinks that today is a tremendous opportunity to promote himself. That is really unfortunate when the work that we have done with other Opposition members is crafting a bank that we can all be proud of. Some of the unintended consequences—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is a legislative process in which members are entitled to lodge amendments to bills, irrespective of what the cabinet secretary thinks of me or any other member. We are entitled to lodge amendments to bills without the rubbish that is coming from the cabinet secretary.

The Presiding Officer

I suggest that we return to the subject and refrain from making personal attacks across the chamber.

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

Mike Rumbles accused me of being timid—I just cannot strike the right balance between the Liberal Democrats and Neil Findlay. Of course, I will take your steer, Presiding Officer.

I have given the example that Neil Findlay’s amendment 11 would rule out the provision of funding for management buyouts. Management buyouts have helped us to save jobs and save companies from going under. That is one example of an unintended consequence of a poorly thought through amendment.

For those reasons, I encourage members to support the Government’s

amendments.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 5 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 98, Against 0, Abstentions 20.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The question is, that amendment 34 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 34 disagreed to.

Group 3 is on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 7, 16 to 19, 26 and 27.

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

The amendments in this group are minor technical ones. Amendments 6 and 7 fix some of the language of the balanced scorecard provision that was added at stage 2.

Amendments 16 to 19 make fixes to the advisory group section that was also added at stage 2. In particular, amendment 16 adjusts section 9A to reflect the on-going nature of the advisory group, and amendment 17 links the group’s remit to the bank’s objects, as set out in section 2.

Amendments 26 and 27 are fixes to how the bill refers to state aid in the light of Brexit developments since the bill was introduced. They require Government financing of the bank to be done in accordance with whatever state aid regime emerges to replace the European Union’s.

I ask members to support these technical amendments.

I move amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

Section 3—General powers

Amendment 8 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 8 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 8 disagreed to.

The question is, that amendment 9 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 9 disagreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Neil Findlay].

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The question is, that amendment 11 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 20, Against 97, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The question is, that amendment 12 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 24, Against 90, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 disagreed to.

Amendment 1 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Group 4 is on directors and staff of the bank. Amendment 2, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 13 to 15, 28 and 29.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Amendment 2 is substantially the same as an amendment that was defeated at stage 2, but I believe that the principles that underpinned that amendment are important, which is why I have brought the matter back at stage 3.

At stage 2, the cabinet secretary said that local authorities will have a critical role in the affairs of the bank, which I welcome. However, in many other countries, local authorities and regional authorities have a much fuller role in banks—for example, in Germany, the role of the Länder in the KfW, of which they are full members.

Section 1 of the bill provides that the sole shareholder of the bank shall be the Scottish ministers. Throughout the process of the bill, my preference has been to include local authorities as members of the bank, but that raises some difficult technical problems, so I have consistently left the matter to one side.

Instead, amendment 2 provides—fairly straightforwardly—that

“at least two non-executive directors are to be appointed by Scottish local authorities,”

Scottish local authorities are critical partners in our economic development and should play a much bigger role in it: we will soon hold debates on that in relation to other bills. Their perspectives and experience should be available to the board of the bank. Through amendment 2, local authorities would be able to exercise the power to appoint two non-executive directors every four, five or six years—however long a term of appointment would be, which is governed elsewhere in the bill and in the articles of association. The local authorities would not necessarily need to appoint councillors, but would be free to appoint anybody whom they saw fit. For example, former chief executives of local authorities would be good representatives on the board.

Under amendment 2, local authorities would not be directly involved in the affairs of the bank, but would have a stake in it through their interest in the board. The interests of local government would be reflected, at least in part, in the appointments that it might make.

Amendment 2 is fairly straightforward, so I look forward to hearing what members think about it. I will support all the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 2.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 13 and 28 are tidying amendments. Amendment 13 would leave out a change that was made by my amendment at stage 2. Its provisions would be replaced by amendment 28, which will reposition them alongside other sections that are about ministers’ functions. It is imperative that non-executive directors have experience and knowledge of the issues that workers and businesses in Scotland face. Therefore, the amendments provide for the Scottish ministers to consult representatives of trade unions and industry when making appointments.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I will speak to amendment 14. The bill is silent on pay, pensions and rewards for staff at the bank, and it devolves responsibility for those important matters to the board and chief executive.

The Scottish national investment bank will be established as a non-departmental public body. It will be part of the public sector landscape and will be covered by the public sector equality duty.

The terms and conditions of employees should at least match those that are applied across the public and governmental sector, including on pay, access to a defined benefit pension scheme and other rewards. The bank should be aligned with Scottish ministers’ public sector pay policy and the fair work agenda. A defined contribution scheme does not align with what is offered elsewhere and would mean lesser pensions for staff.

The Scottish national investment bank must not be allowed to repeat the failures of the banking sector in its lending practices, its customer care or any of the other dodgy practices that we have seen over the years, and it should not replicate the commercial banks in downgrading the pensions of its staff. It should offer the same pensions as are offered in other areas of the public sector that are covered by pay policy, which means that staff should be covered by a defined benefit scheme.

The cabinet secretary had his officials scurrying around to try to find an example to justify a pensions downgrade, and they came up with the rather obscure example of Business Stream, which is a subsidiary of Scottish Water. If that is the only example that he can find to justify the case, it is a very thin case indeed. The answer is not to ignore the overwhelming majority of public sector pensions and to have a race to the bottom, but to provide Business Stream and SNIB staff with the same quality of pensions as others and to level the playing field.

If members vote against amendment 14, they will condemn staff members—their constituents—to a lesser pension than those of other public sector workers.

On amendments 14 and 15, across the Government and agency sector, payments of performance-related bonuses have for a long time been omitted from pay awards. Recruitment and retention supplements are used, particularly in core Scottish Government roles, and golden hellos and other such incentives have been introduced in other areas, including teaching and social work. Those are regularly reviewed through market pay comparisons in order to ensure that the case is robust, and to reduce the risk of equal pay claims.

The Scottish national investment bank staff who transfer from Scottish Enterprise will have their terms and conditions protected: those terms are the basis for a fair package for all Scottish national investment bank staff. We do not want to create a two-tier workforce; colleagues working side by side on different contractual arrangements will create division within the workforce, which would not be good for the bank’s culture or its image.

Performance bonuses and target-driven incentivised pay for senior executives and staff will repeat the mistakes that we have seen in the commercial banking sector. We need to learn lessons from that.

