Scottish Parliament, 5 February 2020

336 contributions from 70 members. The official report.

Finance, Economy and Fair Work

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first set of questions is on finance, economy and fair work.

United Kingdom Budget (Council Tax Rates)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on Dumfries and Galloway Council of the UK Government’s decision to publish its budget on the same day that local authorities in Scotland must legally set their rates of council tax. (S5O-04087)

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

The impact would have been very damaging had it not been for the Scottish Government’s decision to bring forward the publication of its own budget. The United Kingdom Government’s decision certainly demonstrates its ignorance of the budget process in Scotland.

Its lack of engagement is unacceptable to not only the Scottish Government but every local authority here and the citizens who depend on our public services.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The UK Government’s decision to push back publication of its budget until 11 March is causing major uncertainty for both the Scottish Government and local authorities. Does the cabinet secretary—or the minister—agree that such uncertainty could have been avoided altogether if Scotland had had the full fiscal powers of an independent country?

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work and I agree that independence would give us control over our budget planning and provide the necessary economic levers to grow the Scottish economy.

In the face of the uncertainty that I have mentioned, this year, the Scottish Government intends to present its budget at the earliest practical date, which is tomorrow. We will do so in full recognition of the fact that it is vital for us to give local authorities, including Dumfries and Galloway Council, the security and clarity that they need on their own budgets as early as possible—unlike the UK Government.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In her answer, the minister expressed her concern that the Scottish Government has not received sufficient information from the UK Government. Does the Scottish Government have enough information to enable the cabinet secretary to bring forward a budget and to allow local authorities to set their budgets on the date on which the UK Government sets its own, or should we expect in-year revisions? If there are to be in-year revisions, when will those be announced?

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

In order to give clarity to local government, we are basing our budget on the best available estimates. As the cabinet secretary announced on 31 January, to assist local authorities with their budget preparations, our intention is that the local government settlement will include confirmation that local authorities will again have flexibility to increase their council tax rates by up to 3 per cent in real terms. That demonstrates our willingness to use the best available estimates in our own budget process in order to give clarity to local authorities.

Small Businesses (Coatbridge and Chryston)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports small businesses in Coatbridge and Chryston. (S5O-04088)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The Scottish Government supports businesses across Scotland via a range of interventions that are delivered through our enterprise and skills agencies, Business Gateway and other inclusive measures such as business improvement districts and city region deals.

Regeneration has been a key focus in Coatbridge. For example, the regeneration capital fund grant funding of more than £1 million has transformed the former Luggie Glen sewage works site into Drumpellier business park, which is a flagship centre for start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

From his own constituency work, the minister will be aware that, last week, the Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council confirmed that it will impose parking charges on people looking to shop in Coatbridge town centre, as well as in the villages of Stepps and Chryston in my constituency. I am all for having a phased environmental strategy in the local area, but many businesses are already struggling because of their close proximity to Glasgow Fort shopping centre, which has free parking, and the increase in online shopping. Does the minister agree that that is a wrong decision that could bring further detriment to small and local businesses in my constituency?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

As Mr MacGregor alluded to, I represent the constituency adjacent to his, so I am well aware of the issue. In my capacity as a Scottish Government minister, I should say that it is a matter for North Lanarkshire Council to deal with, but in my capacity as a constituency representative, I am of course exploring it in the interests of my own constituents.

Glasgow City Council (Funding)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has had from Glasgow City Council regarding local government funding. (S5O-04089)

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

Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of all Scottish local authorities, including Glasgow City Council, to discuss a range of issues as part of our commitment to working in partnership with local government to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister may be aware that, last month, Glasgow Scottish National Party councillors sought and failed to defeat a Labour motion demanding that the council leader, Susan Aitken, make direct and public representation seeking fair funding for the city. Will the minister confirm whether she has received those representations?

While trying to avoid standing up for Glasgow, the SNP is at the same time bringing forward proposals for severe cuts to services that will make Glasgow’s funding crisis real. Closing community centres and libraries and getting rid of golf courses are only part of that dereliction of duty to Glasgow’s citizens. Will the minister listen to the grave concerns of charities, unions, communities and all those who want to stand up for Glasgow, and produce a budget that understands the needs of Glasgow and the severe consequences for all too many families if the current plans go ahead?

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

Susan Aitken is a great champion for Glasgow, and the member knows full well that the biggest budget pressures faced by Glasgow City Council at the moment are a result of the equal pay settlement, which is an issue entirely of her party’s making. The SNP councillors in Glasgow City Council and the SNP members in this Government will continue to stand up for Glasgow, as they have demonstrated in the past few months.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can I have short supplementary questions, please?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Along with Glasgow City Council, authorities across Scotland have seen savage real-terms cuts to their core funding under the SNP Government. With the block grant from Westminster for the coming year increasing by at least £1.1 billion in real terms—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can I have a quick supplementary, please?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that there could be no case for any further cuts to local government funding?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is not really relevant to the question, but if the minister would like to respond, she is very welcome to.

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

All I will say is that I look forward to the day when the United Kingdom Government reverses the whole decade of austerity that Scottish public services have suffered under the Conservatives.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s decision to increase the rate of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board by 1 per cent will be detrimental to Scotland’s councils’ ability to carry out essential infrastructure projects. Does the minister agree that the UK Government should urgently rethink that decision and engage with the Scottish Government and local authorities on the matter?

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

I fully agree with Shona Robison and have written twice to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the matter. The decision on loan funding was taken in the light of decisions about English local authorities, not Scottish local authorities, and it will have a direct impact on infrastructure spend in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members should note that supplementary questions should be relevant to the original question.

Scotland and United Kingdom Economic Divergence

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what the cumulative percentage divergence has been between total gross domestic product growth in the Scottish and UK economies since May 2007. (S5O-04090)

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

Since the second quarter of 2007, Scotland’s GDP has grown by a total of 10.3 per cent, while GDP for the United Kingdom as a whole has increased by 15.2 per cent.

However, the majority of that divergence can be explained by the fact that Scotland’s population has grown more slowly than the UK’s since 2007: Scotland’s population has grown by 5 per cent and the UK’s has grown by 8 per cent.

That demonstrates why we have called for immigration powers to be devolved. The introduction of a Scottish visa would allow Scotland to attract and retain people who have the skills and qualities that are needed for our communities and economy to flourish.

Our refreshed economic action plan sets out how we will tackle the climate emergency, grow an inclusive economy and face up to the challenges of Brexit, changing demographics and shifting global circumstances.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Derek Mackay has just confirmed that the Scottish economy is 5 per cent smaller—that is £7 billion—than it should be after 13 years of SNP Government. That is £7 billion of economic growth that could have generated thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds in extra tax for public spending in Scotland.

We have listened to the SNP blame Brexit for that economic stagnation, but it has been going on for 13 years, and last year, the Scottish economy grew at less than half the UK’s rate. When will the cabinet secretary start to listen to leading business organisations across Scotland and change the direction of his economic policy?

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

When it comes to listening to the business community, the Tories have absolutely ignored it in relation to Brexit, which is about to destroy the economic credentials of the Tories, if they had any to start with.

As far as the past 13 years are concerned, I made the point that the divergence in GDP is largely down to population. Who controls population? Who controls migration? As with other macroeconomic matters, it is the UK Government that does so, and that is the primary reason for the divergence in GDP.

When it comes to areas on which the Scottish Government plays a lead, we have been outperforming the rest of the UK. On attractiveness, Scotland is second only to London and the south-east of England and, on exports, we are outperforming the rest of the UK. For many quarters, unemployment in Scotland has been lower than, and it is currently the same as, unemployment in the rest of the UK. On GDP growth, whereas the Tories predicted recession, we have been delivering growth for our economy.

The greatest threat to Scotland’s economy right now is Brexit, which has been delivered at the hands of the chaotic, incompetent and inept Tory Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Everybody is getting a bit nippy today. [

Laughter

.] Could we tone it down for the rest of the session, please?

Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland Figures

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. I will do my best, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government how much time and money it plans to spend producing an alternative to the GERS figures. (S5O-04091)

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

I am sure that this answer will tone things down, Presiding Officer.

The GERS publication explicitly states that it shows Scotland’s position within the UK and not as an independent nation. As the United Kingdom Government increasingly disregards the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland, it is more important than ever that we complete the necessary steps to hold a referendum on independence.

The Scottish Government produced a comprehensive plan for an independent Scotland in 2014. As we set out in our programme for government, we will undertake the necessary work to update that plan and ensure that the people of Scotland have the information that they need to make an informed choice about the future of their country.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Never mind the relevance of supplementary questions—I am afraid that even that answer was not relevant to the question. I asked how much time and money civil servants will spend on producing an alternative to the GERS figures.

Last month, the cabinet secretary said that he wanted to produce alternative GERS figures because he feels

“frustrated when the GERS figures are published every year.”

Why is he so frustrated with those independent figures? Which impartial economic authority will independently verify his figures when he produces them?

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

I will always expect the civil service to act in the professional and impartial fashion in which it acts. I dare say that our work will be of much greater value than the UK Government spending £5 million on propaganda telling us how great the union is at this point in time, which we have heard the speculation about. That is very interesting, coming from the Conservatives in Westminster. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

This is getting overrude and I am really not appreciating it. It is just not funny.

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

I simply make the point that we want to have an informed debate on the future of our country. I have never challenged the impartiality of our statisticians. What I have found frustrating is the misrepresentation of the figures as they relate to Scotland that occurs when people misrepresent the GERS figures by trying to suggest that they reflect the potential of an independent Scotland when they do not do so. The GERS figures do not reflect the potential of an independent Scotland; they reflect the estimated notional position within the current constitutional arrangement.

I think that it is right and fair that we have an informed debate about the options for our country and that that debate should be based on fact and the wonderful potential that Scotland has.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will preserve the calm with a short supplementary question from Kenneth Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I bring peace and love. [

Laughter

.]

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is sheer hypocrisy for Tory members to criticise the Scottish Government for trying to improve the accuracy of the GERS figures when the UK Government that they so slavishly support will spend £5 million of taxpayers’ money on a campaign to highlight the alleged benefits of the union to the people of Scotland?

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

I agree that the spending of £5 million in that way would indeed be a waste of taxpayers’ money. We have been working on a fully informed, rational debate about the future of our nation, which should be based on facts. That debate will be much better than the likes of the leave campaign that we saw in relation to Brexit. In Scotland, we should have a mature, responsible and decent debate about the future of our country that is based on the facts and on how rich our country is. With the powers of independence, it could be even fairer.

Economic Growth (West Lothian)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports jobs, business and economic growth in West Lothian. (S5O-04092)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

West Lothian has benefited from a range of projects that are designed to promote investment and create jobs, including £2 million of investment in Livingston trade park from the building Scotland fund and £1.8 million from the town centre fund, which is supporting 112 projects.

In addition, during 2018-19, more than 1,400 West Lothian companies were helped through Business Gateway, about 1,000 modern apprenticeships were supported and Scottish Enterprise provided £2.3 million in research and development and in innovation grants.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The minister is well aware that API Foils Ltd, in Livingston, has gone into administration, leaving more than 100 workers with an uncertain future. How will the Scottish Government help to secure the site and jobs for the future and ensure that API Foils workers get full support, including their full redundancy and pension entitlements?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet Angela Constance to discuss some of those matters, and I would be happy to meet her again should she require to discuss them further.

Right now, our priority is to ensure that the workforce is supported in the immediate term. Our partnership action for continuing employment team attended the announcement of administration on Monday, and a PACE support event is taking place today in West Lothian College, which Unite the union is attending. I have offered to intervene in cases of delays in individuals’ receiving payments from the redundancy payment service. I hope that that will not be necessary, but I will readily intervene if it is.

Our immediate priority is to support the workforce. Thereafter, our other priority will be to support the acquisition of API Foils as a going concern. I assure Angela Constance and the rest of the chamber that my and Scottish Enterprise’s attention is turned to that matter.

Inclusive Growth (Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports inclusive growth in the Mid Fife and Glenrothes constituency. (S5O-04093)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

In addition to the reopening of the Levenmouth rail link, Mid Fife and Glenrothes will benefit from our £450 million investment in two city region deals: the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal and the Tay cities deal.

The Edinburgh deal is already delivering benefits. Construction will start soon on nine new business units in Glenrothes as part of the £35 million of Scottish Government investment in the deal’s i3 programme, which supports industrial innovation. We continue to press the United Kingdom Government to sign the Tay cities deal as a matter of urgency.

