Scottish Parliament, 20 February 2020

327 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Universal Credit

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s announcement that universal credit roll-out will be delayed until 2024. (S5O-04145)

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

The Scottish Government is deeply concerned by the UK Government’s decision to delay the managed migration of people on to universal credit until 2024. The latest delay will mean even more people having to move to universal credit when they have a change in circumstance and even fewer having a managed move that provides transitional protection so that they are not made worse off.

It is the second time that this has happened. Instead of penalising people, the Department for Work and Pensions should use the delay to fix the flaws in the discredited system, including scrapping the two-child cap and the abhorrent rape clause, ending the debt and poverty-inducing five-week wait and fixing work allowances for people in Scotland.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Delaying universal credit roll-out until 2024 means that more people will lose out in financial protection, saving the UK Government money at the expense of those who really need it. Universal credit has already inflicted hardship and increased food bank use on my constituency. Does the minister agree that the DWP must start providing transitional payments to anyone moving to universal credit, no matter whether they are part of natural or managed migration?

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

Yes, I do. The UK Government should take responsibility for the shambles that is universal credit, which is now seven years behind schedule. It is absolutely critical that the Department for Work and Pensions immediately starts making those payments for everyone moving to universal credit in order to protect people’s incomes and prevent even more hardship and poverty. As Rona Mackay pointed out, it says it all that the UK Government states that it will save money through the method that it uses—

treating people in that way is not saving their lives and livelihoods.

Employment and Economic Growth

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to improve employment levels and economic growth. (S5O-04146)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Our employability service, fair start Scotland, is delivering personalised support to 16,130 people, helping them towards and into work, with 4,126 participants starting a job since the service’s launch in April 2018. Following the publication of “No One Left Behind: Next Steps for the Integration and Alignment of Employability Support in Scotland”, we are working with local government and the third and private sectors to develop an employability system that builds on existing services, improves alignment and integration with other support and is designed and delivered around the needs of those using services.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

In 2010, the Scottish Government boasted that it could create nearly 30,000 jobs in offshore wind energy by 2020. Today’s

Daily Record

reports that the actual number of such jobs is closer to 1,700. We agree that the United Kingdom Government needs to reform the subsidy mechanisms to demand greater UK content in supply chains, but can the minister outline what capital investment the Scottish Government has made to ensure that our fabrication facilities are fit to win work that is being sent to the likes of Indonesia and China? Is the Scottish Government’s proposed cut to the workforce skills budget a sign that it is giving up on talk of tens of thousands of jobs?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, it certainly is not, but I will come to that latter point in a moment. When this Government was needed, we stepped up to the plate. When Burntisland Fabrications was in trouble, we were there—

we intervened and we helped save that yard—and of course, we are undertaking work to support the Scottish supply chain.

In answer to Mr Bibby’s latter point, I urge him to cast his eyes a bit more widely across the budget, because he is looking at things in isolation. He failed to mention that our fair start funding is up in the coming year. He also failed to mention that the skills and training budget lines are up and that employability funding and the skills budget are up. We are also maintaining the education maintenance allowance. He also forgot to mention that there will be over £22 million extra for higher education in the coming year and that the further education budget is increasing by over £21 million this year; and he singularly failed to mention our new parental employment support fund of £7 million.

We are therefore investing in our workforce. I would have thought that that was something that Mr Bibby would welcome.

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

Innovative approaches to employment support are always essential if we are to reach the people who are the furthest away from the labour market. Can the minister provide information on any new ways in which the Scottish Government is looking to support people into work?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have just mentioned our parental employment support fund, which is a new approach to supporting a particularly vulnerable cohort of the population to get into employment, to tackle child poverty, which Aileen Campbell is also working on; this is a cross-Government approach.

On the wider approach, we are building on fair start Scotland, which is designed around the individual and takes a person-centred approach. The work that we are taking forward in tandem with local government, through the no one left behind agenda, to better align the range of employability support with other public services, such as housing, social work, the criminal justice system and health, is all designed towards that end. This Government is taking forward that work, which will make a difference to the people of Scotland.

Fishing and Farming

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s proposed legislation on fishing and farming and the impact of this on Scotland. (S5O-04147)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I welcome the fact that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has chosen to work with us on the Fisheries Bill. The revised version is an improvement on the original draft and largely recognises that fisheries is a devolved matter, although we still have some significant concerns in relation to the setting of fishing opportunities and failure to deal with the seafish levy.

We have serious concerns that the United Kingdom Government’s Agriculture Bill has provisions that impose unwanted policies and rules in areas of devolved competency and that the bill makes no commitment to preventing post-Brexit trade deals from allowing the import of food that is produced to a lower standard than the standards that are legislated for, for Scottish farmers.

Across both bills, I will fight to ensure that the UK Government provides adequate funding for all sectors and I will continue to resist any attempts by the UK Government to grab key powers from this Parliament that impact on fishing, farming and food production.

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

That is relatively good news on fishing, but on farming, it is abysmal news, building on yesterday’s announcement that we will be denied access to labour from other countries, essentially. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that he will make clear this entire Parliament’s view that we will brook no removal of powers related to farming and that farmers across Scotland have expressed grave concern about UK policies, and will he continue to champion the cause of farming in Scotland with those at Westminster who wish to see it diminished?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I will; yes, I have; and yes, we did so on Monday of this week at the interministerial group meeting, part of which took place in Northern Ireland, with the welcome return of the Administration there. We will take every opportunity to protect the devolved competence and the powers of this Parliament, which—as Mr Stevenson says—are under attack from the Westminster Government, which is surely unacceptable to all members of this Parliament.

NHS Lothian (Waiting Times)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported extended waiting times for general colorectal surgery in NHS Lothian. (S5O-04148)

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

Under the waiting times improvement plan, we have made an additional £16.5 million available to NHS Lothian in this financial year.

Since the summer of 2019, NHS Lothian has progressed a programme of work to improve waiting times within the colorectal department, including improving patient pathways, recruiting additional staff and running additional evening and weekly clinics to address the long waits.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

In July 2018, my constituent Margaret Simson was injured in the Western general hospital when a colonoscopy ruptured her bowel. She had to undergo emergency surgery; she had part of her bowel removed and was fitted with a stoma bag. She was placed on a waiting list to have corrective surgery that would have seen the bowel repaired and the stoma removed. She was sent home with pre-op medication to take in advance of the planned operation.

In March last year, she received a letter apologising for the fact that she had not been seen within the 12-week waiting time guarantee period. At Christmas, she had to throw out the pre-op medication because it had passed its use-by date. She is still waiting. Margaret’s life has been on hold. Given that this is an injury caused by the national health service, does the cabinet secretary believe that nearly two years is an acceptable time for Margaret to wait for the NHS to make things right?

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

I am grateful to Mr Cole-Hamilton for his supplementary question on the specifics of the case that he is dealing with. No—I do not think that any wait that is longer than is necessary is a sufficient response from the board. If Mr Cole-Hamilton would care to give me the details of the particular case that he is talking about, I will be happy to look at it further and see if NHS Lothian can move more swiftly to deal with Ms Simson’s particular situation.

Teachers’ Pay

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will fully fund the recent teachers’ pay settlement to be delivered by councils in 2020-21. (S5O-04149)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government’s agreed contribution to the costs of the teachers’ pay deal for 2020-21 is fully funded. Local authorities will receive a funding package of £11.3 billion in 2020-21 through the local government finance settlement, and included in that is an additional £156 million for the teachers’ pay deal.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I was contacted by my councillors in East Ayrshire, who tell me that the settlement that they have received from the Scottish Government means that they will have to cut their discretionary budget by £2 million to fund the Scottish Government’s extra commitments, such as the teachers’ pay settlement. The Scottish Government has left East Ayrshire Council and other councils with a bill to pay for its commitments. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that is a fair burden to lay at the feet of our councils?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Local government has received a cash increase of £494 million in budget from the Scottish Government, which relates to a number of the issues that Mr Whittle has raised. Of course, local authorities are free to increase the council tax, if they judge that to be appropriate, to meet some of those costs. I remind Mr Whittle that, last year, a number of local authorities did not increase the council tax by the maximum amount that they were enabled to increase it by, which must demonstrate that the Government had fully funded local authority settlements.

We are, of course, involved in a budget process. I also remind Mr Whittle that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to raise any issue with me about local government funding when the useless Conservative Government that he supports in London has delivered austerity on the people of Scotland for the past 10 years.

Edinburgh Cancer Centre

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had regarding the future rebuild of the Edinburgh cancer centre. (S5O-04150)

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

NHS Lothian continues to engage with both the cancer policy team and the capital planning team in the Scottish Government as NHS Lothian develops its initial agreement for the Edinburgh cancer centre. There was a site visit before Christmas to see the plans for the regional centre, but also to look at the enhancement work that is under way on the current site, which includes the haematology unit, a new linear accelerator, refurbishment of the cancer assessment unit, refurbishment of in-patient wards and development in ward 1. The Scottish Government plans to invest £20 million to support the provision of cancer services in a safe environment until the new Edinburgh cancer centre is ready.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Two years ago, I was told that the new cancer centre would be built in 2025, but the health board is now telling me that it is likely to be a decade before we see a new cancer centre. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether patients across the south-east Scotland cancer region will have to wait five years or 10 years for a new cancer centre?

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

That would actually be a very appropriate question for NHS Lothian, which is the body that is charged with this. Mr Briggs really needs to understand how the health service works. He cannot have it both ways. As he knows, NHS Lothian is at level 4 on the performance framework—something that he complains about. We are busy undertaking substantive work to ensure that it has appropriate leadership—also something that he complains about.

NHS Lothian is at stage 1 of its business case, which will come in to the Scottish Government. We will turn it round quickly, provided that it is satisfactory, and NHS Lothian will then move to the outline business case. As the member knows, outline business cases can take another two years to go through the process.

That is where we are. The timetable is driven by NHS Lothian and not by this Government. Our commitment is clear. We are ready to support that and we are supporting the work that needs to be done in the interim in the existing cancer services to ensure that they are upgraded. If Mr Briggs has further ideas and suggestions to make about how I can act to improve the performance of NHS Lothian, I am very happy to hear them.

Gambling

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what treatment programmes are available to help people addicted to gambling. (S5O-04151)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

In common with other compulsive and addictive behaviours, problem gambling is addressed as part of wider health issues. Anyone who believes that gambling is affecting their health, or that of a loved one, should consult their general practitioner in the first instance. Out-of-hours advice and support can be obtained from NHS24 or from Breathing Space. The NHSinform website also contains advice and signposting information.

When a person with addictive or compulsive behaviou

rs is referred to a service for treatment, it may not be a specialist gambling addiction programme. The clinical team will work with that person, to identify the issues or problems that are important to support their recovery, and to provide evidenced-based treatment.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

My understanding is that no Scottish health board has introduced a pre-planned treatment programme for gambling, and that there is in Scotland no specialist clinic to treat people with that problem. Does the minister think that there is any need for such a facility?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

We will continue to consider evidence on what works best to address the issue of gambling harms in Scotland. That includes work by the Scottish Public Health Network to develop and implement a whole population approach to the prevention and reduction

of gambling harms. That is currently being progressed with partners including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow City Council, and the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland. People who have lived experience of gambling harms will be closely involved in co-producing a co-ordinated framework to underpin that work. The learning from the project will help to inform whole system approaches to addressing gambling harms in Scotland.

Brexit (Salmon Industry)

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the salmon industry following Brexit. (S5O-04152)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Our vital farmed salmon sector is a global success story, generating £540 million in gross value added, and offering over 10,000 jobs, many of which are highly skilled and well paid, in some of our most remote communities.

I will continue to support the salmon industry following Brexit, but the United Kingdom Government’s lack of clarity on key issues such as market access and certification threatens that vital sector, and damages investor confidence. Extra costs, risks and bureaucracy directly result from the UK Government’s obduracy. It must heed the warning from the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation, which has highlighted the huge unnecessary burdens that will result from the Brexit deal being pursued.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Last week, the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation warned that, without a close relationship and tariff-free trade with the European Union, the industry could see £9 million lost in costs and delays to the departure of fresh fish. Does the cabinet secretary agree that trade barriers with our biggest trading partner will damage the sector and businesses, and put jobs at risk in the Highlands and Islands?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I very much agree with the way that David Stewart has set out the position.

The extra costs would result from the imposition of export health certificates and other bureaucracy. Let us be clear: at the moment, there is no need for them at all; there would be no need for them if the UK Government agreed dynamic alignment with the EU. It could remove the need for them; however, it has refused.

On Monday, I asked George Eustice whether the UK Government would pick up the tab for the extra £9 million, or perhaps more, that the trade body has estimated. Mr Eustice said that that would be a business cost. Business must pay that cost, which results directly from the policies pursued by the UK Government. Here we have the first Boris Brexit bill, which the industry will have to pay directly because of the UK Government’s Brexit policies.

Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

9. To ask the Scottish Government when the Scottish local authorities remuneration committee last met. (S5O-04153)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Scottish local authorities remuneration committee was established to advise Scottish ministers on the payment by local authorities of remuneration and allowances to, and the reimbursement of expenses incurred by, local authority councillors. I understand that the committee last met in February 2012 and that it was stood down in February 2013.