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

Before I speak to amendment 29, I will deal with the other amendments in the group. Amendment 2, in the name of Andy Wightman, is similar to an amendment that he lodged at stage 2. I understood from his remarks then that his proposal is not meant to give local authorities a direct role in the bank but to provide a means for their interests to be represented. As I said then, the idea of local authority interests being directly represented on the board is not reflected in the wider governance structures of the bank. There are other more appropriate routes by which they can engage in wider economic matters.

The board will be responsible for ensuring the success of the bank, and will be held accountable for its performance on that by Scottish ministers and, through them, Parliament. The bank will operate as a public limited company that has a recognisable governance structure and arrangements between the board of directors and the shareholder. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 2.

I support amendments 13 and 28, in the name of Rhoda Grant. They are technical amendments that simply move to the appropriate place in the bill the provision that will require ministers to have regard to the interests of workers and businesses when appointing non-executive directors.

Amendments 14 and 15, in the name of Neil Findlay, are similar to amendments that he lodged at stage 2. I set out at that time the reasons why the Scottish Government opposes the proposal. Our primary concern is that providing for elements of the banks remuneration package in the bill would cut across the operational independence of the bank.

The bank is a unique organisation in Scotland’s public sector landscape, requiring staff with specialist skills and experience, so we should recognise that a particular approach to the bank’s remuneration package will be required. The proposed approach is informed by the experiences of the British Business Bank and the Development Bank of Wales, in line with the recommendation that we received from the committee in its stage 1 report.

Members should also note that section 8 of the bill includes a direction-making power in relation to remuneration, which can be exercised if necessary. Further, there is the power in section 14A to issue fair work directions to the bank.

We also note that there are technical deficiencies in the drafting of amendment 15. It refers to schedule 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, but that act does not have a schedule 5.

I urge members to vote against amendments 14 and 15.

Amendment 29, in my name, is a technical amendment that clarifies that the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life will regulate the appointment of non-executive directors to the bank’s board, but not the appointment of executive directors.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 2, in the name of Andy Wightman, would require at least two non-executive directors to be appointed by Scottish local authorities. I agree with Mr Wightman that local authorities are critically important partners in economic development, and that their perspective and experience should be available to the board of the bank.

However, that will be best achieved through stakeholder engagement and consultation, which is already hardwired into the legislation, rather than by giving various stakeholders the power to appoint directors to the bank’s board. Having two directors appointed by local authorities would risk confusing the bank’s governance structure, would confuse the accountability of the board of directors and would undermine the capacity of the Executive to hold the entire board to account for its performance. Under Scottish law, directors of a public limited company have a direct fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of shareholders, which would cut across the interests of local authorities.

Amendment 15, in the name of Neil Findlay, would require the remuneration policy of the bank to be hardwired into primary legislation. That would impair the operational independence of the bank to design a proper remuneration structure that is appropriate for a financial services institution that is also a public body, and which must be able to attract the right people to make the bank and, more important, its investments a success. We favour the approach that was proposed by the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee at stage 1, based on a wide array of evidence that it heard from stakeholders, to benchmark the bank’s remuneration policy against similar structures that are used by the British Business Bank and the Development Bank of Wales, in order to arrive at a package that is competitive but not excessive.

For those reasons, we cannot support amendments 2 and 15. We will support amendments 28 and 29.

The Presiding Officer

I call Andy Wightman to wind up.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Dean Lockhart said that by passing the amendment, we would confuse the governance and accountability of the bank. He referred to the fact that, under existing law, directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. That is correct. He argues that my amendment would “cut across” that, but it would not, precisely because directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Regardless of who appoints non-executive directors, their fiduciary duty under the law is to shareholders, which in this case will be the Scottish ministers. Dean Lockhart has put forward a non-argument; it is the argument that was presented by the cabinet secretary earlier. The directors will have a duty, regardless of who appoints them, to discharge their duties in accordance with the articles and memorandum of association, and in the interests of the shareholder—the Scottish ministers. Nothing in my amendment 2 would affect that.

I am disappointed by the response, but not surprised.

The Presiding Officer

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

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Section 8—Remuneration

Amendment 14 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 14 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 14 disagreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[Neil Findlay].

The question is, that amendment 15 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 15 disagreed to.

Section 9A—Advisory group

Amendments 16 to 19 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

We move on to group 5, on a gender equality strategy. Amendment 35, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is grouped with amendment 37.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am pleased to speak to my amendments 35 and 37.

The Scottish Government recognises equality as an overarching principle, but equality was not included in the bill as introduced. Members of all parties know that if equality is bolted on later, we run the risk of it not being a priority or it being considered much too late in the process to make a meaningful difference.

The committee received evidence that other public investment banks have successful gender equality strategies. Scotland should ensure that the bank starts its life on the right footing by sharing in that positive practice.

The strategy will enable the bank to consistently advance and mainstream gender equality throughout its investment and staffing policies and any other programmes or policies that it develops. That will ensure that gender equality is an aspect of all the bank’s work and is not merely an add-on.

The strategy will assist the bank in meeting its legal obligations under the public sector equality duty. That is important, because research shows that there has been a significant decline in performance of the duty since its introduction. Today, the Scottish Government and this Parliament have the opportunity to create a financial institution that discourages discrimination, advances equality and sets the standards for future legislation.

I will turn to amendment 37, because it is all about the data: if we care about something, we should measure it. The Government’s equality impact assessment demonstrates the lack of available data and research on equalities in finance, so my proposed approach could make a difference to how the bank operates. Reporting on the impact of the strategy will enable visibility and accountability, helping to ensure that the bank remains a leader when it comes to gender equality, as well as providing vital data.

To date, public bodies have had limited success in gathering and utilising intersectional gender disaggregated data that relates to employees, service design and service delivery. Amendment 37 presents an opportunity for the bank to break that trajectory and integrate positive data practices, right from the beginning. I urge members to support amendments 35 and 37.

I move amendment 35.

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

I am happy to say that the Government will support Jackie Baillie’s amendments 35 and 37.

Throughout the bill’s passage, Jackie Baillie has raised the bank’s contribution to advancing gender equality. I am grateful to her for her work on the subject and for working with the Government after stage 2 to develop amendments 35 and 37. I also thank Engender and Close the Gap, who contributed their experience and expertise to this work.

At stage 2, Jackie Baillie lodged similar amendments, but I was concerned that some of their provisions were too prescriptive and that there was too much duplication between them and the Scotland-specific equality duties to which the bank will be subject. I am pleased that those issues have been addressed in amendments 35 and 37, which should support the bank in its compliance with the Scotland-specific equality duties with regard to gender. By giving the bank flexibility in how it undertakes that work, the approach in the amendments complements the scope and timing requirements of the Scotland-specific equality duties.