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

DPS Group, which is based in Glenrothes, is one of the UK’s only integrated electrical, instrumentation and control system providers. It supports businesses globally and closer to home, including by providing the bespoke lighting and electrical systems that are used for the royal Edinburgh military tattoo. Given the importance of that local employer in my constituency, would the minister like to join me in Glenrothes to visit DPS Group and to learn more about its valuable work?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As the member might be aware, I spend a considerable amount of time travelling round the country and visiting innovative businesses in order to understand the great technology that Scotland has to offer and how the Scottish Government can support businesses to internationalise that technology. I would be delighted to join the member in her constituency to visit DPS Group and to understand what it contributes to Scotland’s strong economy.

Large Business Supplement

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how much revenue has been raised by the large business supplement since 2016. (S5O-04094)

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

Since 2016-17, the large business supplement has raised £510 million. The Scottish Government has committed to reviewing the level of the large business supplement at each future budget, in the light of its affordability.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Businesses in my region and across Scotland are still being put at a competitive disadvantage thanks to the large business supplement. With the budget just round the corner, will the Government now commit to ensuring that Scottish businesses are not held back?

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

Frankly, that is not true. In fact, Scotland offers a very competitive tax environment, with support provided through the business growth accelerator, nursery relief, renewables relief and a number of other reliefs. I am delighted that, after yesterday’s vote, we will still be able to provide such reliefs. T

he budget is tomorrow, and I look forward to the Tories’ continued engagement in that process.

Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that questions 5 and 7 are grouped together. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question on either of those questions should press their request-to-speak button in the usual way.

COP26 (Global South)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to encourage representation from countries in the global south when Scotland hosts COP26 in November. (S5O-04095)

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

It is important that COP26 is inclusive and includes representatives from the global south, whose countries are among those that are least responsible for the global climate emergency but are being affected first and most severely by it. The Scottish Government will seek to develop a programme of opportunities whereby all voices can be heard in a respectful and collaborative way. We will also encourage the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the process of securing visas is as easy as possible and that delegates from around the world are able to attend COP26.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am sure that we all welcome the First Minister’s

tweet yesterday in which she made clear her intention to make COP26 a success. Nonetheless, does the cabinet secretary agree that Boris Johnson’s reported hostility to the role of the Scottish Government in co-hosting this global event is counterproductive, particularly when tackling climate change requires the collaboration of all communities, whether it be Scotland or vulnerable peoples in areas such as the Pacific islands?

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

The world is facing a climate emergency and we must now move to a net zero future in a way that is fair and just. COP26 can set us on that course, but it has to be a shared endeavour and we are determined that political differences will not play any part in it. The Scottish Government has continually demonstrated our commitment to delivering a successful COP26 in partnership and collaboration with the UK Government, Glasgow City Council, Police Scotland and others, and the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday to reiterate that commitment.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I am heartened by the cabinet secretary’s response to Bill Kidd’s question. Does she agree that, as the UK moves rapidly towards hosting COP26, the Prime Minister would do well to take a lesson from the effective way in which the Scottish Government and Parliament developed the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 across parties and beyond? If we cannot co-operate across the UK as hosts, what hope is there for the global south?

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

COP26 in Glasgow has the potential to be a very significant moment in our global efforts to tackle the climate crisis. I assure people that, globally, folk are looking forward very much to the event. It is really important that it does not end up being about political differences, because on climate change there is a huge degree of cross-party collaboration, not just here. In fairness, the UK Government is also prepared to commit to a net zero target date; many countries are not. We should be in the business of celebrating the progress that we are making, not getting ourselves into a wrangle that will do the opposite.

Climate Emergency Challenges

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the greatest challenges are in Scotland in tackling the climate emergency. (S5O-04096)

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

We have responded to the global climate change emergency by committing to world-leading emissions reduction targets. Our challenge now is to adopt policies that make achieving those targets a reality. Work is under way to produce an update of our climate change plan in April. The Committee on Climate Change has been clear that achieving Scotland’s net zero target is a collective endeavour—that goes back to the previous question—and it is contingent not least on the United Kingdom Government, which the committee challenged to

“step up and match Scottish policy ambition in areas where key powers are reserved”.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

In evidence at yesterday’s Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, Scottish Renewables told us that Scotland leads the way in low-carbon electricity charging for electric vehicles, at only 50g of CO2

emissions per kWh compared with 200g in the United Kingdom, and that, with a little more support, Scotland’s electric vehicle drivers could soon be almost totally carbon free. What more can the cabinet secretary do to push that forward and make a huge contribution to tackling climate change in Scotland?

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

Since 2012, we have invested over £30 million of funding in developing the publicly available charging network in Scotland and we now have over 1,200 charge points, including 275 rapid chargers.

We are committed to continuing to expand the network until 2022. In June last year, we announced £20 million of funding through our switched on towns and cities and local authority support programmes to install a further 500 charge points across Scotland. We will continue to offer further funding opportunities to local authorities, households and businesses to assist the growth of the charging network.

I will make sure that my colleague Michael Matheson’s attention is drawn to the question.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Scottish National Party is set to miss a range of climate change targets this year. It will fall short on one in six biodiversity targets, progress on active travel has declined and all public sector vehicles were supposed to be using alternative fuel by now. Does the cabinet secretary intend to meet any of the targets that were missed this year? If so, when?

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

The Scottish Government continues to be as ambitious as it possibly can be in respect of a range of issues in the climate change portfolio, as the member knows particularly well. We are progressing. We are doing better than a vast number of countries; we are one of the global leaders. I should also say that we are well in advance of our colleagues in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Plastic Packaging (Food and Drink)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it is having with food and drink manufacturers regarding their use of plastic packaging. (S5O-04097)

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

For Scotland to become a net zero society will require long-term and sustainable changes to consumer and producer behaviour. We have engaged with food and drink manufacturers on a number of policy initiatives, most recently our circular economy bill proposals and the deposit return scheme for drinks containers.

We are co-operating with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, along with other nations in the United Kingdom, on a new approach to extended producer responsibility for all packaging. Our aim is to provide stronger incentives to reduce waste and use more sustainable packaging across a wide range of products.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The cabinet secretary might be aware of Tesco’s recent and welcome announcement that it is taking a major step to remove multipack plastic packaging. I would be grateful to hear from the cabinet secretary what discussions could take place with other large retailers and grocery stores on reducing their use of plastic.

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

I welcome all steps that are being taken by big stores, particularly the giant supermarkets, because they could make a big impact in this area. We are engaging with the grocery supply chain, including retailers, through the UK plastics pact. That is a voluntary commitment, setting ambitious targets for signatories to reduce the amount of plastic packaging that they use and to work to improve their environmental impact. That work is on-going and will continue until we achieve what we want to see.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Although there is widespread support for a DRS, including on these benches, there are still significant concerns about the timescale for its introduction if it is not part of a UK-wide scheme. In 2015, Northern Ireland concluded that, although desirable, it would not be feasible to introduce the scheme on a Northern Ireland-only basis. In 2017, the Welsh Government also concluded that it would be preferable to establish a UK-wide scheme. Given that, why is the cabinet secretary so determined to introduce the scheme on a Scotland-only basis when it will mean additional costs and disruption for business, especially when DEFRA has consulted on a scheme that will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland that will commence in 2023?

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

It might have been advisable for Finlay Carson to put the word “allegedly” before the word “commence” because, at the moment, there is no certainty about when that scheme will proceed.

We have devolved responsibility in this area. We can do these things in Scotland. I am therefore surprised that the Conservatives, who are constantly asking us to get on with doing things in the devolved arena, somehow object to that when it happens in practice.

Mossmorran

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when the environment secretary last met communities living near the natural gas and ethylene plants at Mossmorran. (S5O-04098)

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

I receive regular updates on developments at Mossmorran and officials are in very regular contact with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and others that have statutory responsibilities in relation to the plant.

I appreciate the concerns of local communities following repeated unplanned flaring events during the past few years and have been clear that the situation needs to improve. However, I have been equally clear that regulatory and enforcement actions are for SEPA to consider in its role as an independent regulator.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I recognise the plans and the regulatory action that SEPA has taken to ensure that the plant operates in the law and ends the misery of communities in the surrounding area, but none of those actions addresses the climate emergency and Mossmorran remains the second-largest emitter of carbon in Scotland.

Given that there will be a climate camp near Mossmorran this summer, bringing together protesters in the local community ahead of the 26th conference of the parties—COP 26—is the cabinet secretary prepared to convene a round-table event to enable the plant operators, the community and others to plot ahead about how the plant can decarbonise?

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

I am always prepared to consider what might be helpful interventions. I should, of course, point out that Mossmorran is a cross-portfolio issue, so any consideration would have to be given on that basis.

I am aware of the climate camp. In my view, there is no doubt about this Government’s commitment to tackling climate change. We want to make sure that that is done in a just way. I am sure that the member accepts and understands that there are just transition issues with a plant as important to the local economy for employment and that the direct and indirect benefits need to be taken into consideration.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

On the important issue of local engagement, would it not be appropriate for SEPA now to engage directly with each of the affected community councils in my constituency—Crossgates and Mossgreen, Hill of Beath, Cowdenbeath, Lumphinnans, Lochgelly, Kelty, Benarty and Cardenden, and, as far as Braefoot Bay is concerned, Aberdour, and Dalgety Bay and Hillend? In doing so, perhaps SEPA could be encouraged by the cabinet secretary to let us all know when it will finally complete its investigation into the hugely disruptive, unplanned flaring incident at Mossmorran in April 2019.

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

I need to repeat what I said in my initial response: SEPA is an independent environmental regulator.

I understand that SEPA is in the final stages of concluding its investigation into flaring in April 2019. The current focus is on completing a safe restart of the plant while minimising the impact on the neighbouring communities. SEPA will be in a position to conclude its investigation once the restart of the plant is concluded.

I hope that the member is not asking me to interfere with SEPA’s independence—I am sure that she is not. I understand the frustration while we wait for the outcome of the investigation.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, while there are investigations into the flaring last April, the safe restart has included a long period of elevated flaring that has caused a lot of light pollution, noise pollution and distress to the local communities? Would she be prepared to engage with ExxonMobil and SEPA to look at how the restart has been done? I accept that there are safety issues that need to be given consideration.

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

I am assured that SEPA and, in fact, the Health and Safety Executive are monitoring developments very closely during the plant restart.

Regulatory investigations must be allowed to take their course. As I understand it, the company is taking steps to reduce the size of the flare and to provide updates for the local community. As I said earlier, I appreciate the concerns and the anxiety of the local communities about flaring at Mossmorran. In my view, it is important that the company takes all reasonable steps to minimise the impact of that on them.

Deer Management

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how rural communities can be supported socially, economically and environmentally by a more robust deer management system designed in the public interest. (S5O-04099)

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

Robust deer management systems can benefit rural communities by reducing the damage that is caused by deer, such as overgrazing, trampling vulnerable habitats, preventing young trees from growing and damaging crops. Wild deer also cause a significant number of road accidents each year, and effective deer management systems can help to reduce the risk of deer vehicle collisions.

The deer working group report, which is entitled “The Management of Wild Deer in Scotland” and which we published on 29 January this year, sets out a number of recommendations to improve deer management in Scotland. We will consider all those recommendations, alongside other evidence, and publish our response in due course.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the minister agree that many of the rural land management issues that we face are made more difficult by knowledge gaps? Will the Scottish Government require a publicly accessible national deer cull database, as proposed in the Werritty report’s recommendations?

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

That point has been identified in some of the reports that have been produced. The Werritty report and the deer working group report have both been published recently. We need to take a deep and careful look at all the recommendations in those reports and establish where the gaps might be and whether we need to fill them, as well as considering the other recommendations. We will give full consideration to that.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to regulate deer numbers. (S5O-04101)

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

In 2017, we commissioned an independent review by the deer working group. The group’s remit was to recommend changes to ensure that we have an effective deer management system in Scotland that safeguards public interest and promotes the sustainable management of wild deer. The group’s report, which we published on 29 January, contains recommendations on the regulation of deer numbers. We will carefully consider all those recommendations alongside all other evidence before publishing our formal response.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the minister ensure that she engages with the professionals who are involved in the practical control of deer numbers—that is, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association—to ensure that they have a major input into any new system that is designed to better regulate deer numbers?

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

It is absolutely our responsibility to engage with all relevant stakeholders. I mentioned the publication of a report, but a lot of other reports on deer have been published in recent times. We have to consider all the evidence as well as engaging with people as we go forward. That is very much part of our plans.

Fly Tipping

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports local authorities in tackling fly tipping. (S5O-04100)

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

Fly tipping is criminal, dangerous and unnecessary. Valuable resources that could be recycled are wasted, and local authorities and landowners bear the cost of clear-up.