Since 2017, councillors’ pay is increased annually in line with the percentage increase in the median annual earnings of public sector workers in Scotland. Councillors’ pay will rise by 2.2 per cent from 1 April 2020.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

As a former councillor, I am well aware of the hard work undertaken by the majority of councillors around the country. Clearly, not all councillors receive the special responsibility allowance to top up their basic salaries, and full-time councillors on the basic level can sometimes struggle financially. I understand that this is a difficult ask in the current financial climate and I am aware of the 2.2 per cent increase, but will the cabinet secretary undertake to consider re-establishing SLARC with a view to bringing councillors’ basic salary up to a level that is fit for purpose? That would make the prospect of serving their local communities post-2022 more rewarding and worthwhile, and be in line with the effort that they put into the job.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely recognise that councillors the length and breadth of the country work exceptionally hard and are dedicated to improving their communities. The Scottish Government believes that everyone deserves to be fairly paid. In terms of that fair work, we were delighted to lay amendments to increase the flexibility available to local authorities when granting councillors paid leave of absence, which is important when encouraging councillors to take parental leave and encouraging other people to stand for council.

As I said in my previous response, since 2017, councillors’ pay has increased annually in line with the percentage increase in the median annual earnings of public sector workers in Scotland. I am happy to meet Angus MacDonald if he wants to discuss the matter further, to outline some of the work that we are doing to support our councillors and councils.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

That concludes general question time. Before we turn to First Minister’s question time, I am sure that members would like to join me in welcoming to our gallery Mr Wegger Strømmen, Ambassador of Norway to the United Kingdom. [

Applause

.]

Police Scotland (Budget)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. The Scottish Police Federation, the Scottish Police Authority and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents all say that this year’s budget allocation for policing is wholly inadequate. Why is the First Minister ignoring those warnings?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, let me point out to Jackson Carlaw and everyone in the chamber that in the draft budget for the year ahead we have committed an extra £42 million of funding for Police Scotland. That is a 3.6 per cent increase and includes an increase in resource funding to protect officer numbers and an increase in capital funding. That is important and welcome.

As the deputy chief officer of Police Scotland, David Page

, said recently:

“The draft funding settlement for policing in 2020-21 includes an uplift of revenue funding of £37 million, which is £17 million higher than originally anticipated ... This is something that we welcome.”

Stewart Carle of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said, in his submission to the Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing:

“it is certainly welcome that the settlement includes an additional £37 million in the Police Scotland budget.”

I recognise that in our Police Service, as across all our public services, an impact is still being felt from a decade of Tory austerity and we will continue to work to protect the police and our other public services. We are in a budget process and I say to the Conservatives, as I say to other parties across the chamber, that if they want to bring forward credible proposals in the next stage of the process the Government is willing to discuss them.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The First Minister needs to get up to speed with her Government. We have come forward with credible proposals that have been communicated to her Cabinet Secretary for Finance. It is quite clear that neither she nor her Government have come anywhere close to meeting the budget allocation that front-line officers and the SPA believe is needed to ensure a sustainable policing service.

The First Minister can dissemble all she likes, but that is what front-line police officers—in Parliament today and deeply concerned by the issue—are saying. The chief constable has personally made it clear that Police Scotland needs money to retain officers, to begin to tackle the huge problems in the police estate and to give front-line officers the equipment that they need to keep the public and themselves safe.

There is a black hole of £49 million in Police Scotland’s budget. What is the First Minister’s advice to Police Scotland on how it should deal with that funding gap? Should it cut officer numbers, continue to let the ceilings fall down in police stations and much else besides, or fail to issue essential equipment?

The First Minister

I and this Government will continue to work closely with the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority. This, of course, is the Government that has maintained police numbers at 1,000 more than we inherited.

Jackson Carlaw is the representative of a party that, in the rest of the United Kingdom, has cut police numbers by 20,000. Perhaps he should reflect on that.

I said that we would listen to credible proposals. I remind the chamber that, over the past decade, the Tories have presided over a real-terms cut in the Scottish budget of £1.5 billion. Jackson Carlaw has regularly put forward proposals for tax cuts for the richest that would cut another £500 million out of the Scottish budget, yet he makes spending pleas the cost of which amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds.

We have delivered a budget that is fair and that focuses on protecting our public services, growing the economy and tackling the climate emergency. We will talk to and listen to other parties, as we are doing, if they have credible suggestions to make. I ask Jackson Carlaw to look again at the credibility of what he is proposing. In this Government, and in our new finance secretary, in particular, he will find a Government that is very willing to listen.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Perhaps we can get back to the problems that Police Scotland faces, which the First Minister could do something about.

The First Minister trumpets the budget settlement that has been given to Police Scotland, so let us have a look at it in detail. The resource budget is still at least £13 million short of that which the police need just to stand still, and the capital budget faces a real-terms cut, which is the second real-terms annual cut in a row.

Here is what Police Scotland says that that means:

“the current capital allocation for policing is amongst the lowest in UK policing on a per capita basis, is low compared to other public bodies in Scotland and will undoubtedly inhibit our ability to keep up with the threat, harm and risk posed to the people of Scotland from increasing crime”.

That is at a time when the Scottish Government is receiving a funding uplift of £96 million from the UK Government’s investment for extra spending on policing. Why is the First Minister short-changing Scotland’s police officers?

The First Minister

The draft budget increases Police Scotland’s budget by £42 million. In 2016-17, Police Scotland’s capital budget was £20 million. In the draft budget that has just been published, it is £40 million.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Oh!

The First Minister

In other words, it has doubled in the space of a couple of years. That capital budget includes £5 million of extra funding that was specifically requested by the service to accelerate its commitment to greening its fleet.

We will continue to do everything that we can to protect our front-line police officers. I say again that we are doing that against the backdrop of a £1.5 billion austerity reduction in our budget that has been imposed by the Conservatives. That means that Jackson Carlaw and his colleagues have an absolute cheek to talk about our public services. We will continue to put our public services first. If Jackson Carlaw has credible proposals to make and is willing to say how they should be funded, of course we will always listen.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Hollow cries of “Oh!” from Richard Lyle do not pay for more police officers and do not pay to fix a broken police estate.

The wider risk here is obvious, and it has been spelled out bluntly by the Scottish Police Federation in Parliament today in its submission to the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing. It said:

“The police officers we represent are working harder than ever. They are under strain and it is taking its toll on their physical and mental health and their families. Their working conditions are not satisfactory. In some cases through no fault of our own, we are not providing a good service to the public.”

The choice is clear—the First Minister must increase police funding or she will be putting the public at risk.

The First Minister

I lead a Government that has kept police numbers at 1,000 more than the level that we inherited. We have done that at a time when Jackson Carlaw’s party has slashed front-line police numbers by 20,000. That is the reality that every police officer across the UK is all too aware of. We are also making sure that our police officers get a decent pay rise, which is more than can be said of Mr Carlaw’s colleagues south of the border.

In the draft budget, we have increased Police Scotland’s funding, and we will continue to listen to all proposals. Here is a challenge for Jackson Carlaw: given the £1.5 billion Tory cut and the £500 million that Jackson Carlaw would like to take out of our budget to give tax cuts to the richest in our society, if he and his colleagues want to tell us where else in the budget we should cut funding in order to fund his proposals, I will be more than happy to listen. However, he must say how they should be paid for, not just where he wants to spend more money.

General Practitioner Surgery Closures

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. On Tuesday evening, I attended a public meeting in Salsburgh, a community that faces the closure of its local general practitioner surgery. Last year, the surgery was cut from five days to three. Now, without any consultation, local people have been told that it will close completely at the end of March.

The people of Salsburgh know that, if their surgery closes, they might never get it back. That is why, on Tuesday night, they resolved to fight for its future. They want the First Minister’s support, but, in a letter to me, she washed her hands of the matter. Can the First Minister tell the people of Salsburgh why she believes that the state of our national health service and the closure of GP surgeries is not a matter for her?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is absolutely right that patients should be able to see their GP when they need to. That is why we have a record number of GPs working in Scotland. There are more GPs per head of population in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and we are currently working to plans that will increase their number by at least 800 over the next few years.

We expect health boards to engage with and support patients wherever there are changes to the services that they receive at their practice, and I expect that to be the case in the GP practice that Richard Leonard referred to.

The vast majority of GP practices in Scotland are independent bodies that are contracted to deliver services to the NHS. We will continue to support primary care, particularly GPs, and we will continue to encourage health boards to make sure that their services are always accessible.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Promises of future numbers are little comfort to those communities that are facing cuts and the closure of their GP services next month.

The truth is that the anger that I heard on Tuesday night is not limited to Salsburgh. Across Parliament, members of all parties are acutely aware of local GP services that are at high risk because of staff shortages, policy decisions and under-resourcing. However, that awareness might not extend to all members of Parliament. Last week, another local community gathered at a packed public meeting to try to save its GP surgery from closure, but the local member of the Scottish Parliament apparently missed her invitation. Tarbolton is in the health secretary’s constituency.

If the First Minister’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport does not know about a GP closure in her own constituency, why on earth should people believe that her Government will solve the GP crisis that patients are facing here, in Scotland?

The First Minister

These are obviously important matters for communities across Scotland, which is why we are putting record funding into our national health service. It is why we have record numbers of people working in our national health service.

Richard Leonard said that it is not enough to talk about future numbers, but more GPs are working in the NHS now than was the case previously. The number of trainee doctors has increased by more than 10 per cent since 2007. We have an increased number of GP training places, and there are a number of recruitment initiatives across the country for doctors in general. For general practice, in particular, we have a new GP contract in place that was agreed with the British Medical Association, to tackle some of the challenges that GPs are facing.

Those are the steps that we are taking in practice to tackle the challenges. As I said a moment ago, there are more GPs per head of population in Scotland than in any other part of the UK—and I point out to Richard Leonard that that includes Wales, where his party runs the Government.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The First Minister, of all people, should know that Tarbolton is not in Wales: it is in Scotland.

There is a workforce crisis in primary care services. It is happening now and here, in Scotland, and it goes all the way back to the First Minister’s door. It takes at least 10 years to train to be a GP and, 10 years ago, the First Minister was the health secretary responsible. This winter saw the worst accident and emergency performances on record, with thousands of patients waiting more than four hours for treatment. Last weekend, public health consultant Dr Helene Irvine said,

“Many would not need to use A and E if they had timely access to a GP who knows them.”

When will the First Minister accept that she cannot claim that she is protecting Scotland’s NHS if she is not protecting Scotland’s local primary care services?

The First Minister

The point that I am making is that the NHS faces challenges in every single part of the UK, and health services face challenges in virtually every country in the world. We are putting record sums of money into our national health service, we have record numbers of people working in our national health service and we have increasing numbers of GPs and GPs in training. That is why our health service is performing better. Yes, it still faces challenges, but it is performing better than the health service in any other part of the UK.

Richard Leonard wants to make it all about the Scottish National Party, which is why it is entirely legitimate to contrast and compare. He says—[

Interruption

.] The Conservatives do not like it either. They say—

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Order, please.

The First Minister

The Tories say that things would be better if they were in power, and Richard Leonard says that things would be better if Labour was in power, so let us look at the reality here, in Scotland. Richard Leonard mentioned A and E performance. In December last year, against the four-hour target, the performance in Scotland was 81.6 per cent. That is not good enough, but in Tory England it was 68.6 per cent. [

Interruption

.] It was 68.6 per cent where the Tories are running the Government, and in Wales, where Labour is running the Government, it was 66.4 per cent. Yes, our health service faces challenges, but all the evidence says that the SNP is meeting those challenges better than any other party in the UK.

The Presiding Officer

Could we have order from all members? I encourage Mr Russell and Mr Swinney, in particular, to set a ministerial example. Thank you.

Mossmorran Petrochemical Plant (Flaring)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The First Minister will be aware of the major unplanned flaring incident at Mossmorran last Thursday, the poor environmental rating that was published yesterday by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the walk-out by some workers over reported concerns about health and safety. What assurances can she give to my constituents, who remain very anxious about safety, health and environmental impacts?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Annabelle Ewing for raising what is an extremely important matter for her constituents. Ministers are in absolutely no doubt about the very understandable concerns of the local community, which are evidenced in the many complaints that SEPA has received regarding recent incidents.

With regard to safety, the complex falls under the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015, which are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive and SEPA. We have been assured that both regulators continue to monitor the situation closely. As things stand, all SEPA’s published data suggests that there has been no breach of United Kingdom air quality standards.

The Scottish Government is staying in close contact with the regulators. I hope that members appreciate that it would not be appropriate for ministers to interfere in independent regulatory decisions. However, I absolutely recognise the seriousness of the issue, and I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform would be happy to keep Annabelle Ewing and others who have an interest updated.

Mossmorran Petrochemical Plant (Public Meeting)

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the First Minister has just heard, the Mossmorran plant is in crisis. Communities are suffering and workers are striking. Meanwhile, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands have both refused, once again, to meet the local community at an emergency public meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow night. Will the First Minister ensure that the Government is represented at that meeting, to explain to communities around Mossmorran exactly what is going on?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am happy to consider any request of that nature.

I want to make it very clear that it is not the case that ministers are refusing to attend a public meeting because they are not interested in the issue. Regulatory enforcement actions are under way, and it is important that ministers respect the independence of that process. It would not be in anybody’s interest for ministers to step into territory that is, rightly, for SEPA and the Health and Safety Executive. However, ministers understand and appreciate the seriousness of the issue. We will continue to stay in very close contact with the regulators and will take whatever steps lie within our responsibilities to ensure that appropriate action is taken.

The environment secretary will be happy to keep interested members fully updated as appropriate and as far as possible.

Quaich Project

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

What is the First Minister’s position on reports that the Quaich Project has offered so-called debenture schemes to corporate donors on what the project acknowledges is common good land in Edinburgh?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I believe that such matters are for local government. However, I am happy to look into issues that are appropriately raised in the chamber, and I would be happy to write to the member when I have had the opportunity to look into the matter that he has raised.

