Scottish Parliament, 23 January 2020

251 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

HIV (Marginalised Groups)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reach marginalised groups affected by HIV. (S5O-04043)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The prevention of HIV transmission remains a priority for the Scottish Government, and there is no room for complacency. An estimated 91 per cent of HIV-positive people in Scotland know their status, 98 per cent of those people are receiving treatment and 97 per cent of those who are in treatment are achieving viral suppression. Although we have achieved the United Nations 1990 targets, increasing the number of people who know their status and so can get treatment and move towards virus suppression remains a clear priority.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Earlier this month, Kirkcaldy lost a popular member of its Pride community to AIDS. Ross Scott passed away at the age of just 25, having lived with HIV for two years without knowing his status. Antiretroviral drugs usually allow people with HIV to live long lives but, unfortunately, Ross’s diagnosis was too late for treatment to be effective.

Does the minister agree that we all have a role to play in increasing awareness of HIV and the importance of prompt testing and treatment?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I agree. It is crucial that we remain vigilant and that we work collaboratively in order to continue to make progress. A clear priority is to increase the number of people who know their status, so that they can get treatment. That is why the Scottish Government has set up a short-life working group to consider options for improving HIV testing.

We continue to work closely with national health service boards and third sector organisations to raise awareness and to eradicate the stigma around the virus, including the falsehoods, myths and prejudice that surround HIV. Stigma remains one of the biggest barriers to people getting the HIV test, which will ultimately save lives.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The HIV outbreak among the homeless community was exacerbated by previous cuts to the drug and alcohol budgets. Will the minister confirm that he has made representations to the finance secretary, in the run-up to the budget, to ensure that the Government puts the right money and resources into dealing with Scotland’s drugs crisis?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The HIV outbreak in Glasgow is of huge concern. Neil Findlay is correct in saying that it has affected a community that crosses the boundaries of the most vulnerable groups—people who are homeless and those who inject substances. It is absolutely crucial that we take action to support Glasgow and its health board to respond to the outbreak. There have been several meetings with services in the area, which have brought those services together.

Waverley Care has been doing really useful work, along with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and has been running several projects to engage directly with the most vulnerable populations. As part of that scheme, we currently provide third sector funding of £2.13 million for projects that support people with blood-borne viruses.

Policy Commitments (Costs)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has fully costed the policy commitments it has made that are to be delivered through local government. (S5O-04044)

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

All new policy commitments that have a financial cost to local government are costed and discussed with local government. That includes an agreed approach on distribution matters.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I met local government colleagues this week, and a key concern that they raised was the issue of adequate funding for the roll-out of additional childcare. They were not against the principle of the Scottish Government’s policy, but they were very worried about the difficulties of rolling out the policy, given the different challenges that exist in Scotland. Is the cabinet secretary aware of those concerns and will he act on them?

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

I will continue to have discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the budget and other matters. I will also have discussions with Opposition parties about the budget. Those discussions have begun and I look forward to their continuing in a constructive fashion.

The policy on early learning and childcare is fully funded—an agreement was reached with local government on the funding of that policy, in which distribution matters are also covered. If there are any further concerns, I would be happy to engage with COSLA to have talks on them.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary advise us whether the Labour group, given that it is so interested in full costings, has provided details of how it will cost its own proposals for local government, or said whether those will be funded by tax rises, by switching funds from other budget portfolios or by demanding additional powers for local government, which—as in the case of workplace parking—it will then undoubtedly vote against?

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

There was a debate on local government funding yesterday. I will set out a Scottish National Party budget to the Scottish Parliament, and it will be for the other parties to engage constructively with me. To answer Mr Gibson’s question, I have not had any detailed alternative costings, but I look forward to such costings being produced if Opposition parties disagree with the proposition that I present to Parliament.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given that the Fraser of Allander institute has said that the Westminster block grant to Scotland will increase by 2 per cent in real terms in the coming year, does the finance secretary agree that there is therefore no justification for any further cuts to local government funding?

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

Murdo Fraser’s proposition is very interesting, given that it is the Conservative UK Government that has been cutting our budget in real terms. I point out that we are abiding by our commitment to pass on the Barnett consequentials to the health service.

Of course, we have not cut local government’s budgets. Over the time that I have been the finance secretary, local government has enjoyed real-terms increases in its resources, despite the Conservatives’ calls for tax cuts for the richest in society and their opposition to those budgets, which gave more resources to local government.

Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016. (S5O-04045)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

All the provisions in the act have been implemented except the parts that provide for the creation of sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. Until the United Kingdom Government amends the necessary reserved primary legislation, those orders will not be enforceable across the rest of the UK, and it would therefore be inappropriate and irresponsible to enact them.

My predecessor and I have raised the matter with UK ministers on a number of occasions but, to date, the UK Government has not identified a suitable legislative vehicle through which to make the necessary changes. We will commence the orders as soon as the UK Government passes the appropriate legislation. Until that time, the existing preventative orders for sexual offending in Scotland and the multi-agency public protection arrangements provide the most robust and enforceable regime for keeping the public safe.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Citizens Advice Scotland has reported a 50 per cent increase in traffic to its web pages that offer advice for people who have been affected by the sharing of intimate images or videos without their consent. The news that the cabinet secretary has just given us on the failure of the UK Government to make the necessary changes is disappointing. What impact will the delay have on the victims in question?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The figure that James Dornan cited is very stark.

The UK Government has indicated that it understands our intent and thinks that there is some wisdom in our doing what we are doing, but it has made no commitments on when it will make the necessary changes to the reserved legislation. Despite the fact that I and my predecessor have asked for that, there is no timescale in place.

As I said, there are orders that we can use at the moment to keep people safe, but we want to have a stronger regime. We believe that that could be possible if we had the orders that require legislative change by the UK Government. In the meantime, we will continue to press the UK Government to pass the necessary primary legislation as soon as possible.

Cancer Treatment (Wigtownshire)

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to allow NHS Dumfries and Galloway to change existing cancer pathways by aligning with the West of Scotland Cancer Network rather than the South East Scotland Cancer Network in order to reduce journey times for treatment for cancer patients in Wigtownshire. (S5O-04046)

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

The Scottish Government is aware that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has publicly stated its intention to seek alignment with the West of Scotland Cancer Network at some point in the future. Although no formal planning discussions on any realignment have taken place, my officials have been engaging with NHS Dumfries and Galloway on the matter.

Such a significant change would require considerable discussion and planning with other neighbouring boards, and any service change would have to undergo consultation to provide safety and quality assurances and ensure that patients’ waiting times were not negatively impacted.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that direct action by the Government is needed either to increase capacity at the Glasgow cancer centre or to enable another health board to, in effect, swap with Dumfries and Galloway in order to allow it to realign with the West of Scotland Cancer Network?

Given the time that it would take for that action to happen, does she support an interim measure of allowing patients in the west of the region, in Wigtownshire, to realign earlier, or will the Government promote the fact that patients already have the freedom to choose to go to Glasgow instead of taking the long journey to Edinburgh?

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

At the start of his supplementary question, Mr Smyth touched on the reason why, if realignment is sought, it will take some time to address those matters through planning and discussion between NHS Dumfries and Galloway and other boards. They must be addressed to my assurance in terms of quality, safety and patient waiting times.

Mr Smyth is quite right to say that patients can request alternative treatment locations to those that are on their current primary pathway, and they do that at the moment. I understand that NHS Dumfries and Galloway is very responsive to such patient requests, and I am happy to ensure that that is more widely understood. Of course, the member himself, as an MSP for the region, can contribute significantly to ensuring that constituents understand that that choice is available while other matters are being looked at.

Medicines Dispensing (Single-use Plastics)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with drug companies and pharmacies to reduce single-use plastics in the dispensing of medicines. (S5O-04047)

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

The licensing and safety of medicines is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. Regulations that cover medicines packaging are set out in European and UK law. Provided that the packaging type used ensures the on-going safety and quality of the medicine, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency cannot refuse to authorise the packaging.

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

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in relation to asthma inhalers, for example, things could move at a much faster pace? Only the canisters need to be dispensed; the holders can be reused several times.

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

I agree that there is a general question that needs to be addressed at perhaps greater pace than is happening at present.

An inhaler device is a precision piece of equipment that works only with canisters from the same manufacturer. The plastic container needs to be robust enough for several cycles, and we would encourage manufacturers to work with the MHRA, the retail authority, on the licensing of products that can be reused.

A recycling scheme for inhalers, which is called Complete the Cycle, has been introduced by GlaxoSmithKline. Inhalers can be recycled at participating pharmacies.

Forestry (Planting Targets)

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

6. I alert members to my registered interest in forestry.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its forestry planting targets. (S5O-04048)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Scottish Forestry provides regular updates on progress towards Government planting targets, which are publicly available on Scottish Forestry’s website. The latest figures show that, so far, 10,954 hectares of grant-funded planting has been approved for planting in 2019-20. In addition, Forest and Land Scotland is expecting to plant 400 hectares in 2019-20. The final figures will be published in June.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Recent inquiries and purchase requests to tree nurseries by people wishing to carry out planting have been knocked back, with a shortage of supply being cited. Many people are now having to delay their planting plans until May 2021. Is the cabinet secretary aware of that issue? If so, what is he doing to ensure that it does not impact on Scotland’s planting targets?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I have been aware of the issue for the past two or three years. In fact, in 2017, we started to take action to address it. The situation was exacerbated by summer drought conditions in 2018. That led to reduced supplies of seedlings from affected nurseries, which coincided with big increases in planting in Scotland.

We anticipated the issue some years ago, so we have supported 20 grant applications to bring forward more than £2 million-worth of investment projects by nursery businesses. That has resulted in an increase of, roughly, 25 per cent in the production capacity of tree nurseries in Scotland. In addition, Forestry and Land Scotland is developing plans for expanding its in-house nursery capacity and the private sector is being encouraged to consider new investments in tree nurseries.

Scotland is leading the way on forestry. Last year, we planted 84 per cent of all new plantations in Britain. We intend to continue to give that lead, to address the economy and climate change. I hope that our friends down south are taking notice.

Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a letter from 27 business groups to MSPs regarding concerns about a proposed amendment to the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill, which would remove ministers’ ability to set business rate poundage and automatically end the small business bonus scheme and other benefits. (S5O-04049)

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

That assessment is correct.

On 15 January, the Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, Kate Forbes, responded to the letter, confirming the Scottish Government’s unequivocal support for the uniform business rate and her concern over the complexity, risks and unpredictability related to the stage 2 amendment to the bill, which was supported by the Green, Conservative and Labour parties.

The Scottish Government will continue to work with members of all parties to deliver a bill that supports growth, improves administration and increases fairness.

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

Has the cabinet secretary ensured that members on Opposition benches fully understand the implications of withdrawing powers from his office and from the Government in general, particularly in relation to the small business bonus scheme, which has protected high streets and small businesses both in my constituency in the north-east and across Scotland?

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

I would like to think that all members are aware of the legislation that they are voting for when they vote for it, so I am surprised by the position of some members on the matter. For example, as of yesterday, Jackson Carlaw’s leadership bid has given us the third running Tory position on the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill. However, the reality is that if support for the amendment moved by Andy Wightman continues through to stage 3, the Government’s ability to set national unitary poundage would be removed, and the reliefs that this Government has supported, such as the small business bonus, would be scrapped.

Unfortunately, Andy Wightman has found a way to be both anti-business and anti-environment, because there are environmental reliefs that would also be scrapped as a matter of law, including reliefs that we were about to try to deliver. For example, they include the deposit return scheme, which I thought that those who support the protection of the environment would also support. As well as the small business bonus, other reliefs that would be scrapped include renewable energy relief, district heating relief and reverse vending machines. Therefore, to support the protection of the environment and to support business, I encourage Opposition members to listen to Kate Forbes’s wise words: do the right thing, understand the law, and understand what you are voting for.

Just as we want a unitary poundage, maybe those parties should have a unitary position—one that is more supportive of the outcomes that we are all trying to achieve.

Piscivorous Birds (Shooting Licences)

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the issuing of licences for the shooting to scare, and shooting of, piscivorous birds. (S5O-04050)

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

Scottish Natural Heritage is responsible for determining licence applications, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Licensing for the shooting to scare, and shooting of, piscivorous birds can be granted by SNH in order to prevent serious damage at fisheries or inland waters.

Applications to solve specific problems are looked at on a case-by-case basis and will only be considered if the applicant can demonstrate that they have explored all other non-lethal antipredation measures and has found them to be either ineffective or impracticable.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

As the minister is probably aware, the challenge for local fisheries and river management boards is that applications for those licences require organised systematic counts of the number of birds that are on the river. Many fishery boards are now drastically underfunded and often rely on volunteers, which stifles the ability of the board to conduct the required counts.

Will the Scottish Government work with SNH to support smaller fisheries and river management boards by developing limited licences that are less resource intensive to obtain?

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

I would be happy to discuss that matter further with the member. I know that she takes a keen interest in the issue, and that she sponsored an event that was held a couple of weeks ago, at which a discussion took place about what we are doing to conserve wild salmon—that is vitally important and is a priority for this Government.

There has been discussion about whether what the member suggests could be included as part of general licences. SNH undertook a review and decided not to include it as part of the general licence. However, I will be happy to consider the matter further and correspond with her.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time.