Local authorities are primarily responsible for dealing with fly tipping, and we provided them with updated guidance on doing so in the revised code of practice on litter and refuse, which was published in 2018. Zero Waste Scotland and the Scottish partnership against rural crime provide strategic national support and regional partnerships to assist in tackling fly tipping.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that fly tipping remains a considerable problem for rural communities in my region. It is irresponsible, harmful to the environment and, in some cases, dangerous. Although prevention is of course important, the reality is that very few of these crimes, when detected, make it to court, even in cases where clean-up costs are considerable. With local council budgets under increasing pressure, what can the cabinet secretary do to ensure that local authorities have sufficient resources to deal with fly tipping and the pursuit of those who are responsible for it? What can the cabinet secretary do to ensure that, where an offender is identified, it is more straightforward for local authorities and landowners to recover the costs of cleaning up the mess that is left behind?

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

That question was in two parts. The first was to do with the overall issue of local authority funding. As I am sure the member will expect me to say, that is part and parcel of the budget negotiation. The money that goes to local authorities is negotiated with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and thereafter there is a decision on individual local authority funding. It is then for individual local authorities to make decisions about what they prioritise or otherwise in their budgets.

More broadly, in my opening answer, I referred to the Scottish partnership against rural crime, which last year published its “Rural Crime Strategy 2019-2022”, which includes commitments to tackling fly tipping. The partnership involves Police Scotland, Zero Waste Scotland, NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and Forestry and Land Scotland among others. Since the strategy was launched, a number of regional partnerships against rural crime have been set up. I do not know whether Jamie Halcro Johnston has managed to engage with a regional partnership in his area. That might be an interesting first point of contact for him.

He rightly mentions that there is a difficulty with detection and enforcement, as there always is with crimes that take place far away from the public eye and the possibility of detection. I am sure that advice and support will be there for local authorities in thinking about how they press forward with prosecution, and I hope that they are all accessing that advice.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the environment, climate change and land reform portfolio. I apologise to Lewis Macdonald for not being able to take his question.

Transport Strategy

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the new transport strategy for Scotland, “Protecting our climate and improving lives”. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The national transport strategy is fundamental in setting out the strategic direction of transport policy for the years ahead, shaping the future provision of transport in Scotland around a shared vision that will protect our climate and improve our lives. Since the 2006 strategy, there has been significant change in our society, including in our economy, in our environment and in technology, which the new strategy recognises. The strategy sets out the challenges that are associated with the pace of change and how those challenges will be addressed.

We have followed a collaborative approach throughout the process of developing the strategy. More than 60 transport partners have participated in the development of the strategic framework, helping to shape the vision and consider the challenges and opportunities that relate to the transport system. In parallel, our stakeholder engagement programme saw 6,500 people attending more than 100 events in rural, island and urban communities around Scotland. In summer 2019, we held a consultation on the draft strategy that resulted in more than 1,220 responses. We have updated the draft strategy to take account of the views that were expressed in the consultation and the strategy provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.

Through our collaborative approach, we have crafted a compelling vision for the future of transport in Scotland over the next 20 years. It is a vision that will protect our climate and improve our lives. The vision is:

“We will have a sustainable, inclusive, safe and accessible transport system, helping deliver a healthier, fairer and more prosperous Scotland for communities, businesses and visitors.”

The vision is underpinned by four key priority areas for transport, which are that it reduces inequality, takes climate action, helps to deliver inclusive economic growth and improves health and wellbeing.

The vision and priorities are at the heart of the strategy and will form the basis on which we take decisions and evaluate Scotland’s transport policies in the future.

Another important element of the strategy is our embedding of the sustainable travel hierarchy in decision making by promoting sustainable and active transport and shared transport options in preference to single-occupancy private cars. At the national level, the sustainable investment hierarchy will be used to inform future investment decisions and ensure transport options that prioritise reducing the need to travel unsustainably and maintaining our existing assets.

These frameworks place sustainability foremost in transport decision making, and their implementation into all areas of transport planning and investment decisions will help to deliver the transport system of the future for Scotland.

For transport to play its important part in delivering the fully inclusive society that we want to live in, we must address the challenges across our transport system. The strategy identifies those challenges as they relate to the four priorities.

The strategy’s first priority—reduces inequalities—is outcome focused and reflects the breadth of our ambition. Although not a right in itself, transport plays a key role in enabling people to realise their human rights by facilitating access to employment and public services such as healthcare and education. The strategy supports a rights-based approach to transport. It also highlights a range of inequalities that transport can help to tackle, including child poverty and gender inequalities, and the need to ensure that there is accessible transport for disabled people, to allow everyone in Scotland to share in the benefits of a modern and accessible transport system.

Regional inequalities and spatial differences are also recognised in the strategy and the transport system must play its part in connecting people and communities to employment, services and social life events.

Under the second priority—takes climate action—the strategy recognises the biggest moral endeavour of our times: addressing the global climate emergency. We all have a responsibility to act, but it is important that the Government leads from the front and by example.

Transport is responsible for 37 per cent of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the move to low and zero-carbon transport is essential to our future wellbeing. In response, the Scottish Government has made one of the most ambitious climate commitments in the world: to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. Over the 20-year period of the strategy, the role of transport in achieving that target will be crucial. It will require not only the use of low-carbon technology but significant societal changes, including encouraging people to move towards space-saving and sustainable travel choices and reducing the demand for unsustainable transport.

The measures in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 support emissions reduction in transport by encouraging modal shift. As an example of our commitment to this ambition, we are bringing forward significant and transformational long term funding of over half a billion pounds for buses, which will remove congestion impacts from our bus routes, reduce journey times and improve journey-time reliability.

As well as encouraging sustainable travel and reducing emissions, the transport system must also adapt to climate change impacts that are already being experienced.

Under the third priority, the strategy recognises the fundamental role of transport in the delivery of inclusive economic growth. The transport system plays a crucial role in the successful performance of Scotland’s economy and regional cohesion. It enables people to get to work and firms to get their goods and services to markets in Scotland and beyond.

We are witnessing dramatic changes for transport: in how we access information and pay for journeys, and in the switch from internal combustion engines to electric alternatives. If Scotland’s economic potential is to be realised, our transport system must also adapt to those changes by improving our network resilience, integrating with new technologies and preparing our workforce. We have one of the world’s most successful skills systems, which we must build on in order to address the challenges that we face in Scotland, including an ageing workforce, the depopulation of rural areas, digitalisation and the global climate emergency.

We must also support innovation to stimulate markets so that consumers, business, industry and our economy at large can harness the opportunities from zero emission mobility in local and international markets.

The fourth interlinked priority that the strategy addresses is improving our health and wellbeing. Our transport system needs to be safe and secure, giving users confidence that they will reach their destinations without threat, thereby encouraging active travel and sustainable public transport choices while also benefiting public health.

The transport system and the future transport needs of people will be at the heart of decision making as we deliver healthier and more sustainable places. The transport system must reduce its negative impacts on the health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Thankfully, we can take actions that can simultaneously tackle multiple challenges.

For example, by taking climate action and reducing inequalities, we can, in parallel, benefit public health by encouraging healthier active travel and reducing the associated harmful emissions. Poor air quality has a negative impact on the health of all of us—particularly the health of the most vulnerable, including the very young, the elderly and people with pre-existing health conditions. In Scotland, particulate air pollution is shortening everyone’s lifespan by approximately three to four months.

The national transport strategy presents the strategic framework for our transport system over the next 20 years. We all have a responsibility for delivering the strategy and making it a success—from local government and central Government implementing policies to businesses and individuals taking account of their actions when making travel choices.

Work has already begun on increasing the accountability of the transport sector and strengthening our evidence base. Working with partners, we will publish a delivery plan that will set out how the strategy will be delivered. That will be regularly updated and will provide detail on how the priorities will be realised through a range of actions, with key interventions flowing from the climate change plan update and the second strategic transport projects review.

The 20-year strategy is for all of Scotland. It is far reaching in its impact and its ambition. I am confident about its vision, and am happy to commit this document to Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will allow around 20 minutes for the cabinet secretary to take questions on his statement.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and for giving us a copy of the strategy document. Of course, we have not had a huge amount of time to go through it in great detail, but I assure the cabinet secretary that the Conservatives will approach the strategy in a positive and constructive way, and in a spirit of recognising that these ambitions must transcend the electoral cycles and political boundaries. I also thank the many stakeholders who participated in the process. I know that it has been a far-reaching piece of work.

It is hard to disagree that, at the heart of a 20-year strategy must lie four vital things: improving access to public transport; tackling climate change; delivering economic growth; and improving public health. In relation to all of those, we agree whole-heartedly with the premise of the statement that we have just heard.

However, now for the “but”. This is a good document, at first, cursory, glance. It is an excellent piece of research, and I am sure that there are lots of interesting points in it. However, it is noticeable that it is alarmingly bereft of detail. If the detail will lie in the delivery plan, I would like to have heard more about it in the statement. What are the policies that will help the Government meet the objectives? That is my first question to the cabinet secretary. That concerns the what; my next question concerns the who. Who are the partners that he said he will be working with on the delivery plan, and how will he work with them? My next question concerns the when. When will the delivery plan be laid before the Parliament, and how will we be able to adequately scrutinise it? The most important question concerns the how. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that he agrees that the ambitions that he has set out must be matched by investment and funding? Is he confident that the national transport strategy’s delivery plan will not simply become a wish list but will be backed up by adequate funding and a bold investment in infrastructure?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I thank Jamie Greene for his comments about engaging with the process constructively and for welcoming the provisions that are set out in the strategy.

The member will realise that the strategy is there to set the strategic national framework for policies that will be taken forward.

I recognise that time is limited and that Jamie Greene has been busy in committee this morning. Chapter 4, starting at page 42, sets out a range of measures and policies that will be taken forward in meeting the challenge. We will take forward those policies to develop the delivery plan. The delivery plan process will be very similar to the process for developing the strategy. The partners who have been involved in helping to shape the strategy will be responsible for setting out the detail of the delivery plan.

For a strategy to be in place for 20 years, it will have to adapt to changes as we make progress. It is also critical that we have proper, full accountability of the progress that we make against the strategy. The delivery plan will be updated annually, so that we can see the rate and level of progress, and where further action is needed.

I recognise the need to make sure that tangible, very specific measures are taken forward. That is the reason why there will be a delivery plan and, alongside it, a delivery board that will be responsible for its overall management. That is to make sure that we are taking forward the right types of policy initiatives in order to deliver the objectives that are set out in the strategy.

I want to reassure Jamie Greene that that will be a key part of how the framework will be delivered over the coming years. There will be the delivery plan, the framework, and the annual update that will demonstrate the rate of progress that we are making in taking forward the provisions in the strategy.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

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

Few will have any dispute with a vision of a more sustainable and inclusive transport system, or with the four priorities set out in the strategy, which Labour very much welcomes. The problem is with delivery under the Government.

The previous transport strategy was introduced in 2006 and has since been refreshed by the Government. However, transport emissions are now higher than they were in 1990; the Government is ending its Abellio ScotRail franchise because it has failed dismally to hit its performance targets; satisfaction with public transport is at its lowest level for 13 years; bus and rail fares are rocketing; growth in active travel has flatlined; bus passenger numbers have collapsed by more than 20 per cent since 2007—and I have not even mentioned ferry procurement.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, if the Government is going to turn the strategy’s warm words into action, it will need transformational change? One such change would be to build on the success of the bus pass for older people, which was introduced by Labour, and extend it to cover young people. Such a policy would help to deliver all four key priorities of the strategy. Will the cabinet secretary commit to that policy, work with Labour, and help deliver free bus travel for Scotland’s young people?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I welcome Colin Smyth’s initial comments in welcoming the priorities that are set out in the strategy. As I have just said to Jamie Greene, the next piece of work to be taken forward is the delivery plan. Colin Smyth will also recognise that we have made the biggest commitment to investing in bus travel in Scotland of the past 30 years, with half a billion pounds being invested in bus prioritisation, for the very reasons that we previously set out and which were referred to in my statement.

In relation to Colin Smyth’s very specific request, I am always prepared to look at fully-costed, detailed proposals that can help to improve our transport system. I am more than happy to hear from Colin Smyth on the details of the costs that are associated with extending the bus pass to the level that he has stated, as long as those costings are undertaken in a detailed way and include an identification of the budget in the transport sector that he wishes to see cut in order to meet that additional cost. The member will be well aware of the financial constraints within which we operate. Therefore, if there is to be an increase in expenditure on one aspect of transport, it will have to come from another aspect of the transport portfolio. I am more than happy to have that engagement with Colin Smyth, if he has suggestions as to where he wants to see cuts and where he wants to see investment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Both the statement and the front bench questions and answers have gone well over time, so I ask everyone else to be as succinct as possible, please.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of his document.