Those duties, of course, cover all the protected characteristics. For clarity, I will say that it is anticipated that the bank can make a positive contribution to advancing equality in a number of areas. Amendments 35 and 37 take an exceptional approach by focusing on gender equality. In the Government’s view, an exceptional approach is warranted in this case. There is a clear and well-defined evidence base that shows that women-led businesses face issues when they seek finance and that women are underrepresented in the financial services sector. The bank can help to address those issues. Therefore, I encourage members to support amendments 35 and 37.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will be brief, in the interests of time.

On the basis of evidence that stakeholders gave to the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, we will support Jackie Baillie’s amendments 35 and 37, which will require the bank to prepare a gender equality strategy and report to the Parliament on it every two years.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and to press or withdraw her amendment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the approach and the co-operation of the cabinet secretary. I thank Engender and Close the Gap for their work in ensuring that we have pushed the legislative envelope and can make progress on equality in the bank’s lending practices. I will press amendment 35.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on strategic missions. Amendment 3, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 20, 21, 21A, 21B and 22 to 25.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

Amendment 3 is a slightly modified form of an amendment that was lodged at stage 2.

The committee was concerned that missions set by ministers would not be subject to a great deal of scrutiny, so I welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments on setting strategic missions. As set out in the bill, missions were not subject to any scrutiny, but the cabinet secretary’s amendments to section 11 today rectify that and provide an appropriate balance between the interests of the Scottish ministers as shareholders and their interests in terms of their accountability to Parliament.

Amendment 3 is a straightforward amendment that puts in the bill the fact that there must be

“a strategic mission for the Bank stating that the Bank is to undertake investments that will facilitate the transition to a net-zero emissions economy.”

We know that that is already the Scottish ministers’ intention—that is fine and we welcome that. However, given that the transition to a net zero emissions economy is the most urgent task facing the globe, and facing governance across the world, it is appropriate to have that requirement in the bill so as to remove any doubt whatsoever that it is just one more strategic mission among many others. That is particularly so in light of the fact that the transition to a net zero emissions economy will take some time, but is of considerable urgency.

I move amendment 3.

The Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 20 and the other amendments in the group.

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

I will speak to my amendments 20 to 25, and to Dean Lockhart’s amendments 21A and 21B, before I turn to Andy Wightman’s amendment 3.

Amendments 20 to 25 are all technical amendments. Amendments 20 to 22 divide up section 11, which had become too long as a result of stage 2 amendments. Amendment 20 covers the process by which the Government can set, modify or end a strategic mission for the bank, and it includes a clarification that missions can address both socioeconomic and environmental challenges. It better describes the challenges that we expect the bank to address through its missions. Amendment 23 is consequential to amendment 20.

Amendment 21 moves the consultation process for the setting, modifying and ending of missions that was agreed at stage 2 into a section of its own. It also puts it beyond doubt—because lawyers like such things to be spelled out—that the consultation that is done before the bill receives royal assent counts as consultation. That means that we can get the first missions in place in time for the bank’s establishment.

I am sure that Dean Lockhart will explain in more detail his amendments 21A and 21B. They address the issue that I raised regarding Dean Lockhart’s stage 2 amendment, which in effect risked giving the bank’s board a veto

The Presiding Officer

I call Dean Lockhart to speak to amendment 21A and the other amendments in the group.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendments 20 and 21, which include a requirement to undertake a public consultation in relation to any change or modification to the bank’s strategic missions.

Amendment 21A, in my name, would require that, before they made any change or modification to those missions, the Scottish ministers would have to

“first consult, and seek to reach agreement with, the Bank’s board”.

That would mean that those who will be most closely involved with implementing the bank’s strategy and are most knowledgeable about its operation—in other words, its board of directors—would have prior rights of consultation on changes proposed by the Scottish ministers, giving the board the chance to improve or modify such changes. That is in line with best practice followed elsewhere—for example, in the British Business Bank’s shareholder agreement—and it would give the board assurance that the Scottish ministers would consult it first, before making significant changes to the bank’s direction.

My amendment 21B provides that the bank’s board need not be consulted on the first set of missions that the Scottish Government proposes, because those would be subject to public consultation.

Amendment 3, in the name of Andy Wightman, seeks to hardwire into the bill a requirement that one of the strategic missions of the bank is the transition to a net zero emissions economy. The Scottish Conservatives agree with the sentiments of that amendment. On the basis of all the announcements that the Scottish Government has made to date, we fully expect that to be one of the bank’s core missions. However, the fact is that—as the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee has agreed—strictly speaking, the setting of the missions is an executive function that is within the powers of the Scottish Government under section 11. It would therefore not be appropriate for such a mission to be set out in the bill. That said, the Scottish Conservatives look forward to the cabinet secretary’s confirming, in the weeks ahead, that a net zero emissions economy will be one of the core missions of the bank.

Amendment 22, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is based on an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, which would have allowed the bank’s board of directors itself to submit to the Government proposals to change the strategic missions of the bank. As the board will be the body that is most closely involved in implementing the bank’s strategy, it will be important that it should be able to make its own proposals to the Government to update or change the bank’s missions to take account of developments that the board sees in the business and financial landscape and in its implementation of the strategy.

For those reasons, the Scottish Conservatives will support amendments 20 to 25, but will not support Andy Wightman’s amendment 3.

The Presiding Officer

I call Andy Wightman to wind up and indicate whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 3.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I intend to press amendment 3. The cabinet secretary argued that giving effect to amendment 3 would preclude opportunities for consultation. I do not think that any member here would think that the strategic mission of the bank—to facilitate the transition to a net zero emissions economy—needed to be debated in any way. Indeed, the cabinet secretary supported it, as did Dean Lockhart. Therefore to say that it cannot be subject to consultation is a bit ridiculous. That mission would be the primary mission for the Scottish ministers in this context. If that is the case, why is that not stated in the bill?

Dean Lockhart said that setting the missions should be an executive function, and I agree that the committee was concerned about that. However, the committee was also concerned about the scrutiny of the missions, and we have dealt with that. The mission relating to net zero emissions is so important and fundamental that there is absolutely no reason why it should not be a statutory mission in the bill. To be clear, I do not doubt the Scottish ministers’ intentions in that regard. I do not at all question their commitment to having it as a primary mission, but the matter is of such overriding importance that we need protections.