Before we turn to First Minister’s question time, I am sure that members will join me in welcoming to our gallery Monsieur François Paradis, the President of the National Assembly of Quebec. [Applause.]

Police Stations

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. I note that the Prince of Wales is today joining world leaders who are gathering in Israel to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, survivors of which continue to live happily among us in Scotland. We will mark the occasion with a debate next week. Scotland will remember and always stand in memory of those who perished, in order that we can prevent any such horror happening again. [Applause.]

Water pouring in through ceilings and windows, mushrooms growing in the carpets and rats scurrying about the mouldy floors—what word would the First Minister use to describe the state of some of Scotland’s police stations?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I take the opportunity to associate myself with the remarks of Jackson Carlaw about the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. The anniversary is very much in the thoughts of us all at this time. The horror of what was experienced there is beyond our imaginations and, as we prepare to mark the anniversary in our own way here in Scotland next week, we must all be determined to play our part in ensuring that a horror of that nature and on that scale can never be allowed to happen again.

Jackson Carlaw has something of a nerve to raise issues such as policing. Before I address that directly, I remind Jackson Carlaw and other members that it is the Conservative Party that has reduced the resource budget of this Government by £1.5 billion, which is 5 per cent in real terms, since 2010. It was also the Conservatives who robbed the Police Service of Scotland of £125 million in VAT, which should never have been claimed.

However, despite all that, the annual budget for policing in Scotland has increased by more than £80 million since 2016, bringing it to £1.2 billion this year. The capital budget of the service has increased by 52 per cent this year alone to support the roll-out of mobile technology. We are investing in police officers, maintaining 1,000 more police officers in our communities, while the Tories have cut 20,000 officers from the streets of England.

We will take no lectures from the Conservatives on matters of public services. As we prepare our budget for the year ahead, our priority will continue to be investment in public services. We will leave Jackson Carlaw to argue for tax cuts for the highest paid people in our country.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The cliché meter was ringing loud there, was it not?

I noticed that, in the First Minister’s long peroration, the one word that she did not use was “hyperbole”, yet that is exactly how her Cabinet Secretary for Justice reacted when he was confronted with shocking descriptions of working conditions in some of Scotland’s police stations. It is no wonder that the head of the Scottish Police Federation is furious at Mr Yousaf’s denial. Warnings from front-line police officers about the conditions in which they are being forced to work have been made year after year, but little or nothing has been done. Who is right—the Scottish Police Federation or Mr Yousaf?

The First Minister

What Jackson Carlaw refers to as “cliché” is actually investment by this Government in our vital public services. I repeat the commitment of this Government to our hard-working police officers who, yes, work under pressure, like all our public sector workers do—that pressure having been exacerbated over the past 10 years by austerity imposed on this Government by Conservatives at Westminster.

This Government, in contrast to what we see south of the border, is protecting Police Scotland’s revenue budget during this Parliament, which includes in this year alone a £42.3 million increase in funding. Police Scotland’s total capital expenditure is the fourth highest of all United Kingdom police forces and there has been a £12 million increase in this financial year alone. We are also providing reform funding to the Scottish Police Authority and, of course, we are maintaining police numbers significantly above the level that we inherited in 2007. Into the bargain, we gave our police officers a higher pay rise than police officers got in any other part of the UK.

I know the pressure that police officers work under and I am grateful for the job that they do each and every day. We will continue in our budget decisions to prioritise our public service workers. I think that the Tories should actually be ashamed at their record in Westminster in that regard.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I say to the First Minister that those long perorations from civil-service-prepared briefs really do not cut it. This is not just about unpleasant, uncomfortable and potentially unsanitary situations in which police officers and staff are expected to work; there are major safety concerns, too. Even as Mr Yousaf was dismissing concerns as “hyperbole”, the ceiling was falling down at the police station in Broughty Ferry—not just literally but metaphorically, on Mr Yousaf’s denial. Under the Scottish National Party, out of 45 UK police forces, Police Scotland is the fifth-worst funded. However, yesterday, the UK Government announced over £1 billion extra for policing, with the Scottish Government receiving some £100 million. Will the First Minister assure our hard-working police officers that that additional funding will be used to protect police officer numbers and, at the very least, improve the environment in which they are expected to work?

The First Minister

Of course, while the Conservatives have been cutting the budget of this Government, we have been protecting the budget of Scotland’s Police Service. Because of the incompetence of the UK Government, we will require to set our budget for the next financial year before we have seen the colour of the money that Jackson Carlaw keeps saying is coming our way, so I certainly hope that those promises turn out to be accurate.

We will continue to do everything that we can within our powers and resources to protect our police service the length and breadth of the country. As I said a moment ago, total capital expenditure in Police Scotland is the fourth highest of that for all UK police forces. We have increased capital budgets in this year by 52 per cent, we are protecting the revenue budget and police numbers, and we are making sure that our police officers get the rise in pay that they deserve and which police officers elsewhere in the UK are not getting. We will continue to support our police officers, as they continue to support the people of Scotland, in the excellent work that they do each and every day.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The budget that the SNP Government receives from Westminster is on the rise, but what do we have to show for it? Leaking police stations and collapsing ceilings; half-built ferries; boarded-up hospitals and closed-off children’s wards; and a crisis in Scotland’s schools. We have had years of missed opportunity from a distracted and disengaged Government. We are promised yet more updates on her favourite topic next week. What chance is there of the First Minister updating us instead on when her Government is going to start sorting out the things that really matter, which are failing under this SNP Administration?

The First Minister

I will just update Jackson Carlaw again on the reality in Scotland, as opposed to what he wants people to think: £1.5 billion in real terms removed from this Government’s budget by the Conservatives over the past 10 years. However, in spite of that, we have continued to invest in our national health service, taking it to record levels of funding. We have continued to invest in our Police Service and have continued to support our public service workers who are working so hard across the country.

I will just draw to Jackson Carlaw’s attention what the Fraser of Allander institute has to say about the proposals that he has put forward in the past couple of weeks. The Fraser of Allander institute makes clear—

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Read it out!

The First Minister

Oh, I am about to read it out.

To quote it directly, Jackson Carlaw’s proposals

“would reduce the government’s income tax revenues by around £270 million”.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Read on to the end!

The First Minister

Jackson Carlaw wants me to go on, so I will go on. In addition to that, the institute says that this is not about middle earners. It says:

“a policy framed as supporting ‘middle earners’ predominantly benefits households at the top of the distribution of household income.”

There we have it—£270 million would come out of our public services and would be handed to the richest people in our society. That is what Jackson Carlaw would deliver; I will continue to deliver investment in our public services.

Student Debt

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. I associate the Scottish Labour Party with the remarks about the importance of commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz, and about ensuring that we all accept that it is the duty of us all never to forget the Holocaust—not just for this generation, but for future generations to come.

The Scottish National Party came into office promising students that it would “dump the debt monster”, but it did not dump the debt; it dumped the promise. This week, Audit Scotland revealed the consequences of that dumped promise. Student debt has soared to £5.5 billion—more than double the level in 2011. That is not simply down to expansion in student numbers; the report showed that average student debt per head has more than doubled. We know that the poorest students from the poorest communities are forced to borrow most. Will the First Minister simply admit that the SNP misled students and apologise to them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I point out that because of the policies of this SNP Government—not the least of which is to keep access to university free of tuition fees—Scotland has the lowest level of student debt in the United Kingdom.

Let us look at the figures. The stats that Richard Leonard cites show that average student-loan debt in Scotland is £13,800. However, that compares with a figure in England of £35,950 and a figure in Northern Ireland of £23,550. The figure of £13,800 in SNP-governed Scotland compares with a figure of £22,920 in Labour-run Wales, so perhaps the Labour Party is the party that should be apologising for its record in Wales.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Some students in Scotland have debts of £27,000; the First Minister knows in her heart of hearts that she is failing to support our students properly. That is why three years ago she set up an independent review of student support. Two years ago, it reported, and the First Minister accepted its recommendations. Parliament supported its core recommendation of a guaranteed minimum student income based on the living wage.

However, two years on, nothing has happened. The First Minister is letting students down. How many generations of Scottish students will have to go through university before the Government keeps any promise on support for student living?

The First Minister

I hope that Richard Leonard will listen carefully to the detail of this answer, However, before I get on to the detail, I say that Scotland has, as I have already told him, the lowest level of student debt in the UK. In addition, we have also seen the smallest increase in student debt in the countries of the UK. There has been an increase of £7,800 in Scotland, but there has been an £9,840 increase in Wales, where Labour is in Government. Richard Leonard says that total debt has increased in Scotland; it has, but in the rest of the UK it has trebled.

Those are the facts—but let us come to support for poorer students. Full-time students from the poorest areas receive more support than those from the richest areas, and 67 per cent of students from the 20 per cent most deprived areas got a bursary, compared with 22 per cent of those in the richest areas.

However, the part of what Richard Leonard said that I want to come on to in detail is what he said about action after the student support review. He said—I think that I am quoting him directly—that “nothing has happened.” This is the detail that I would like him to pay close attention to. Since that review was published, we have begun to implement its income guarantee by increasing the bursary for care-experienced students to £8,100 a year. Following the recommendations, we have also raised the higher education bursary threshold, increased bursary support for the poorest young students, and increased bursary support for the poorest independent students in higher education.

In further education, we have increased the bursary to £4,500 a year. We will introduce a guaranteed system of further education bursaries and move further on the other recommendations. Although Richard Leonard might describe that as “nothing”, for students across the country, it means more money in their pockets, which I think they will welcome warmly.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

First Minister, here are the facts. In 2013, the Government decimated bursary support. In 2013, bursary support in Scotland was worth £2,640 a year. The Government has only just put it back to £2,000 a year—more than £600 less than it was before.

To recap, I repeat that the First Minister promised to dump the debt, but student debt has soared, and students from the most deprived backgrounds are leaving university with the heaviest burden of debt. The Government is letting down our students, and it is letting down our universities.

Universities Scotland describes

“a pattern of cuts to core budgets”

Those cuts add up to a 12 per cent real-terms decrease since 2014-15, which is a cut of £700 for every Scottish student since Nicola Sturgeon became First Minister. The fact is that Government funding for our universities is decreasing faster than the Scottish Government’s own budget, which has led Universities Scotland to conclude that

“university funding has been deprioritised.”

When the budget comes to Parliament next month, will the First Minister reprioritise Scotland’s universities? [Interruption.] Will she reprioritise Scotland’s students, or will she—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will she dump more cuts on our universities, and more debt on our students?

The First Minister

I remind Richard Leonard that, yesterday, his party brought to Parliament an Opposition debate demanding that we prioritise additional money for local government in the budget. Today, less than 24 hours later, he is here in the chamber demanding the same for higher education. I suggest that he come along next week to tell us where he thinks all that money should come from. Labour has no credibility on budgets; his performance demonstrates exactly why.

However, let us go back to higher education. What Richard Leonard has managed to establish today is that we have the lowest student debt anywhere in the UK and rising support for students in Scotland, including students from our most deprived areas.

Let me give him some other facts. Total full-time student support is up by 1.3 per cent, average higher education student support has increased, and more full-time higher education students than ever now receive support. In addition, of course, the access stats that came out last week show that we have record levels of Scotland-domiciled full-time first-degree entrants to university, and that the number of entrants from our most deprived areas is also at a record level.

Those are the facts. That is the reality under the SNP Government, and it is why people do not want Labour back in Government ever again.

UNICEF Guidance (National Health Service Interpretation)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am—[Interruption.]

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Please continue.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I am privileged to have a wonderful baby-food bank in Springburn in my constituency—[Interruption.]

12:19 Meeting suspended.

12:20 On resuming—

The Presiding Officer

After that short pause, I ask Bob Doris to continue with his question.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I am standing up to support a wonderful baby-food bank in Springburn in my constituency, although I am saddened that it is required. NHS health visitors used to refer families in need to it, but that appears to have largely stopped due to the national health service’s interpretation of UNICEF guidance on breastfeeding and the use of formula milk. A local Trussell Trust food bank is now also reviewing its guidance. I still await a reply from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, but can the Scottish Government provide clarity in order to at least make sure that vulnerable families know where to go to get that valuable and vital support?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Bob Doris for his question and for representing the food bank that he has raised. Nobody should ever have to rely on charitable food provision in a country as rich as Scotland, especially families with young children. That is why we are committed to eradicating child poverty and have enhanced support across the early years with the best start grant and the best start foods payment card. We will also introduce the new Scottish child payment for eligible children under six by Christmas this year.

In relation to the specific point, I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport to engage with the health board so that we can help with interpretation of UNICEF guidance if that is possible and also encourage a pragmatic approach regarding the provision of sustenance for infants, which is so important.

Low-carbon Economy (Jobs)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government published “A Low Carbon Economic Strategy for Scotland: Scotland—A Low Carbon Society” back in 2010, and on the subject of offshore wind it stated:

“this sector alone offers the potential for 28,000 direct jobs and a further 20,000 jobs in related industries and ... investment in Scotland by 2020.”

However, the jobs and opportunities are not coming to Scotland. While the yards in Fife and elsewhere lie empty, the jobs are going to the United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Spain, Indonesia and China—anywhere but Scotland. What is the Government doing to fight for Scotland, to bring jobs to Scotland and to make sure that the people of Scotland get the benefits from Scotland’s natural resources?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Alex Rowley for raising that, because I share his frustration. The Government is working extremely hard to make sure that more of the economic benefit of such projects is experienced here in Scotland.