Personal Independence Payment (20-Metre Rule)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One of my constituents has multiple sclerosis. She lost her higher rate mobility allowance under the personal independence payment’s 20-metre rule assessment. That meant that she also lost her Motability car, and her independence. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has been lobbying this Government and this Parliament to scrap the discredited PIP 20-metre rule. We have the power to do so. In the interest of dignity, fairness and respect, will the First Minister agree to scrap that discredited rule so that my constituent, and all those with MS, can live with MS with dignity?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have enormous sympathy with the issue that Alex Rowley has raised. I hope that he will listen carefully to my answer.

I am acutely aware—and the Scottish Government is acutely aware—that individuals who have fluctuating condition such as MS are failed badly by the United Kingdom’s benefits system. All too often, it acts as a barrier to disabled people accessing the benefits that they are entitled to. I know that particular concerns have been raised by the MS Society Scotland about the 20-metre rule and how mobility is currently assessed. We are carefully considering how the Scottish Government can better assess mobility to meet peoples’ needs than is done currently.

We are absolutely determined to make improvements to the current system. However, we also need to understand—this is an important point—the potential effects that changing eligibility could have on access to other benefits that are not under the control of the Scottish Government. PIP is used by the UK Government as a qualifying benefit for other benefits, such as disability premiums. We are working closely with the UK Government to ensure that any changes that we want to make would not put at risk access to vital UK benefits and payments that remain reserved.

I hope that that assures Alex Rowley that we are looking very carefully and very seriously at that issue, and that we are doing so from a position of enormous sympathy with the argument that he has made.

Nuclear Submarine Safety (Near-Collision at Cairnryan)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Given the United Kingdom Government’s lack of response to my repeated correspondence regarding progress with the investigation of a near-collision between a nuclear submarine and a passenger ferry leaving Cairnryan in November 2017, is the First Minister able to contact the UK Government to help me obtain a response that will reassure my constituents that sufficient safety measures are in place to avoid that ever happening again? More generally, does she agree that nuclear submarines have no place in Scotland or anywhere around the world?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I certainly look forward to the day when there are no nuclear weapons—not only in Scotland and the UK, but in the world.

On the issue of safety, which I know is of huge concern to people, I am happy to ask the relevant minister to contact the UK Government to seek the assurances that Emma Harper is looking for.

Super-Fast Broadband (Gleddoch Hotel)

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Gleddoch hotel in Renfrewshire has a slow internet connection that profoundly impacts its business. It would cost an eye-watering £165,000 to install a fibre broadband connection from its local exchange, which it cannot afford. Like all businesses, it was promised super-fast broadband by 2021, but that will not be delivered. Can the First Minister set out what support there is for the Gleddoch hotel to get a fibre connection as soon as possible?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am happy to have Paul Wheelhouse look into the particular issue of the Gleddoch hotel. He will get back to the member.

On the general issue of broadband, Paul Wheelhouse recently updated Parliament on the Government’s plan. Our commitment to everybody having access to broadband by 2021 is being taken forward. Where that cannot happen through the fibre programme, people will be offered vouchers.

However, on a matter that is substantially reserved, this Government will invest £600 million to provide superfast broadband to every commercial and residential premises in the country, at faster speeds than are available in any other part of the United Kingdom. This is a story of Tory failure in reserved matters, which this Scottish National Party Government is having to step in and fix.

Ministry of Defence (Investment)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Ministry of Defence recently invested £63 million into pier facilities at Glen Mallan on Loch Long in my local area, which will create and sustain many jobs for the local community.

Will the First Minister join me in welcoming that investment by the MOD to enable the United Kingdom’s new aircraft carrier strike force to berth on the shores of Loch Long, and does she recognise the major investment that the MOD is bringing to the Scottish economy?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I welcome investment in Scotland in the UK’s conventional defences, after many years in which we have seen cuts to the conventional defence footprint in Scotland. I hope that we will see that investment continue. I take the opportunity—as I am sure that all members would—to pay tribute to all those who work in our armed forces.

Nursery Teachers (Numbers)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

3. I agreed with the First Minister when she set out plans to expand nursery education and when she pledged that we needed quality, not just quantity. Can she tell me why her councillors in Edinburgh want to remove nursery teachers from this city’s nurseries?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As an aside, I should say that I do not remember Willie Rennie agreeing with me on those matters; however, my memory may be failing me.

I am absolutely committed—as is this Government—to ensuring that we deliver the doubling of early years education and nursery provision. That is on track, and Parliament is regularly updated on it. I absolutely agree that quality, and not just quantity, is important. For example, that is why the funding settlement supports payment of the living wage to make sure that we attract the best people into early years education. We will continue to take forward those plans, because not only are they for the benefit of young people across our country but they will save working families thousands of pounds every year.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That was quite an astonishing dodge. In the past hour, Alison Murphy from the Educational Institute of Scotland appeared before the City of Edinburgh Council to describe the cuts to nursery councils as the

“worst example of a short-term cut with devastating long-term impacts.”

That is the action of a Scottish National Party council, half a mile up the road, led by her favourite council leader, on what she called

“the most important infrastructure project of this Parliament.”

We know that nursery teachers improve quality—the Government’s independent workforce review told us that. They help give children the best start in life and close the yawning inequality gap.

It is not just in Edinburgh: 40 per cent of nursery teachers across Scotland have been chopped. We find that those who have the best qualifications as teachers become too expensive to keep. What is the First Minister going to do about this terrible mistake in her big project by her own council? Will she call Adam McVey before it is too late?

The First Minister

Local authorities will take the decisions that they think are right for their areas. Willie Rennie constantly talks about the need to empower local authorities.

I will talk about what this Government is doing. This Government is presiding over possibly the biggest expansion in the early years workforce that we have seen in the lifetime of this Parliament. Since 2017, we have created more than 2,000 additional higher national certificate places and more than 800 graduate-level manager places. We have increased the number of qualified staff available and we are creating just under 2,000 additional college and university places. Uptake of early learning and childcare modern apprenticeships have increased by 24 per cent on the previous year, and investment in the BA childhood practice ensures that we are upskilling the whole workforce.

The fact is that we are doubling childcare provision and that we are seeing the employment of thousands more workers in that sector. That is a good-news story for children and parents across the country, which is why Willie Rennie cannot quite bring himself to welcome it.

Prisons

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware of this morning’s publication of a report from the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee that highlights the crisis in Scotland’s prisons and the urgent action that is needed to address the issues. That follows on from years of underfunding of the Scottish Prison Service, which has resulted in 50 per cent overcrowding at Barlinnie, where many prisoners are doubling up in single occupancy cells. Illness and mental health issues are on the rise among prison officers and, very seriously, there were 258 deaths in prisons between 2008 and 2018. Those are serious issues that have been raised consistently. We have had a lot of words and platitudes, but when are we going to get action?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Let me talk about action. The budget plans that we announced two weeks ago committed an additional £50 million for our prisons, which included a £30 million increase in revenue funding for staffing and other operational costs and a 43 per cent, or £20 million, increase in capital funding. We are investing in the prison estate, prioritising the female custodial estate. We are progressing plans for the replacement of Barlinnie and the development of HMP Highland to replace HMP Inverness. That investment is strong, and rightly so.

Of course, the core challenge that our prisons face is a prison population that is too high. Right now, too many people are in prison who would be better punished elsewhere. When I say “better”, I mean better for them and for reducing their risk of reoffending, as well as better for society as a whole. That is why we are taking forward a range of reforms. We have extended the presumption against short sentences, expanded access to electronic monitoring and invested in bail supervision as an alternative to remand. Actually, since November when the committee was considering the issues, prisoner numbers have already reduced by around 200 because of the actions that we are taking. That is good progress, but we will not be complacent; we will continue to invest and reform to ensure that we continue to have a safe Prison Service, as we do now, and that we provide justice services that are in the interests of society overall.

Scottish Visa

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

In light of the widespread criticism by Scottish industry and employers of the United Kingdom Government’s immigration proposals, will the First Minister outline what response UK ministers have made to proposals for a Scottish visa?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Shamefully, UK ministers have at this stage dismissed out of hand the constructive proposals that the Scottish Government has made on a Scottish visa. The proposals on immigration that were published yesterday are wrong in principle. They brand as low-skilled people who care for us in our care homes and hospitals, farm our land, process our fish, build our houses and look after our tourists in our restaurants and hotels, and imply that those people are not welcome here. That is shocking and shameful, and it should be opposed.

The UK Government’s proposals are also devastating for the future of our economy. Our demographics mean that we need to continue to attract people here, and those proposals will make it much harder. The proposals will make Scotland poorer in future. They are the biggest risk to our economic prosperity that we face. I read in the newspapers this morning that the Scottish Tories are “livid” about the proposals, and so they should be. However, rather than being quietly livid, should the Scottish Tories not be standing up for Scotland and doing something about it?

Asylum Seekers (Right to Vote)

Andy Wightman (Green, Lothian)

I am pleased that the First Minister agrees that the language and the policy on immigration from the United Kingdom Government this week have been deeply damaging. Does she agree that it would be a clear signal that Scotland is more welcoming if we gave those who seek asylum here the right to vote through the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill, which we will consider today?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Obviously, Parliament will debate those issues later this afternoon. The Scottish Government has set out its careful and considered position on that. We come from the perspective of wanting asylum seekers to be welcomed here and given the right to work here and play a full part in our society. We carefully consider all those issues.

I am proud that, in Scotland, we have—I hope—cross-party consensus that, generally speaking, the people who live here, no matter where they come from, should have the right to vote in our elections and to make a full contribution to the kind of country that we are and the one that we want to be.

Post-Mortem Reports (Toxicology)

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The First Minister is aware that thousands of bereaved families are facing agonising delays to find out why their loved ones have died. The Crown Office has now told families that it could take a whole year before they receive a final post-mortem report. Those families are living with the trauma of a sudden or unexplained death and they feel failed and abandoned. They were relieved when the First Minister told the chamber last month that that injustice has her full attention. What action has been taken to end those shocking and cruel delays and will she meet some of the families who are coming to Parliament in the coming weeks to hear first hand how the issue is affecting them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Those are matters that are principally for the law officers. I discuss those issues regularly with the Lord Advocate; indeed, when I see him later today, the toxicology delays that we have talked about before will be among the matters that he updates me on. Investments have been made and work is on-going to deal with that issue.

The other issue that has been previously raised in the chamber is delays to fatal accident inquiries, and I have set out before the issues that the law officers have to deal with there. I know that it is in everybody’s interests that decisions are taken as quickly as possible. I am very happy to ask the Lord Advocate to update Monica Lennon on those issues and answer any further questions that she has.

Access to Medical Services

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

4. To ask the First Minister what concerns the Scottish Government has regarding difficulties that people with visual impairment can have in accessing medical services because a digital by default approach is increasingly being used. (S5F-03978)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The charter of patient rights and responsibilities makes clear that everyone should be given information about their treatment and care in a format or language that meets their needs. The charter was revised last summer and we have written to all national health service boards to remind them of their responsibilities under it. We have made clear our commitment through our see hear strategy to support children and adults who have sight loss to access the health services and social care that they need.

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

This seems to be an issue across Scotland. For example, Newbattle general practice, which serves my constituents, has adopted e-consult as the means of securing a general practitioner appointment, with only a few exceptions. Constituents have expressed concern that that presents difficulties for them due to visual and other impairments. Does the First Minister agree that, although online systems have their place, they are not the be-all and end-all and that accessible alternatives must be readily available depending on the needs of the individual patient? Otherwise, the system can act as a barrier and have unintended consequences such as giving patients no option but to use A and E instead.

The First Minister

Yes, I agree with that. It should be clear to any practice and any health board that their appointment systems must be accessible to all people regardless of their circumstances. Like Christine Grahame, I believe that there is a place for e-booking systems, but we must encourage health boards to ensure that, when someone has difficulties using the internet, they can call and speak to someone in person. I will ask the health secretary to look at the case that Christine Grahame raises and engage with the health board to ensure that the principles that are outlined in the patient rights charter are being fully implemented.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that, if we deploy some fairly simple technology properly, we can ensure that sections of the community such as people who are visually impaired can be confident in participating fully in society? If so, what will the Scottish Government do to enable that deployment?

The First Minister

Yes, I agree with that. The Scottish Government works with health boards to enable the deployment of existing and new technologies, and the principles in the patient rights charter that I have spoken about are very important. It is incumbent on health boards, whether through technology or in other ways, to make sure that their services are accessible and we will continue to make sure that health boards realise and live up to those responsibilities.

Diabetes

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports that the number of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes has risen by 40 per cent in the last 10 years. (S5F-03975)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Reducing the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is a priority. In 2018, we published “A Healthier Future—Framework for the Prevention, Early Detection and Early Intervention of type 2 diabetes”, which sets out measures to make a significant impact on prevention and remission by improving support for people with, or who are at risk of, type 2 diabetes. Since then, we have invested an additional £4.5 million to give people better access to weight-management services to support effective and sustained changes to diet and lifestyle. Diabetes Scotland said last week that creating

“healthy environments which support people to make healthier choices”

Is critical. That is why “A Healthier Future—Scotland’s Diet and Healthy Weight Delivery Plan” sets out more than 60 wide-ranging actions to make it easier for people to eat well and have healthy weight.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for those comments, and I add my support for the great work that Diabetes Scotland does.

The reality is that type 2 diabetes is on the rise, which is a worrying trend. The number of people in Scotland who have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is 250,000. However, it is estimated that up to 26,000 Scots are living with the condition but have not been diagnosed. The majority of those new cases will be linked to obesity, but the good news is that type 2 diabetes is not just treatable, but is preventable, and in many cases reversible, with the right mix of medication, diet and lifestyle changes.