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

I will give some clarification that might give Andy Wightman further reassurance. In relation to our climate intentions, we have set more ambitious and challenging targets than had been set when the proposals for the bank were first conceived. We have moved from wanting emissions reductions to wanting a net zero economy. I am making the point that it should not require changes to primary legislation to improve on our position. We can do that through the mission-setting process and the consultation therein. Being dependent on changing primary legislation in order to be potentially even more ambitious would be unnecessary and burdensome and would not be in keeping with our shared ambition in that regard. We are trying to allow our ambitions to be progressed, not constrained.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I understand that, but that has to be balanced against the risk of a future Government rowing back on the missions. I will leave the matter there and I will press amendment 3.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 30, Against 85, Abstentions 0.

Amendment

3 disagreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

After section 11

Amendment 21 moved—[Derek Mackay].

Amendments 21A and 21B moved—[Dean Lockhart]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Does the cabinet secretary wish to press or withdraw amendment 21, as amended?

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

I press amendment 21.

Amendment 21, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

Section 12—Reporting on missions

Amendment 23 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

After section 13

Amendment 36 not moved.

Amendment 37 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.

Section 14—Review of performance

Amendments 24 and 25 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on equal pay review. Amendment 38, in the name of Jackie Baillie, is the only amendment in the group.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is the last group, and I am pleased to speak to amendment 38, in my name.

We are now in a new decade, yet the gender pay gap today is still as high as 5.6 per cent. The only way that employers can be sure that they are providing equal pay is to carry out an equal pay review. An equal pay review is the methodology that is used to uncover unequal pay, yet we see complacency among employers. Research by Close the Gap on employer action on the pay gap found that, although 94 per cent of employers surveyed had an equal pay policy, less than one third had undertaken an equal pay review, and only 3 per cent had taken any action to address pay gaps. Requiring the bank to do an equal pay review would be a really positive step and would be vital in ensuring that the bank overcomes the issues around unequal pay and the gender pay gap

that have characterised other financial institutions. By agreeing to the amendment, members will make a difference to closing the gender pay gap, and I commend the amendment to the chamber.

I move amendment 38.

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

I am happy to say that the Government will support amendment 38, in the name of Jackie Baillie. Carrying out periodic equal pay reviews is a sensible proposal for the bank to consider. An equal pay review can help an organisation to ensure that its pay policy is being implemented fairly and to address one of the contributing factors to a gender pay gap. We know that there are gender pay issues in the Scottish and wider UK economies, and that the financial services sector has particular experience of such issues. It is therefore important that the bank keeps its house in order. Amendment 38 will contribute to that work, and I encourage members to support it.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will be very brief. Amendment 38 ensures that the bank will, from time to time, conduct a review on equal pay. The amendment is in line with existing legislation and the proposal was supported by the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee at stage 1.

The Presiding Officer

I call Jackie Baillie to wind up, and to press or withdraw the amendment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Consensus has broken out, Presiding Officer. I press amendment 38.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

Section 19—Meaning of State aid rules

Amendments 26 and 27 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

After section 19

Amendment 28 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Schedule—Application of public bodies legislation

Amendment 29 moved—[Derek Mackay]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That ends consideration of amendments. As members may be aware, at this point in the proceedings,

I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether the bill modifies the electoral system or franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. It is my view that the bill does no such thing and therefore does not require a supermajority at stage 3.

Scottish National Investment Bank Bill

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a stage 3 debate on motion S5M-20514, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the Scottish National Investment Bank Bill. I invite members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

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

I am delighted to open this stage 3 debate on the Scottish national investment bank.

The Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee heard about the bank’s potential from many stakeholders during its stage 1 evidence sessions, not least from Professor Mariana Mazzucato, who told us that the establishment of a Scottish national investment bank has the potential to

“transform our imagination of what the public sector is for”.—[

Official Report, Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee

, 14 May 2019; c 13.]

Since the bill’s introduction, members have worked together to create legislation that provides a strong statutory foundation for the bank. I particularly thank the members of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, whose thoughtful scrutiny of the bill led to valuable and informed amendments. I also thank the other members who have been involved in the bill’s passage for the constructive approach that they have taken to developing and strengthening the bill. Finally, I am also grateful to the many stakeholders who contributed to the bill. The bank must speak to all Scotland, and I am confident that we have meaningfully engaged to allow that to happen.

Establishing the bank is about being ambitious for Scotland. I am pleased to see the determination that has been shown across the chamber—indeed, across the country—to ensure that we build a bank that can become a cornerstone institution in Scotland’s economic landscape.

The bank has the potential to transform Scotland’s economy and society. As the vision for the bank now sets out, this is an opportunity to

“catalyse ... a step change in growth for the Scottish economy by powering innovation and accelerating the move to a net-zero emissions, high-tech, connected, globally-competitive and inclusive economy.”

The bill reflects that vision and sets out a high level of ambition for the bank’s contribution to environmental and social wellbeing in Scotland; to driving inclusive and sustainable economic growth; and to enabling small and medium-sized enterprises, innovative companies and enterprising third sector bodies to flourish.

The case for establishing the Scottish national investment bank is overwhelming. Access to finance in the current lending market for many private and third sector organisations can be challenging, which has led to very real impacts on investment and growth. The bank will make a big difference in that regard. It will seek to address those gaps; in particular, it will provide new levels of strategic patient finance.

The bank will also drive innovation in Scotland and will shape and create markets. Its investment can support our efforts to improve the level of business expenditure on research and development in Scotland to the levels in other European countries. The bank can also build on Scotland’s existing strengths, including our world-leading university research sector. Finally, it will crowd in investment from other sources, maximising its impact and enabling activity that otherwise would not take place.

The success of the building Scotland fund is a promising sign of what we can expect from the bank. Last week, I visited an office development in Glasgow that had received funding from that fund. During my visit, I announced that the fund has agreed investments of £100 million, unlocking in excess of £238 million-worth of projects and providing a significant boost to the Scottish economy.

In particular, the building Scotland fund has agreed investments of £75 million in a range of housing projects, supporting the development of more than 5,500 homes and around 600 full-time jobs. The fund demonstrates the exciting opportunities that the bank could support by investing in progressive businesses, social enterprises and third sector organisations right across Scotland.

The bank’s innovative, mission-oriented approach has rightly received much interest. The approach will direct the bank’s activity towards addressing major challenges facing Scotland.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

No, thank you.

The First Minister has committed to the bank’s primary missing being supporting the just transition to net zero carbon emissions. Harnessing private sector activity to achieve that has never been more important.