It is not true to say that no jobs are coming to Scotland. If we look at the Neart Na Gaoithe project, we hope that jacket fabrication work will go to BiFab, but we have also seen, for example, I & H Brown in Perth being awarded onshore substation work. We have seen the port of Dundee confirmed as the installation port and Eyemouth harbour confirmed as the maintenance base. Similarly, with Seagreen—I met senior management at SSE about Seagreen last week—we see work going to Montrose, and the announcement that was made last week about Petrofac is beneficial to Aberdeen.

However, we want to see more fabrication and manufacturing work coming to Scotland, which is why we established the summit that met last week. It is also why we have announced the future arrangements around the Crown Estate leasing round that will happen soon. Developers will be required to set out the anticipated level and location of supply chain impact, and the commitments will be part of the agreement process, so there will be contractual consequences if they are not delivered.

That is what the Government is doing within the powers that we have. However, I know that Alex Rowley is absolutely sincere about this, so I hope that he will agree that we must keep putting pressure on the United Kingdom Government to do more through the contracts for difference process, because that is where the real levers lie. I know that the trade unions agree with that. I certainly think that that is important, and I hope that we will get support from Alex Rowley and Labour as we continue to pressure the UK Government to do more within its powers as well.

Sheriffhall Flyover

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Over the past week, almost 2,000 objections have been sent to Transport Scotland—objections to the proposals for a £120 million flyover at Sheriffhall that the Scottish Government agrees will lead to even worse traffic. In the face of the climate emergency, does the First Minister agree that it is time to ditch that dated and dirty project from a bygone era and instead to invest that sum in public transport, park-and-ride facilities, cycling and walking? Does she agree that we should invest in the solutions and not in the problem?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Obviously, the objections will be considered. There is a process to be gone through, and it is important that the matter is properly considered. I have said many times in the chamber that we have to be prepared to look at all sorts of things to make sure that we are meeting our climate obligations.

In terms of the Sheriffhall roundabout, congestion will increase if we do nothing; it will possibly increase faster, and make the situation worse. We must make sure that we are thinking carefully about such things, and that we are taking balanced action that reduces our emissions and, of course, encourages active travel as well.

The budget that we will bring forward, as well as the updated climate change action plan, will look to do all those things in the proper and sensible way.

Police Officers (Mental Health)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

3. We must remember, so that we can learn, so that those awful events are never repeated: Holocaust memorial day is indeed so important.

The First Minister knows that I have deep concerns about the mental health of many of our police officers. New research has found that 35 per cent of police officers were turning up to work while mentally unwell. In the past few weeks, four police officers have died from suicide. We do not know the reasons behind those tragedies, but police officers across the country want to know whether work contributed to those deaths. Will the First Minister order an investigation into the mental health of police officers and the support that is available to them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Willie Rennie is right to raise an important issue. I express my condolences to the families of the police officers who have died in recent weeks.

I hope that Willie Rennie will appreciate and agree that we do not yet know all the causes and factors behind those deaths. It is important that they are all properly investigated, and I do not think that it is helpful, appropriate or sensitive for us to speculate too much on individual cases.

The mental health of our police officers, indeed of everyone working in our public services, is hugely important. I have spoken in the past in the chamber—in response to Willie Rennie, I think—about some of the work that the Police Service is doing to support the wellbeing and mental health of police officers. Police officers and staff can access a range of services to care for both their physical and their mental health, including through Police Scotland’s your wellbeing matters programme. The Scottish Government is providing funding to extend the Lifelines Scotland wellbeing programme to blue light responders, including Police Scotland. In 2017, Police Scotland launched a wellbeing programme that includes the introduction of wellbeing champions. That has raised awareness of the services available, such as occupational health and employee assistance, which offers counselling. A force-wide wellbeing and engagement survey will be launched soon that will help, I hope, to identify factors that impact on the wellbeing of officers and enable Police Scotland to prioritise further activities and investment.

I agree that we have to consider further action in that regard, but it is important that we make police officers as aware as possible of the support that is already there for them within Police Scotland right now.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is a helpful response from the First Minister. We need to understand more about the mental wellbeing of our police.

I urge an investigation to look at the contracted-out welfare service for police officers. Before centralisation, each police force had dedicated welfare officers, who were directly responsible for looking after the wellbeing of a number of police. However, the service has been contracted out and Calum Steele of the Scottish Police Federation says that it is a poor substitute. Will that service be part of an investigation?

The First Minister

In the spirit of trying to respond helpfully on such an important topic, I will take that issue away and discuss it with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the chief constable. I will be happy to come back to Willie Rennie on that.

There are, rightly, investigations into individual circumstances, and I have already talked about some of the work that the Police Service is doing. Such matters should be, and will continue to be, investigated. I rule nothing out, and nothing should be ruled out, in terms of how we improve the mental health and wellbeing support for police officers. We want proper support to be available, given the stressful nature of the job that police officers do, and it is right not only that I am able to stand here and say that it is a quality service, but that the police officers who themselves rely on the service feel that it is a quality service.

I am happy to give further consideration to Willie Rennie’s questions, and I am sure that we will come back to the issue in the future.

Coronavirus

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Last month, coronavirus, which causes a respiratory disease, emerged in Wuhan in China. The virus has so far killed at least six people and infected hundreds more, and it has spread to other Asian countries and Australia. Concerns have already been expressed by virologists that, due to the virus’s incubation time, when no symptoms are present, many other people will already be infected. Wuhan has international air links with around 60 cities, including London, and, of course, many more Chinese people travel at this time of year because of Chinese new year. Will the First Minister advise the Parliament as to what precautions have been and are being taken to deal with coronavirus, should it reach our shores?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I assure Kenny Gibson and other members that, together with Health Protection Scotland, we are closely monitoring what is a rapidly evolving situation. I should say that the risk to the public in Scotland and, indeed, in the United Kingdom is currently classified as low, but obviously that is kept under review. Health Protection Scotland is liaising with national health service boards and is currently in daily contact with Public Health England and liaising daily with colleagues in the UK Department of Health and Social Care. We are also paying close attention to the decisions of and advice from the World Health Organization.

Enhanced monitoring measures have been implemented for flights from Wuhan city to Heathrow. Those will involve each flight being met by a port health team, who will check for symptoms of coronavirus and provide information to all passengers. We are considering whether any further information could helpfully be provided at Scottish airports. Obviously, the situation is evolving and we will monitor it extremely closely. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport or I will ensure that Parliament is appropriately updated in the days and weeks to come.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Solicitors’ Pay)

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I draw the First Minister’s attention to the concerns of FDA union members in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about the fact that, over a seven-year period, entry-level solicitors at other Scottish Government departments are being paid a total of £94,000 more than those working in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That is deeply concerning, given the importance and sensitivity of the cases that are dealt with in the COPFS. Does the First Minister agree that that pay gap is unacceptable and will she commit to taking urgent action to ensure that those who carry out similar roles and responsibilities are paid equally?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am aware of that situation. We value highly the work of lawyers in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Obviously, we are in a budget process right now. Pay discussions are primarily between employees and employer, which in this case is the Crown Office. However, we will seek to address all those matters in the budget decisions that we take to ensure not only that we value people who do those jobs but that we move to a situation as quickly as reasonably possible in which we have pay cohesion not just in that area but across our public services more generally.

Infrastructure Commission for Scotland

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yesterday, the First Minister called for a wellbeing economy. This week, her Infrastructure Commission for Scotland laid out a path to deliver it involving a switch away from road building to road repair and an investment in congestion-busting public transport—a rebalancing of priorities and actions. Given the urgent need to tackle the climate emergency, improve our health and keep the economy moving, will the First Minister act on that advice in the forthcoming budget?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, the advice of the Infrastructure Commission will be an important part of our budget consideration. Obviously, we established the commission. Its phase 1 report, which was published in the past few days, is a helpful contribution to ensuring that the country has fit-for-purpose infrastructure over the next decade and beyond, and in a way that is consistent with our climate change obligations. Therefore, in relation to our budget and our work to update the climate change action plan, the commission’s work and recommendations are extremely helpful as we decide the best ways forward.

Shipbuilding (Port Glasgow)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Yesterday, at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, Edward Mountain asked whether we would be better off building CalMac Ferries vessels in South Korea rather than Scotland. Will the First Minister take this opportunity to reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to shipbuilding in Port Glasgow?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, we want to ensure that shipbuilding can continue in Port Glasgow, which is why we have taken action to secure both the jobs at Ferguson Marine right now and the future of the yard. Clearly, a parliamentary inquiry is under way into the contracts for the ferries that are being built there, but we want them to be built as quickly as possible and, in the longer term, we want shipbuilding at Ferguson’s well into the future. I am not sure what the Scottish Conservatives’ position is, but that is clearly the Scottish Government’s position.

Toxicology Services (University of Glasgow)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address the reported problems with toxicology services at the University of Glasgow. (S5F-03881)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Forensic toxicology services are provided by the University of Glasgow under a contract between the university and the Crown Office. Last month, the Crown Office announced an extension of that contract until September this year. Those services are essential for the independent functions of the Lord Advocate to effectively prosecute crime and investigate deaths.

The announcement of the contract extension was accompanied by a £300,000 investment for the university to recruit additional staff, buy new equipment, address the backlog of cases awaiting analysis and secure better provision of the service until September. I very much appreciate the impact that delays in the service have on the families who are affected. The Lord Advocate keeps me closely updated on the steps that the Crown Office is taking to urgently address those issues.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Like me, and as she has said, the First Minister appreciates the pain and frustration of those who are grieving and waiting on these reports to be completed. I acknowledge that these services are contracted independently by the Crown Office, but will the First Minister confirm that the Lord Advocate’s office is taking steps not only to secure the future provision of these services but to resolve the outstanding cases as quickly as possible?

The First Minister

I thank Sandra White for raising what is an important issue. I understand that the Crown Office has identified another provider and is working with it on a transfer of staff and service provision. That is part of an overall programme of work for the longer term for pathology, mortuary and toxicology services. In the meantime, for some casework Crown Office officials are looking at increasing capacity for those services and, in discussion with health colleagues, the Crown Office is looking at the assistance of the national health service in the short to medium term.

Negative analysis amounts to 40 per cent of the outstanding cases and Crown Office officials are working with the university to identify what analysis is required in each remaining case. That will allow them to ascertain how best to manage that. We will, of course, provide whatever support we can to those efforts to ensure that the outstanding cases are resolved as quickly as is possible.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This week, I was contacted by constituents who lost a family member in distressing circumstances in October but who have still not been told of the cause of death some three months later, due to delays in the toxicology service. I am sure that the First Minister would agree that that is highly distressing for already grieving parents. Can she give the family some assurance as to when they might get the information that they are waiting for?

The First Minister

Yes, I understand how distressing that is for the affected families. If Murdo Fraser wants to provide the details of his constituent, I will ask the Crown Office to contact them directly to provide what further information they can on that individual case.

More generally, I have already talked about the additional investment to recruit staff and some of the other steps that the Crown Office is taking to reduce the backlog, as well as indicating the direction of travel for the service in the longer term. I discuss the matter regularly with the Lord Advocate, who keeps me updated. I want the chamber to understand how seriously I take this situation and how important and urgent I think it is that the backlog is dealt with and that the service in the future does not incur such backlogs again.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

To put this into context, almost 2,000 families, and possibly more, have been failed. Some have waited as long as nine months to find out why their loved one died. We have had assurances from the Lord Advocate that he would fix this and, months ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice told me to accept those assurances that it was all under control, but the issue has escalated into a national disgrace. Families are suffering and vital public health information, including on drug-related deaths, is being disrupted. Families want to know why this has been a low priority and why ministers and the Lord Advocate have given false assurances, but most of all they want to know why their loved ones have died. Is it not time that the First Minister gives this issue her full attention, because that is what it deserves?

The First Minister

This issue has my full attention. This is a Crown Office matter and, as I said, I have discussed it, and am discussing it, regularly with the Lord Advocate. I have set out the actions that are being taken. Those are not false assurances—they are the concrete steps, including additional investment, that are being taken to resolve what is a serious matter.

It is important that the backlog is dealt with so that the drug death statistics can be published. I want to be clear that no decision on a delay to this summer’s publication has been taken and there has certainly been no indication put to ministers that publication will be delayed until next year—I saw that being speculated on in the media a couple of days ago. This is a serious issue that is commanding serious attention, and serious steps are being taken to ensure that it is resolved as quickly as possible.

Pollution

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the rise in pollution levels on main thoroughfares in Scotland’s cities. (S5F-03884)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Compared to the rest of the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe, Scotland enjoys a high level of air quality and has more stringent air quality targets, but there are still areas in which the air quality is below an acceptable level. The remaining pollution hotspots are partly attributable to road transport emissions in urban areas. We are therefore working to deliver low-emission zones across our four biggest cities by the end of this year, with the first already having been introduced in Glasgow.

We are also supporting local authorities to tackle local air pollution hotspots through £4.5 million of annual funding. An independent review of the cleaner air for Scotland strategy has identified priorities for additional action, and a new strategy will take those findings into account when it is published, later this year.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It is simply unacceptable that air pollution levels continue to rise across Scotland and consistently break the legal limits, causing respiratory problems and even premature deaths. On 22 May last year, I asked the First Minister whether the Scottish Government was taking the damaging impact of air pollution seriously. Clearly, little has been done, as we see no progress and the situation is worsening.