In light of that, what specifically is being done to identify undiagnosed cases, so that those people can be treated? What is the Government doing to improve treatment of those who are currently living with the condition? More important, does the First Minister believe that it was a mistake to scrap the flagship policy of health checks for 40-year-olds in Scotland, given that that has removed a vital opportunity to identify potential cases at an earlier age?

The First Minister

We encourage early detection and diagnosis across a range of conditions. Jamie Greene is right to focus on the importance of that. I am sure that he has read “A Healthier Future—Framework for the Prevention, Early Detection and Early Intervention of type 2 diabetes”, in which all those strands were deliberately included.

Prevention is key, which is why the healthy environment that Diabetes Scotland talks about is really important in supporting people to eat healthily in order to maintain healthy weight. Early detection is also important. I am happy to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport to provide more details about how that aspect of the framework is being taken forward.

As with any condition, if it is not detected and diagnosed, treating it and—as Jamie Greene said—in the case of type 2 diabetes, possibly reversing it, are not possible. Those are important priorities, which is why they are deliberately focused on in the framework.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be well aware that Scotland has one of the highest rates of type 2 diabetes in Europe. It costs the NHS £1 billion a year in avoidable complications, and one in 10 hospital bed days relates to diabetes. Does the First Minister share my view that we need radical and immediate action to reduce the long-term complications of diabetes, which is a condition that maims, blinds and kills?

The First Minister

In general terms, I share that view. Obviously, the specifics are important. As David Stewart knows from his long-standing interest in the topic, that means taking action across a range of areas, as I have just been saying.

Prevention remains the most important focus, in many respects. That is why we will, during this session, introduce a bill on restricting food promotions to ensure that people are supported to eat healthily. Treatment is also important, so there is a lot of investment and effort in our national health service to ensure that people have access to the best available treatment.

I appreciate David Stewart’s interest and I know that he is aware of the actions that are under way. The health secretary and others in the Government are always willing to have discussions about what more we can do to prevent people from getting diabetes, and to support those who have it to live with it in a way that—hopefully—sees the condition being reversed or which, at the very least, enables them to manage it without further complications.

Coronavirus

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

6. To ask the First Minster what action the Scottish Government is taking to prepare the national health service to deal with the coronavirus. (S5F-03958)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As it stands, today there are still no confirmed cases of coronavirus in Scotland. However, it is clearly prudent to assume that that will change in the days and weeks ahead. Our NHS is well prepared to respond to disease outbreaks, and has in place tried and tested measures for managing public health incidents of this type.

Health Protection Scotland and the Scottish Government continue to work closely with boards on their preparedness for managing potential cases. Health Protection Scotland has already produced specific guidance on investigation and initial management of suspected cases, which has been communicated to boards via a letter from the chief medical officer.

The establishment of testing facilities in Edinburgh and Glasgow has enabled quicker notification of results. The Scottish Government is encouraging organisations to ensure that business continuity plans are refreshed, in light of the coronavirus. We are also promoting good respiratory hygiene practices in order to minimise the risk of catching and spreading it.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I welcome the First Minister’s response. The spread of coronavirus has been rapid, and the number of people who have been affected has increased dramatically.

We do not have any confirmed cases of infection in Scotland, but it is just a matter of time until we do.

On that basis, can the First Minister tell me what additional planning has been undertaken to ensure that there are sufficient infection-control staff, additional isolation facilities and sufficient bed capacity in our already overstretched hospitals to cope with the virus?

The First Minister

It will be just a matter of time until we see cases here. There is still a lot to learn about the virus—whom it affects, whom it affects most severely, how it spreads and the rate of infection. That knowledge is developing almost every day.

We are currently, and sensibly, using the pandemic flu plan to assess and prepare resources and response planning. Health Protection Scotland has produced clinical and laboratory guidance for investigation and initial management, which I spoke about earlier today. We are looking very carefully at the resources that health boards have and need, and at how they would be required to redeploy resources in the event of a serious outbreak of coronavirus. We have activated the Scottish Government resilience room to support those efforts: I chaired its first meeting on 29 January.

I assure Parliament that plans are well under way and are well developed. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will keep Parliament fully updated, as the situation develops.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. That concludes First Minster’s questions. We move on shortly to a members’ business debate in the name of Maurice Golden, on tackling climate change and the role of Scottish agriculture. There will be a short suspension to allow members, the First Minister and members of the public in the gallery to change seats.

12:46 Meeting suspended.

12:48 On resuming—

Climate Change and Agriculture

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

I ask members of the public who are leaving the gallery to do so quietly, as the Parliament is still meeting.

The next item of business is a member’s business debate on motion S5M-20548, in the name of Maurice Golden, on tackling climate change: the role of Scottish agriculture. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes the contribution of Scottish agriculture to protecting the environment and being part of the solution to tackling climate change; commends Scottish farmers, including those in the West of Scotland, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 29.4% since 1990; recognises that Scottish farmers already work hard to preserve the landscape, improve biodiversity, plant and manage woodland, restore peatland, improve water and soil quality and generate renewable energy; acknowledges the view that there is a need to develop a suite of joined-up, practical and progressive policies that allow food producers to continue running their businesses in a more sustainable and efficient manner, and looks forward to the new Agricultural Modernisation Fund assisting industry in this transition.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank members of the SNP, the Labour Party—a welcome addition—and the Liberal Democrats for supporting my motion. This Parliament has set ambitious targets for achieving net zero emissions by 2045. If we are to meet that target, there can be no doubt that we must have the support of Scottish agriculture.

Scottish farmers, crofters and other rural businesses are on the front line when it comes to the effects of climate change in Scotland. NFU Scotland is engaging with food producers and supporting action to produce better environmental outcomes. It understands that those outcomes underpin the long-term future of farming in Scotland. Our job, as policy makers, is to work with farmers and rural businesses to make that change happen, to provide them with support to remove obstacles from their path and to reduce the risks of transitioning to new ways of working.

However, it is important to recognise that agriculture already has one of the lowest emission levels of any sector—it contributes just 9 per cent of total United Kingdom emissions, and UK beef production is more carbon efficient than the global average. Overall, Scottish agricultural emissions are down almost 30 per cent from the 1990 baseline. Unfortunately, that is often overlooked because agriculture and land management measures are accounted for separately.

We must recognise that some emissions are inherent in food production. Even so, farmers are working hard to improve environmental outcomes. They manage important woodlands and peatlands, both of which are important carbon sinks, and they work with organisations such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on agri-environmental projects to improve water and soil quality, bolster flood prevention measures and protect our biodiversity.

All too often, farmers and land managers do not get the recognition that they deserve. Just last week, the director of the Soil Association Scotland wrote in

The Scotsman

to urge politicians

“to start valuing and rewarding farmers for the important services they provide.”

I could not agree more.

However, what farmers really need is action for the long-term sustainability of their businesses. That is how we will ensure that they continue to produce the environmental outcomes that we need. We must have a good food nation bill to provide the vision for future agricultural policy.

One obvious measure is the provision of direct support for farmers to use more environmentally friendly practices. The up-front costs of doing that can be prohibitive, so I proposed an agricultural modernisation fund and worked to have it included in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. I am pleased that I got cross-party support for that amendment, which will ensure that proposals for a future fund are included in the next climate change plan.

Funding for modernisation and upgrades is needed now more than ever. Productivity has dropped for three years in a row, incomes are down by almost 10 per cent while farm debt is at its highest since 1972 and, at the end of last year, dozens of farmers across Scotland were still waiting for common agricultural policy payments from 2017.

Rural Scotland needs reliable support to prosper and become more sustainable, and the Scottish Conservatives are willing to work with the Scottish Government if it is serious about putting that support in place. For example, we can surely all agree on the benefits of giving farmers and rural communities more control over their recycling and waste management services. That could improve environmental outcomes, reduce farmers’ costs and boost rural economies. The Scottish Conservatives propose to do that through a new producers fund, which would provide equipment and infrastructure to set up on-site anaerobic digestion, microplastic recycling centres and waste hubs.

Farmers could benefit from on-site anaerobic digestion, because that would generate energy and heat, which, in turn, would reduce costs.

Microplastic recycling centres would provide more convenient access to recycling services for rural and island communities, with shorter transport distances and better environmental outcomes. Collection services should be tailored to local conditions in order to simplify logistics and make dumping waste less attractive. Local economies would be boosted, too, through job creation and the creation of localised circular economies, with low-value feedstock being transformed into higher-value products.

Waste hubs would work in tandem with the microrecycling centres to further reduce logistical and cost burdens by acting as a single access point for waste streams. They would also provide a much-needed alternative and capacity for farmers who can no longer burn plastic waste.

We all have a job to do in educating the public about the vital role that Scottish farmers play. That is why the Scottish Conservatives are proposing the creation of school farms that would allow children from local schools to come together and learn about food production, healthy eating and rural life.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Maurice Golden very much for taking an intervention, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I apologise for not being able to stay to the end of the debate, which is due to a meeting of the Justice Sub-Committee on Policing.

The range of measures that

Maurice Golden

has set out goes to the point that the NFUS has made about the importance of having a suite of measures to reflect the different types of agriculture across the country. As well as ensuring that that suite of measures is available, does he agree that any future trade agreement will need to ensure that food imports into the UK at least meet the standards that we require of our farmers in this country?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

Yes, I agree that the best-quality food that is produced in the UK is produced here, in Scotland, and that any standard for the whole UK should reflect that.

The member hails from Orkney, which is a fantastic example of a place that deserves further support such as the motion outlines. I declare an interest in that Zero Waste Scotland commissioned an excellent report by me, when I worked for that organisation,

on the benefits of the bio-economy in Orkney and some really useful ways in which we could use the waste and by-products from the whisky sector and dairy production in Orkney, ensuring that we do not transport lots of waste across Scotland, the UK and more widely. I urge all members to have a look at that report.

The motion speaks of the need for “joined-up, practical ... policies”, which is what I have outlined in my speech. The measures are clear in their intent and would support farmers to deliver improved environmental outcomes right now.

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

I thank my colleague Maurice Golden for bringing this very important and timeous members’ business debate to the chamber.

The motion is absolutely correct to welcome

“the contribution of Scottish agriculture to protecting the environment and being part of the solution to tackling climate change”.

We are at a critical time in fighting climate change. The independent UK Committee on Climate Change has noted that Scottish policies that are adopted over the next 12 months are likely to determine the policy direction of the next 25 years. The policies that affect our agriculture sector will be particularly important for any mitigation of, or reduction in, emissions to help us reach our very ambitious targets. In 2017-18, it was estimated that Scottish farmers lost around £161 million because of extreme weather that resulted in lower crop yields and livestock losses. The Scottish agricultural sector is therefore on the front line of the impacts that climate change is already bringing and will bring.

However, it is true to say that we can use our land to combat the effects of our current climate emergency. Improving sustainable farming methods will be integral in reaching our goal of net zero emissions. WWF has highlighted a number of policies that we can adopt in order to reduce our emissions. Reducing nitrogen fertiliser use, improving animal heath, promoting organic farming and investing in agroforestry could reduce Scottish agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by up to 38 per cent by 2045.

To achieve that, we must assess the way in which we advise, train and offer incentives to our farmers. We must set clear emission reduction targets and improve the quality of monitoring and reporting on our emission levels. As Maurice Golden mentioned, the introduction of the good food nation bill can deliver the legislative impetus that we desperately need. In the most recent meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on food, which I co-convene with my colleagues Mark Ruskell and Colin Smyth, I stressed that we should not demonise our food industry in our quest to combat climate change, because farming is critical for our economy and supports thousands of jobs in our rural areas.

In order to seamlessly enact the policies that are needed to halt the emergency, we should look to educate the general public about how food is produced. I was interested to hear Maurice Golden’s suggestions on how some of that education could happen. At the cross-party group, it was noted that conveying nuanced messages about food production has been difficult and that there is a lot of misinformation in the public sphere, certainly with regard to meat versus vegetarian or vegan diets, which we are currently hearing about. Increasing investment in home economics in schools is one of the suggested ways to realise that goal.

We can educate and create policy, but we also need to encourage action at the grass-roots level. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has stated that farmers and crofters need greater recognition, rewards and incentives for taking positive steps in mitigating emissions. The Scottish Government has taken steps towards that with the agricultural modernisation fund, which Maurice Golden mentioned in the motion. That was a great amendment to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The fund will aid investment in agricultural mitigation measures.

Another investment, which was announced just yesterday, is in the continuation of the agri-environment climate scheme. Another £34 million in funding will go towards promoting environmentally friendly land management practices. However, I have received feedback from a local crofter about the possibility of making the application process easier. I wonder whether the minister can reference that in her closing remarks.

We are in the midst of a climate emergency, and our agricultural sector will be critical in our fight against it. We must encourage the development of meaningful policy and ensure that we take swift steps to enact it.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to highlight the role that farmers are playing in tackling climate change. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I am a member of the NFU.

I welcome to the public gallery a couple of farmers from Galloway and West Dumfries, which is Scotland’s most beautiful constituency.

I am proud to be the Conservative Party’s representative on the recently established climate change working group. Agriculture is not its sole focus, but one of my priorities is to highlight the role that farming can play and ensure that the contribution and efforts of the agriculture sector are fairly represented and accredited.

Agriculture is responsible for emissions associated with food production. However, while farmers undertake that food production, they are more often than not directly or indirectly responsible for sequestration through tree planting, soil management, peatland restoration and biodiversity protection. All those things are viewed as being very positive for the climate. As Maurice Golden said, the activities of farmers in relation to carbon sequestration or renewable energy production are often recorded in other sectors’ inventory figures.