The bank is expected to have two other missions, based on examples in the implementation plan. One concerns taking advantage of technology and innovation to benefit Scotland’s people, particularly through responding to demographic challenges. The other will support improvements to places across Scotland. Those missions have been derived from Professor Mazzucato’s guidance in setting out how the bank could adopt missions, and from extensive engagement.

The bank will, of course, seek to make a sufficient financial return. That will enable it to reinvest its funds many times over, in successive generations of business. The bank will also, in time, cover its costs and not be reliant on the taxpayer. I recently updated the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee on the latest financial modelling for the bank. I provided indicative projections of the bank’s performance over the long term. Over a 50-year period, the bank is projected to make cumulative investments of £17.5 billion—and that does not account for investment leveraged from other sources. As a result, the initial £2 billion capitalisation would be recycled across the bank’s portfolio more than eight times across the 50-year period, including the initial investment. That is a significant goal that will be achieved only if we are patient with the bank, especially in its early years. We must allow the bank time to reach its full potential.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

No, thank you.

The bill demonstrates Scotland’s ambition for transforming our economy and tackling major societal challenges. Passing the bill today will mark the next step towards establishing the bank. The bill allows for a robust, credible and impactful new organisation in Scotland’s economic landscape and puts in place the foundations for the creation of a commercially minded yet publicly accountable institution.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish National Investment Bank Bill be passed.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, thank the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee’s clerking team, the witnesses and all those who gave evidence during the passage of the bill. I thank Benny Higgins and the implementation team for their excellent work during the implementation period, and I again thank the cabinet secretary and his team for the constructive manner in which they have engaged during the legislative process.

We have supported the establishment of the bank at all stages of the bill. We agree with the underlying objectives for establishing the bank: that there is a need for more long-term, patient capital; that businesses in Scotland need more help to expand; and that we need a transformational change in Scotland’s economy.

Development banks across the world have shown that that is possible. However, the transformational change will happen only if the development bank is part of a coherent economic policy framework in which there is absolute clarity on the economic strategy and objectives.

The cabinet secretary will not be surprised to hear me say that there is still much work to be done in that respect, as was recognised in the chamber in a previous debate when an all-party motion recognised that

“a cluttered policy landscape can lead to confusion, a lack of alignment, duplication and weakened accountability”.

The concerns about the enterprise landscape were also highlighted at the committee when one witness referred to it as a “Venn diagram on steroids”. That is our overriding concern about the bank’s future success: the bank is being introduced into a confused and cluttered enterprise landscape. To be fair to the cabinet secretary, I think that he recognises that. In his letter to the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee of 10 January, he confirmed that

“Wider work is on-going to develop and cement the future relationship between the new Bank and the Scottish economic development ecosystem”.

The success of the transition will be vital to the success of the bank. Will the cabinet secretary commit to providing regular updates to the chamber and the committee about the changes that he will be making as part of the transition?

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

Yes.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary very much for his brief and positive answer.

Following the establishment of the bank, another priority will be for the taxpayer to see positive returns from it—that is, financial returns and the bank achieving its strategic missions.

With an initial capitalisation of £2 billion and operating costs of up to £20 million a year, the bank will have to demonstrate that it is making a transformational impact across Scotland. We have to remember that those operating costs are in addition to the £120 million operating costs incurred by the existing enterprise agencies.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Dean Lockhart sat through the committee stages of the bill. It would be remiss of us not to raise concerns, which have been mentioned in the media, including by none other than George Kerevan, about the new chair of the bank, who, in a previous role, was given a record fine by regulators following a conflict-of-interest case. Were those issues raised in committee? I was hoping that the cabinet secretary might address them.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not sure whether Neil Findlay has seen the correspondence between the committee and the cabinet secretary, but I would encourage him to look at it, because I think that it addresses those issues.

We are now—before a single penny is invested in the economy—spending £140 million a year on operating costs across all the enterprise agencies, so we need to ensure that we get a real return from the bank. That should be similar to the returns achieved by the British Business Bank, which has a target rate of return of more than 2.5 per cent. We look forward to the cabinet secretary confirming that he will be setting out the medium and long-term performance targets of the bank once it is up and running.

Another fundamental question that the committee raised is whether there will be sufficient demand in the economy for the additional funding to be offered by the bank. We saw demand being a problem in the context of the Scottish growth scheme, which has invested only a quarter of the up to £500 million that was on offer.

In evidence given to the committee, we were told that the bank will not act as the originator of funding opportunities. That means that the bank will have to rely on the existing enterprise agencies, which are operating under existing budgetary and resource constraints. I ask the cabinet secretary, when he sums up, to confirm whether the enterprise agencies’ budgets will be increased in order to deal with the extra demands on them and the extra opportunities that they will be required to seek out on behalf of the Scottish national investment bank.

I turn briefly to the bank’s strategic missions. The cabinet secretary has been transparent about the grand challenges and the strategic missions that he proposes to set the bank, and, as we heard earlier, the bank’s

“primary mission will be securing the transition to”

a

“net zero”

economy, and that

“A key element of the Bank’s work will be to help to shape and develop commercially investable low carbon markets.”

I think that everyone agrees with those objectives, but again, we need to see the detail of how all that will be delivered once the bank is up and running. Over the past 12 years, the Scottish economy has failed to see the economic benefit and the real jobs that were promised as a result of the development of low carbon markets; we heard about that during the renewable energy summit held last week. The Scottish Trades Union Congress also made that clear in a report issued last year.

I will wrap up by saying that the relatively easy part of establishing the bank—passing the legislation—will be achieved this afternoon; however, the real challenges lie ahead. Those are: to ensure that the bank recruits the very best professionals to deliver transformational change; for the Scottish Government to reform the enterprise landscape so that all agencies are fully aligned; and for the bank to stimulate demand and make the necessary investments so that there can be transformational change in Scotland’s economy.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I genuinely believe that today is an important day in the history of this Parliament. A quarter of a century ago, I was calling, on behalf of the Scottish trades union movement, for the establishment of a Scottish investment bank.

I have with me the original report and the original press release, dated December 1995. I point out, for the record, that the demand for a Scottish investment bank has gone unanswered for so long that the paper clip holding the report and the press release together has turned to rust, but the argument still shines and the idea still endures.

At the time, I wrote:

“Scotland is one of Europe's biggest financial centres, yet there is an acute shortage of suitable finance for industrial investment here. This is preventing Scotland from achieving its full economic development potential, and so hampering job growth. This is an area where a Government lead is badly needed...”.

The truth is that that description of the Scottish economy, which was written back in 1995, could just as easily have been written yesterday. We have already wasted too much time—20 years of devolution—when the long-standing and most rudimentary problem of underinvestment in the Scottish economy has not been confronted.