The document is neither a vision nor a strategy that is going to tackle the climate emergency. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need integration of policies, particularly in connection with planning, if we are to see significant movement on what is required, which is carriage of goods by rail, rather than on roads?

There is a lot of information in the report about poor air quality. There has to be greater take-up of freight carriage by rail, instead of the answer that I always get from the Scottish Government, which is simply that such things are commercial matters. It is a matter that the Scottish Government must lead on.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There is a need to make sure that we have a collective vision on such matters. John Finnie might want to consider the detail that is set out in the infrastructure commission report that I commissioned, which highlights the need to consider how the existing regulatory framework can support us to create the just transition that is necessary in order to meet the net zero carbon emissions target that we have set for 2045.

I recognise that we need to take a joined-up approach, which is the approach that we have taken in shaping the national transport strategy. I have absolutely no doubt that as we move forward with the climate change plans, the infrastructure and investment plans and the capital spending review, they will all demonstrate the leadership that this Government is prepared to show to make sure that we achieve our climate change ambitions. Members should be in no doubt about our determination to ensure that we meet the targets. The measures that we will take forward over the coming months will assist us in delivering them.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government still has a contract to support Heathrow airport expansion, despite Heathrow’s being the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the United Kingdom. The cabinet secretary has just said that the Scottish Government must lead “from the front” in tackling the climate emergency. That could be put to the test tonight. At Westminster, Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment for a vote to cancel Heathrow’s third runway. Will the Scottish Government change its mind on support for Heathrow expansion, and ask its Westminster colleagues to join the Liberal Democrats down there in tonight’s vote?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Mike Rumbles will be well aware of the critical importance of good air connectivity to the Scottish economy and to Scotland as a whole, and of the need to ensure that we protect and improve it, at the same time as we take forward the ambitious proposals for Scotland to become a zero emission aviation region by 2040, using new technology to reduce aviation emissions over the coming years.

We are already demonstrating that in our ambition to use new technologies—for example, the work in Orkney on alternative fuel types for aircraft—that have roles to play in the aviation sector. We will play our part: we will support development in relation to the ambition to be a zero emission aviation region, at the same time as we help to ensure that Scotland remains well connected to key parts of the world in order to support and sustain our economy.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Rural areas do not, in access to public transport, have equity with our urban counterparts. For many rural residents, life without access to a car is currently not feasible. How does the strategy

acknowledge that rural areas that want to play their part in reducing emissions must have particular and tailored interventions to help us to achieve our climate change ambitions?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The report and the strategy recognise the particular challenge in Scotland’s rural areas. A range of measures can be taken forward, including supporting and sustaining public transport where possible in rural areas, and helping to connect communities. That includes investment in north-east Scotland in new railway stations and rail infrastructure, which is a £300 million project to improve connectivity in rural areas. That is an example of our helping to ensure that our rural communities remain as well connected as possible.

We should also recognise that there will be a need for good road connectivity for our rural communities. We need to make sure that we have good-quality roads—for example, through the investment in the A9, which will be critical to sustaining the Highlands’ economy in the years ahead—while also supporting the transition to low-emissions vehicles by assisting people in our rural communities who have to make use of a car to move to electric and low-emissions vehicles, and by ensuring that we have a spread of charging infrastructure to support people to make that decision. A variety of measures have to be taken forward, but the particular needs of rural communities are critical. The strategy recognises that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I repeat the need for succinct questions and answers, please. I call Maurice Golden, to be followed by Alasdair Allan.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary is right that the Government should lead on climate change. However, active travel is declining and transport emissions have barely changed in 30 years. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary take this opportunity to back Scottish Conservative calls to make electric vehicles the default public procurement option, where possible?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I very much hope that when it comes to considering whether he supports our budget, the member will support the approach that we are taking to active travel, because we have doubled the active travel budget over the past two budgets and we will seek to ensure that we build on that in the years ahead.

On making more use of electric vehicles, we have an extensive programme of fleet renewal, which we are supporting across the public sector. That is to allow it to move to ultra-low emission vehicles—in particular,

electric vehicles. The programme to support that transition—be it in the national health service or the police service—is the most extensive in the whole of the UK, and I am keen to ensure that we build on it.

There is a range of further measures that we can put in place to support that transition, and we are open to looking at doing that, whether that is through procurement or other means. It is important that we support the public sector in that transition, and that it undertakes it in a managed way that allows it to continue to provide essential public services.

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

I am sure that the national transport strategy recognises that the very welcome growth in tourism can have an impact on the transport system, whether that be roads or ferries. Can the cabinet secretary set out any of the measures that he or ferry companies will be undertaking this summer and beyond in order to cope with what will likely be a record number of visitors?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member is correct to point out the growing level of tourism to our island communities, and the significant pressure that that has placed on our ferry services.

One of the benefits that our ferry services and island communities have had in recent years has been the introduction of the road equivalent tariff, which has helped to make it more affordable for people to make ferry journeys.

Part of our work on ferries is to look at maximising the existing assets that we have in the fleet and to ensure that timetabling optimises their use, particularly during key periods of the year. Work is being undertaken to look at this summer’s timetabling to ensure that we maximise the use of those assets during the summer months, in order to support the tourism sector in Alasdair Allan’s constituency and other island areas.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

What is the message in the statement for poorer families, who will not be able to afford electric vehicles? In Glasgow, it is not possible to get a bus from the Queen Elizabeth hospital to Darnley, in the south side, after 6 o’clock at night. That is how bad it is. Will the minister tell me which of the four priorities will ensure that poorer people will not be left behind in the transport strategy?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is critical that we tackle the types of financial inequality that people can experience as a result of not being able to access the right type of transport and that we create the type of inclusive economic growth that we want to see.

The member asked a specific question about what we are doing on electric vehicles.

She may be aware that, because of the costs that are associated with purchasing an electric vehicle, we have a comprehensive programme to support people who want to do that, which we run through the Energy Saving Trust in Scotland. It supports people with an interest-free loan for a six-year period, and it has recently been changed to allow it to be used for second-hand vehicles. Scotland is the only part of the UK in which that is allowed.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

You are kidding yourself.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

If the member would listen to what I am saying, she might find it helpful.

We are also taking forward a range of work on electric car clubs, which provide social housing providers with a pool of electric vehicles that their residents can make use of regularly. That programme, which I launched in Bridgeton as part of our just transition towards low-carbon technology, was started more than a year ago.

The member can be assured by the measures that we have already put in place. As we have highlighted in the strategy, tackling inequality is critical, which is why it is a key element of the strategy and will be part of our policies—as it is at present—for years to come.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I welcome the Scottish National Party Government’s ambition to phase out new petrol and diesel cars and vans in Scotland by 2032—ahead of the UK—and its commitment to phase out all petrol and diesel vehicles from public sector fleets by 2030.

As the cabinet secretary just said, enabling their replacement with electric vehicles and rolling out charging infrastructure are key to that. What plans does the Government have to put in place that infrastructure to allow us to meet those targets?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Willie Coffey raised an important point, because supporting and assisting people to make the transition to ultra-low emission and electric vehicles is about making sure that they have confidence in the charging infrastructure.

That is why, as has been recognised, Scotland has the most extensive public charging network of any part of the UK, with the exception of the centre of London. The extensive public network that we have created to support people in that transition will be critical in giving them the confidence to move to ultra-low emission and electric vehicles. Over the past couple of years, we have invested more than £30 million in providing that type of technology and access to charging points. We will continue that level of investment, because it will be critical in supporting the transition to low-emission vehicles.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The consultation indicated that there must be a specific focus on rural and remote communities in the strategy, the aims of which I very much welcome. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that strengthens the business case to extend the likes of the Borders railway, and does he concur that linking the south of Scotland to the west coast main line would address regional inequalities, level up spending, and improve the lives of people who live far from the cities, such as those who live in Newcastleton?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member will be aware that we have already completed and published the Borders transport corridors study, which highlighted the options of extending the line in the Borders. I welcome the fact that the UK Government has now matched us in providing £5 million towards carrying out more detailed appraisal work on the prospects of extending the Borders railway line. That work is presently being taken forward. Once it has been completed, the options will be considered, as part of the strategic transport projects review 2 process, in order to identify a project for future investment. That work is already being taken forward, and it will be considered in due course—as all projects are—as part of the STPR2 process.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the statement on the new transport strategy for Scotland. I am sorry that I was unable to call Claudia Beamish, Emma Harper, Lewis Macdonald and Stewart Stevenson. I suggest that all groups have a think—and, perhaps, a discussion—about how they can best use statements and questions so that their colleagues are not disadvantaged.

Independent Care Review

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

The next item of business is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on the independent care review. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

This morning, the independent care review published one of the most significant reports that we will consider in this session of Parliament. Indeed, I consider this to be one of the most important moments so far in my tenure as First Minister.

I am making today’s statement to underline my political and personal commitment to turning the report’s vision of how we must care for our most vulnerable young people into reality as quickly as possible.

I do not mind saying that I felt very emotional when I read the report’s main volume, “The Promise”. There is a really powerful simplicity to what it says that we and, most important, the young people who experience it, should expect from a good care system. It should have love and nurture at its heart. Wherever possible, families must be supported to stay together. When that is not possible, the relationships that matter to young people—particularly those with brothers and sisters—must be protected. When a child needs our care, the priority must be the provision not of a series of placements or arrangements that are driven by the needs of bureaucracy but of stable, safe, secure, loving homes that allow them to experience the joys and the normal challenges of growing up and to fulfil their potential in life.

None of that should be at all controversial. However, it distresses me—as, I am sure, it distresses all of us—that that is not the experience of all young people who are in, or who have passed through, our care. To be blunt, we let too many of them down, and they pay the price of that for the rest of their lives. In too many instances, the price can be a life cut short.

The statistics have always told us that, but in the report we hear it directly from the young people for whom we have responsibility. Further, it is not just true here in Scotland; there is possibly no country in the world in which the care review’s vision of care is yet a living reality. As a result of the report’s publication there is, therefore, an opportunity for Scotland to become the first country that makes it so—and I am determined that we should do so.

I place on record my sincere thanks to Fiona Duncan and all the review group members for all the work that they put into the report. They have done a truly outstanding job. I also pay tribute to Who Cares? Scotland, which has been the driving force behind the review’s creation.

Perhaps the most important achievement of the review—and the reason for its conclusions being so powerful—is that it has the voices of people in care at its heart. People with experience of care made up half of the review’s co-chairs and working group members. The review listened to more than 5,500 people, more than half of whom were children, young people, adults and families with direct experience of care; the others were paid and unpaid carers. All their stories have shaped everything in the report. I take this opportunity to thank each and every one of those 5,500 people. I know that sharing stories about painful and traumatic personal experiences is not easy. However, by doing so, they have all helped to make things better for children and young people in the future.

I know that the care-experienced voice in the report is real. Since 2016, I have met just over 1,000 young people who have experienced care, and I will carry our conversations in my heart for the rest of my life. Indeed, some of the early ones led directly to the creation of the review. As I read the report, from every page I heard the voices and the stories of the people I have met. Let me be very clear: I have met many young people with good experience of care who are doing brilliantly, but I have also met many who are doing so even though their care experience was not good and whose achievement is entirely down to their own talents and resilience. I have also seen at first hand the dedication, commitment and passion of those who work in the care sector, and I thank them for that.

However, I have also heard far too many heartbreaking stories. Despite the best efforts and intentions of everyone involved, the actual experience of too many people in care is not what they have a right to expect. The world that is described in today’s report—of a care system that feels “fractured, bureaucratic, unfeeling”, stigmatising and mired in the use of impersonal language such as “placements”, “contact” and “respite” to describe what should be loving relationships—is one that I have had recounted to me many times. That must change.

It is also why the vision and blueprint for transformational change that are set out in “The Promise” are so vital. At their heart are five foundations of care. The first is voice: children must be heard and listened to in all decisions about their care. The second is family: whenever possible, families should be supported to stay together with their children. Our first priority should be to do all that we can to keep children out of care and with their own families. The third foundation is care: when living with their own families is not possible, children must stay with their brothers and sisters when it is safe for them to do so, and they must belong to a stable, loving home. The fourth foundation is people: those in the workforce and wider community who look after children must be well supported so that they, in turn, can provide compassionate care and decision making. The fifth is scaffolding: the system of help, decision making, support and, crucially, accountability that surrounds all of that must be more supportive and responsive.