The Scottish Conservatives have long called for air quality monitors to be given to schools, to reassure parents that their children are breathing clean air on the way to school. For the second time, I ask the First Minister to finally take affirmative action and commit to air quality monitors for all schools across Scotland for the sake of children’s health.

The First Minister

We will consider all positive suggestions, including that one.

It is important to put this serious issue in context. The number of sites that exceed the objectives is reducing. For nitrogen dioxide, that number has fallen from 14 sites in 2013 to six in 2019, and for particulate matter, it has fallen from 17 in 2013 to just one in 2019. That is a reduction in the number of such sites. Nevertheless, while there are any, there are too many.

The Government is committing to low-emission zones in our four largest cities. That is important. I have already talked about the review of the cleaner air strategy, and we are considering recommendations to inform a new air quality strategy. We have already set more stringent air quality targets than the rest of the UK, and we were the first country anywhere in Europe to legislate for PM2.5, which is a pollutant that causes special concern for human health.

The Government is taking serious action, and it is making other proposals such as the proposal to give local authorities the power to introduce the workplace parking levy, to keep cars out of our cities and towns where that is possible. I say gently to the Conservatives that, if they stopped their knee-jerk opposition to such proposals, perhaps they would be taken a bit more seriously on these issues.

Unpaid Care Work

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to figures from Oxfam Scotland, which estimate that the value of unpaid care work across the country is £36 billion. (S5F-03878)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Our carers make an immense contribution to our society, which is why the Government is determined to do everything we can to support them.

It is important to note that Oxfam’s £36 billion figure covers unpaid care and a wider range of unpaid tasks such as childcare, cooking and housework. The Carers (Scotland) Act 2016 gives every carer the right to a personalised plan and support to meet eligible needs. We are fully funding the act, having provided £17.4 million to local authorities last year and providing an additional £10.5 million this year.

Also this year, our package of investment in social care integration exceeds £700 million, which is a 29 per cent increase over the previous year. Under our new social security powers, our carers allowance supplement gives eligible carers an extra £452.40 this year over what is paid to carers in the rest of the UK.

I take the opportunity to thank unpaid carers for the work that they do each and every day.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The work, which is backed by One Parent Families Scotland, Carers Scotland and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, highlights that

“Those living in or at risk of poverty tend to spend more hours caring”.

Oxfam’s polling also found that seven in 10 Scots support increased social security benefits for carers.

The First Minister will know that, when the Department for Work and Pensions increases the carers allowance earnings threshold by just £5 in April, it will not keep pace with the national living wage. Carers risk losing the benefit if they go 1p over the threshold, and they will be forced to negotiate with employers to potentially reduce their hours or stop working altogether.

Does the First Minister agree that the carers allowance earnings threshold cliff edge is a disincentive to work and should be urgently reformed?

The First Minister

I certainly agree that the DWP does not provide adequate support to carers. I would like to see that support increased and extended—Mark Griffin makes a legitimate point. That is why we are using our powers here, in Scotland, to increase the support that carers are entitled to. I said in my original answer that the carers allowance supplement gives just over £450 extra a year to each carer, which is an increase in carers allowance of around 13 per cent. We are also introducing the young carers grant, which will be an annual £300 payment.

It is about not only financial support but providing support in other ways as well. It is vital that we continue to do that. I hope that, collectively as a Parliament, we continue to urge the United Kingdom Government to give better support as well.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. We will have a short suspension, to allow members, ministers and people in the galleries to change seats for members’ business.

12:46 Meeting suspended.

12:49 On resuming—

Air Traffic Control (Highlands and Islands)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-20382, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, on the proposed centralisation of air traffic control in the Highlands and Islands. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the reported widespread concern in response to plans by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd (HIAL) to centralise air traffic control (ATC) services in Inverness through the use of remote towers; acknowledges what it sees as the importance of ensuring that ATC services are modernised and remain fit for purpose, but believes that this must be balanced with the safety of passengers, the reliability of lifeline services and the need to sustain high-skilled jobs in island communities; understands that the proposed remote tower option being pursued was identified by HIAL's own advisers as carrying the greatest potential risk and cost; believes that many HIAL employees and stakeholders feel that they have not been properly consulted or that their concerns have been taken on board; considers that HIAL’s ability to implement its remote tower model requires it to be able to convince existing staff to support the changes and that the level of dissatisfaction currently felt among ATC staff is likely to exacerbate any recruitment and retention problems and risks; believes that the reported recent communications failures at HIAL's airports serve to reinforce the concerns that have been expressed about its proposed centralisation model; considers that these proposals will have a detrimental impact on communities in the islands, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to instruct HIAL to halt the remote tower project and pursue other options for modernisation.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank members for supporting the motion and for being present in the chamber. I also welcome members of staff from Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, who are in the public gallery.

I lodged a motion for debate on air traffic control centralisation, because the issue is of huge concern to my constituents in Shetland and to communities across the Highlands and Islands that have links to HIAL-run airports. I remind members that HIAL is 100 per cent owned by the Scottish Government.

As part of its “Air Traffic Management Strategy 2030”, HIAL is pushing ahead with the introduction of remote towers at seven of its airports, in effect centralising air traffic control in Inverness. According to HIAL, 86 jobs will be impacted. In our communities, that is the same as it would be if hundreds of jobs were lost in Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Stakeholders such as Shetland Islands Council—of which I was a member at the time—were told that change was necessary because of the difficulty of recruiting and retaining air traffic controllers; because the method of air traffic control that is currently used in the HIAL network is out of date and out of step with the rest of the world; and because HIAL had to future proof its operation to ensure continuity of service.

The people to whom I have spoken are not against change. Everyone wants a safe, resilient service in the Highlands and Islands. The main concerns that those who disagree with HIAL’s proposals have raised are about safety and resilience on the lifeline services that operate out of HIAL airports, along with the loss of highly skilled jobs in our communities.

In relation to the safety and reliability of remote towers, a Swedish air traffic management executive contacted me last week to tell me that the airports that his company serves have not introduced remote towers because the technology is “not mature yet”.

Last February, my predecessor, Tavish Scott, highlighted that, between 2013 and October 2018, there were 79 incidents of full or partial degradation of air traffic control communications. Many of those faults involved Inverness airport. There is no suggestion that passengers were put at risk, but it raises serious questions about the technological viability of the plan.

Related to that point is the often extreme changeability of the weather in the Highlands and Islands. There is no substitute for eyes on the ground, so the remote towers plan does not fill me with confidence.

In recent years, there have been recruitment challenges, although not at Sumburgh airport. There is a shortage of air traffic controllers across the United Kingdom. It is a respected profession that requires a great deal of training, and there is only one trainer in the UK for the existing model of air traffic management on the HIAL network. HIAL’s view is that it is easier to attract controllers to Inverness than to the islands, but the air traffic controllers to whom I have spoken do not want to move to Inverness. They have settled and made their homes on the islands and wish to stay in our island communities.

In any business or organisation, the most valuable asset is the staff. In implementing major change, particularly one that involves transformation on the scale that HIAL proposes, one of the first principles is to involve staff. Companies need to bring staff along with them, rather than force change on them.

A survey that Prospect conducted of its members who work for HIAL tells us that 94 per cent oppose the remote towers plan and that 82 per cent would be more likely to leave HIAL if it was implemented. HIAL is setting itself up for a recruitment crisis instead of solving one.

That brings me to the lack of consultation. Two years ago, HIAL’s consultants described the remote towers option as

“one of the most expensive and certainly the most difficult and risky”.

The remote towers are predicted to cost £123 million over 15 years, a figure that is almost certain to rise. Yet Parliament was told only on Tuesday, in response to a question from Liam McArthur, that HIAL will conduct an islands impact assessment of the project.

That is too little, too late: people in Shetland feel—and rightly so—that the decision has already been made. HIAL will say that it has done a thorough consultation with all stakeholders. The air traffic controllers who have contacted me have been clear that discussions with HIAL have been only one way and only happened after the board had already made its decision to proceed. Centralisation has never been in doubt and a centralised service is never based in the islands. That has been so on many other occasions.

The timing of HIAL’s decision could not be more stark. On 27 December, the first national islands plan was published. The plan is a requirement of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. The first strategic objective in the plan is addressing population decline. We are rightly told that

“Ensuring that legislation and policy affords a supporting environment to encourage economically active people either to stay, return or move to an island ... is of the utmost importance”.

HIAL’s decision to rip highly skilled jobs out of our island communities beggars belief.

I agree entirely with the leader of Western Isles Council, Roddie Mackay, who said last Friday:

“This is not an attitude or approach we would expect from a Scottish government owned company.”

I ask the minister to halt this centralising project. This is surely a test of whether the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 is to live up to the promises and expectations of islanders. More than that, the delivery of our lifeline air service and highly skilled jobs are being put at risk.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. I will allow speeches of four minutes.

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

I thank my colleague Beatrice Wishart for bringing this important and timely debate to the chamber.

Like all my Highlands and Islands colleagues, I was concerned when I heard of HIAL’s plan to centralise air traffic control operations in Inverness. No matter what anyone’s opinion is on the decision, we must agree that it will fundamentally change the way in which air traffic services are provided at our rural Scottish airports. The decision will bring considerable disruption to affected staff and I fear that compulsory redundancies will be necessary—something that the Scottish Government and I are firmly against.

I have been in contact with several stakeholders over the last week, including HIAL, Prospect and Loganair. Although Loganair has broadly welcomed the changes, Prospect has nearly unanimously opposed the decision. What is clear from my correspondence with both HIAL and Prospect is that both parties are committed to the modernisation of our airports and their systems. We all acknowledge that change is necessary.

However, Prospect feels that it was not consulted thoroughly—or at all—before the decision was made. David Avery of Prospect has gone on record to say:

“It is inconceivable that such far-reaching changes can be brought in with the paltry level of consultation and transparency we have seen.”

My main concern lies with the current workforce across the affected airports, although I would also like to hear from the cabinet secretary about the safety issues that Beatrice Wishart mentioned.

We have been told that those who want to commute to Inverness will be free to do so, but it is impossible to imagine the staff located on our islands committing to making that journey. Those who live outside the commuting zone now face having relocation forced upon them. From my correspondence with HIAL, there seems to be a lack of clarity on how subsidised travel for commuters will be provided and HIAL has also acknowledged that there are no provisions in place for staff accommodation facilities in Inverness.

The centralisation process has raised valid concerns about whether this decision is in direct contravention of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which came into force last summer. HIAL has acknowledged that it will review its approach depending on the outcome of an island impact assessment, which it has committed to undertake. I welcome that, although I feel—as do colleagues on the islands—that the assessment should have been conducted prior to publishing the proposed plans.

I acknowledge that the plans include investment in areas outside Inverness. New radar surveillance equipment will be introduced at my local airport in Wick and those working with the new equipment must do so on site, so there is a degree of flexibility in place for those who do not want to relocate to Inverness. Similar changes will also take place at Benbecula.

Although I truly understand the apprehension of Prospect and its members, I know that HIAL and the Scottish Government have a track record of working hard to keep connectivity and infrastructure in place in my constituency. I remind the chamber of both parties’ determination to sustain the air services to and from Wick John o’ Groats over the winter period. On top of that, a lot of good work has been done by HIAL, Caithness Chamber of Commerce and others locally regarding the public service obligation business case.

I can and do give credit to HIAL for its efforts to preserve connectivity to the far north, but I urge it to continue its hard work, to engage with key stakeholders and to recognise when plans need to be amended as the current project progresses. I have listened to what the various stakeholders have had to say on the issue, and I urge HIAL to listen and to provide reassurance to the affected workers and relevant unions, as well as scrutinising its decision via a comprehensive island impact assessment.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for her contribution, and I thank Gail Ross for her thoughtful speech. It is important that the voices of service users are very much at the forefront of the process.

HIAL’s plans to centralise air traffic control services are just the latest in a long line of issues on which the company—which is, of course, owned by the Scottish Government—has found itself on the wrong side of local public opinion. It is another situation in which the feeling among many people in the remote and island communities that HIAL serves is that the decision has been taken in the interests of the company and saving money.

It will come as no surprise that, since HIAL announced its proposals, constituents across my region have expressed concern. I am sure that many of the other members who are taking part in the debate will have had the same experience. As Beatrice Wishart mentioned, people recognise that modernisation and sustainability are necessary in serving a region that, as those of us who live there know, can be a challenging place in which to operate, but they are worried that those things are coming at the expense of their communities.

It is less than a year since the historic Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 was passed by this Parliament, with widespread support from all parties. It enshrines the principle that our islands have clear, distinct issues that should be considered in policy making. I welcome the news that, at the very least, an island impact assessment will be carried out on HIAL’s proposed changes, but I am concerned, as others are, that HIAL’s proposals are at odds with the objectives of the islands act.

The Scottish Government’s “National Islands Plan” highlights the importance of local jobs. It states:

“it is clear that all islands could benefit from more opportunities for the people who live there. Sometimes, a small increase in jobs or income generating opportunities can have a huge impact on an island community”.

In this instance, I agree with the Scottish Government, yet HIAL’s proposals will uproot direct employment from those very same island communities, which will have an impact on families, businesses and the local economies.

Bill Bowman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the member agree that, although the name of the group is Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, it includes Dundee airport and that people there could also be affected?

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do. That is an important point to make, and I thank Bill Bowman for making it.