That failure has, in turn, led to chronically low levels of productivity, slow rates of economic growth and job losses. The tragedy is that that has not been tackled head on by this Parliament, even though we have had the powers to do so. Of course, that investment gap has a very long history, with deep roots based on a fixation with short-term shareholder dividends, and with funds accumulated not as capital for investment, but as wealth to be exported. It has its roots, too, in the failure of successive Governments to provide sources of patient capital and long-term investment.

So, Scottish Labour supports the establishment of a Scottish national investment bank with the passing of this bill. Its focus on sustainable economic development and tackling climate change is welcome. Our amendments to drive up ethical standards and labour standards were right, and the people of Scotland will observe that the Scottish National Party lined up with the Tories to oppose many of those proposals. The clear focus on small and medium-sized enterprises is welcome, because, as we have said before, too much of the Scottish Government’s economic strategy is based on the attraction of big foreign direct investment.

I said in the stage 1 debate that the investment bank’s role should not just be to act when there is

“market failure”.

Instead, it must be an agent for change as part of the innovative state—the

“active state”,

not the reactive one; the

“developmental state”,

not simply the defensive one.

I remain as convinced now as I was 25 years ago that we need bold and ambitious legislation if we are to tackle the long-term, deep-rooted challenges that we face. Scottish Labour will support the bill, but we do not believe that it is bold and ambitious enough. There is too much of an air of tame mediocrity about it, when what we need is courage and ambition.

In the policy memorandum, the Government describes the bank as a catalyst, but the scale of the challenge that we now face requires more than the light touch of a catalyst. We need much more than just a spark. The people of Scotland need a comprehensive economic plan, a proactive industrial strategy and a renewed commitment to full employment in an economy undergoing a just transition to a net zero carbon economy. The bank is undercapitalised, but it must not become an undercapitalised vanity project. It needs to be a meaningful and decisive actor in the Scottish economy, making a meaningful and sustainable difference.

We support the bill, we have amended the bill, we will vote for the bill and we will the success of the bank—this new institution that is long overdue—but the Government must also find the courage of its convictions and will the means to it, too. The cabinet secretary described the bill as world beating. Well, time will tell. With the right direction and the necessary resources, it may be world beating, but in the end, what the people of Scotland need is not world-beating legislation but world-beating action.

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his on-going engagement on the bill in the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee and for keeping committee members informed of developments in work as it has proceeded, which has been very useful.

As I noted at stage 1, our economy is now run substantially in the interests of private capital rather than in the public interest—in the short-term interests of shareholders rather than in the long-term interests of society. I therefore welcome any attempt to place the public interest at the heart of economic policy. By investing in small and medium-sized enterprises, start-ups and businesses that seek to solve societal issues, a publicly owned bank with a clear vision and mission can complement traditional financial bodies.

Fundamentally, though, the Scottish national investment bank will exist to help to transform the economy by addressing the grand challenges that the cabinet secretary has outlined in briefings to members. Those challenges do not appear in the bill: nevertheless, I understand that they are the overarching framework within which missions will be set. The most important mission is the vital mission to accelerate the transition to a net zero emissions economy.

The establishment of the Scottish national investment bank is the result of many years of work by a range of thinkers, which I now know includes Richard Leonard—a great thinker from 1995. More recently, those thinkers have included the New Economics Foundation, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Common Weal and many others. I want to pay particular tribute, as others have done, to the work of Mariana Mazzucato and Laurie Macfarlane, whose thinking has been very influential in developing the proposals for the bank.

As members know, Greens have set out the broad parameters of a Scottish green new deal. Central to that is the need for investment in a greener economy. The role of the Scottish national investment bank should be central to delivering the transition to a net zero economy. The bank’s ability to provide patient capital should enable it to take a long-term view on investment decisions, which could prove to be transformative for projects that badly need transformational action.

At stage 1, Greens called for the Scottish national investment bank to have a clearer purpose, to work towards net zero goals, to give local government a stake, to give Parliament a say in the bank’s missions, and to have stronger ethics and equalities provisions. We have achieved some of that: amendments that we lodged at stages 2 and 3 were designed to deliver those priorities, including two amendments that were debated—although they were rejected—this afternoon.

However, we have some concerns about the bank. One relates to the report of the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, which was published yesterday. It says:

“The Scottish Government should ensure that its new National Transport Strategy and Strategic Transport Projects Review 2, which are due to be published during 2020, fully reflect the need to deliver an inclusive net zero carbon economy”.

It goes on to say that that should include

“Aligning strategic investment decisions to address fully the requirement for demand management”

in transport. It continues:

“For ... roads investment that is made as part of the above”

there should be

“a presumption in favour of investment to future proof existing road infrastructure and to make it safer, resilient and more reliable rather than increase road capacity.”

We face significant challenges in transport.

We also have concerns about the potential two-tier pension arrangements, which unions have highlighted to us. I understand that the shadow bank proposals in that regard have been agreed by the cabinet secretary. I point out—I will welcome hearing about this in his closing remarks—that that risks damaging the bank’s chances of providing a fair and progressive wage environment.

We believe that local government should have a significant role in the bank’s projects and missions. All 32 of Scotland’s councils have signed up to Scotland’s climate change declaration, so I look forward to further discussions on that.

The bill is a framework bill. The proof of its success will lie in the bank’s operational decisions in years to come, the decisions that are made by its sole shareholder—the Scottish ministers—and in the scrutiny that the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee applies in its deliberations.

Greens support the bill—we wish it well and will vote for it at decision time.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I thank all those who have contributed to the forging of the bill: the advisers, the committee, the ministers for their constructive behaviour, and Bernie Higgins for his contribution.

The ambitions are big. That is certainly true. The language that is used to describe the bill is sometimes glorious; it will, for example, “transform our imagination”. I am looking forward to that particular event. The expectations are high for reshaping our economy. People will expect that to be delivered, so the responsibilities on all of us to make it happen are keen, especially when the challenges are so great—in particular on climate change and the green economy, which Andy Wightman talked about.

It is important that we use the bank to lever that change, and that we use it in relation to productivity. When we look at the stubborn problems that we have, it is unbelievable that companies that create offshore wind farms have to go, or are choosing to go, to other parts of world—sometimes the other side of the planet—instead of constructing jackets and other turbine elements in this country. What are we getting wrong? Why are we not making that work? What are the steps that we need to take? What are the investments that we need to have? Who are the business leaders whom we need to have in place to make all that happen? Perhaps the bank will play a role in making sure that all that comes together. Who would take the risk of transporting jackets all the way across the globe, with the extra cost of doing that, instead of building them here? Let us rise to that challenge and make sure that we exploit the great opportunity of the energy off our shores.