The report also makes an important but challenging point about risk. Of course, we must always consider the immediate risk of harm to a child when decisions are made about their care. However, we must also consider the risk that is created when we remove a child from their family or overburden their childhood with bureaucracy. The risk then is that we compound their trauma and make it harder for them to enjoy stable, loving, long-term relationships. Protecting family relationships and, above all, allowing children to enjoy the kind of childhood that others take for granted is often the best way of protecting them from harm.

The report sets out very clearly the direct costs of supporting children in care and also the hidden costs of the failures of care—the long-term human and financial costs that are borne not just by society but, more important, by the individuals whose experience of being let down by care impacts negatively on their life chances.

I hope that all members will take the time to read the report in full. I have tried to summarise its principles and key conclusions as best I can, but, in the short time that I have available, I cannot possibly do justice to the detail of the 80 specific changes that it recommends. What I can and will say unequivocally is that I am determined to get on with implementing it at pace. That will involve practical change at every level but, more fundamentally, it will require a transformation in the culture of care.

The Scottish Government has already made some changes while the review has been doing its work—for example, by introducing the care-experienced bursary—but today’s report leaves no room for doubt that we must do more, and we must do it more fundamentally, more systematically and more quickly. A radical overhaul is what the review demands, and that is what we have a duty to deliver.

I want to be clear, though, that we will continue to listen to care-experienced voices who have additional ideas and suggestions to make. There is not and never will, or should, be a closed door.

We will act straight away to implement the plan section of the report. There are two key immediate elements to that. The first is the establishment of a team to quickly turn the report into a detailed delivery plan. Although the report recognises that full implementation of its vision will take time, the process of change must and will start immediately.

The second is the creation of an independent oversight body. I confirm that both groups will include people with experience of care. In fact, half the members of the oversight body—including the chair, who will be from outside the Scottish Government—will have experience of care.

Those groups will ensure that we keep up the momentum that has been established by the review. The Government aims to make progress in a matter of weeks and will update Parliament regularly thereafter.

Throughout the care review process—as I have been speaking to 1,000 voices—I have been struck by the fact that for ministers, in particular, but actually for all parliamentarians, the responsibility that we owe to young people in care is a very special one. In fact, ensuring that they have an equal chance to succeed and that they benefit from the stable, loving relationships that so many of us took for granted when we were growing up is one of the most important duties that any of us has in public life. It is a duty that I take very seriously and very personally.

Today’s report makes the need for action overwhelmingly clear. It sets out the extent of our obligations. However, it also gives us an opportunity: the opportunity to change thousands of young people’s futures for the better. The Scottish Government is determined to take that opportunity. We will work with local authorities, care providers and all other relevant partners to make the necessary changes to care. We will deliver that change as quickly and as safely as possible—starting now—and we will ensure that people with care experience remain at the heart of the process.

That is the promise that I make today to all those—past, present and future—who need our care. In keeping that promise, as I am determined to do, I look forward to robust challenge but also, I hope, to the cross-party support, interest and engagement of the Parliament.

I commend this statement to the Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised. We have around 20 minutes for questions; I am talking through the applause so that we do not waste any time. I call Alison Harris, to be followed be Iain Gray.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Presiding Officer, I will take this—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Oh, it is not Alison Harris—you have changed! It is Liam Kerr.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Many have said that to me, Presiding Officer.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Not for the better.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not for the better, indeed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Well, there is a first.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I associate myself and the whole Scottish Conservative Party with the tenor of her remarks. Although we will always offer robust challenge, the First Minister can be assured of our support in delivering the recommendations of this ambitious and vital report.

Above all, I, too, extend our thanks to the more than 5,500 people who contributed—it cannot have been easy.

It is clear that what has emerged can change things positively for children and young people.

For that to happen, I agree with Children 1st, which said that the report

“must not be ‘welcomed’ and then put on a shelf.”

Young people in the care system need a great deal more than simply the best wishes of this chamber. They need concrete action to transform their lives for the better and to live up to the promise that I expect and hope that every party here will rightly make today.

When does the First Minister expect the team that will take the report and turn it into a detailed delivery plan to have completed that work? How soon after that process has finished will the much-needed changes begin?

The First Minister

I thank Liam Kerr for his expression of support—it is very much appreciated—although, as I said in my statement, part of the process of making sure that we take forward the recommendations will be the robust challenge that Parliament and people outside Parliament bring to the process.

I, too, agree with Children 1st and the others who have said that we must not put the report on the shelf. Believe me—while I am First Minister, there is no shelf that the report will be going on. When we first established the review, we made it clear that we did not want to wait until it reported and do nothing in the interim. While the review has been doing its work, we have taken a number of steps, including the care-experienced bursary, which I mentioned, the council tax exemption and the creation of the presumption that siblings will stay together, and I hope that that is seen as a down payment on our intention to deliver what is in the report.

As I said in my statement, we intend to make progress within weeks on getting in place the team that will turn the report into a delivery plan. My view is that that team will start work immediately. In “The Plan”, the review sets out that the change will take place over a number of years. We are talking about not only a series of practical changes, important though those will be, but a transformation and a culture of change. That process must start to happen now and must continue. When we get the team in place, I undertake to ensure that Parliament is regularly updated so that challenge and support can be provided.

One of the greatest privileges of my life has been meeting the thousand and more care-experienced young people over the past few years. They have told me directly—some of them did so this morning—that they will hold us to account on the progress that we make, and I absolutely welcome and embrace that, because the report is for them.

Some of the people who have told their stories as part of the review process have made the point that although it is too late to change the reality for them, they are motivated by the desire to bring about change for others. I am clear about the fact that the time for young people to have to tell their stories over and over again is over. They have told us their stories, and it is now for us to act and change the reality for children in the future.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I thank the First Minister for providing early sight of the statement.

The First Minister was right to say that, over generations, we have let down far too many of the young people in our care. We can hear that in the report in the authentic voice of those care-experienced young Scots, and I think that that is why it carries such power, so I say well done to the review chair, Fiona Duncan, all her co-chairs and everyone involved. It is a remarkable effort. I say well done, too, to the First Minister, whose personal investment in the issue is very clear and very much to her credit.

I welcome the creation of the delivery plan team and the agreement to the creation of an independent oversight body but, to reflect what the First Minister said in her answer to Liam Kerr, it is not the process of change, but change itself, that must start immediately.

We should listen to Who Cares? Scotland, which said today:

“The evidence shows that what the Scottish Government chooses to do next is literally a matter of life and death. We expect to see urgent action, in the next few weeks, that makes a tangible difference to young people’s lives. Any further delay would be unacceptable.”

What action can we expect in the next few weeks that will make a tangible difference? Specifically, what can we expect to see tomorrow in the budget to ensure that we invest in keeping the promise?

The First Minister

I agree very strongly that the issue is about not simply the process of change but the actual change. I have said to many care-experienced young people that when I was asked by Who Cares? Scotland and others to establish the review, I took a little bit of convincing, because I did not want the review to be seen to be kicking something into the long grass; we could not simply set up a review and then do nothing.

We have taken a range of steps, and we will continue to do so. It is right and proper that, in acting on the recommendations of the report, we get the process right not just in relation to the series of continuing changes but by bringing together a process that will facilitate and support overall cultural change.

We asked for this, but when I read the report, I was struck by how different it is from the reports that Parliament usually considers. It is not just about a series of individual practical and transactional changes, although those will be important; it is about how we take the whole system, and everyone who plays a part in it, and change our approach to the care of young people who are our responsibility. I do not underestimate the challenge of doing that, but I am absolutely determined that we will meet that challenge. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to do that. As we have done over the past few years, we will continue to make the changes as we go.

I will not pre-empt the budget, but delivering what is needed over a number of years will undoubtedly have financial implications and require investment. The report is very clear about that. It is also very clear about the relationship between children who go into care and poverty. One of the key things in tomorrow’s budget will be progress on the new Scottish child payment, which is part of what we are doing to help lift families out of poverty.

One of the most powerful things is “The Money” and “Follow the Money” reports, which outline not only the amount of money that we currently invest to support young people in care but the hidden costs relating to the failures of care. Yes, the issue is about up-front investment but, over time, it is also about ensuring that the money that we already spend and which is already in the system is spent on keeping young people in their own families and on preventing them from going into care. However, when that cannot be avoided, we need to ensure that young people have the support that they need. That will be a feature not only of tomorrow’s budget but of budgets for years to come, while we ensure that we provide the care that young people deserve.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thirteen members want to ask questions and we have 12 minutes—you can do the arithmetic. I need succinct questions and answers. I appreciate that the matter is of huge concern, quite rightly, but let us please try to be succinct.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The report is an incredibly moving piece of work, and I join the First Minister in thanking all those who took part. Does she agree that it is now critical that we see a pace of change, systematically and culturally, so that we can all come together to support our most vulnerable children and give them the childhood that they deserve?

The First Minister

Yes. Pace, here, is everything. Based on a lot of evidence, the report sets out a period of 10 years for systematic cultural change. As I have said, change needs to happen on a continuous basis. I want to prove that we can do that on a quicker timescale than the report sets out, and all of us have a role to play in that. That makes it all the more important that we get early momentum behind what we are trying to do. That is partly about getting the right process in place, but it is also about ensuring that we continue to make the practical changes that add up to the systematic change that the report calls for.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that success will depend largely on strong collaboration between national Government, local authorities and care providers. Will she ensure that clarity on the roles that each has will be set out when the independent review oversees the work?

The First Minister

Yes, I give that assurance. That is a valid and important point. Even today, I have been heartened by the response to the report from those in the system—I have come to dislike using the word “system” when describing care, but I often slip into using it for shorthand.

The Government has a leadership role to play, but those who deliver care have a role, too. Most of the carers whom I have met do an absolutely fantastic job but, overall, the system is failing too many people, so we need to understand the roles. We also need to understand how some of those roles will change. If we are successful in preventing more young people from going into care in the first place, the nature of the support that is provided in the system will be different in the future. It is really important that everyone understands their role and that everyone pulls together in the same direction.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

As the First Minister acknowledged, the statistics are harrowing: care-experienced people are six times more likely to be excluded from school and 15 times more likely to end up in prison. What measures will the First Minister use to track progress, and how will she report that back to Parliament?

The First Minister

As I said, we will aim to come back to Parliament in a matter of weeks to set out more detail on how, through the group that will be responsible for the delivery plan and the oversight group, we will set milestones, measure them and report to Parliament. That is an important point that we have to get right at the outset.

As Daniel Johnson rightly says, and as I referred to in my statement, the statistics have been telling us those things for a long time. It was statistics that drove me to set up the review, but I no longer think about the issue in terms of statistics because I have met too many of those statistics—they are real human beings. They are our children and young people—human beings—who deserve more from us, and we all need to think of them in those terms and not as the statistics that, rightly, we often point to as providing the reason for change.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

The First Minister’s statement is notable for its humanity, compassion and desire to put love and nurture at the heart of how we look after young people in care in Scotland. The Scottish Green Party welcomes the report and thanks all who were involved.

What action will the First Minister urge to ensure that caring relationships and important and essential bonds can be formed without fear of chastisement? “The Promise” tells us that where caring and committed staff are afraid to cross professional boundaries, that can result in children growing up in an environment that can feel cold and comfortless.

The First Minister

That is both one of the most important messages in the report and, to be frank and candid, one of the most difficult challenges to address and meet. I have lost count of the number of young people who have told me about the burden of bureaucracy in their lives and what that means for their ability to be normal children and young people—the need to have a risk assessment and get permission before they can spend time at a friend’s house at the weekend, for example. One young girl told me about being at a party where she could not go on the trampoline in the garden because it had not been risk assessed.

We must allow children to be children, but that also means having a supportive environment for the people whom we trust to care for children, so that they feel able to provide that compassionate and loving care within boundaries that they understand and feel comfortable with. We need to change the balance of risk. Of course, when a child is in a risky or potentially harmful situation, the instinct is to get them out of it; we all understand that. However, sometimes that may not be the best solution. Putting in the support to keep a child in that situation and allow them to stay may be better. That will have challenging implications as we work our way through the issue, which is why I come back to the point that the report is much more fundamental and cultural than is normal for reports that we receive. They also make it more important, and most important, that we get this right.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful to Fiona Duncan for the inclusive way in which she has conducted the review. Right now in Scotland, when people leave care a trap-door shuts and they have no right to return. We all know that when people start out as young adults, things sometimes fall apart and they have to move back in with mum and dad. That option is not currently available to Scotland’s tens of thousands of care leavers. Does the First Minister agree with the insistence on page 92 of the report that:

“Young adults for whom Scotland has taken on a parenting responsibility must have a right to return to care”?