The islands plan also states:

“Transport is a key sector where island communities want to have an even greater voice so that they can genuinely inform decisions that will affect them day in day out.”

Is the cabinet secretary confident that that objective is being met in this case? Time and again, constituents have criticised HIAL’s inability to consult adequately, whether with local communities or its own staff. Is the cabinet secretary confident that those local communities that will be directly impacted by the plans have been adequately consulted and have had their voices heard?

What about the regional air traffic controllers? They are highly skilled, and the Helios report, which was commissioned by HIAL, gives the clearest possible indication that ATC staff have deep concerns about job security and do not consider relocation to be a viable alternative. The Helios report noted the potential dangers of the connection between the remote towers and airport facilities not being 100 per cent. It also outlined the potentially prohibitive costs that would be incurred in making sure that those electronic links are completely secure.

I am from Orkney, and I rely on these vital lifeline air links to get to Parliament and home again, to get out to meet my constituents and to represent them in this Parliament. I have experienced the worst of the weather conditions that those links have to operate in. One winter, I sat in Aberdeen airport for almost 10 hours and had to spend another hour or so sitting on the plane on the tarmac, waiting for a weather window that would allow us to leave Aberdeen and land in Kirkwall safely.

I simply cannot believe that the proposed centralised system would allow the operation of such flights safely in similar circumstances and conditions. Unless the cabinet secretary can guarantee today that people travelling to and from our islands communities will see absolutely no detrimental impact on flights, whether they are making personal, business or medical appointment journeys, I urge him to ask HIAL to think again.

This is an opportunity for ministers to take a different course and to refresh and reset relationships between HIAL, its employees and the communities that it serves; fully engage with those communities; and show that HIAL and the Scottish Government are genuinely listening to our concerns, that our voices will be heard, and that our concerns will not be ridden roughshod over again.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, congratulate Beatrice Wishart on bringing this important debate to the chamber.

I have been speaking to air traffic controllers about this proposal for some years, and their fears, rather than being allayed, have increased. The overwhelming majority of air traffic controllers who are currently employed by HIAL are against the centralisation plan. New staff who are being recruited have a clause in their contract that makes provision for relocation from local airports to Inverness in the future, which shows that the decision was made a long time ago, without appropriate consultation with existing staff.

Proposals for alternative arrangements to remote towers have been drawn up and submitted by existing senior staff, but they seem not to have been considered at all. They have staff backing but there has been no indication that they have ever seen the light of day in HIAL.

For remote towers to work, they need very reliable digital connectivity. Normally, four separate connections are required to provide security. Remote tower operations in Scandinavian countries have hardwired cabling with back-up, and they generally serve single-aircraft operations in airports that have around one or two flights per week. The United Kingdom is considering remote working for the busier London City airport, but that is not yet working independently, so is not a live comparator. It has multiple hardwired connectivity back-ups and several nearby large airports in controlled airspace that would help out with any problems.

There has been a suggestion that HIAL would require a lower level of resilience, but that would surely put lives and services at risk. The reality is that some of the airports do not have any adequate digital link, far less four independent ones. With the withdrawal of Connected Communities in the Western Isles, the situation is even worse. Everyone who lives on the islands and in remote parts of Scotland knows the problems of poor internet, electricity and communication infrastructures, and they see the impact that weather has on them.

This week, we heard that an islands impact assessment will be carried out, although that will be only a paper exercise, as the scheme has already been tendered and contracted. This is the first test of the islands impact assessment, so it must be meaningful. We have also heard that Benbecula and Wick airports are being downgraded. There has been no islands impact assessment for Benbecula and there has been no consultation with staff on the proposals, which have come as a bolt out of the blue. The airports that are being downgraded are the ones that will have to deal with spaceports—it makes absolutely no sense.

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

I say, for the record, that there has been consultation with staff at Wick airport.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

My understanding is that there was no consultation with staff on Benbecula, but I am willing to be corrected.

Surely, all staff should be consulted fully before such decisions are made, and, surely, the communities should be consulted. Given that HIAL is in favour of spaceports in these areas, it needs to be sure that they can operate safely.

The truth is that the centralisation will have a huge impact on the economies of both the islands and Caithness, as Gail Ross well knows. Although the jobs are more poorly paid than their counterparts at other airports, they are more highly paid than the Scottish average, and they are permanent, year-round jobs. The families of people who do the jobs are integral to the community: they are professional staff who work in our public services and in private industry. They will not be easily replaced if they are forced to move.

Previous recruitment by HIAL was exemplary. HIAL recruited and trained local people who were vested in their communities and who wanted to live there. Now, they are being forced to move. Many have contacted me as the scheme has emerged. They are families with mortgages, who have no choice but to move because there is no alternative employment that could pay their mortgages. Their circumstances give them no choice at all. Reading their emails is heart-breaking: the personal cost is huge. The cost to our island and remote communities is also unacceptable, and I urge the Government to stop this wrong-headed scheme.

The proposal is to develop a multimillion-pound project to put remote towers into only five airports, but, surely, it would be better and more sensible to put measures in place that would control airspace and provide the resilience that is required. The Government could do that at a fraction of the cost. The scheme is a vanity project and, like others before it, it will end in tears. I beseech the Government to put an end to it and to look at more sensible options for the future.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, congratulate my colleague Beatrice Wishart on bringing forward this important debate.

I do not know anyone who does not want the highest standards of safety to apply. I have received a briefing from Prospect—a union that has been a tremendous supporter not only of its own members, but of Highlands and Islands representatives—which says:

“By centralising services, HIAL are introducing multiple single points of failure to an already complex system. The cameras, the data connections and centre itself all present potential points of failure.”

It is important that we understand how decisions are reached. I am also very interested in the management structure and the role that ministers play. I absolutely understand that many people in the chamber would be critical of the cabinet secretary if he were to intervene in operational matters—I get that. However, there have been some significant matters involving HIAL over the years—including issues connected with rendition flights and the related inquiry, and its significant capital expenditure. The cabinet secretary is to be commended for one intervention that he made in relation to HIAL, and that is the one that he made in respect of a pay dispute. That was very important, and I ask that he intervenes again.

Many members have spoken about consultation or, indeed, the distinct lack of consultation about this matter. People who are familiar with the car parking charges fiasco will know of the heavy-handed way in which HIAL went about handling it. It is important that every employer has regard to its workforce.

There is an additional responsibility placed on organisations such as HIAL. It has a unique social responsibility, given its oversight of lifeline services. What we have heard so far is disappointing.

I was really surprised to hear the cabinet secretary tell us that HIAL is going to do its islands impact assessment. In one respect that is very good. However, a key objective of the national islands plan is to display

“leadership in the public sector”

by

“demonstrating that jobs and careers can be successful on islands.”

HIAL would most certainly fail on that. Rhoda Grant mentioned the clause in new contracts. Clearly, the process is flawed, and that is because of the way that it has been approached.

We should celebrate the unique geography of the Highlands and Islands, and that means that comparing productivity or the number of flights that are overseen by an operator at Gatwick or Edinburgh and in Benbecula makes no sense whatsoever. Those are not factors that should be considered.

HIAL has something that it is right to be proud about in relation to its employment. Rhoda Grant referred to HIAL as an “exemplar”, because it trained local people. That is a very clear example of its social responsibility in terms of ensuring that quality jobs are provided in communities where the profile and range of jobs means that there are not many highly paid ones.

I will not go into the technical aspects, not least because I am not a very technical person. However, I know that one aspect that has been referred to is the question of local knowledge. That is unique.

We hear examples of the particular challenges of delivering air services in the conditions that often prevail in the Highlands and Islands.

Recruitment is an issue, but that is not unique to HIAL, Scotland, the United Kingdom or Europe. It is a worldwide issue, which we are aware of, but some of the factors and challenges in retaining staff will be compounded here. As has been said, air traffic controllers are a highly marketable commodity—they are in demand worldwide. What we absolutely must do is ensure that such jobs are retained in the islands communities.

If the outcome of any process is the removal of valuable jobs, the process is wrong. I ask the cabinet secretary to intervene to ensure that the organisation that has oversight of our lifeline air services acts with social responsibility and not like a multinational corporation.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Like other members, I thank my friend and colleague, Beatrice Wishart, for securing this important debate. I thank her, too, for the clarity with which she set out the serious implications of the proposed centralisation for the Shetland community that she represents, as well as the very grave concerns that air traffic control staff, some of whom are in the public gallery, have been spelling out for months about HIAL’s plans. It is a picture that I recognise all too well from an Orkney perspective. From the excellent speeches of colleagues who represent other communities in the Highlands and Islands, I can see that it is the same for them.

Like Gail Ross, I want to debunk a myth that has grown up around the issue. Those of us voicing concerns about the centralisation of ATC services have been equally passionate in arguing for the modernisation of those services and the infrastructure on which they rely. It is not an either-or situation, as some have sought to portray it. Controlled air space is non-negotiable. Full radar surveillance is a must.

The fact is that centralisation—a remote tower in Inverness that covers the entire region—is not the only show in town. HIAL’s consultants recognised that. Indeed, Helios went even further, concluding that the remote tower model was the most costly and risky of the options that are available to HIAL, yet HIAL has been determined to press ahead with that plan from the get-go.

All the talk of consultation counts for little when the outcome is predetermined, and that point is not lost on staff, who remain deeply unhappy at the way in which they have been treated throughout the process. They are so unhappy that 82 per cent say that they are prepared to leave the organisation if it continues down that route. That figure alone should give HIAL pause for thought. It certainly calls into question HIAL’s ability to deliver such a radical change, but it also raises doubts about its ability to support existing services.

At topical question time on Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity quoted Loganair’s managing director, Jonathan Hinkles, but he failed to acknowledge what Mr Hinkles went on to say, so I will remind members. Mr Hinkles said:

“people clearly have a choice between redundancy, relocation or taking their skills elsewhere in a competitive labour market, this will be an undoubted challenge to manage.”

From my discussions with local air traffic control officers in Orkney earlier this week, and from the meeting that MSPs held immediately prior to the debate, I see no sign that HIAL is close to meeting that challenge. The consequences for the delivery of our lifeline air services if staff start voting with their feet is truly alarming.

There is also little confidence in HIAL’s costs for the project. HIAL is quick to point to other parts of the world where such a measure is being delivered or considered, but all those examples have significantly better infrastructure in place than the Highlands and Islands, and none present the same difficulties. Unfortunately, by the time that reality catches up with the assertions that have been made by HIAL and, latterly, ministers, millions of pounds will have been wasted and staff will have left.

This Government’s record on centralisation or major information technology projects is not unblemished—just ask our police or farmers—yet HIAL now proposes an unhappy amalgam of the two.

It is funny how such processes never lead to services being devolved outwards; they are always concentrated in the centre. If the infrastructure and system are so resilient, why not locate the tower in Kirkwall or Sumburgh? In renewables and oil and gas, for example, those communities have shown that they can be centres of excellence and attract and retain workers. However, that was never on the cards in this case. That is what happens with centralisation and when the deck is stacked from the start.

I thank Beatrice Wishart again for enabling Parliament to have the debate, and I again urge the cabinet secretary to call a halt to the potentially damaging proposals.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Michael Matheson, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, to respond to the debate—for around seven minutes, please, cabinet secretary.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As other members have done, I congratulate Beatrice Wishart on securing time for the debate.

I have listened with interest to the speeches of colleagues across the chamber on the important issue of the future shape of air traffic control services in Highlands and Islands airports in the years ahead.

Members will recognise, of course, that provision of air traffic control services is changing across the world. There is an unprecedented demand for controllers and a move from traditional practices to more modern working, including digital working. Those new working practices, views on safety and level of service, and new regulatory frameworks are creating a different ATC environment that all airports must adapt to if they are to continue to operate in the future.

I will deal first with the regulatory environment in which HIAL operates and will operate in the years ahead, because it provides important context. That environment is changing, so the way in which ATC services perform will have to evolve to reflect that. ATC modernisation is driven by changes that have been made by the European Aviation Safety Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority, concerning new regulations governing the use of controlled airspace. Since the work started in 2017, there has been broad agreement—as I believe there is agreement in the chamber today—that doing nothing is not an option, because it would lead to the eventual cessation of air services in the Highlands and Islands. The current practice of HIAL will not meet future operational or regulatory requirements, the current infrastructure is not suited to modern working and the current arrangements have weaknesses that ensure that there are challenges in terms of the reliability and sustainability of services, going forward.

Although the current arrangements are safe, there are—

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I will finish my point and will give way to John Finnie after that.

As I said, although the current arrangements are safe, there is an opportunity to make them safer and, at the same time, to achieve greater efficiency through reducing emissions from aircraft operation.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge what was said in the quotation that I read earlier from Prospect? No one has issues about the safety aspect, but the model that is proposed—I presume that the cabinet secretary will acknowledge that it is not the only model that is available—does not come without risks.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

All the models come with risks. I will address that later in my speech. John Finnie has raised an important point.

I believe that we all recognise that safe and sustainable air services are essential to the economy and social wellbeing of our Highlands and Islands, and that they are a major part of supporting communities there. HIAL must therefore ensure that, at each of its airports, the company operates in compliance with all the regulatory requirements. That is for the benefit of passengers and the wider community that HIAL serves.

Recognising the vital role of the airports and the fact that the status quo is not an option, HIAL commissioned Helios to carry out a full and detailed analysis of all the options that were available to the airports collectively and in relation to each airport in the group. A number of members have referred to the Helios report.