I was delighted that Maurice Golden lodged an amendment to create an agricultural modernisation fund. That is now part of the 2019 act, and it ensures that funding for modernisation and upgrade support for farmers will be part of the imminent climate change plan. Farmers must be given support and tools to fully benefit from what they are already doing to achieve highly ambitious emission reduction targets.

I have been dismayed and angered over the past year or so by the agenda that has been targeted against the agricultural industry and our livestock producers in particular. Unfortunately, aided and abated by sections of the media, the positive message about how our farming industry is tackling climate change right now—today—has been drowned out by ill-informed activists who are too lazy and blinkered by their misplaced ideology to look at rural and agricultural practices as a whole. How many of them have taken the time to do the research and find out that the agricultural industry reduced emissions by an incredible 29 per cent between 1990 and 2017?

Do not even get me started on the blatant promotion of veganism and Veganuary in the mainstream media. Where is the balanced argument? Where is the media scrutiny of the impact of importing soya or other out-of-season vegetables? Do the protesters acknowledge that agriculture is responsible for only 9 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Finlay Carson mentioned soya. Is soya used as a livestock feed in Scotland?

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I will develop that argument as I go on. However, the fact that we eat vegetables that are imported from all over the world has a negative impact on our carbon footprint.

Where is the scrutiny of imported soya?

As I said, agriculture is responsible for only 9 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions, and cattle and sheep are responsible for just 3 per cent.

That said, the industry accepts that it needs to do better, and Scottish farmers are already undertaking a range of practical measures to reduce emissions. Those measures include improving livestock health and efficiency, better soil management and sequestration, and more efficient use of fertilisers, slurry and manure. We need the policies that Maurice Golden outlined, but we must also ensure that future policies do not have the unintended consequence of displacing production to other parts of the globe, with a far greater impact on the environment. The possible unintended consequences of carbon leakage and the exporting of emissions and production should be strongly analysed and considered.

We must show caution when it comes to promoting wholesale changes in the way that people eat. If we are to truly tackle emissions, we should be encouraging people to eat locally produced high-quality food. Caution should be exercised when advising behaviour change, particularly around diet. We should not advocate a route forward that would undermine the Scottish agriculture industry. Requiring reductions in emissions from farming and then promoting reduced consumption of local produce should not be countenanced.

We are repeatedly told that we are in a climate emergency and that rapid responses are needed. The fact is that the vast majority of meat eaters in this country are not going to stop eating beef. Given that Scotland is only 75 per cent self-sufficient in beef, maybe we should not ask people to eat less meat but ensure that the meat that they eat is Scotch beef and lamb that is locally produced, particularly given that the greenhouse gas intensity of UK-produced beef in terms of carbon dioxide production is less than half the global average.

The industry must do more, but we recognise that the number of Scottish farmers and crofters who carry out carbon audits has increased significantly over the years. More than 1,000 farms have participated in the beef efficiency scheme, with carbon audits being carried out on every participating farm over the past year.

This debate is a reminder that there is lots to celebrate in what our farming industry has done and is doing in relation to tackling climate change. There is no room for complacency but, going forward, the debate must be balanced and healthy rather than overblown, ill-informed and demonising.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank

Maurice Golden for bringing this very important topic to the chamber for debate. We must all confront the climate and environment emergencies, and the agriculture sector has a strong role to play in that.

Farmers, crofters and land managers have been among the first to need to adapt to climate change and they face extreme weather day in, day out, but they also form a huge part of the efforts to mitigate any further damage. That responsibility can lie heavily on them, particularly as such a high proportion of private sector employment in rural areas is in small and medium-sized enterprises, both in South Scotland and more widely across rural Scotland. That is why I lodged an amendment to the motion—I am pleased that Maurice Golden recognised its relevance—specifying the need for a

“wider Just Transition to sustainable land use by Scottish farmers”.

My amendment has been supported by some members who are in the chamber and by others.

I thank the organisations that sent us briefings for the debate. Such briefings are always invaluable and they inform us all.

The Scottish Government needs to review the policy and support framework for reductions in agricultural emissions, and with haste. It must not let slip the opportunities that are afforded by the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill and the update to the climate change plan. WWF’s recent report “Delivering on Net Zero: Scottish Agriculture”, which other speakers have mentioned, shows that a sustainable net zero pathway is very possible. It highlights that important mitigation measures can be taken at a farm level with little or no land use change and that greater changes that will deliver more significant carbon savings are feasible. Many of those use established technologies such as organic production, agroforestry and conservation agriculture.

Research is developing all the time on sustainable food production, soil management, nature-based solutions and support for our fragile ecosystems and wildlife species, and many of those things can also bring savings for farmers if they are done in the right way.

By way of example, I will focus briefly on agroforestry and its multiple benefits. Just this January, the Woodland Trust and the Organic Research Centre published their findings on native species and particularly how the willow tree can optimise the production of lambs due to its high mineral and protein content. Last summer, I visited Whitmuir Organics, the farm and shop of Pete Richie and Heather Anderson, who have led the way on so much innovation over the years. I saw the agroforestry plantings that have benefited animals through browsing opportunities, while giving shade in summer and shelter in winter. There are also coppicing opportunities.

In the right circumstances, agroforestry offers a chance to open up new markets, transform a high-risk monoculture into a mixed system, and profit the farmer. For the public good, such innovations reward our biodiversity, minimise flood risk, keep quality Scottish produce on the table, and mitigate climate change through riparian planting and carbon sequestration.

We in Scottish Labour take very seriously the need to step toward a range of changes, of which agroforestry is just one example. The UK Committee on Climate Change says that, for decades, incentives for agricultural land use have not had the fundamental change that they need. The update must be far more robust than the present climate change plan, because those system-level changes cannot be tacked on—they must be at the core of the development of our new subsidy regime, supporting farmers in the just transition. Maurice Golden has highlighted the new agricultural modernisation fund, which is the result of his amendment to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, and which was supported on a cross-party basis; it will give significant support.

Many farmers are already shifting towards net zero, and should be recognised for the work that they do, as both Maurice Golden and Finlay Carson have highlighted. John Scott also highlighted that in the ECCLR Committee. Planting for public good, renewable energy, peatland restoration work and much more need to be recognised.

We cannot look only at schemes and financial supports; we also need to see strategic approaches to giving farmers the right skills, the latest knowledge, and the tools to share and transfer those ideas in a co-operative way. That is at the core of the success of an agricultural just transition.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the debate, introduced by Maurice Golden. It does feels as though it could have been a John Scott debate; we miss John and wish him all the very best.

There has been a significant political shift in recent years, recognising that agriculture is part of the problem but also holds the solution to achieving our net zero target in Scotland. It is good to take time to recognise the many exciting and passionate farmers across Scotland who are paving the way for climate friendly farming. I have had the pleasure of visiting many of those businesses across Scotland, from Lynbreck Croft in the Cairngorms to Mossgiel in Ayrshire—places where farmers are tapping into generations of knowledge and skill to develop resilient, diverse and low-carbon farming models.

However, the motion and debate run the risk of looking at only one side of the industry. We need to be cautious of adopting a congratulatory tone while ignoring the urgent changes that still need to be made in mainstream agriculture.

The figure quoted in the motion, of a 29 per cent reduction in agricultural emissions since 1990, paints a much rosier picture than the reality. Over the last decade, emissions reductions have stagnated, with only a 2 per cent fall since 2008. Agriculture still accounts for over a quarter of Scotland’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is clear that we will not achieve our net zero target if we do not significantly speed up the rate of change.

There is work still to be done to ensure that all stakeholders in agriculture are on board. Just a couple of weeks ago, the NFUS president Andrew McCornick told the union’s annual conference:

“We’re being told”

that climate change is

“coming, but we can’t reach out and feel or touch it, so there have to be questions—is this real or are we just being told that?”

He then went on to suggest that planting trees is accelerating global warming.

As politicians, we need to ensure that we are both working with the industry and listening to the science. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism commented last year that he’ll “take no lessons” from our own scientific advisers, the UK Committee on Climate Change.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In a second.

That has set a worrying precedent. It is time for us all to face up to the huge job ahead and show some leadership.

If I can get the time back, I will let Mr Carson in.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was asked so nicely; you will get the time back.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you so much.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I wonder whether Mark Ruskell, in his statement about agriculture’s contribution to Scotland’s greenhouse gases, is falling into the trap, as so many do, of not considering the whole agricultural industry in the round, including its contribution to carbon sequestration in methods of farming, forestry and renewable energy. Are you falling into the trap of just quoting, and misrepresenting agriculture’s contribution to reducing greenhouse gases?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please do not use the term “you” of another member. I am the only “you” sitting here. That is spelled Y-O-U, by the way.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Carson raises a very important point that we have discussed in committee. However, we have to recognise that the emissions from forestry and renewable energy production are counted elsewhere. The important thing, moving forward, is to ensure that we have a whole-farm approach to reducing emissions. That will still result in significant change, which we need.

The UKCCC’s report, “Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK”, published last month, recommended a package of measures to help us to achieve net zero emissions from land use. That included increasing UK-wide forestry cover to at least 17 per cent through both afforestation and agroforestry, mentioned by Claudia Beamish, but also—Mr Carson will not like this—reducing meat and dairy consumption by at least 20 per cent along with similar reductions in food waste.

We must not be afraid of talking about changes in land use and diets. Denying the need for those will leave agriculture in a weaker position to respond and adapt. The 20 per cent reduction in meat and dairy consumption recommended by the CCC is modest compared with UK Government nutritional guidance as to what we should be eating and it is, to be honest, already being reflected in increasing consumer demand for meat-free and plant-based options.

The long awaited delivery of land use partnerships will be vital to meeting our net zero goals, but they need to have ambition and regulatory teeth. Farmers need to play an active role in that, but we also need to accept that, in some places, it will result in land use change. It is right to celebrate and champion the good examples of climate friendly, low carbon agriculture that already exist in Scotland, and I welcome the debate, but the reality is that much work still needs to be done to mainstream those models across the industry. The decisions that we make in the coming years on future agricultural policy and subsidies will be the lynchpin in determining whether we successfully deliver on that or not.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I congratulate Maurice Golden on bringing the debate to the chamber and allowing us the opportunity to discuss the enormous contribution that our farmers, crofters and producers make in Scotland. Farmers and producers are the custodians of our land, they produce the food for our nation and they actively play their part in reducing emissions.

From the outset, I note how important it is that we all—MSPs, the media and wider society—ensure that our farmers are valued, supported and recognised. We must ensure that our farmers and producers are not vilified. Over the past three decades, farmers have contributed to an almost 30 per cent reduction in emissions in Scotland.

Scottish farmers already work hard to preserve the landscape, improve biodiversity, plant new trees and hedges, manage woodland and restore peatland. I visited a peatland restoration project on a farmer’s land at Moss of Cree near Newton Stewart, where Dr Emily Taylor from the Crichton Carbon Centre and I measured the peat depth at 6 metres. That is really deep. Farmers also improve the water and soil quality and generate renewable energy. With the advent of new technologies, and support from the Scottish Government, the third sector and educational institutions such as Scotland’s Rural College, that list is always growing.

It is worth noting that agriculture contributes a fraction of UK greenhouse gas emissions. It is responsible for only 9 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions, and cattle and sheep—the majority of the livestock production across Dumfries and Galloway and, indeed, Scotland—are responsible for just 3 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. Also, Scottish farmers and crofters play an important role in generating renewable energy. The largest proportion of operational community and locally owned capacity in Scotland is located on farms and estates. Farmers and crofters play their part and we need to promote that. Again, Scottish farmers are not climate change villains and, as Gail Ross and Finlay Carson said, we should not demonise them.

Around 73 per cent of Scotland’s land area is designated as agricultural. Scottish farmers play a vital role in preserving our rural landscapes and improving biodiversity, including through managing and planting woodland. Since 2014, 19,875 hectares of woodland have been created under the Scottish rural development programme’s forestry grant scheme. About 30 per cent of that is in Dumfries and Galloway alone.

I mentioned the planting of hedges. I would be interested to hear the minister explain how hedges are considered in the context of carbon sequestration, because we always talk about forests, trees and woodland, but the planting of hedges also contributes to carbon sequestration.

The agricultural modernisation fund, the Scottish Government’s commitment to which in the programme for government has been reaffirmed through funding commitments in the upcoming budget, will allow Scottish farmers, crofters and land managers to make plans to invest in a low-emissions future and will assist them in making the transition to such a future.

Last week, I attended the NFUS conference in Glasgow. I was really interested to hear how climate change was presented as an opportunity rather than a barrier. We need to look at all the comments that have been made in context. Many people highlighted action that they are already taking to reduce emissions. Nigel Miller and Mike Robinson of the farming for 1.5 degrees group gave a talk that was all about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. That work is being carried out with Andrew Barbour from the SRUC’s Barony campus in Dumfries and Galloway.

I know that we are short of time, so I want to put on record my thanks to Scottish farmers, crofters and producers who, as has been demonstrated, are playing an active part in tackling climate change and reducing emissions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am letting members go over their time a little because they are very interested in the topic and have a lot to say about it. We have some time in hand.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank my colleague Maurice Golden for securing the debate. I want to speak against the growing narrative that Scottish farming—especially its meat and dairy production—is somehow overcontributing to climate change. I want to support our farmers, whom we charge with producing food of the highest quality to the highest standards. We also charge them with custodianship of the countryside and demand that they pay the living wage. However, when it comes to public procurement, far too little home-grown produce makes it on to tables in the public sector.