The First Minister

One of the things that I have heard loudly and clearly as I have listened to young people is about the arbitrary nature of some of the age limits that we apply in the system and how they have no meaning in the real-life experiences of young people. Again, to demonstrate that we have listened as the work has been under way, we have not only introduced the care-experienced bursary but, from listening to what people have said, we have raised and removed the age limit on that.

Age will have different application in different aspects of what we are talking about. I am not going to talk about my age because it is too sensitive a subject, particularly this year, but every one of us knows that, no matter how old we get, the ability to look to our parents and families for support at difficult times in our lives is really important. Care-experienced young people are no different. I dislike the term, but, for “corporate parents”, that same lifelong responsibility must be present. That is one of the key issues that we have to grapple with as we create a system that is right for people, at whatever age or stage of their life they may be.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I, too, fully and whole-heartedly welcome the report. The review made it clear that children must be enabled to build stable and lasting loving relationships. Does the First Minister agree that it is crucial to ensure that, in cases where staying with family is not possible, children and young people are able to build the supportive and loving relationships that everyone needs to grow and thrive?

The First Minister

Yes, I do. We need to stop thinking about placements for young people. For young people who cannot stay with their family, we need to create stable and loving homes where they are treated the same as other children. If we start the discussion from that premise, we are more likely to head in the right direction, which is crucially important. That is one of the strongest messages that has come through the whole exercise, and I guess that that is what we mean when we talk about putting love into the system.

However, although putting love into the system is important, making sure that we do not take it out unnecessarily is equally important. That is why keeping families together when we can and, crucially, not allowing the bonds between brothers and sisters to be broken, are such vital things, and we must do them much better than we have done in the past.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The review’s findings include that there is an overworked and stressed workforce. Clearly, those people perform an exceptionally challenging and complex task, and they must be properly trained, supported, and protected. What steps will the First Minister take to support them?

The First Minister

I agree with that point, and not just in theory. I have seen at first hand so many times the fantastic job that social workers, foster carers, people working in our residential homes, and those who work with children more informally do.

The one thing that I want to say to them directly is that our talking about overhauling the system is not a reflection on their commitment and dedication—it is important for them to hear that. We must give practical support to those who work in the care sector by making sure that they are properly resourced and funded, which is why the approach of tomorrow’s budget to public services is so important. We must make sure that more of the resources that we already spend is allowing them to support children in the right way.

Also, to go back to an earlier question, one of the most important things that we must do is change the culture within which those workers operate so that they can do what they desperately want to do, which is to give young people the compassionate care that they need. That will be the harder part of all this, but it is the most important part.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

As the First Minister has highlighted, the voices of care-experienced young people have been absolutely key in informing the care review. Does she share my view that the input of care-experienced young people must remain at the heart of designing the next important steps?

The First Minister

Yes, absolutely. We would fail in this if we did not continue to have the voice of care-experienced young people at the heart of where we go from here. There is no doubt that the report would not have ended up where it did without that.

I would go further, actually. By demonstrating the power of the care-experienced voice in this review, we have shown that we should make sure that that the lived-experience voice is at the heart of everything we do. That is certainly true of the care review, but I am sure that it has much wider application across all areas of our responsibility.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Many Scots and children in Dundee find themselves in the care system because of a parent dying because of drugs. Indeed, I heard of one such case just before Christmas. Is the national drugs task force looking specifically at what can be done to prevent drugs deaths among parents? What can be done to increase the number of supportive care places in areas with high numbers of drugs deaths?

The First Minister

That should absolutely be a key focus of the drugs task force, although it has to decide its priority areas. More importantly, we must make sure that there is a proper link between the work that we are doing here and in other areas of work, such as the work that is being done around drugs deaths.

Jenny Marra is right to point to the number of young people who will end up in care because a parent has died from drugs, so the connections between those vital pieces of work are important. One of the key priorities of the work that will be done over the next few weeks in getting the process right is to make sure that those connections are properly understood and happen as we want them to.

Mark McDonald (Independent, Aberdeen Donside)

One of the most distressing stories that I heard at the outset of the care review was of a public meeting at which the members of the community were up in arms at the possibility of a residential children’s home opening in their area. Does the First Minister agree that, as well as the legislative changes that are being made, politicians must lead attitudinal change across society to ensure that the stigma that still exists in too many quarters relating to children in care is tackled and eradicated once and for all?

The First Minister

Yes, and I will be direct here: we all have a leadership role to play. We are all constituency or regional representatives and we have a duty to represent the views of our constituents, but we also have a role to play in changing attitudes and combating stigma.

I have had conversations with constituents in which I had to take a different view from theirs on their understanding of what a care home in a residential area meant and why the children were in that care home. I think that we all have a responsibility to do that.

Having the places where our most vulnerable young people are cared for in the heart of communities is not something that we should oppose, but something that we should welcome, because that is part of making sure that our young people are part of an overall stable, loving environment.

I have been forced to think about a lot of things very differently as part of this process, and I think that we all have to do that in all respects as we move forward.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is no pressure,

Ms Gilruth, but, if you are brief, I can get in your colleague Stuart McMillan, too.

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

The care review has highlighted the importance of schools in helping children to build relationships that will encourage them to learn and to thrive. Does the First Minister agree that stability and support is vital in improving the educational outcomes of care-experienced young people?

The First Minister

I agree 100 per cent with that. Many young people have told me that the teacher in their class was the only person who they felt able to turn to and talk to. However, I have to be frank: I have, equally, heard young people say that they felt that they

were treated differently at

school as a result of their being in care—because

people did not have the necessary knowledge, their behaviour was perhaps misunderstood.

A young person spends a great deal of their time in school and it is a key part of the stability that they have in their lives. That is even more true for young people who are in care. In recent weeks, I have heard great examples of schools doing really good work, including setting up groups for care-experienced people, to help other young people understand what they experience. We should see schools as a key part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the First Minister join me in welcoming the care review’s finding that mental health support must be accessible for vulnerable children and young people and that it should be delivered in their communities?

The First Minister

Yes. Again, I think that the report is clear and explicit on mental health. A lot of our general work on mental health for young people is important in that regard. For example, establishing the new wellbeing service and getting more counsellors into schools have general benefits, but can bring particular benefits to care-experienced young people.

I mentioned Fiona Duncan in my opening statement. As we have reached the end of questions on this topic, I reiterate my thanks to her—she has absolutely repaid the trust that we put in her as chair of the review by bringing together all the different voices and issues. We have been given a platform for change. On mental health, poverty and all the other issues that are brought to bear, we have a golden opportunity to do something special, so that future generations can look back and not have to constantly talk about the failures of the care system.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the statement. I will move on with very little pause. [

Interruption

.] There should be no applause, please. I understand why some people in the gallery may wish to applaud, but it is not permitted.

Tax and Public Spending

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-20716, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on there being no case for tax increases or further cuts to public spending. We have time in hand for interventions.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

T

omorrow, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work will set out his budget for the coming financial year. I think that we are all looking forward to that occasion; it is the highlight of my year, Presiding Officer. We think that this afternoon is good opportunity to set out what we believe his budget priorities should be, and to allow members of other parties to set out their thoughts.

I am not so naive as to think that what is said in the debate will necessarily influence the finance secretary’s thinking ahead of tomorrow; indeed, I fully expect his budget documents, if they have not already been printed, to be on their way to the printers.

However, tomorrow is just the start of the budget process. Over the next four weeks, there will be discussion, scrutiny and negotiation. Today, we are setting out our stall. I hope that the debate will be positive and constructive. Who knows? We might be able to find a degree of consensus about our collective priorities for the budget for the coming year.

I start by setting out a little of the background to this year’s budget. I appreciate that with the United Kingdom budget not being delivered until 11 March, we do not yet have precise figures to inform our budget settlement. Nevertheless, a great deal of information is already in the public domain, which enables the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work to go ahead and put proposals to Parliament. That is what the Welsh Government has done; indeed, it presented its budget proposals to the National Assembly for Wales back in December.

Therefore, let no one pretend that the timing of the UK budget has made it impossible for the finance secretary to bring forward his budget plans. Indeed, historically, Scottish budgets have been presented in September, well ahead of UK budgets in March of the following year. The current fiscal framework was negotiated and agreed by the Scottish Government against precisely that backdrop. I therefore hope that we will hear no more faux outrage from the Scottish National Party about budget timings.

We know from spending decisions that have already been made that the block grant from Westminster will grow by at least £1.1 billion from this year to next year. According to the Fraser of Allander institute, that amounts to a 2.1 per cent real-terms increase. That Boris bonus gives the finance secretary considerable extra money to spend.

However, that is not the entire picture, because the block grant has to be adjusted in two respects. First, we know that we are carrying forward a negative reconciliation of approximately £200 million that is due to overestimation of tax revenues by the Scottish Government three years ago.

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

That is not true.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the finance secretary wants to intervene and explain to me why that is not true, I will give way.

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

Does Murdo Fraser not understand—or, indeed, know—that the tax forecasts are made by the Scottish Fiscal Commission and not by the Scottish Government?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I regret to tell the finance secretary that he is wrong, because the overestimate that I referred to was an estimate that was made by the Scottish Government before the Scottish Fiscal Commission took on that responsibility. He does not even understand his own brief.

On top of that £200 million reconciliation, there is likely to be a negative impact because Scottish income tax receipts are expected not to grow as much as those in the rest of the UK. That is according to the most recent Fiscal Commission set of forecasts. Of course, we will get updates on those tomorrow.

According to the Fraser of Allander institute, those factors combined take block-grant growth down from 2.1 per cent in real terms to just 1 per cent. In other words—and to put it bluntly—more than half the benefit of the Boris bonus that is coming to Scotland from Westminster is being lost because of the Scottish Government’s inability to grow income tax revenues by at least the UK average rate. Our ability to fund public services is being damaged because our economy is not growing fast enough.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Murdo Fraser accept that it was not entirely the Government that was responsible for that estimate, and that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs did not know how many Scottish taxpayers there were, who Scottish taxpayers were and how much tax they were paying?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

John Mason makes a reasonable point in relation to the original forecast of tax revenues, but my point is that we now have much better information for the forecasts. We cannot blame the relative drop in income tax receipts on a forecasting error when the problem is the inability of our economy to grow fast enough or, at least, in line with the UK average.

In our discussions on the issue, we should never forget that Scotland benefits from a union dividend that is now worth nearly £2,000 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is the value of the fiscal transfer from the rest of the United Kingdom to support higher public spending in Scotland than is possible elsewhere. That payment is not primarily because the Scottish economy is performing worse than the UK average, although that is a factor; it arises substantially because of the much higher public spending levels here than exist elsewhere in the UK.

SNP members who want to draw a comparison between public spending rates in Scotland and those south of the border—as they often do—need to be honest and tell people that if we were to go down the route of independence that they propose, all that benefit would be lost, and that they have absolutely no idea how they would make up the difference or how that fiscal transfer of more than £10 billion would be replaced.

Ahead of the budget tomorrow, we have set out our position on what the finance secretary’s priorities should be. I will spell them out again for members.

With the Boris bonus and increases in the block grant, there can be no justification for any additional tax rises or further cuts to public spending. We have put forward a set of measured proposals that we have costed fully.

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

Will Murdo Fraser give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. Let me make some progress.

Our proposals are costed at £777 million. I was therefore rather surprised to see that the Government’s amendment to our motion claims that our proposals would cost more than double that, at £1.5 billion. That is fake news from the people who brought us the 2014 independence white paper, promised an oil price of $110 a barrel and said that we could set up a whole new country for the sum of £200 million. We cannot trust a word that they say. Financial illiteracy seems to be a qualification for being in the Scottish Government.

Talking of financial illiteracy, I give way to the Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy.

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

Would Murdo Fraser be willing to publish his costings and associated lines?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would be absolutely delighted to do that. I will pass them across the chamber to the finance minister right now.

The two areas that we view as priorities for the budget are measures to grow the Scottish economy and support for vital public services. We will assess any budget proposals from the SNP Government against those priorities.

Let me deal first with the question of income tax. Over the past two years, as a consequence of the finance secretary’s nefarious deals with the Green Party, Scotland has become the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, with everyone who earns more than £27,000 per annum paying more income tax in Scotland than they would in the rest of the UK. To put that in simple terms, it means that public servants including police sergeants, senior nurse managers and principal teachers now pay more tax than their counterparts south of the border—in some cases, more than £1,500 a year more.