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

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am happy to give way, Presiding Officer, but there is a lot that I need to get through, so I ask you to bear with me, timewise, so that I can do so.

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

The cabinet secretary might be about to address this matter. What serious consideration did HIAL give to looking at sites other than Inverness for its proposed new model?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I will come to that point, too, later in my speech.

It is worth keeping it in mind that Helios is a specialist independent consultancy that works with airports around the world on such issues. Its work was detailed and dispassionate and recognised the unique environment in which HIAL operates. It benefited from engagement and contributions from HIAL air traffic control staff and other interests, and consisted of a full review of all air traffic management operations and options to address regulatory requirements. The report identified the challenges and the potential weaknesses to which Liam McArthur and others have referred.

The remote towers and centralised surveillance option, in conjunction with controlled air space, was recommended by Helios as the most appropriate for HIAL and the best suited to HIAL’s multi-airport structure and particular needs.

Since that report was completed, further detailed examination of the options for each airport has identified that an aerodrome flight information service might be more proportionate for Benbecula and Wick airports, as was referenced by Gail Ross and Rhoda Grant. That conclusion reflects the volume and nature of flights at those airports and use of the airspace around them. The proposals mean that the airports would operate in a similar way to Barra, Tiree, Campbeltown and Islay airports.

Members will be aware that implementation of the change is currently subject to discussion with staff and a range of other parties that have interests in the matter—in particular, the main operator, Loganair. Implementation also requires licensing and approval from the Civil Aviation Authority, as the airports regulator.

Since the decision was taken in 2018 to implement the programme of work, significant progress has been made in a number of areas. I know that some people will say that there should have been greater engagement by HIAL at an earlier stage, but I also acknowledge that, over the past two years, engagement has taken place with elected members, interested parties, airline operators and the Civil Aviation Authority.

I know that Loganair, which is the biggest operator in the Highlands and Islands, has written to members outlining its views. As the airline that has more experience than any other in operating in the Highlands and Islands, its views on safety and resilience carry significant weight.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for sparing time to discuss the matter in more detail. Following topical questions on Tuesday, he will recognise the concerns that I have about the technicalities. Frankly, the consultation with staff over the last two years has seen HIAL in sales and transmit mode—not in listening mode. Part of the problem is that, two years down the line, there is not a lot of confidence among staff that HIAL is prepared to listen to the serious concerns that they continue to raise. It has got to the point where staff are preparing to leave HIAL, which puts in jeopardy not just the organisation, but delivery of lifeline services to Orkney and around the Highlands and Islands air network.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The board of HIAL has accepted the recommendation in the Helios report, which looked at the matter in great detail. It is important that in progressing the model, HIAL engages with staff and interested stakeholders to address their concerns.

I know that my colleague, Paul Wheelhouse, met Beatrice Wishart and Rhoda Grant before Christmas to cover some of the issues. He suggested that they provide a list of areas of concern and issues. This week, we received a response from Rhoda Grant. We have not yet received details from Beatrice Wishart. However, the offer remains open in order that we can make sure that the issues are picked up and addressed. I am clear about the need for HIAL to continue to engage with staff throughout the programme of work to take the project forward.

I turn to safety. A number of members have made reference to it and have suggested or implied that digital towers are less safe than the current arrangements. We need to be very clear: HIAL will introduce only arrangements that enhance safety. The new technology will improve visibility for controllers and ensure that they can see an aircraft at all times, which is not always the case at present.

Although the current arrangements are safe, we should always strive to improve safety even further, which is an important part of the new arrangements. I am sure that all members have confidence in the Civil Aviation Authority, given that it is required to license and approve any new scheme that HIAL introduces. The Civil Aviation Authority is the safety expert on such matters. It is also driving the regulatory changes that mean that we need to change the existing operational structures for air traffic control. The authority is best placed to make that assessment.

I turn to a point that members have made about the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. As I highlighted in my response to Liam McArthur’s question on Tuesday, an islands impact assessment will be undertaken by HIAL. One was not done in 2018 because the decision predated the act. The work has been on-going for some two years now, and the assessment will be undertaken as part of our commitment within the islands act.

John Finnie rose—

I have given way twice and I really must make progress, I say with all due respect to Mr Finnie.

In relation to controllers and ATC support staff, it remains important for HIAL to undertake proper and fully detailed engagement with staff to try to address individual circumstances and concerns. I fully recognise that it is a major transformational change that will, in some cases, require staff having to be trained in new procedures and relocating to a new workplace or, potentially, commuting to Inverness for parts of the week. I recognise the challenges and concerns that that raises for staff, which is why it is important that HIAL engage directly and individually with staff who are affected by the changes that will be introduced.

Members including Alasdair Allan and Liam McArthur have asked why Inverness was chosen for the location of the digital tower. One of the reasons was a staff survey that identified Inverness as the preferred location for a central surveillance tower, if one was to be established. HIAL published the details of that survey, and it has given a commitment to continuing to be open about key operational decisions, as it makes progress.

I recognise that not all air traffic controllers are supportive of the change, which is understandable. However, the change presents an opportunity to move in a direction that is in line with the rest of the industry on provision of air traffic control services, to ensure that HIAL can meet the regulatory change that it will face in the years ahead to deliver a more resilient service than exists at present. The change will also future proof the service with the latest technology, which will benefit service users in the years ahead.

Ultimately, however, the program will provide an opportunity to provide a much more resilient and safer service than we have now. Of course, full implementation by HIAL will be done in a fashion that I believe will involve careful and detailed assessment. Rigorous testing will be implemented throughout the process in order to meet the Civil Aviation Authority’s standards. I encourage members from across the chamber to continue to raise concerns and matters that they believe need to be addressed as the program moves forward. That will allow HIAL and other stakeholders to ensure that those matters are appropriately addressed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that we might have set a record for the longest response at a members’ business debate. That concludes the debate. The meeting is adjourned until 2pm.

13:34 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Farming and Crofting (Support)

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

The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on providing financial stability for Scotland’s farmers and crofters. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am determined to do all that I can to provide financial stability for Scotland’s farmers and crofters, but the United Kingdom Government seems equally determined to make that impossible. For three years, I have pressed the UK Government relentlessly to deliver on the promises that its Brexiteers made on future funding for farming and food production.

“The UK government will continue to give farmers and the environment as much support—or perhaps even more—as they get now.”

That was what George Eustice, the UK rural affairs minister, promised in 2016. However, all that we have had is a letter from a UK Treasury minister, confirming that Scotland will receive £472 million to enable us to provide the 2019 common agricultural policy payments, and a lecture about how the UK Government is shifting its policy on supporting farming to

“value for money for the taxpayer”.

That is an insult to Scotland’s farmers and crofters, and I have written to George Eustice, urging him to disassociate himself from his colleague’s remarks.

That signals that, far from receiving a Brexit bonus, we face a Brexit boomerang. I throw my reasonable requests for financial clarity and certainty to the UK Government; it throws them back at me with nothing in return.

Any changes that are being made are unwelcome. We are moving from having seven years of guaranteed funding from the European Union, and knowing what that funding envelope includes, to having to wait each and every year for the UK Government to say how much money will be received.

Despite that, I will do my utmost to deliver as much certainty and stability for farmers and crofters as I can. Last December, I published the 2019 CAP payment strategy, which set out when payments would be made to our customers for each of our pillar 1 and pillar 2 schemes. I am confident that we will meet the targets in the strategy, which build on a solid track record, in recent years, of addressing the issues in the CAP information technology payment system and getting funding to farmers, crofters and land managers as promptly as possible. The IT system is now working and it is stable. Last year, all the payment targets were either met or exceeded.

We have now paid out £409 million in basic, greening and young farmer payments for 2018, and there are fewer payments left to be made during the tail period than in previous years. Nonetheless, I have asked that the final 23 complex and highly technical claims from 2018 be prioritised as a matter of urgency.

We have also paid out £46 million in coupled support payments. We are still the only part of the UK to provide that extra support directly to farmers and crofters.

In the pillar 2 scheme, we have paid out £3.5 million in forestry grants, enabling Scotland to exceed its tree planting target. We have also paid out £19.5 million through the agri-environment climate scheme and £63.3 million through the less favoured area support scheme. Until recently, we were—again—the only part of the UK to provide additional support to those who farm on the most marginal land.

Presiding Officer, you will recall that it was the UK Government’s reckless intention last October to leave the EU with or without a deal in place. I was not prepared to allow that to happen without providing Scotland’s farmers and crofters with as much financial stability as possible. The Scottish Government therefore put in place a national loan scheme, which gives eligible farmers and crofters 95 per cent of their basic payment entitlement at the earliest point ever under this CAP. Through the scheme, £334 million was paid out last October to 13,837 claimants. Furthermore, our payment was made about two months earlier than payments were made in any other part of the UK.

In December 2019, we launched the LFASS loan scheme, which is in addition to the basic payment loan scheme, and, to date, we have paid out £38.2 million to 7,595 claimants. Combined, the two loan schemes have so far paid out £378 million to those claimants. The objective has been to put money into farmers’ and crofters’ hands, where it belongs, when they are having to deal with Brexit uncertainty created by the UK Government. That figure represents 69 per cent of the total £550 million that is due to be paid out by around June this year. The remaining top-up basic, greening and young farmer payments will start to reach bank accounts in early February.

Those who did not take up the offer of a loan, and who are therefore waiting for all their 2019 CAP payments, will be prioritised. Payments in the pillar 2 schemes will begin in early April. Moreover, we will continue to improve the efficiency of the whole payments system by seeking to move further to a fully digital application process. Through our area office staff, we will provide practical support to the remaining 9 per cent or so of applicants who still submit applications on paper, to enable them to apply online. We will contact those applicants and offer them one-to-one sessions with staff who have a wealth of experience in that work, as we know that that approach is likely to be efficacious.

Those are not the only payments that our farmers and crofters will receive this year. After years of campaigning, which was led by the Scottish Government and supported by this Parliament and key stakeholder organisations, the UK Government finally agreed to right the historical wrong of keeping back the EU convergence money. As a result, Scotland will now receive historical funding of £160 million, and I have already advised Parliament of my intention to split that between the current financial year and the next. I previously advised Parliament that that would be done in two equal payments of £80 million. Since then, however, I have engaged with stakeholders including the Scottish Crofting Federation and the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association and have heard their concerns about the need to ensure that more of the funding reaches those who farm in the most marginal areas. Accordingly, I announced a further package of measures for farmers and crofters, which includes redistributing an additional £10 million in 2019-20 to those who are in the most challenging areas, to be drawn down from the second tranche of convergence funding.

I advise members today that the funding will be allocated to those who need it most—farmers and crofters in regions 2 and 3, as is explained in the handout that I provided to members with this statement. The split of the £10 million will be weighted to region 3, with 70 per cent of the funding going to that region and 30 per cent being allocated to region 2. There will be no change to the voluntary coupled support component, which will be retained at £15 million as per my previous announcement. That funding will be paid by the end of March, in addition to scheduled pillar 1 payments.

I want to be sure that the level of the payments that are received by individuals strikes the right balance between preventing excessive payments and ensuring an appropriate level of support for larger, more productive businesses. I therefore confirm that a cap of £55,000 will be placed on the basic payment element of the funding, which will be the maximum that any business or individual farm can receive. Although there are no conditions and no specification as to what the funding can be used for, I encourage farmers and crofters to consider how best they might apply it.

We are all aware of the climate emergency and the need for all sectors—including agriculture—to do more to cut their emissions. There is a lot that farmers and crofters can do in that space to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their efficiency and productivity. However, we should acknowledge what they already do and what this Government is already supporting. Through greening, the agri-environment climate scheme, the beef efficiency scheme and forestry grant schemes, approximately one third of current funding is tied to reducing the impact of the sector on the climate or to improving biodiversity.

Unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government considers that our farmers and crofters already deliver value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we commit today to providing farmers and crofters with support totalling £640 million in this CAP payment year. That is what this Government delivers for Scotland’s rural economy. Through our payment strategy for 2019 and by our actions, this Government is providing Scotland’s farmers and crofters with certainty, clarity and, above all else, financial stability.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. We have about 20 minutes for that.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I declare an interest as a partner in a farming business, and I apologise for arriving slightly late. I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement.

It is pretty rich for the cabinet secretary to criticise the Westminster Government in his statement. The truth is that, for three years, the Scottish National Party Government has done all that is in its power to make a Brexit deal impossible and, far from giving Scottish agriculture any certainty about future payment plans, it has only tried to increase grief, grievance and division between this place and Westminster for political point scoring. The cabinet secretary has wasted three years when he should have been planning to implement a system of support that is tailor-made for the needs of Scottish agriculture. That is the big prize that Brexit offers, but we still await any idea of what he thinks is going to happen.

The cabinet secretary boasts about making payments on time. However, he can still deliver payments on time only with loan schemes, because the expensive IT system still does not work properly five years on, despite his claim to the contrary. In the recent past, it was an unmitigated disaster that had farmers in despair. This year, the cabinet secretary used £14 million—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I had better warn you that your one minute is up. You are at 1 minute 30 seconds, and I have not heard your question. You had better ask it right now.

Peter Chapman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Yes, indeed. Does the cabinet secretary intend to use £42 million of the remaining £70 million of convergence funding to fill the shortfall in LFASS payments next year, bearing in mind that the shortfall should be funded from the Scottish Government budget?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Where does one begin? Let me just answer the question, which is a duty.