There are massive challenges in how we cope with our waste. We have seen the delay in the landfill ban. There is an awful lot of infrastructure that we need to build in order to cope with the waste that we are generating in this country.

Our world-class universities—which are among the best, obviously—are producing a huge amount of intellectual property. We still fail to exploit that intellectual property fully for the benefit of people here, and to create jobs, wealth and opportunities.

The bank has many challenges to play a part in and, of course, it does not have all the answers. We need to learn the lessons of previous projects, such as the Scottish growth scheme. That was supposed to be a great game changer for the businesses and economy of this country, with £0.5 billion of investment. It has not been fully utilised; we need to make sure that the SNIB is.

The green investment bank across the UK—in whose setting up we had a role, although to our great disappointment it was privatised later—was making good progress. We should draw on the expertise that was developed through it. What has our own Scottish investment bank done, through Scottish Enterprise, that works, that can succeed and that we can build on for greater success?

My final comment is that there will be great temptation from us in the chamber and people further afield to put pressure on the bank at a time of great pressure on the economy, when much-loved businesses are under great stress and perhaps on their way out. Perhaps they do not have a future; perhaps they are failing businesses. There might be a great temptation for us to pressure the bank into propping up those failing businesses. Nobody wants to see them go, but sometimes we need to ensure that we put the investment into new opportunities and challenges that will create many more jobs.

Of course, the bank should listen to Parliament and should understand what we believe are the political priorities for this country. However, it should also have the freedom to act as it thinks best, so that it can lever in money to create jobs and opportunities, and create the low-carbon green economy for the future of our country and the planet.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

We move to the open debate. Speeches should be no longer than four minutes, please.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

To pick up on one of Willie Rennie’s points, I say that the bank’s emphasis has to be on preparing Scotland for tomorrow’s world, not on dealing with the consequences of yesterday’s world. Therefore, concentrating on things such as renewable energy is extremely important in the climate change debate.

However, the bank will be important not just in that sphere of influence. Artificial intelligence will be a major growth area and I believe that it will also have the impact of being a job creator. Robotics and animal life sciences will also be major growth areas. Scotland already has a presence in space technology—I am not talking about the Greens’ policies—with some world-beating developments based in Glasgow and elsewhere. The opportunities are enormous, and I hope that when the history of this period comes to be written by economic historians, it will be marked as a major turning point in the history of the Scottish economy.

I will mention two or three areas in which the bank should take early action, and in which the Government needs to look at the framework within which the bank will operate. The first is exports. Our export performance, in terms of our population and propensity, is way below par, and we have enormous opportunities to expand our export capacity. National investment banks in other countries help their exporters. In evidence to the committee at stage 1, it was pointed out that the assistance that the Finnish Government provides to exporters in Finland is far greater than the totality of all the financial support, in terms of credit guarantees and all the rest of it, that the UK Government provides to the entire UK. Finland, which has a population of 5 million, helps its exporters more than the UK helps our exporters—not per head but in total. That is not just in relation to manufactured goods. For example, a major beneficiary of the export finance that the Finnish investment bank provides is the shipbuilding sector. Shipbuilding is a sector in which we have potential to expand our presence.

Exports is where the bank should go out and create demand for its services. A lot of companies might not realise that if they get the funding to export on a much grander scale, they will have the potential to create many more good-quality jobs in Scotland.

Secondly, on the overall investment, I hope that the bank is so successful that future Scottish Governments have to increase the capital that is available to the bank to meet demand. We should all hope that.

The important point is that this is not just a £2 billion investment, and over the period of 50 years that Derek Mackay mentioned—which I hope to see—it does not have to be just £17.5 billion. It could be three, four or five times that, because one of the central features of the bank is that it will lever in private capital, including capital from elsewhere. If it does that on merchant bank ratios, or even near to them, we could be talking, over the piece, about £100 billion instead of £17.5 billion. That is extremely important.

Let me also say this. Members should look at the experience of the Scottish Development Agency, which was set up in 1975. It provided many similar services, but because one or two of its investments turned rotten, we abandoned the whole exercise. That was utter madness.

We have to say to the Scottish national investment bank, “Take risks.” There is no point in setting it up if it does not take risks, and if it takes a risk that does not work out, let us not hammer the bank. Let us not politicise or weaponise the SNIB in Parliament. Let us say, “Go out and take more risks.” In merchant banking, only two out of every 10 risks pay off, but those two pay for the other eight many times over. Let the bank be not only about public ownership, but about public enterprise levering and mobilising private capital to transform the Scottish economy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Speeches should be of no more than four minutes, please.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

We are agreed that national investment banks can play a valuable role in facilitating economic growth

. I am not sure that I understood—or misunderstood—Alex Neil’s speech or whether he was advertising himself for a future role in promoting the Scottish national investment bank.

Investment banks can play an important and positive role, but there is a significant caveat: to do so, they have to be well run, with clear policy objectives, and they must be given relative freedom from direction by state-run interests, the public sector and national Government. That is what we see in other successful examples of such banks around the world.

Over the past decade, the Scottish Government has spoken positively about the possibility of creating a body such as the one we are discussing and about its potential role in our investment in the future of Scotland. It is therefore good that the dream has not turned into rust—unlike Richard Leonard’s paper clip—and that we have this bill before us in the Parliament.

As most of us know—I hope—in general terms, business and investment function far better when the long arm of the state does not lie heavily on their shoulders and when business leadership and expertise are able to decide the direction of travel. However, national investment bodies can make a real difference in pursuing wider public goals when they operate successfully alongside private enterprise—for example, on targets for sustainability.

Nevertheless, we must be cautious that such a body does not crowd out private finance, as we have seen happen on some occasions with certain similar bodies such as the European Investment Bank.

As Willie Rennie has emphasised, we need proper leadership for the bank. That means leadership that seeks to prevent public money being used to prop up failing ventures. We have seen too many of those, throughout history and more recently, and the massive cost that poorly placed public investment can have economically and on the taxpayer and people’s pockets.

The Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee heard evidence that the Scottish national investment bank could deliver better and more sustainable approaches to investment. I welcome its commitment to investing patient capital across a wide range of sectors—investment that will be intended for long-term prosperity and not just for aesthetically pleasing short-term gains.

As has been touched on, there is a disparity between the proposed public body, with a capitalisation of £2 billion, and the example of an existing bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, which alone has a Scottish loan book of £14 billion. Let us hope that the bank is successful and can build on that rapidly to move beyond the £2 billion figure.