The SNP will argue that the tax increases are justified because they are supporting better public services. However, the reality is somewhat different. That was confirmed in the evidence that Mairi Spowage, who is the deputy director of the Fraser of Allander institute, gave to the Finance and Constitution Committee just last week. She confirmed that the additional tax that has been raised by the changes to rates and bands has been offset by reductions in income tax more generally, because of slower overall income-tax growth in Scotland than in rest of the UK. She said:

“Looking ahead, the effect of the higher tax rates in Scotland is broadly cancelled out by the fact that the outlook for wage growth in Scotland is slower than in the rest of the UK.”—[

Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee

, 29 January 2020; c 12.]

In other words, if we were to grow the Scottish economy at just the same rate as the UK average and if we were to grow income tax receipts at the same rate as the rest of the UK, there would be no need whatever for the income tax differentials, and we would raise the same amount of money.

The evidence from the respected Fraser of Allander institute gives the lie to the notion that better public services in Scotland can be supported only by higher tax rates. In reality, the same outcome can be achieved by growth in the economy and tax take.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

rose

—

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

rose

—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Rennie caught my eye first, so I will give way to him.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I hear what Murdo Fraser is saying, which is why I am confused that his motion and budget proposals implicitly support the tax rise by refusing to reverse it. Why is that? Will he clear that mess up?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful for Willie Rennie’s intervention, because I was just going to make precisely that point. He has given me a cue to do that.

I would dearly love the finance secretary to reverse his tax increases in the forthcoming budget, but I am realistic enough to know that that is unlikely. At the very least, we want no further divergence between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

At this point, we do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind for income tax south of the border, and we will not know that until 11 March. However, it is reasonable to expect that the thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation, which is the least that we expect from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work. We do not want to see the benefit of any tax cut following on from an increase in the threshold for paying national insurance—which would benefit workers in Scotland as in the rest of the UK—being clawed back by higher tax rates from the finance secretary in Scotland.

Income tax is not the only tax lever that is under the finance secretary’s control. Yesterday, we had a long debate on the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill—we will return to it later this afternoon. We believe that the business rates system is in need of comprehensive reform. In the short term, we suggest a minimum of two measures. First, there should be a reduction, at least to the same level as is paid in the rest of the UK, in the large business supplement, which penalises Scotland by being set at a rate that is double that for the rest of the UK. Secondly, there should be retention of all existing reliefs, including the small business bonus and the reliefs whose removal is included in the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill.

In addition, we are very clear that we would not support the imposition of any new taxes or levies in the forthcoming budget—so we say “No thank you” to any more daft ideas like the car park tax that was put forward by the Greens last year.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I need to make some progress.

My colleagues will set out in more detail later in the debate our priorities for public services spending, but when it comes to the national health service, we want all Barnett consequentials that arise from increased health spending in England to be passed on to the NHS in Scotland. Within that envelope, we want a new hospital parking charges refund scheme, whereby the three hospitals in Scotland that still charge for parking—Glasgow royal infirmary, the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh, and Ninewells hospital—can offer refunds for hospital staff and develop a new scheme for protected groups who most need refunds, including disabled patients and sick children’s parents who stay overnight.

We also want an end to underfunding of NHS boards and delivery of NHS Scotland resource allocation committee funding parity.

In order to tackle one of our nation’s greatest public policy failures, we also want a dramatic increase in the number of drug-rehabilitation beds, to be funded by a new £15.4 million scheme to replace the 80 per cent cut in bed numbers under the SNP Government.

In recent years, local government has borne the brunt of budget cuts from the SNP Government, with a 7.6 per cent real-terms cut in revenue funding since 2013—the impact of which we see on communities across the country. We cannot have another year of cuts. As a minimum, core funding for local government needs to be increased in line with inflation, and all the additional extra commitments that have been placed on local councils, which total £497 million, should be funded in full, as should any new or additional commitments.

In relation to justice funding, we recently heard from the chief constable of his worries about cuts to Police Scotland’s budget. We are therefore asking for, as a minimum, an extra £50 million to protect 750 police officer posts.

We want revenue funding for higher education to be protected, at least in real terms, and we want a 2 per cent real-terms increase in capital funding for the sector.

In housing, we want an additional £10 million for expansion of the ending homelessness together fund. I say that on the day on which we have learned about the dramatic increase in the number of deaths of homeless people.

What I have set out in my speech and in our motion does not represent the totality of what we want from this budget; nor does it represent what a Conservative budget might look like. However, it sets out some of our priority areas, and those that we believe the Scottish Government should address, if it wants to win our support for its budget in the coming weeks.

Our package of proposals is not unrealistic, nor is it unduly radical; it represents a credible and affordable package that can be delivered within the overall financial envelope that is available to the Scottish Government. I hope that the Government will sit down and work with us in the weeks ahead to deliver a budget that prioritises growing the economy, expanding our tax revenues and supporting our vital services.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that there can be no justification for either further tax increases or further cuts to public spending and vital public services in the coming financial year, given analysis by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which shows that the UK block grant to the Scottish Government will increase by 2.1% in real terms from 2019-20 to 2020-21 as a result of increases in spending by the UK Government, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a Budget for the coming year that includes measures to help boost economic growth, with no widening of the tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK, a reduction in the Large Business Supplement for non-domestic rates to the same rate payable south of the border and protection of all existing reliefs, an investment of all health Barnett consequentials in the Scottish NHS, a scheme for the refund of hospital parking charges, a £15.4 million national drug rehabilitation bed fund and strategy, the delivery of NRAC funding parity, an increase in core funding for local government at least in line with inflation, a protection of revenue funding for higher education and a 2% real-terms increase in capital funding, an additional £50 million for the police to spend on protecting 750 officer roles, and an additional £10 million for the expansion of the Ending Homelessness Together Fund.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Kate Forbes to speak to and move amendment S5M-20716.4.

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

Why have a budget debate once when you can have one three, four or five times? I am delighted to be here again to talk about the budget, which will be published tomorrow in the context of unprecedented uncertainty. The UK Government’s decision to defer the UK budget from 6 November to 11 March means that we still do not have the certainty that we would normally have when we publish our budget for the coming year.

We have been forced to publish our budget ahead of the UK Government’s budget in order to provide the clarity that local authorities, third sector organisations and ratepayers expect. Without the UK Government’s tax and spending decisions and the updated fiscal forecasts, we do not have as much clarity on public services as we would like. As the Scottish Government’s budget will come out before the UK Government’s budget, I can only assume that the Tories’ call for no tax divergence is actually targeted at the UK Government, which will have the opportunity to replicate the Scottish Government’s decisions to reduce any such divergence.

As a responsible Government, we have a duty to balance our budget this year, as we have done every previous year. We are well aware of the challenges that the Fraser of Allander institute has set out. It is worth reflecting on the points that have repeatedly been made by the Conservatives about the so-called Boris bonus, because, since 2010, the Scottish Government’s budget—in terms of day-to-day spending—has fallen. That is the reality of UK Government funding over that decade. I do not think that even Murdo Fraser would argue that this year’s potential increase in funding reverses the decade of austerity that the Scottish Government has had to operate in.

By contrast, the Scottish Government has taken action to deliver certainty for our public services. That can be seen in relation to, for example, local government funding, with the finance spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities saying that councils in Tory-run England and Labour-run Wales are “collapsing”, whereas, in Scotland, we see local government working in partnership with the Scottish Government to ensure that the people of Scotland receive the services that they expect.

I will turn to the specifics that have been raised in the amendments and in members’ interventions so far. We recognise that tomorrow is an important day. It is important because it will provide clarity and because it will continue the theme that the Government has been developing over the past few years with regard to ensuring that our partners in local authorities are protected from the austerity that we have been at the receiving end of.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work will announce his tax policy proposals in tomorrow’s budget. Of course, I will not be drawn on those today, but we continue to ensure that Scotland is subject to the fairest and most progressive taxes in the UK. In fact, since the Fraser of Allander institute has been consistently quoted in every budget debate, it is worth quoting that, last year, it said:

“We estimate that the Scottish income tax policy raises approximately around £550 million in revenue compared to a policy to set the same tax parameters as in the UK.”

The question for the Conservatives is, where would they have made cuts in order to meet that £550 million shortfall in the past year?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On that point, would the minister accept the point that was made in evidence to the Finance and Constitution Committee last week by the Fraser of Allander institute, that the tax rate increases that have been introduced by the Scottish Government have had no net beneficial impact on Scottish income tax receipts? If we had grown income tax receipts in line with growth at the UK average, there would be no need for these tax rises.

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

It is worth reflecting on two points. The first is that, at the beginning of the process of the devolution of tax-raising powers, there will inevitably be questions about reconciliation and forecasting. However, the point remains that, in every budget over the past few years, the Conservatives have consistently taken the stance that they want to prioritise tax cuts for the highest earners. That remains a fact, and it is a fact that Murdo Fraser repeated in his opening speech.

That raises the question, with regard to balancing a budget, of where the money to pay for those tax cuts will come from, because they will inevitably mean a reduction in finance for our public services. At a time when there is economic challenge, which businesses tell us is a result of Brexit and other issues, there is a question of where those cuts would fall.

In contrast to that approach, we have prioritised helping the lowest earners and funding our public services. That is why 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers are paying less income tax than they would if they lived elsewhere in the UK—that is a result of the policy decisions that this Government has made.

In last year’s budget, we made choices that raised additional revenue to support our vital public services and our economy, and we will do the same again tomorrow.

The vast majority of businesses, as well as income tax payers, in Scotland already pay less than they would elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, the rhetoric that comes from the Conservatives about Scotland being the highest-taxed part of the UK is more damaging than the reality and the substance of the budget.

I will discuss briefly a number of other points that are related to the budget. This year, the Scottish Government is investing over £14 billion in health and care services. We have passed on every penny of health resource consequentials, and we will continue to do that. Ensuring that health spending in every part of Scotland is protected has been a priority of this Government, and that is why health spending is at a record high.

Murdo Fraser mentioned hospital parking. The irony is, of course, that it was this Government that abolished car parking charges at NHS-owned car parks, since when patients, visitors and staff have saved over £39 million. In a number of other areas, too, performance has consistently been at a higher level in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

I am delighted that the budget that we will discuss tomorrow will be not a Conservative budget but an SNP Government budget that will ensure that, despite all the challenges and uncertainties that we face, most of which have been caused by the UK Government, we will continue to deliver on our vision of a successful Scotland that has health, prosperity and wellbeing at its heart while tackling some of the big challenges that we face.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Can the minister confirm that we will not see any more of the cuts that we have seen to drug and alcohol budgets from this SNP Government?

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

I look forward to the member participating in tomorrow’s budget debate. I am, of course, not going to confirm anything that will be in the budget tomorrow, but he can look at our track record in prioritising money going to the front line.

As I draw to a close, I note that I am more than delighted to hear the other parties participating in the budget process. It makes a nice change from previous years, when they just sat on the fence.

I move amendment S5M-20716.4, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“notes that the Scottish Conservative Party’s proposals for additional resource spending and tax cuts would cost almost £1.5 billion; further notes that the UK Government has indicated that the Scottish resource budget will increase by £1.1 billion; recognises that £1.5 billion is greater than £1.1 billion; considers this proposal to lack credibility, and recognises that the Scottish Government will present a balanced budget on 6 February that prioritises wellbeing, tackling climate change, reducing child poverty and boosting sustainable economic growth.”

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Austerity has caused untold harm to our communities. Surely, none of us came into politics to see a world in which families are dependent on food banks, malnutrition is an ever-present danger and our communities are suffering with no safety net. A generation of young people are growing up who will be worse off than their parents. It is surely the aim of every generation to leave a better world for their children, and the Scottish Government must help to deliver on that ambition.

Austerity has a devastating effect on the economy. Poverty is on the rise, with our child poverty targets going unmet. Communities are failing to thrive, high-street shops are dwindling, libraries are closing, class sizes are increasing and social care is reaching crisis point. In addition, the gig economy is on the rise, leaving people with no choice but to accept low-paid, exploitative, unstable jobs. Austerity was a political choice. The poorest in our society have suffered the most, and the division between the haves and the have-nots has grown. We need real change.

We are realistic—we know that one budget will not reverse over a decade’s-worth of cuts—but we need to start putting forward spending plans that will invest in our communities, our economy and our services. We need to put our money where it will make the most impact.