First, I was delighted that the UK Government finally acknowledged the error of its ways. It committed what it admits was an historic injustice in wrongly withholding £160 million from Scotland’s farmers and crofters, and it did that for six years. If I held on to property that belonged to someone else for six years, I would probably not be here; I would be in Barlinnie. However, that is what they did, and for them now to take this haughty attitude beggars belief.

Secondly, we paid money to our farmers and crofters this year through the basic payments loan scheme around two months earlier than the rest of the UK. Although they are called loans, they are de facto advance payments, and I can tell members—I think that Mr Chapman knows this—that they were very much appreciated by farmers who were desperately worried about Brexit.

Thirdly, there is no Brexit deal on farming. We do not know whether there is going to be a trade deal. Some say that there will be one, including Theresa Villiers, whom I met last Monday. Most people think that that is incredibly optimistic. If there is no deal, there will be a tax on exports to EU countries—of which we will no longer be one in a few days’ time—of 49 or 50 per cent on sheep meat. At the same time, there might be no equivalence to ensure that meat that is imported to the UK from countries in the Americas, for example, meet the high standards here, thereby undermining our whole sector.

It is simply not possible to finalise any system of support for farmers and crofters in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK until those huge uncertainties are resolved, and every farmer I have spoken to is concerned about that.

What a shame it is that the Scottish Tories just do not like good news. They are desperate for bad news, and when good news comes along they just flounder around—they do not know what to do.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

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

Let us be clear about why we are here. When the cabinet secretary made his announcement on the allocation of the first £80 million tranche of EU convergence funding, he got it wrong. He did not listen to the warnings and calls that it should not be the source of funding to plug the LFASS gap. The backlash against that decision forced him into his hurriedly arranged announcement of a further £10 million of support to farmers and crofters, but there was no detail. The figure was plucked out of the air to placate criticism.

Today, we have that detail, which I welcome, but it remains the case that using £10 million of funding from next year will leave just £70 million, and continuing to use the fund as a source of funding to plug the LFASS gap will take a further £42 million. Why cannot the cabinet secretary rule out here and now raiding the fund yet again to cover up the fact that, when he made his commitment on LFASS, he did not have the budget to deliver it and needs to find that budget from elsewhere?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

It is a matter of fact that I made my pledge absolutely clear when I met the LFASS committee of NFU Scotland in, I believe, early 2019. I said that my pledge was to prevent the diminution of the real income of farmers in the most challenging areas through the LFASS scheme, and that I would seek to do that by winning the convergence campaign or by finding another solution. We won the convergence campaign, and therefore I have entirely delivered the promise that I made. That is accepted, I believe, by those who were present at that meeting, and I have made it clear subsequently.

Colin Smyth says that we did not know what we were doing when we made the announcement. I am afraid that he is wrong about that. The most substantial modelling was carried out by my officials; overall, I think that 33 different schemes were modelled. His glib assertion, made without actually checking any facts, that we somehow made that original—

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Listen to the question—it was about the £10 million.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am trying to answer Colin Smyth’s question, but he is barracking me. I do not mind.

We did detailed calculations. However, from the reaction that we had, it was plain that we did not get it quite right. I admitted that, and I responded. I met with the Scottish Crofting Federation—I had already met with NFUS—and we put forward alternative proposals. My belief is that that improvement has been welcomed by the majority of people.

I appreciate that not everyone will be happy—making everyone happy is an aim that cannot realistically be achieved. However, the announcement today, with the placing of the cap at the right level—something that neither of the Opposition spokespeople has mentioned—and with the substantial increases to the region 2 and region 3 components of the payments, will be broadly welcomed.

Moreover, I wanted to make sure that the money was paid out in two tranches, with the first tranche coming before the end of the current financial year. We were in a position to start that work only around October last year. It is a great achievement to have devised, discussed, agreed and implemented a scheme by the end of March this year. I am profoundly grateful to my officials for their excellent work in enabling our farmers and crofters to receive that money by the end of March this year.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Nine members wish to ask questions and there are 13 minutes in which to do so. I ask for succinct questions and, if possible, succinct answers.

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

Does the cabinet secretary share my sorrow and anger that we are being forced to leave the EU next week and that, as a consequence, our farmers and crofters are no better off? Indeed, they could be worse off, not least because of the loss of free trade and migrant labour, with no certainty about what will replace the benefits of EU membership.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I share Maureen Watt’s sentiments. The Scottish Government has consistently underlined to the UK Government that leaving the single market and the customs union will cause significant disruption to trade in animals and plants, food and drink products, and agricultural inputs such as seeds, pesticides and fertilisers, as a result of tariffs, non-tariff barriers and disruption to existing trade routes. We have been clear that the availability of skilled and unskilled labour from an EU-wide pool is essential for our agri-food businesses and producers.

This week, the First Minister made clear again just how much we value and appreciate our fellow EU citizens who have chosen to make their home here. The Scottish Government will have more to say in the near future about immigration policy and the need for a tailored solution in Scotland.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, declare that I am a member of a farming business.

The statement is all about distributing moneys. It contains no ideas for the future, and nor does the cabinet secretary’s agriculture bill. When it comes to the future, does the cabinet secretary have any ideas of his own?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The statement was made to provide an update on the financial payments. I do not know whether Mr Mountain thinks that that is unimportant but, if he does, he is entirely wrong. It is absolutely essential for farmers and crofters, who in many cases operate as businesses—sometimes substantial businesses—to have clarity about when they receive funds. I believe that Mr Mountain is or was in business and that the same applies to some of his colleagues. They should therefore understand that point better than they appear to. It is absolutely essential that we deliver information about when farmers and crofters will receive the funds to which they are entitled. For the Tories to pooh-pooh that is a failed strategy on their part.

We are of course working hard on developing future options. Mr Mountain has completely ignored the fact that, in June 2018, we published our document “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for rural funding transition period”, which set out a clear path for our farmers and crofters.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That had 47 questions and no answers.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The UK Government’s so-called plans were excoriated by the National Audit Office. The ELMS—environmental land management system—plan was ripped to shreds. Mr Mountain should look at the NAO report on that from last June and be worried about the future of payments in England.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If members are not happy about the answers, they should not barrack from the sidelines, please, because I have to hear what is being said.

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

I declare a share in a small registered agricultural holding.

Will the cabinet secretary update us on what will happen following the Bew review, which recommended an additional £51 million in funding?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work has received confirmation from the Treasury that half of the money recommended by Bew—£25.7 million—will be paid in two equal parts, in financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22. However, we do not have from the UK Government a clear statement on future funding for all aspects that are covered by the EU, and obviously we are pressing on that.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

The statement highlights the need for agriculture to cut emissions. Will the cabinet secretary join me in welcoming the recent WWF report entitled “Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture” and today’s Committee on Climate Change report entitled “Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK”, which set out a range of measures that will allow agriculture to drastically cut emissions? Will he commit today—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Stop right there for just a wee minute. I might be missing this, and I am happy to be corrected, but what does that have to do with the statement?

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

It was in the statement, Presiding Officer. That is why I said:

“the statement highlights the need for agriculture to cut emissions.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Right. I have been corrected. Go for it—but briefly.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary commit to assessing the contribution that the recommendations of those reports can make to the way forward for a sustainable farming and land use structure in Scotland?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I acknowledge that the CCC and WWF reports make an important contribution to the debate. I have noted some of the recommendations from WWF, and I hope to meet the organisation shortly to discuss the issue. Arrangements for that are in hand, or they will be shortly. On Monday, I met Chris Stark of the CCC and we had cordial discussions.

We recognise that we need to do more to cut emissions, because we have clear statutory targets, so we will of course address that. However, we should acknowledge the good work that farmers and crofters do. Many of them sometimes feel a bit beleaguered, because the good things that they do are not sufficiently recognised. I hope that we can all acknowledge and recognise that some of the things that they do are public goods, such as the maintenance of permanent grassland and their contribution to biodiversity. However, they need to do more. We are working on a series of measures in that regard, which I hope that the vast majority of farmers will adopt and accept.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing early sight of his statement. I am sure that farmers and crofters will welcome the money.

My question is in a similar vein to Claudia Beamish’s. The cabinet secretary mentioned the climate emergency, but he also said:

“there are no conditions and no specification as to what the funding can be used for”.

How will the Scottish Government assess the impact of the moneys in addressing emissions cuts?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

It is for farmers and crofters to assess how they use their funds. It is sensible that they consider using the money for investing in what they do. There is a strong case that the Farm Advisory Service can provide useful advice on that. However, as I said in answer to the previous questioner, we accept that we need to ensure that our climate change commitments are met.

We are looking extremely carefully at what more farmers can do. I will finish with this statement: around one third of the current money that is paid out under the CAP to farmers contributes directly to the environment, some of it to addressing climate change. Some of it contributes indirectly as well, and I think that that is understood in the chamber—I hope that we can build on that in the coming months.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I welcome the news that the LFASS loan payments have begun. Can the cabinet secretary advise whether there is still time for individuals to apply for a loan payment?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I can, and I am glad that Mr Torrance has raised that issue, because I make a plea to LFASS recipients and those entitled to LFASS who have not yet returned the loan offer document to please do so as quickly as possible. If someone has lost their document or cannot find it, they must let the rural payments and inspections division know and a duplicate will be sent to them. We want to pay people the money to which they are entitled, but to do so we need the signed offer of loan acceptance. This is a plea for the remaining loan offer documents. As soon as we get them, we will get on with the job of paying out the remainder.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Just two months ago, during a well-publicised farm visit to Castle Douglas, Michael Gove and Alister Jack announced that the UK Government was committing to the same level of farm support that Scottish farmers receive every year, until 2024. Is the cabinet secretary saying to Parliament that the Scottish Government has to date received no such undertaking or commitment in writing from the UK Government on farm support until 2024?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes; I can tell Mr Rumbles that we have not received such an assurance in writing. I know that statements have been made in the newspapers but, with respect, Governments cannot govern on the basis of what is printed in the newspapers. We can act only once we have copperplate, unequivocal assurances in writing, which must be provided to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work.

I have got a letter that says that the intention is to make payments for future years. It says what the payment will be this year. Incidentally, it does not mention Lord Bew’s money, nor does it confirm technical matters, such as the rate applicable for currency exchange and how that will be dealt with. Most important is that it says:

“This decision on funding for 2020-21 should not be taken as a precedent for these Spending Review decisions.”

In other words, the payment for this year should not be taken as a precedent for the following years. If anyone here got a letter that said, “You can’t be sure that the figure this year will be met next year,” would you take that as an assurance or would you take that as, “Goodness me, I am pretty worried about what I’m going to get next year”?

I replied to Mr Eustice on 17 January, seeking confirmation. The Tories are shaking their heads, but I am just reading out what the UK Government said. I have here what it said and it is not an assurance in writing. When will it get around to that?

The last point that I will make is that the EU plans things on a seven-year basis. Farming is a long-term business, so under the EU—which apparently the Tories now hate although most of them used to support it—we knew where we were and farmers knew where they were for seven years at a time. Now, we do not know where we will be after 12 months. The Tories think that that is good news; we do not.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will try to take the last two questions if they are brief.

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

I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary acted on the concerns expressed by crofters and that he is now allocating all of the £10 million to those on region 2 and 3 land. Will he explain further what impact that will have on those payments and when he will be able to set out his plans for the year 2 tranche, due in the next financial year?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In thanking the member for his comments, I also thank the crofters I met in his constituency in October for a very useful exchange. Since then, and in the statement, we have made it clear that in relation to the alteration since the original statement, the region 3 payment rate has increased by 92 per cent from the original rate and region 2 has seen an increase of 65 per cent. That ensures that a significant proportion of the support is directed to those farming in our marginal and remote areas. I hope that those changes, which I explained and alluded to earlier, will be welcomed by the vast majority.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to the farming and crofting entries in my register of member’s interests.

The cabinet secretary’s statement refers to the payment being made by the end of March 2020. Can he be any more specific, given that many farmers and crofters in the Highlands and Islands will rely on that funding, and given the fact that this is an important time of year for them, with lambing beginning and so on?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I have been as specific as it is wise to be at this stage. It is not so very long until the end of March. We are now nearly at the end of January.

The important thing is to ensure that the scheme is administered successfully, as all previous loan schemes have been. I take the point that Mr Cameron makes; it is perfectly fair and valid. However, I will stick with the assurance that I have made.

Also, in the interests of clarity, following today’s statement, businesses that are entitled to receive a convergence payment will know that they will receive it by the end of March. I have also indicated the payment schedule for basic payments and the other payments. I hope that all that information will be of use, will help, and will be appreciated by our farmers and crofters throughout Scotland.

Education and Skills

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

The next item of business is education and skills portfolio question time. I advise members that questions 2 and 5 are grouped together.