It is completely misleading to suggest that the practices of Scottish farmers should be lumped in with farming practices in other parts of the world. Our livestock is predominantly grass fed, unlike in the Americas, where the livestock is force fed. Similar practices are used in the far east. If we want to take positive action on climate change—as, I am sure, we all do—surely we need to stop the practice of importing food that is readily available in this country, and thereby negate the need for our farmers to export. Less than 20 per cent of the Scotland Excel contract goes to local producers, but East Ayrshire Council manages to procure more than 70 per cent of its food locally. That shows that it can be done.

We need to develop Scotland’s food processing capability. It seems to me to be ridiculous that we produce high-quality food that we send away for processing. Shellfish that are caught off the west coast of Scotland are sent to the far east to be packaged, and are then brought back again. From a carbon-footprint perspective, that is ridiculous.

One of the main considerations that is being lost in the deluge of misinformation, from an overexposed section of society, is health. I am very supportive of everybody having choice when it comes to their lifestyle; people should be able to choose a healthy vegetarian diet or a healthy vegan diet, but elements of society should not be allowed to decry our farmers and the food that they produce.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Mr Whittle, as a former athlete, agree with UK nutritional advice, which recommends that we eat a bit less meat and dairy produce?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank Mark Ruskell for that intervention, because he makes a very good point. I advocate a balanced diet. Mr Ruskell is absolutely correct to suggest that there are elements of society that eat far too much red meat. However, the flipside of that is that there is a section of society that says that we should not eat any meat at all, which is completely wrong.

I am supportive of choice in lifestyle. My concern is that it is difficult to maintain a good healthy balanced vegan or, sometimes, vegetarian diet for children. Animal protein is a very good source of many essential elements of a healthy diet that are otherwise difficult to replicate in what children eat. We should point out that the choice of such a diet is often not that of the child but of the parent. If a balanced diet is not maintained in the early years, that will have an impact in later life.

I heard a ridiculous story from one of my constituents about a local nursery that is refusing to give free milk to the children because, according to the person who runs the nursery, farming is destroying the planet. We have to get away from that kind of narrative.

I want to point out that if we are serious about tackling climate change in the way that we should be, we need to continue to support our farmers as they make the environmental changes that we want them to make. We need to be cognisant of foodstuffs that are imported as so-called replacements for local produce, and we need to recognise that production and transport of such foodstuffs have a carbon footprint.

We need to stop vilifying our farmers. We need to support them using public food procurement, and in their actions to tackle climate change, and we need to stop the need for us to import so much of our food. Our farmers have the capacity to feed our country healthily. It is time that we helped them.

So, I am off to have a good old Scotch-beef burger for my lunch.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Maurice Golden for lodging his motion and for securing today’s debate, which gives us the opportunity to recognise that, if we are to meet the net zero emissions target, agriculture is part of the solution. The sector gets that and there is growing consensus on the necessary direction of travel.

As the motion rightly notes, farmers and crofters have already delivered their 29.4 per cent drop in emissions since 1990. As Maurice Golden highlighted, because of the way that the figures are calculated, they exclude a portion of the carbon reductions that farmers and crofters have made.

However, the climate crisis that we face is stark and it is now. Gail Ross rightly described this as a “critical” time. We need to build on the progress that has been made in order to deliver greater reductions in emissions in the sector, and we need to develop the greener and more sustainable and productive agriculture system that we all want.

That will require political leadership and direction. I have a lot of faith in the agriculture sector in Scotland and its ability to adapt to change to meet challenges, but the Government needs to provide direction and detail. We know that our current agriculture support system does not do enough to facilitate change, and is, at times, a barrier to that change.

As we exit the common agricultural policy, we need to develop a new support system that will deliver our environmental, economic and social aims. A system that supports and incentivises sustainability and environmentally friendly practices will build a more productive and resilient industry. Those two aims should not be thought of as competing with each other, and neither is to be achieved at the expense of the other.

The most effective way to continue to reduce emissions is to support a strong and sustainable agriculture sector that balances climate change commitments with the need for food security. If we do not deliver sustainability, that will mean an increase in imports, which means an increase in emissions.

Any change must be underpinned by the principle that was set out by my colleague Claudia Beamish in her addition to Maurice Golden’s motion, which says that there should be a just transition for Scottish farmers, crofters and farm workers.

Stakeholders across the board have been working hard on proposals for a system that reflects those priorities, for example, NFUS’s “Steps to Change: A New Agricultural Policy for Scotland” and “#Route2050—A direction of travel for Scottish land management to 2050” by Scottish Land & Estates recognise the need for meaningful reform to promote sustainability and better support the sector as it works to reduce emissions.

Environmental organisations have been doing fantastic work—in particular, there is WWF’s report “Delivering on Net Zero”, which was mentioned by my colleague Claudia Beamish. It includes a number of detailed evidence-based proposals on how to reduce emissions. Its analysis suggests that those measures could lead to a 38 per cent reduction in agricultural greenhouse emissions by 2045.

However, we need from the Scottish Government leadership, direction and detail, showing exactly what it intends to do in the months and years ahead. The creation of the agricultural transformation fund is a welcome first step, and I commend the cross-party work to get the fund included in the recent Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. However, the fund does not compensate for an overall funding system that is no longer fit for purpose and has to change.

The Government has set out a post-European Union transition period until 2024. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill that is currently making its way through Parliament is an opportunity to make it clear that it will not be simply business as usual during that transition period.

The clock is ticking—in fact, time is running out when it comes to climate change. I hope that that bill will be strengthened by the Government, including by adding to it a purpose section that puts the environment at the heart of the improvements that the bill will lead to, including the proposed pilot scheme. I also hope that the Government will use the parliamentary debates on the bill to settle on a clear timetable for the Government’s outline of a long-term agricultural policy for Scotland.

We need to use what short time we have to trial new schemes, to set out the changes that we need in the future, to support the sector to make those changes, and to ensure a just transition so that no one is left behind. By doing that, we can build on the progress that has already been delivered by Scottish agriculture.

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

I add my sincere thanks to Maurice Golden for bringing this debate to the chamber and for the chance that it gives me, in closing, to set out all that the Scottish Government is doing to support farmers, crofters and land managers to farm sustainably and contribute to our climate change ambitions. Much has been raised in the chamber today, so I sincerely apologise if I miss out anything or if anyone feels that there is a point that I do not address. If that happens, follow up with me; I am happy to meet anyone to discuss what we are doing and the plans that we have for the future.

I could not agree more with Maurice Golden when he stated that our farmers and crofters do not get the recognition that they deserve. He raised a lot of important points that are worth re-emphasising and that we have heard echoed around the chamber today. It is important to remember that our agricultural sector has reduced its emissions by nearly 30 per cent from the 1990 baseline.

As I said, many important points have been raised. I am glad that Finlay Carson highlighted the media’s portrayal of our industry in Scotland and how it has conflated our system with production systems in other parts of the world. Brian Whittle emphasised that issue as well. It has been a massive bugbear for me and for the Scottish Government in general, because it is just not a fair representation of how we farm in Scotland. It unfairly and unjustly points the finger at agriculture as if it is solely to blame.

Emma Harper raised an important point on that, too: we all have a role in talking up the role that our farmers and crofters play, and in not vilifying them.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In answer to the intervention that I took from the Green Party, I should have said that, rather than suggest that we are eating far too much meat, we should be saying that we need to eat more fruit and vegetables. That also speaks to our farming community and would contribute much better to a balanced diet.

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

That is exactly what we want to promote—a healthy, balanced diet. That is what it is all about.

In every part of Scotland, farm businesses are making changes to their approach and that is cutting emissions. More than 3,000 farms have undertaken carbon audits and more than 1,400 farmers are participating in the beef efficiency scheme.

Through pillar 1 greening, which is worth just over £130 million in the coming year, around 18,000 businesses are undertaking practices that protect our permanent grassland and the historical carbon sink under it, as well as promote biodiversity.

There are farms that are shifting to hardier breeds that require less-intensive husbandry and can spend more time outside, and farms that are changing how and what they feed their cattle. There are farmers who already use precision farming methods to reduce fertiliser and pesticide use and improve productivity.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the Galloway beef breed is one that stays out all year round, which can contribute to a more efficient system?

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

Absolutely, and I would add that it is one of my favourite breeds. Ye cannae beat a beltie—unless, of course, it is an Aberdeen Angus, which represents my own area.

Our farmers and crofters are playing their part in Scotland’s contribution to addressing the global climate emergency. That has to continue. There are other initiatives that will, I hope, allow us to better recognise that fact. One initiative that has received press coverage recently is the carbon positive project, through which we have been working with and supporting the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society to develop a tool that will help farmers to better recognise all the work that they do on the farm in relation to carbon sequestration.

I have always been clear that we cannot and must not look to address climate change through a single lens. That is especially relevant when it comes to agriculture. Our farmers and crofters are being asked to deliver on multiple priorities, such as biodiversity, air quality and water quality, as well as climate change. We must look to secure solutions that provide multiple benefits so that Scotland can address those areas while continuing to be a world-class producer of high-quality food.

I am not saying that it will be easy, because there will not be one easy solution, but to achieve a sustainable future we have to take a holistic and integrated approach in which all issues are taken into consideration. Although many farmers and crofters are already playing their part, we need everyone to do more. If Scotland is to achieve net zero emissions by 2045, the country and everybody in it, including our farmers and crofters, will be presented with challenges and opportunities.

The Scottish Government has a number of mechanisms in place to help farmers and crofters do more to reduce emissions and to farm sustainably, and a lot of work is under way on future policy that will address some of the points that Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth raised today. The strategic approach that Claudia Beamish talked about is exactly what we need and other elements, such as land use strategies and other points that were raised today, need to feed into that.

Through our farm advisory service, we offer a range of advice, information and technical guidance on areas such as nutrient planning and management, livestock health and welfare, crop health, soil management and the benefits of woodlands on farms. The advisory service also offers our farmers and crofters access to free carbon audits and discounted integrated land management plans, with access to specialist one-on-one advice. Our farming for a better climate initiative provides a wealth of examples from our focus farmers, who have looked at their businesses and identified areas in which they can not only embrace low-carbon farming practices, but improve their businesses as a whole.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I heard on the radio today that the University of Edinburgh has discovered a letter from George Washington congratulating the Scottish farming sector and celebrating how skilled it was many years ago. Does the minister agree that there is potential for our innovative and entrepreneurial farming sector to export the knowledge that it gains in addressing climate change to the benefit of the whole world?

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

Absolutely. We must also ensure that the innovation that we see right now is spread right around the sector in Scotland. I will go on to talk about examples of such innovation.

We talked earlier about agroforestry and woodland creation and, in the past year, we exceeded our woodland creation target in Scotland. Building on that base, the Scottish Government has established the soil regenerative agriculture network and supported the highly regarded monitor farm network. I will visit one of the monitor farms on Thursday.

Mark Ruskell mentioned visiting some of our climate change champions and speaking to other people. I have visited all our agricultural champions: the work that Lynn and Sandra have been doing at Lynbreck croft was incredible to see and Bryce Cunningham has worked to eliminate single-use plastics at Mossgiel farm. I also visited the Budge sisters in Shetland. While in Shetland, I visited Uradale farm, which was a chance to meet its native breeds, then enjoy eating them in a local restaurant later on.

That relates to Finlay Carson’s point about the importance of local and seasonal produce and of not exporting problems elsewhere.

Brian Whittle made an important point about procurement. He spoke about East Ayrshire Council, in particular, which has been brilliant in relation to its food for life scheme. It has been incredible to see the impact that the scheme has had on the local economy and children’s health, and it is great that the council has been able to run the scheme within its budget. I would like such examples to be replicated around Scotland, because East Ayrshire Council has shown that it is possible.

As a Government, we are clear that we are here to encourage and support our farmers and crofters as Scotland makes this transition. This month alone, we have announced £40 million of new funding for the agricultural transformation programme, which members have talked about today. We have increased funding for woodland grants to nearly £57 million to meet our increased woodland creation target of 12,000 hectares for 2020-21. We have also announced a new suckler beef climate group to examine how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Scotland’s suckler herd.

Gail Ross and Claudia Beamish talked about organic farming, which is a vital part of the conversation. The amount of land that is farmed organically has declined, but we are absolutely committed to tackling that and are currently working on an organic sector plan. We must drive that forward, so we are playing an active role in it.

In the first half of this year, the Scottish Government’s farming and food production future policy group is expected to report. The group was established after a parliamentary debate in January 2019, and it will make recommendations to ministers. Gail Ross talked about the simplification of some funds, which is part of the work that the group is considering. The Scottish Government will use the group’s report and the findings of other sector-specific working groups as the basis to support policy design, with the intention of implementation post 2024.

There is probably so much that I have not had the chance to talk about. However, I hope that I have been able to demonstrate the sheer volume of work that is under way, outlining exactly how we hope to deal with the challenges that we face, as well as better recognising the work that is already being done by our farmers and crofters.

13:40 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Constitutional Convention

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for a new constitutional convention. (S5O-04137)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will be inviting members to participate in a new constitutional convention, which will aim to secure a consensus across Scottish society on Scotland’s right to choose. I will shortly consult party leaders and Parliament on the detail.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It has often struck me as a little odd that those who are most hostile to independence are often those who are least likely to propose a coherent alternative or another way of improving Scotland’s constitutional status and governance, instead of independence. If they are willing to take this one final opportunity to put something positive on to the table, I will welcome it.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, as well as dealing with the domestic constitutional questions, we should also have room for discussion about how we can broaden and deepen Scotland’s relationship with other countries, including but not limited to those in Europe, and about our ability to forge those relationships in our own way and on our own terms?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with the member, and he makes an important point. We are talking about openness to discussion, particularly, as I said in my earlier answer, about a consensus on Scotland’s right to choose. There might well be different points of view on the ultimate destination. As I hear from the members to the right-hand side of me, some believe that we have already reached the destination. In those circumstances, openness to debate and discussion is the hallmark of a democracy, and I hope we might all—[

Interruption

.]