The budget is set against the backdrop of a climate emergency. We ignore that at our peril, but there is a real fear that our response will further widen the divisions in our economy—that those in privileged positions will capitalise on changes while the most vulnerable in our society will be left further behind. We need to ensure that Government spending is carried out through the prism of a just transition. We need to address the emergency, but that should not be at the expense of those who are struggling.

Those who can afford it invest in insulation, heat pumps and photovoltaics while those who cannot afford those measures face rising bills and increasing fuel poverty. Everything that we do must address climate change while protecting the most vulnerable in our communities and capitalising on the economic opportunities.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am glad that the member agrees that a climate emergency budget is necessary and that public investment must be forthcoming. Is the Labour Party’s position now to support the proposition that there are unsustainable, traffic-inducing projects in the Scottish Government’s programme and that money should be directed away from those and into more sustainable projects?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That question leads me nicely on to an intervention that we have proposed, which is for free bus travel for the under-25s. That not only would increase the use of public transport, which would mean that more buses would be available to benefit us all,

but would form patterns of behaviour that young people would carry into adulthood, reducing the number of polluting car journeys that are made.

Free bus travel would, of course, benefit young people by opening up new opportunities, enabling them to attend work and after-school activities. It is a classic invest-to-save policy: we would get young people on to buses and protect our planet, and we would allow them to become more economically active, boosting our economy and our coffers.

Scottish Labour delivered free bus travel for older people, which has been a huge success, keeping people active as they get older, moving people out of their cars and on to buses while they are able to make the change and meaning that they do not become isolated when they are no longer able to drive.

The SNP Government has turbo-charged Tory austerity for councils. Since 2013, local government has faced the brunt of cuts, with its total revenue funding decreasing by 7 per cent while the Scottish Government has shouldered a 2 per cent cut to its revenue budget. When the “Local Government Benchmarking Framework: National Benchmarking Overview Report” for 2018-19 was published, it was stated:

“Scottish local government is now operating in a more challenging setting with greater demand for services against a tightening budget, with improvements achieved in previous years starting to stall ... the data does highlight that with the status quo there is a ... risk to the future delivery of key services. Councils are delving into their reserves raising questions as to how they will cope delivering services and maintain the momentum they have gained without a change in funding.”

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am quite short of time and I wish to make a number of points.

That approach has had an impact on lifeline services and, in turn, on the most vulnerable people in our communities. Many councils are reduced to providing statutory services instead of being able to bring on front-line services that protect our communities. Since 2007, councils have lost 40,000 jobs—a level of job losses that would have been unacceptable in any other sector. In the budget, they will be expected to deliver additional services to the tune of £497 million, and they must therefore receive a fair settlement to allow them to deliver those additional services and invest in our communities.

Councils must be enabled to deliver care in the community. The failure to tackle the social care crisis and the critical underfunding of local authorities continue to put pressure on the wider healthcare system. People who are fit to go back to the comfort of their own homes to recover are instead stuck in hospitals. It is soul destroying for them to know that they could be at home, where they would be more comfortable, but instead they are stuck in hospital, where visiting hours are restricted and there is a higher risk of infections, so people feel vulnerable.

The Scottish Government set up integration joint boards to deal with that situation. Sadly, all that it appears to have achieved is the creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy without the checks and balances that are faced by health boards and local government. Many of the IJBs are already in deficit, and the situation is not getting better. The latest figures from the Information Services Division show that, in December 2019, 45,404 bed days were spent in hospital by patients who were medically fit to leave, which is a 6 per cent increase on the same month in 2018. Since Jeane Freeman assumed office as the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, the cost to health boards of delayed discharge has reached a shocking total of £197.8 million.

However, local government and social care are not alone in bearing the brunt of cuts. Tuition fee income, which universities can generate from international students and those living in the rest of the UK, has replaced Scottish funding council grants as the single biggest source of income for Scottish universities. Our colleges have also faced a sustained lack of investment although they are the institutions that provide in-work learning. Our economy is in danger if we do not train people in robotics and digital technologies, which will impact on every aspect of industry.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude and move your amendment, please.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will move to my conclusion, Presiding Officer. Our budget requests are realistic—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—you will sit down. I have given you time for the intervention.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I move amendment S5M-20716.1, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“acknowledges the human impact that over a decade of austerity has had on communities, jobs, public services and the economy, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward a budget that invests in the future, includes fair funding for local government with a focus on improving and expanding social care, includes a fair deal for further and higher education, extends free bus travel for all young people and ensures that the budget looks forward, linking spending to national outcomes, and puts in place transformative funding to benefit the future of communities and the planet.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Patrick Harvie, to be followed by Willie Rennie. We have very little time in hand now for interventions.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I have consistently argued that all Opposition parties should engage constructively with the budget process by putting forward positive ideas. That would be good for Parliament and for the country, so I welcome the fact that most parties are now doing so.

It is sometimes hard to remember, but that is how our process was meant to work and it is how

modern, pluralistic Parliaments that result from fair voting systems operate across most of Europe. We should try to recapture the spirit that was intended when this Parliament was designed.

There is now only one party that is holding out against that constructive agenda. The Liberal Democrats have lodged an amendment in response to a motion on the budget that talks about federalism and a tired, old no-indyref position. There seems to be no attempt at a solid proposition on changes to the budget. However, the position of most political parties—both Labour and the Conservatives—is now moving toward more positive engagement. Let us look at their positions.

There are some things in the Conservative motion that we can all welcome, such as more spending on drug services and on homelessness, although we acknowledge that those things will be effective only if we also secure a commitment from the UK Government that it will change its failed drugs policy and many of the economic policies that are still pushing people into poverty and making them more vulnerable.

Most of us would welcome spending on drug and homeless services, but does the general Tory position add up? If we assume that the UK Government will grudgingly turn the spending taps on—just a fraction—after 10 years of austerity, there might be more money available overall, and some choices for Scottish Government to make. However, can we commit to following the UK Government’s choices with Barnett consequentials; to introducing new spending in our own priority areas; to increasing local government revenues; and to cutting taxes? The Tories want all of that, and it cannot all be delivered at the same time.

Although most of us agree that investment in high-quality public services is a good thing in principle and something that we would like to increase, I cannot accept the implication in the motion that tax, in itself, is a bad thing in principle and that it is something that should always be minimised. Tax is not only about raising revenue that is adequate enough to meet our investment in services; it is also about achieving behaviour change and redistribution of wealth to achieve a fairer and more equal society. There is good evidence that high rates of income tax at the very top act as a disincentive to excessive pay demands by the super-rich. Those are all positive objectives, and tax has a positive role in principle.

As for the previous changes to income tax, Murdo Fraser knows very well that the Fraser of Allander institute rejected the idea that changes in the income tax base are the result of changes in the income tax rate. We would still see a huge revenue gap if we followed his policy, regardless of changes in earnings. If either he or the Liberal Democrats want to reverse the 2018-19 shift to a fairer five-band tax system, it can be done only through tax cuts for the highest earners, which would make inequality and poverty worse.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member asked Mairi Spowage, who is from the Fraser of Allander institute, a question on

changes in the income tax base being the result of changes in the income tax rate. Her response was that there is no evidence on that either way. It is a fair debating point, but he cannot quote her evidence in support of his position.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

There is certainly no evidence to support Murdo Fraser’s position. All there is his ludicrous ideological attachment to the Laffer curve, which has been pretty much blown out of the water in the past.

There is some overlap between Labour’s position and our arguments on the budget, and I welcome the fact that Labour is adopting something that is closer to the Green Party’s approach of offering positive ideas that we know that the Government can deliver. It is, of course, aware that we have advocated free bus travel for young people as a step toward completely fare-free public transport in the longer term.

The final word of the Labour amendment is “planet”. Presumably, that is a reference to the need that the Green Party has set out for a climate emergency budget. That means investing in public transport and active travel; it must also mean shifting away from the multibillion-pound road building programme to which the Scottish Government is still committed. I am put in mind of my first years as a member of the Parliament, because, when I was first elected, I argued against all other parties in the chamber, by opposing the M74 extension. That project was a relic of 1960s transport thinking, and it often feels as though we still have not moved away from that approach to transport.

Even the Scottish Government’s infrastructure commission for Scotland says that there should be a presumption against new road capacity and in favour of maintaining and repurposing existing infrastructure. That would free up the spending that we need if we are to make serious commitments to getting our homes and buildings off the gas grid and hooked up to renewables and district heating systems.

The Government amendment provides an enjoyable demolition of the Conservative sums but then proposes that the Parliament

“recognises that the Scottish Government will present a balanced budget ... that prioritises wellbeing, tackling climate change, reducing child poverty and boosting sustainable economic growth.”

Quite apart from my tediously predictable rejection of the contradiction that is inherent in the phrase, “sustainable economic growth”, we simply do not yet know whether the Government will indeed present a budget that prioritises any of those objectives.

That is because, even in this extraordinary year, when the timescale is so constrained because of UK Government choices, the Scottish Government continues to play its cards close to its chest instead of co-producing the budget with Opposition parties prior to its introduction. If the Government did that, the budget process would be incapable of descending into brinkmanship, as it has done in the past, and would produce a result that is driven by the public interest.

That kind of mature approach to such issues feels unlikely here only because this Parliament has often been so polarised. Many of our European neighbours are better at this. We should take lessons from them.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The budget tomorrow is an opportunity to move beyond division. I think that people in this country have had enough. We have had years of division over Brexit and, if Patrick Harvie has his way, we will do that all over again with independence.

Members will forgive me for being concerned about the economic impact of independence, which I cannot countenance. I do not believe in independence.

It is therefore important that we look for an opportunity to move beyond that division. Whatever our views on independence—and I know that there are members in this Parliament who support the idea whole-heartedly—it is clear that there will not be another independence referendum in the next financial year. The First Minister admitted that last year. There should therefore be no objection to there being no line in the budget at all on independence. We should be able to move beyond that, because we will not have a referendum. That would remove a massive boulder that stands between those who support independence reaching agreement on the budget with me and other members. If it is that simple, let us remove it from the budget.

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

Will Willie Rennie confirm to the Parliament how much money for independence was in last year’s budget?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We know from the permanent secretary that a significant sum of money has been devoted to independence. If we can have a guarantee that that will not happen, because there will be no independence referendum this year, we will have created a golden opportunity for members of all parties in the Parliament to work together.

However, even though the First Minister has set out that there will be no referendum, the Government refuses to take independence out of the budget. Let us not accuse others of blocking the way to an agreement; the block has been created by the SNP Government.

There is an opportunity to consider what we can do together. We would like to make a constructive contribution to the budget process. We would like to ensure that local government is given the finance that it deserves, because the Scottish Government has made significant commitments—commitments worth half a billion pounds—on local government’s behalf. The Government says that that is partnership; I think that local government’s arm was tied behind its back when those commitments were made. That was no partnership.

The Government should follow through on its commitments, and it should account for inflation on top of that. Local government has significant requirements if it is just to stand still and meet its commitments. For example, we support the big expansion in nursery education, and that should be properly funded. We have heard about the state of our police estate—the buildings—and about the mental health of our police officers. The police need support, too.

On mental health, a lot of young people—more than 800—are waiting beyond a year to get mental health treatment, which is meant to be a top priority of the Government.

We need to work together on the massive challenge of the climate emergency, which is why we are pleased to participate in the cross-party effort to find solutions to deal with the issue, live up to our obligations and meet our world-leading targets.

All those things need support from the budget and there is an opportunity for us to provide it, because there is an awful lot of common ground on those issues. I hope that the Scottish Government lives up to that.

It is disappointing that the Conservatives refuse to take responsibility for the rather chaotic way in which we are having to agree the budget this year. We are going right up to the cliff edge of when we need to make decisions and when local authorities need to set their budgets. It is a reckless act that I hope is not repeated next year, because we cannot be forced into a rushed budget process. We need time to consider and deliberate on such important matters. If we had a federal structure in the United Kingdom, in which there was no effort by one part to commit detriment to another part, we might avoid such situations. Those things are important for the long-term stability of the United Kingdom.

I am utterly confused by the Conservatives’ position on tax. They still condemn the apparent tax bombshell—the rip-off—of two years ago that made Scotland the highest-taxed part the United Kingdom. If that has been so important ever since, why is it not on the Conservative priority list for this year’s budget? I suspect that I know the reason why: it is because the Conservatives are refusing to set out where the cuts to public services would happen. They will not set them out, because they know that the price is too high. They also know that the detriment to the Scottish economy has not been what they claimed—we have not seen the brain drain that they were claiming would happen in Scotland. They have been caught out and they now realise that it is a price that they cannot afford to pay. Therefore, they are not prepared to spell it out in their budget proposals for this year.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?