Modern Languages Qualifications

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what measures are in place to increase the number of young people taking Scottish Qualifications Authority qualifications in modern languages. (S5O-04035)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Language learning equips young people with skills for an increasingly complex and globalised world, helps to build literacy and fosters tolerance and respect. Since 2013, we have provided nearly £40 million to fund local authorities and partners to support the implementation of the one-plus-two languages policy. Evidence from local authorities shows that the approach is working and that more young people than ever are learning languages.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I share the cabinet secretary’s view that learning modern languages is vital to equipping young people with the skills that they need for the future economy. However, according to research by Professor Jim Scott, there is a serious issue with schools not teaching modern languages in S1 to S3, while, at the same time, modern languages are being squeezed out in the senior phase as a result of schools offering six subjects at S3 rather than the eight subjects that many offered previously. What more can the cabinet secretary do to address that concern?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Young people have an entitlement to language learning as part of their broad general education, and there should be appropriate provision for language learning in that education. As we have rehearsed in previous discussions, there is a multiplicity of opportunities for young people to take SQA qualifications in the senior phase of curriculum for excellence if the senior phase is approached as the three-year experience it was originally envisaged to be. I encourage schools to ensure that young people have the opportunity to pursue language learning when they are interested in so doing.

Schools (Disruptive Incidents)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address the reported rise in disruptive incidents caused by pupils in schools, and the impact that this has on teaching staff. (S5O-04036)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We are clear that no teacher should have to suffer abuse in the workplace, whether that be verbal or physical abuse.

We are supporting local authorities and schools through various guidance and programmes to promote positive relationships and tackle indiscipline, including good behaviour management, restorative approaches and programmes to support social, emotional and behavioural skills.

We are taking a range of actions to support teachers’ wellbeing, improve recruitment and retention rates, improve teachers’ pay and tackle workload. Those actions include clarifying and simplifying the curriculum framework, removing unnecessary bureaucracy and increasing teacher numbers.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers found that 85 per cent of teachers across Scotland believe that there is a widespread problem with pupil behaviour in schools. According to the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, indiscipline has worsened because of the reduction in the number of specialist teachers and educational support. What is the cabinet secretary doing to provide extra support for teachers and pupils alike who are experiencing those pressures?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

By coincidence, in the past hour or so, I have just completed my annual meeting with the NASUWT, during which we discussed those issues. The NASUWT acknowledges—as do other professional associations—that the overwhelming majority of pupils in Scotland’s schools behave well but that, if there is unacceptable behaviour, it must be tackled by the policy approach that we have set out, which has been developed jointly by the Government, local authorities and professional associations. That is exactly how it should be, so that we take the correct approaches to encouraging the creation of positive relationships and tackling indiscipline.

On staffing, the number of teachers is at a 10-year high of 52,247, and an increasing number of individuals are working with young people with additional support needs in our schools. I assure Mr Corry that every effort is being made to strengthen schools’ capacity to operate in such a way. We have a policy framework in place, which has been agreed with our partners, to make sure that schools are well informed about all the steps that they should be taking to de-escalate incidents and to ensure that a positive behavioural ethos is encouraged in all our schools.

School Exclusions (Discussions)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it is having with local authorities regarding pupils who are excluded from school. (S5O-04039)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The number of exclusions has continued to fall, year on year, since 2002-03, with the rate of exclusions now being almost two thirds lower than the comparable figure for 2006-07.

In June 2017, the Scottish Government published refreshed guidance on preventing and managing school exclusions. The guidance focuses on the importance of early intervention to prevent the need for exclusion, it promotes positive relationships in schools, and it recognises that exclusion should be used only as a last resort and when it is a proportionate response. Since the publication of the guidance, we have engaged with 400 stakeholders across Scotland, including some from local authorities, to support its implementation.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I know about the work that the cabinet secretary is doing in regard to this. However, over the past few months, I have been contacted by parents of young primary school children who are being excluded from school due to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other behavioural problems. Parents feel that schools and local authorities, particularly North Lanarkshire Council, are not dealing with the problems quickly enough.

What action can the Scottish Government take to resolve the issue for my constituents, and will the cabinet secretary ask North Lanarkshire Council to desist from excluding young children from school?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I assure Mr Lyle that the focus of our policy approach is on making sure that children and young people receive the support that they require, whatever their needs, to enable them to fulfil their potential. Our guidance on inclusion in schools is framed on exactly that premise.

The policy framework should support young people. I am conscious of the fact that, when young people present with conditions such as ADHD, they will require specific and focused support to meet their needs—that is only fair on them and on the other pupils in mainstream settings with whom they may be educated. Fundamentally, the issues are for local authorities, but, if Mr Lyle gives me the specific details, I will be happy to raise the matter directly with North Lanarkshire Council on his behalf.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Richard Lyle for raising the issue, and I remind members in the chamber of my own diagnosis.

Just over a year ago, the report “Not included, not engaged, not involved: A report on the experiences of autistic children missing school” was published. I held a members’ business debate on the report, and the cabinet secretary gave an undertaking to consider the recommendations and to meet stakeholders. What communications has the cabinet secretary had with education authorities about ending a policy that results in the unlawful exclusion of children with neurodevelopmental disorders, and what changes in policy and practice have been made in relation to those communications?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Mr Johnson knows, the issues that he raised in his member’s business debate were the subject of active debate at that time. That debate was followed up by a round-table discussion in which I drew together a number of the authors of the report with local authorities and other stakeholders in Scottish education, to advance the issues that Mr Johnson fairly raises with me today.

As a consequence, we have been working and in discussion with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the Scottish Human Rights Commission on the formulation of policy guidance that can be applied in our education system to ensure that we have a human rights-based approach to the inclusion in education of young people who are in the circumstances that Mr Johnson recounts. We have had a good dialogue with the commissioners on that question, and they have accepted my explanation that we need to take time and care in preparing that guidance, to make sure that it can be applied and implemented swiftly. I hope that Mr Johnson understands that.

We have agreed to have on-going dialogue about the progress of the design and implementation of that guidance, and, as time takes its course, I will keep Parliament updated on those matters.

Digital School Registration

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how many local authorities offer digital school registration. (S5O-04037)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Local authorities and schools determine the most appropriate methods to record pupil’s school attendance; therefore, the Scottish Government does not collect that figure. For all young people to achieve their potential, schools should consider each pupil’s positive engagement with learning.

To support schools, we published revised guidance last year—“Included, Engaged and Involved Part 1: A Positive Approach to the Promotion and Management of Attendance in Scottish Schools”—which provides advice on good practice, including that

“schools should have a clear ... strategic plan to promote and manage attendance”,

including “identified personnel and systems” to track and monitor attendance, and requirements for classifying and recording attendance and absence.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response.

In West Scotland, only two out of seven councils have an online option to register a child for primary school. What further work can the Scottish Government do to encourage more local authorities to offer online registration, thereby making it easier for parents, especially those who might lose hours at work and, in some instances, income, in order to register a child in person?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy to explore that with local authorities. The issue will be associated with the operation of the SEEMiS system, which is handled entirely by local authorities. As I have discovered with various issues that we have addressed, it takes time to amend that system.

If Mary Fee wishes to write to me with further details, I will be happy to explore the matter on her behalf and to advise Parliament accordingly.

Further Education (Financial Sustainability)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the financial sustainability of the further education sector. (S5O-04038)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Scotland’s colleges are operating in a complex and changing financial environment, with added uncertainty due to Brexit. However, the college sector has a strong track record of adapting to change and managing challenges.

The Scottish Funding Council will continue to monitor individual institutions and engage with colleges to provide support where required.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that answer.

Last year, Audit Scotland identified that the college funding settlement would stretch only to covering changes in staff pay and conditions, with capital funding falling short of the cost of maintaining the college estate. We have heard about the cost of those funding constraints, not only in the University of the Highlands and Islands colleges in my region, but across Scotland.

Yesterday, ministers published their refreshed economic action plan, proposing that our college sector, as a world leader in skills and training, is to have a significant role in change. Ahead of the budget, can the minister clarify whether the already struggling college sector will be expected to find additional resources? Will there be a real increase in funding to match those expectations, or will grand ambitions around lifelong learning be watered down?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I could do with shorter questions.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will try and answer a proportion of the member’s questions.

We have the potential to have a world-leading college sector in Scotland, and are well on the way to that. I am impressed with what I see around Scotland’s campuses.

Since 2007, we have invested more than £7 billion in Scotland’s colleges. Against a £2 billion real-terms cut by the UK Government—Jamie Halcro Johnston’s party’s Government—to our resource block grant over the past decade, we continue to support colleges by having allocated more than £600 million to them in the 2019-20 budget. In forthcoming budget discussions between his party and the Scottish Government, it is open to Mr Halcro Johnston and his party to make college funding a priority.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Colleges Scotland has identified the sum of £29.4 million additional revenue funding, above baseline, that it will require in the next financial year in order to achieve financial stability. Will that request be granted?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am sure that Mr Gray will not be surprised to hear that I will not pre-empt the budget announcement.

We listen closely to representations from the college sector and we recognise the financial challenges. However, the challenges are shared by many sectors and by the Scottish Government because of the tough financial settlements from the United Kingdom Government in recent years. We will listen closely to the college sector.

Brexit (Impact on Learning Opportunities)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how learning opportunities for young people in the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency could be impacted by Brexit. (S5O-04040)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Scotland’s young people benefit enormously from our relationship with the European Union, and in particular from participation in the Erasmus+ programme. Exit from the EU risks there being a significant reduction of learning opportunities for young people if participation in the Erasmus+ programme and any successor is not maintained. The negative impact will likely be felt in our youth work provision, school exchange programmes and the life-changing opportunities that are available in our colleges and universities.

The Scottish Government is absolutely clear that all the advantages of European Union membership must be retained so that our young people can continue to reap the benefits of those vital programmes.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Royston Youth Action in my constituency believes that Erasmus+ has been a key opportunity that is worth its weight in gold, and that ending it would be a statement of stagnation and backwardness in community learning and development. Will the minister meet young people from Royston Youth Action to hear first-hand about the contribution that Erasmus+ has made to learning? Will he join me in urging Boris Johnson to visit Royston, too, so that he can see for himself the benefits of Erasmus+?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I would be delighted to take up Bob Doris’s offer to visit Royston Youth Action. It is important that all members of all parties in Parliament remember that although people often think of Erasmus as being about college or university students on European exchange programmes—of course, that is a fundamental part of Erasmus—it also benefits other young people and youth work in Scotland. Proportionally, more people in Scotland participate in Erasmus than is the case in other parts of the UK. Therefore, any dilution of our association with Erasmus and exiting the EU will have a disproportionally damaging impact on Scotland. Royston Youth Action, which Bob Doris mentioned, is a fine example of what is happening around the country and of what we must protect for the future.

Boris Johnson and his party voted against full membership of Erasmus just last week in the UK Parliament. He would do himself a favour if he were to visit initiatives such as the one in Royston.

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government when the next annual report on its STEM education and training strategy will be published. (S5O-04041)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The next annual report on the STEM education and training strategy will be published in March. As we are all aware, Scotland is a science and research nation: we punch above our weight and enjoy a global reputation for our research and innovation. STEM is an integral part of our future economic and social development.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

One of the central aims of the strategy is

“to build the capacity of the education and training system to deliver excellent STEM learning”.

Is the minister satisfied with the pace of progress in implementing the strategy, given that the latest programme for international student assessment—PISA—results show that performance in maths and science is at a record low?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Our PISA performance in science and maths is in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. Of course, that always needs to be improved, and we accept that.

I think that we are making progress in STEM. Last week, I was at Kinloss primary school in my constituency, and was bowled over by the excellent teaching of STEM that I saw in all classes in the school. That is replicated in primary and secondary schools throughout the country. Are we making enough progress? We can, of course, make more. It is important for Scotland’s future wellbeing that we meet the STEM agenda.

Fair Start Scotland

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to figures recording that 4.1 per cent of participants in the fair start Scotland scheme were still in work after 26 weeks. (S5O-04042)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We are supporting people towards and into work through fair start Scotland, which is a voluntary service that treats people with dignity and respect, without the fear of sanctions. The statistic that Mr Lockhart has cited has been taken out of context—wilfully or otherwise—and represents 26-week job outcomes after only 12 months of service delivery. Participants have significant barriers to employment and have often been left behind by previous UK Government initiatives. That is why intense pre-employment support is available for up to 18 months.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Despite what the minister has just said, the reality is that only 4 per cent of participants in the fair start Scotland scheme were still in work after 26 weeks. That means that 60 per cent did not engage in the scheme or dropped out of it at an early stage. Is the minister happy with the dismal performance of the scheme? Does he accept that the scheme’s voluntary nature means that the vast majority of the people involved are not seriously engaging in it, as is shown by the huge drop-out numbers?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No—I think that the voluntary nature of our scheme is the right approach. It ensures that people can engage in the scheme meaningfully because they want to be there and are not under threat of sanction.

Dean Lockhart’s mask has slipped: his agenda is the same old nasty Tory agenda of using employability services as a means of levering people off benefits. If he is interested—hitherto, I have never noticed him being interested; I think that he has not questioned me about the matter previously—I can tell him that in the first year of fair start Scotland we have supported the equivalent of 9 per cent of the unemployed population of Scotland, whereas the Department for Work and Pensions has supported the equivalent of only 4 per cent of the unemployed population of England and Wales through its work and health programme. The DWP’s work choice programme reached the equivalent of 12 per cent of the unemployed disabled population in Scotland in the last year that it operated here, whereas in its first year fair start Scotland has reached the equivalent of 19 per cent of the same population, and 92 per cent of the people who have taken part in our programme have told us that they feel that they were treated with fairness and dignity.

Fair start Scotland is a programme that I am proud of. Mr Lockhart should be ashamed of the agenda that his party promotes on employability.