The hallmark of a democracy is not shouting while somebody else is speaking. The hallmark of a democracy is being able to have that debate, and I look forward to it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I look forward to engaging in exchanges with the cabinet secretary in a constructive way as we go forward. In that vein, as every week goes by, does it not demonstrate that this idea of a constitutional convention is just a back-of-a-fag-packet notion that has been dreamed up to placate the pro-independence fanatics on the Scottish National Party back benches? How much will the taxpayer have to pay to fund this vanity exercise?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome Murdo Fraser to his new role, and I look forward to a continuing redefinition of the English language. The word “constructive” has just been redefined; no doubt there will be more.

The cost to Scotland of the Brexit process, in which we are engaged, into which we have been dragged, and for which we did not vote, will mean enormous harm. We are also now hearing the sensible voices of those who are not mad nationalists by any means, pointing out the disastrous consequences of that for Scotland. All those things make me believe that the expensive option is staying with the status quo.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Despite the differing views on independence in the Parliament, I am sure that we all agree that the people of Scotland should decide on their own future. In light of the cast-iron mandate for another referendum from the public and the Parliament, does the cabinet secretary agree that the United Kingdom Government’s plans to block a second poll are simply unsustainable?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I note that a wider range of people are pointing to the unsustainable nature of the UK Government’s position. The book event that former speaker of the House of Commons Mr Bercow—he was a Conservative—did last night was yet another indication that people who are looking at the situation will say to themselves that there is a basic problem with the attitude of the UK Government. It looks as if it has no interest either in democracy or the voice of the Scottish people. That is a bad look in any democracy. I hope that the UK Government will realise what a bad look that is and come back into the democratic mainstream.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to have a discussion. At the present time in Scotland, I do not think that a majority is demanding a second independence referendum. I have made clear that the right of the Scottish people to determine their own future is absolute, and it is something that the Labour Party will support. However, for me, the discussion should be about how best we move forward, and in doing so, if we reach a point in the future at which there is clearly a demand for a referendum, it should not be denied.

Is the cabinet secretary open to having a wider discussion for those of us who reject the status quo and want to see far greater devolution? Is that issue on the table for discussion?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes, of course it is on the table for discussion and I respect Mr Rowley’s position on the matter. I would want to debate it with him and say that I believe that he is wrong with regard to the demand that exists. I would point to the way in which that demand is being expressed, including through elections. I would also point to the fact that December’s manifestos indicated that the election was about Scotland having the right to choose, which was indicated very strongly.

Of course, I respect Mr Rowley’s position as a democrat that he does not believe that independence is the solution at this time, but I am glad about his openness to the continuation of the process. That is precisely what Scotland should be talking about and I want to create the opportunity for Scotland to do so, not narrowly among politicians, but more widely.

I will put forward a set of proposals that will start the process, and if Mr Rowley and the Labour Party intend to contribute to that process on the terms that he has given, I will be delighted.

Scottish Ministers (Evidence to Committees)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether all existing commitments from current and previous ministers to give evidence to parliamentary committees will be met. (S5O-04138)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Ministers will of course fulfil all commitments to give evidence to parliamentary committees. Requests to former ministers to give evidence are a matter for the individuals and the committee concerned.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The minister will be aware that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is midway through

a very important cross-party inquiry into ferry procurement. The former Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work was due to give important evidence on the matter, given his specific involvement in some issues that have been raised during the inquiry, not least those of a financial nature.

I appreciate that the Government may choose to send whomever it deems fit, but it is imperative that the committee is able to complete its inquiry by taking evidence from those who have direct knowledge of events. What assurances can the minister give members that the Government will work with committees to ensure that those whom they send to represent the Government will have direct knowledge of and involvement in the matters, and will therefore speak from experience rather than hearsay?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Recognition of their accountability to the committees of the Parliament is demonstrated daily by Scottish Government ministers. As the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, I have clear sight of the interaction between committees and ministers, and we consider their relationship to be generally very good.

All of that is in sharp contrast with the relationship between our committees and ministers in the United Kingdom Government. For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, recently pulled out of an appearance before the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee at the 11th hour, and no substantial explanation was offered. Famously, David Davis assured members of the Scottish Parliament that he would give evidence at Holyrood as Brexit secretary, but he failed to do so in a two-year tenure.

Although the UK Government seems to regard the committees of this Parliament with disdain, the Scottish Government recognises entirely its responsibilities in that regard. To be clear, any commitments that have been given by ministers to attend committees will be honoured, but former ministers do not speak for the Government. The situation is that any commitments that have been made by former ministers pass to their successors.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister share my incredulity at the Tories’ complete lack of self-awareness? Such is their dog-like devotion to their London bosses, they have failed to notice the number of times that UK ministers have cancelled scheduled appearances before this Parliament’s committees, often at short notice.

Will the minister confirm that it is UK ministers who need to up their game, show this Parliament respect and attend our committees when invited?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Absolutely. Earlier, we had a reinvention of the definition of “constructive”; I think that the Tories can certainly reinvent the meaning of the phrase “self-awareness” in this matter.

It is not only David Davis and Alister Jack who have not attended our committees. A raft of others, including, I think, Esther McVey, also qualify in that category. It is high time that the UK Government and its ministers showed the committees of this Parliament the respect that they deserve.

Customs Checks

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of potential customs checks on the Scotland-England border, in light of comments by the First Minister during an address to the European Policy Centre. (S5O-04139)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is committed to putting all the information on the proposition for an independent Scotland into the public domain ahead of an independence referendum. The Scottish Government does not wish to erect borders. The United Kingdom Government wishes to erect borders, by pursuing a hard Brexit. That is precisely what Boris Johnson is now doing.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Constituents of mine in Borders towns, such as Coldstream, Eyemouth and Jedburgh, are deeply concerned by the comments that the First Minister made in Brussels, in which she failed to rule out a hard border in the event that Scotland becomes an independent country.

Figures show that exports to the rest of the UK are worth £51.2 billion to Scotland—three times more than exports to the European Union, which are worth £16.1 million. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge the importance of the single market? Why does the Scottish Government want to place a barrier between friends, families and neighbours in my constituency, which would cripple Borders communities and inflict customs checks on Scottish goods?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The term “self-awareness” has just been redefined once again this afternoon. Rachael Hamilton used the words “single market”. Apparently, she is in favour of the single market, which must be news to Boris Johnson. We do not wish—[

Interruption

.]

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In the real world, the UK Government has indicated that goods that come into the UK from the European Union will face import controls from as early as January next year. Can the cabinet secretary outline what engagement he has had with the UK Government over the preparations that are being made to prevent disruption to businesses and consumers?

The Presiding Officer

That is a very broad supplementary question, so please give a short answer, Mr Russell.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As ever, the UK Government has not told us what it intends. In this case, I think that that is because it does not have a clue.

Brexit (International Trade)

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met United Kingdom ministers to discuss post-Brexit international trade policy. (S5O-04140)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

On 23 January, the Minister for Trade, Investment and Innovation, Ivan McKee, discussed a range of trade-related issues with Conor Burns, UK Minister of State for International Trade, and counterparts from Wales and Northern Ireland.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that answer. He knows that I am robustly of the view that Brexit must be and has been devolved compatibly with our devolution settlement. However, the minister has unilaterally demanded a string of vetoes for his devolved Administration on international trade, which is a reserved matter. How is that respecting the devolution settlement?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Sadly, there is a world of difference between being in the room, putting forward the needs of Scotland—with a view to UK-wide negotiations—and having them taken on board. Unlike Mr Tomkins, I speak from first-hand experience of that, having represented the Government on the joint ministerial committee (EU negotiations), which was designed to inform a joint negotiating position, in order to cater for the needs of all parts of these islands.

During one session, UK ministers insisted to the devolved Administrations that their concerns over continuing access to Erasmus were misplaced, and that access would be taken care of. We all know what happened: at Westminster, the Tories voted down proposals that would have committed them to securing future Erasmus involvement. Whether on Erasmus, migration, trade or a raft of other important matters, there is one certainty: either Scottish ministers fight Scotland’s corner or Scotland risks being turned over by the Tories. We will leave Mr Tomkins to strategise. Our team of ministers will continue to stand up for Scotland’s interests in Brexit negotiations, particularly on trade.

Brexit (Erasmus+ Programme)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government on providing young people with clarity regarding whether they will continue to have access to the Erasmus+ programme following Brexit. (S5O-04141)

The Presiding Officer

I welcome the minister, Jenny Gilruth, to her new portfolio.

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

The Scottish Government has been engaging extensively with the UK Government throughout the pre and post-European Union exit period at ministerial and official level. The Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, Richard Lochhead, has been in regular contact to discuss Erasmus+ with UK Government universities ministers, including participation in all-UK nations quadrilateral meetings.

Scottish Government officials are engaging with the Department for Education and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on potential domestic alternatives to Erasmus+, while reiterating the Scottish Government’s position that full association with Erasmus+ is in the best interests of Scotland and the whole of the UK.

However, despite frequent requests by the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, Michael Russell—all at the joint ministerial committee on EU negotiations—UK Government departments have refused to share final drafts of crucial value-for-money assessments with Scottish Government officials. Those assessments are being used by the Treasury to make decisions that will directly impact on future participation.

The Scottish Government has raised the issue directly with Her Majesty’s Treasury, and will continue to do so alongside the other devolved Administrations.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I congratulate the minister, and welcome her to her new post. I also thank her for her very full reply. The situation is obviously very concerning, particularly for my constituents in Glasgow Kelvin, where thousands of students have benefited from Erasmus. It is also very worrying for current students, and for future generations of students to come.

The minister mentioned that nothing is forthcoming from the UK Parliament. Has she or the Scottish Government had talks with other European countries? Will she open a dialogue with our European friends to discuss how we can safeguard participation in Erasmus, which is very important for students?

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

Having studied and lived in Sandra White’s constituency, I am only too aware, from personal experience, of the huge benefit that the Erasmus+ programme brings to Glasgow Kelvin.

The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we do everything in our gift to maintain association with the Erasmus+ scheme. As part of our preparations for European Union exit, we are therefore progressing work in relation to a number of scenarios. Although our preferred outcome is of course that the whole of the UK remains associated with Erasmus+, in the event that the UK Government decides to abandon the programme, we are exploring the option of Scotland’s unilateral association with it. Work in the area is on-going and features a number of interconnected elements, including considerations around how best to engage with our European partners on the issue.

It is also worth noting that the European Commission has proposed to double the funding for Erasmus in the next cycle to €30 billion. That is funding that Scotland will miss out on; it is also knowledge transfer, friendships and relationships that the next generation will miss out on. I am sure that I do not need to remind members that that is not what our constituents voted for in June 2016.

Trade Deal (Protection of Crofters)

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what communication it has had from the United Kingdom Government on how it will protect Scotland’s crofters in upcoming trade deal talks with the European Union. (S5O-04142)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have received no communication from the United Kingdom Government on the protection of crofting interests in upcoming trade deal discussions.

The Scottish Government is committed to doing all that it can to support crofting for the benefit of present and future generations. As a former crofting minister, and as an MSP with constituency interests, I know that crofting continues to form an integral part of and to contribute to the sustainability of our rural and remote areas. Crofting delivers real benefits: sustaining agricultural activity; supporting the rural economy; enhancing wildlife and the natural environment; and retaining young people in our remote, rural and island communities. It is worth standing up for, and we will stand up for it.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary knows that Brexit is a disaster for the Highlands and Islands. He also knows of the importance of rearing sheep to crofters, and of potential tariffs of 40 to 50 per cent being imposed on lamb. A 2017 survey by the Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers showed the significant dependence on migrant labour, which makes up 52 per cent of the unskilled workforce, 44 per cent of the skilled workforce and 16 per cent of supervisory and management staff.

Will the cabinet secretary advise what consultation the UK Government has had with the Scottish Government about the horrendous consequences of its hard-Brexit strategy, coupled with its newly announced immigration policy, and the implications for meat production in the Highlands and Islands? Meat production is one of the many sectors that will be negatively impacted by the ill-judged actions of a far-right UK Tory Government.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

John Finnie is absolutely correct on lamb and sheep production. I know from my constituents and from my engagement with NFU Scotland in Argyll, for example, that the potential tariffs that he talked about would mean the end of the lamb trade for my constituents.

I know that that is also the case in Wales. There has been discussion at the joint ministerial committee about lamb and the impact on the Scottish and Welsh economies.

I reassure John Finnie that we will continue to pursue those issues. However, the situation shows very clearly that the idea that—in the words of not just the Prime Minister, but even Douglas Ross, who was a member of the Scottish Parliament, and who I understand is now a Scotland Office minister—there is some one-size-fits-all form of Brexit that will, in some sense, always benefit Scotland is untrue.

Devolution (European Union Powers)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that European Union powers that related to devolved matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. (S5O-04143)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Sarah Boyack is right to be concerned about that matter, and this is not the first occasion on which she has asked about it. There is a continuing risk that the United Kingdom Government will use Brexit to claw back powers from the Scottish Parliament. We have been clear that, on withdrawal from the EU, powers over agriculture, fisheries, the environment and other areas should be exercised by the Scottish Parliament, in line with the devolution settlement.