In countries such as Finland, where national investment structures are particularly good at offering instruments like debt financing to major infrastructure investors and at supporting guarantees, we have an example of a successful approach.

We would like more clarity on where the SNIB is to sit in the already-crowded landscape in Scotland, with Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish growth scheme. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could give us a bit more clarity on that in his closing remarks. The bank will be joining a crowded field, and we do not want a false start for it. Let us hope that this is the start of something new, positive and constructive that we can, and will, all support.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I support having a Scottish national investment bank. It is fair to say that it has been a long time in coming. I think that John Swinney—clearly behind Richard Leonard in doing so—announced it a decade ago and re-announced it every year thereafter, because there was no money to capitalise the bank. That was until the UK Government came up with financial transaction money, the future of which is in doubt. Keith Brown described it as “funny money” at the time, but we now embrace it as a positive capitalisation of the SNIB.

The Scottish Government tells us that, if financial transactions are discontinued after March 2021—which is a real possibility—the bank will have to rely on traditional capital or the Scottish Government’s borrowing powers. The borrowing limit is £400 million a year, not taking into account the normal Government spending commitments that are made for public sector infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, health centres and roads. There is simply not enough money to do all of that and fund the bank as well.

If that source of funding—financial transaction money—is not there after March 2021, the SNP will need to find £1.5 billion. However, instead of pausing, the Scottish Government is intent on pressing ahead to set up a bank that might not have any money. We need an urgent response from the UK Government, or we are in danger of creating a white elephant.

At stage 1, I asked whether a review had been undertaken of whether that was the most effective means of having an investment bank and whether the Government had considered working with the existing Scottish Investment Bank within Scottish Enterprise. Unsurprisingly, no review had been undertaken in advance of the bill, so there is little evidence-based policy making. I have estimated that the cost to the public purse before the bank breaks even will be £80 million; others put it higher than that. The future remains uncertain, and that is what we should concern ourselves with.

I want the bank to succeed, as the cabinet secretary does. However, I am genuinely concerned. I know that the cabinet secretary has written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about increasing the Government’s borrowing limits. Has he had a response or any assurance that the financial transaction money will continue? Can he offer any comfort to the chamber that we are not creating a bank with no money to spend? I would welcome an intervention from the Conservative members, telling me that everything will be okay—but they are not standing up.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose

—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Oh! T

here we go.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I did not catch the beginning of her statement, but if Jackie Baillie is asking whether more money will be coming from the UK Government as part of the budget process, I am very confident that the answer will be yes.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am asking very specifically whether financial transaction money will come after March 2021 to fund the SNIB. Is it a yes or a no?

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The money is fungible—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Yes or no? He cannot reply.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Lockhart is speaking, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is my speech, Presiding Officer.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The money is fungible. It is up to the cabinet secretary to decide how to use the increased funding that is coming from the UK Government.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That explains why I am concerned about the continuing uncertainty. We did not hear anything to reassure us.

Let me finish on a note of consensus. I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s approach to working with the committee on the bill. He has been prepared to compromise and challenge thinking on what can be enshrined in legislation—everything from equality strategies and equal pay audits to the ability to invest in co-operatives and social enterprises. All of that is positive, but, as we have heard, the bank is in danger of not having the money that it requires. However, if it does get off the ground, it will be in better shape to guide investment decisions than when the bill was first introduced, and for that reason I commend the bill to the chamber.

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

Jackie Baillie was actually making a good case for independence with her arguments about funding.

I welcome the establishment of the Scottish national investment bank, which has the capacity to transform Scotland’s economy and to provide us with a more sustainable and green future. I followed the progress of the bill through my membership of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, and I think that the committee did some positive work on shaping parts of the proposals.

I have spent 23 years overseas, working as an international banker, and 11 years working for an investment bank in the City of London, and I have seen the benefits that other countries gain from institutions such as the Scottish national investment bank. I see huge merit in the proposal, if it is implemented correctly. It is about time that we revolutionised our economy to support our evolving society, and we should invest in creating a bank that will impact on societal and environmental change. The bank should be a smart development that will be commercially minded and publicly accountable. It will give us slightly better control over our economy, allowing us to create and shape our markets and define how our economy develops, as well as what we prioritise for public investments.

A main concern of the debate, which we should all be able to agree on, is the need to prioritise tackling the climate emergency. Global warming requires urgent and innovative answers, and we need to start factoring in new and creative strategies that tackle climate change in all areas of policy. The Scottish national investment bank could play a key role in addressing that task by supporting industries that are working towards achieving net zero carbon emissions. If we focus on creating a bank that prioritises ethical investments and creates robust structures that encourage greener policies to facilitate a transition to a net zero emissions economy, we could create an economy that will lead the way, globally, in ethical banking investment.

That would, of course, require the bank to be well regulated and subject to rigorous ethical standards. It is a measured and sensible approach to have the bank’s board as a responsible body for implementing minimum ethical standards in relation to its investment decisions and for ensuring that those standards are adhered to. I welcome amendment 5, which accounts for that and allows the necessary flexibility. The primary mission of the bank should be clearly connected to making investments that are ethical.

An element of the bill that I think is particularly important is that the bank should address the current lack of providers of strategic patient capital. That will support companies with ambition and will provide the opportunity to advance smart investments in smaller companies with potential by giving them a smoother start in their development. We can invest in Scottish companies that provide local knowledge and that understand the unique economic strengths and challenges in Scotland. That not only will support our economy now but will set us up for a much more secure future, as we will be able to choose to support those who prioritise achieving net zero emissions.

It is time for an economy that can be shaped to reflect major societal changes. Having a bank that is flexible to the needs of our population is a sensible, logical approach for our economy. Of course, the bank will also have to make a profit or, at least, break even, so normal commercial structures will, of necessity, have to be in place to avoid unsustainable losses. Prudence and innovation can go hand in hand.

We have the chance today to pass a bill that is visionary and that will place Scotland as a country that is committed to transitioning to net zero while simultaneously growing a sustainable economy that improves the lives of our citizens. The Scottish national investment bank has the potential to advance our economy as well as to help us to achieve a fair and inclusive Scotland. That will help us to bring about the transformational change that is essential to sustaining and developing Scotland’s position as a vibrant economy that is prepared for the future. We can support our population now and better prepare for the generations to come through these proposals. Scotland can continue to be a global leader in the transition to a low-carbon economy while promoting growth that is inclusive, smart and sustainable.

I commend the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the closing speeches.