We have tried to work with the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations to negotiate and agree UK-wide frameworks where that is in our interests, but those must be agreed and not imposed. We will continue to resist any and all attempts to constrain the Parliament. I am grateful that parties across the chamber have in the past supported that position, and I hope that that will continue.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On the environment, will the Scottish Government continue to use EU standards—for example, in relation to food standards and procurement—as a benchmark to drive continuous improvement?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I made clear in my evidence to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee this morning, we intend to take steps to ensure that we can keep pace with European regulations and standards. Moreover, we believe that it is our absolute right as a devolved Administration to choose how we benchmark ourselves and how we go forward in the areas of devolved competence. As I have indicated previously, we will bring forward a continuity bill that allows us to do so and, in other areas, we will insist on the highest standards.

I should point out that the issue is not arcane or technical; it is about ensuring that common interests, beliefs, opportunities and views across Europe are sustained. We want to associate ourselves with the standards not because we want to associate ourselves with Europe but because they are the right things for Scotland, and that is what we intend to do.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-20923, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill.

Motion moved,

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

Groups 1 and 2: 45 minutes

Groups 3 to 5: 1 hour 40 minutes.—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Our next item is stage 3 proceedings on the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. I remind members—although I am sure that most will know by now—that the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. There will be a 30-second vote at that stage; thereafter, the first vote after each group will be a one-minute vote.

Members should now turn to the marshalled list of amendments.

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on voting in Scottish elections by qualifying foreign nationals. Amendment 1, in the name of Michael Russell, is grouped with amendments 2 to 8, 21, 9, 22 and 23.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am pleased that we have got to stage 3 of this brief but significant and important bill. I am glad that we have the opportunity to consider it this afternoon. It will be the first time that the Parliament has considered a bill that requires a supermajority, so this is another moment in Scottish parliamentary history.

I hope that we can have a constructive debate. Apart from two amendments in the name of Liam McArthur, which we will come to later, there are no substantive amendments on issues that were not discussed at stage 2. Therefore, we have a rerun. I know that some changes have been made, and that members will refer to them, but we have rehearsed the amendments at length, and I am sure that we will bear that in mind.

I am pleased that the bill extends voting rights to foreign nationals resident in Scotland. It is important to stress that those provisions have been widely welcomed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee and respondents to the Government’s consultation on electoral reform. This is not a minor matter; it is a major step forward.

Amendments 1 to 9 alter the bill’s description of the voting rights of European Union nationals to bring them into line with those of other foreign nationals. That is a consequence of Brexit having occurred following the bill’s introduction.

The requirements of EU law on voting in municipal elections by EU nationals are no longer applicable. The amendments recognise that following Brexit, some EU nationals living here will have leave restrictions that allow them to remain only for a certain period of time. It would not be logical for a person who should not legally be in the country to have voting rights; the amendments seek to put EU nationals on the same basis as those from all other countries. As a result, only those foreign nationals living here who have leave to remain will be able to vote in our elections, whatever their country of origin. That is a substantial step forward; it should not be diminished. It is worth bearing in mind here that the Republic of Ireland remains a special case: its citizens do not require leave to remain.

The question of leave to remain brings me to Mark Ruskell’s amendments 21 to 23. It might be helpful for me to remind members that the bill seeks to extend voting rights to those with refugee leave. It has sought to do so from the outset and that is a step that few other countries have taken. I am proud of the fact that that is in the bill that we are considering.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee considered whether we should go further by also enfranchising asylum seekers. It heard evidence on arrangements in Ireland where, uniquely, asylum seekers can vote and stand in local, but not national, elections. Vitally, the committee also heard about the practical concerns raised by electoral registration officers on how to accurately maintain records of asylum seekers with voting rights. The committee ultimately decided not to support Mr Ruskell’s proposals at stage 2—reluctantly. I have the greatest sympathy for those proposals, but there are huge practical issues that simply cannot be wished away.

Mr Ruskell’s amendment 21 seeks to assist electoral registration officers in registering foreign nationals. That might be supported if his other amendments were accepted, but I am not convinced that all the difficulties identified by the returning officers in enfranchising asylum seekers have been addressed. Although amendment 21 could in theory be used to assist with other issues involving foreign nationals, it would only really be of practical use in relation to asylum seekers.

Mr Ruskell’s lead amendment—amendment 23—seeks to simplify matters. It provides that voting rights would be conferred only until the point at which the asylum seeker’s application was determined. I would interpret that as ruling out any period in which an appeal was under way. That therefore seeks to respond to concerns about how electoral registration officers would know when an asylum seeker whose case has been refused should be removed from the register. I fear that the overall result would in fact not simplify but complicate an already complex situation. For example, an asylum seeker might remain at a property for some time after the initial determination of the case, so electoral registration officers would have to identify a person as an asylum seeker—which is not their job—remove them if the initial decision went against them and then re-register the person if they subsequently gained refugee status following an appeal. That would not be impossible, but at a time when we are asking returning officers to make other major changes, the integrity of the poll and the register would become an issue.

We are already asking electoral registration officers to administer prisoner voting in addition to voting for 55,000 to 60,000 foreign nationals. The enfranchisement of asylum seekers with a pending asylum claim would be a further onerous burden for electoral registration officers and their staff. The amendment would in effect require them to become experts or arbiters in immigration law—that is not something we can reasonably impose on those who are responsible for ensuring that the electoral register is accurate and up to date. The standards committee specifically called for the Government to consider how to make the electoral register

“as complete and accurate as possible.”

We must therefore listen, no matter how reluctantly, when it is suggested that enfranchising asylum seekers would damage the overall accuracy of the register and risk eroding public trust in the electoral process.

I share Mr Ruskell’s aspiration to have as wide a franchise as possible. We are bringing significant changes to the franchise in the bill. The bill represents a major step forward in welcoming many to our franchise, but, as I said at stage 2, Mr Ruskell’s further amendments risk making

“the best the enemy of the good.”—[

Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee,

16 January 2020; c 10.]

Therefore, reluctantly, I cannot endorse them.

I move amendment 1.

The Presiding Officer

I call Mark Ruskell to speak to amendment 21 and the other amendments in the group.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yesterday, I hosted an event in the Parliament with an absolutely wonderful group of asylum seekers, who are part of our communities. I thank members from across the chamber for coming along to that event and engaging with those people. What struck me more than anything was that the right to vote is seen by asylum seekers as a fundamental human right. For many, it is as important as the right to work.

It is an acknowledgement of their very existence, that they have a voice and are valued. They see the right to vote as a powerful invitation to integrate with the community—it is a recognition that they are not alien, not other and are part of our community. How many of our fellow citizens value their right to vote in the same way? How many of us in the Scottish Parliament feel the same way about our right to vote? We have to find a way through.

So many asylum seekers are stuck in limbo and spend years in the system, but they continue to have a legal right to live in this country throughout the consideration of their asylum application. Those people are not illegally present in the UK, but can often be here for years while claims are considered. They are members of our communities, but they are isolated, unheard and, often, unintegrated.

Back in 2018, when he was the relevant minister, Joe FitzPatrick said that the franchise should include

“people who have been welcomed here as refugees and people who are going through the process of seeking asylum”.—[

Official Report

, 23 May 2018; c 14.]

Recognising the concerns raised at stage 2, I have engaged with electoral registration officers to understand the practical, paperwork challenges of registering asylum seekers and I have sought to address them. We have had several engagements. Most recently, I received a letter from the Scottish Assessors Association, which says that the issues I raised with regard to asylum seekers are a matter of policy and therefore the Assessors Association does not offer a view on that matter.

The guidance from EROs is that it is a matter for the Government to consider and to find a way through as a matter of policy, rather than for the electoral registration officers.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The assessors are correct: it is a matter of policy. However, it is a policy that will have a series of significant bureaucratic and administrative challenges that need to be addressed before the Parliament can give effect to the policy intention that Mr Ruskell is seeking to support.

I do not often agree with Mike Russell, but the cabinet secretary made a series of detailed observations on the administrative challenges that the member’s amendments would pose for electoral administrators. We need to see what the member’s response is to those details before we can support his amendments.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Okay. I appreciate that intervention and I am coming to those points. However, the administration issues that we face in registering asylum seekers are not materially different to those arising from the registration of many other groups that the bill seeks to enfranchise. There are very similar issues and will come on to those a little bit later, if I am given the time.

People seeking asylum in Scotland will be able to meet the main tests for voter eligibility: they are present in Scotland; they have a Home Office recorded address; and they are lawfully resident in the country by the nature of having an outstanding asylum claim. That status already enables them to access health and education services. There is precedent in terms of the way that asylum seekers access services in our society.

The relevant amendments in my name grant the franchise extension to asylum seekers, but also allow for guidance to be issued, so that forms of identification issued by the Home Office can be used to prove identity. They tick that box.

Asylum seekers move their residency no more than anyone else does—and probably less often than students or those in privately let accommodation. The integrity of the register is no more of an issue for this group than it is for anyone else.

Once an asylum claim is rejected, within time, that person is removed from their registered dispersal accommodation. There is no need for EROs to determine the legal immigration status of an individual for whom documentation and their very existence in a residence in Scotland is proof of eligibility. The bill already guarantees that the temporariness of someone’s leave to remain in Scotland should not affect their right to vote in Scottish elections.

My amendments would merely extend to asylum seekers the rights that the bill already gives to citizens from outside the European economic area who may have similar immigration conditions.

Everyone who makes Scotland their home—for however long—should have a voice in our democracy. They should be equally valued, regardless of where they were born, integrated as new Scots from day 1, welcomed and respected. That is why I intend to move the amendments in my name.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary’s amendments 1 to 9 have the effect of recognising and bringing into line European nationals and other foreign national voters in recognition of the UK’s departure from the European Union and the potential for different immigration positions that now arises. The amendments are a sensible recognition of the current situation and we will not oppose them.

Mark Ruskell’s three amendments—21, 22 and 23—deal with voting by people with certain limited residence. I am aware of his campaigning for those who are applying for refugee status. The arguments were largely covered by the committee at stage 2 and a number of the same issues still apply. The member has not addressed those suitably for us today, so we will not support his amendments.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I echo the cabinet secretary’s comments about the importance of the bill and what it says about the open, outward-looking and welcoming country that we wish to be. The Scottish Liberal Democrats will support all the Government’s amendments in the group.

Notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised by the cabinet secretary and Conservative members, I thank Mark Ruskell for lodging his amendments, which would allow asylum seekers with live applications, and their dependents, to vote. It is critical that asylum seekers are given a warm welcome from day 1 and that they are helped to live with dignity. That means sorting out the horrendous conditions that they can be housed in; it means letting them work instead of deliberately forcing them into destitution; and it means ensuring that trauma services are available without delay.

Applications can get stuck in the Home Office for years, even when a case is cut and dried and it is obvious that people are genuinely seeking refuge in our country.

As Beatrice Wishart put it—and she has been involved in many cases affecting constituents in the northern isles—languishing in the dark recesses of that department causes real detriment and disruption to those who are trying to rebuild their lives. While they wait, people can work and pay tax for a decade and their children can be on the verge of completing their schooling. They are part of our communities, and our voting system should reflect that. It should be compassionate and outward looking rather than say to people who are fleeing war and other horrors that we do not believe them.

On that basis, we will support Mark Ruskell’s amendments.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in the group.

The cabinet secretary’s amendments 1 to 9 are essentially technical amendments that improve the legal understanding and policy objectives of the bill.

The main contention is around Mark Ruskell’s amendments 21 to 23. The overall policy objective of the bill to extend the franchise to foreign nationals who are resident in Scotland and to prisoners—to which we will come later—is one that we support.

I have listened carefully to the speeches. Mark Ruskell and Liam McArthur have made good points about how asylum seekers should be welcomed into the country and how part of that should be an extension of the right to vote when there are pending asylum seeker cases.

The cabinet secretary seems sympathetic to that argument, but he opposes the amendments on the basis of practicality. The issue seems to be the collection of data and the updating of the appropriate register and information technology systems. It should not be beyond us, in 2020, to have appropriate technology in place to keep the register up to date.

I note what Mark Ruskell said about reflecting on the stage 2 concerns, and I am convinced by his arguments. Scottish Labour will support the amendments.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have been strongly in favour of the bill and of what it seeks to do from the beginning, and I remain strongly in favour of it. It is a significant—in fact, a massive—step forward in changing the franchise.

Equally, as a minister, I cannot tell Parliament that it can wish away the problems that exist within the system, particularly when some of what is in the bill creates issues that would take returning officers time and effort to resolve. The advice is that adding further provisions to the bill would create additional difficulties that would be very difficult to resolve.

When we come to look at issues of candidacy, in relation to a later section, we will discover that some issues are out of this Parliament’s scope. Do I like that? Of course not. I do not want anything to be out of this Parliament’s scope. However, the reality is that I cannot recommend supporting things that are going to create difficulties and affect the register.

I return to the view of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. Its initial report says that the Government must consider how to make the electoral register

“as complete and accurate as possible.”

We will not do that if we agree to Mr Ruskell’s amendments.

I am not against asylum seekers. I know that nobody has said that the Government is against asylum seekers, but the implication that, because we cannot support the amendments, we do not support asylum seekers is utterly untrue.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am trying to drill down into what the concern is. Effort was made to resolve the matter between stages 2 and 3. I am trying to understand why there is a difference between asylum seekers, who may leave a property, and somebody who is in a private rented property, who may move from time to time, or students, who may be in a property for a short period before moving on. Each of those groups affects the integrity of the electoral register, yet we are not saying that we should take away the vote from students or people in private rented accommodation because they might move every six months.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Their e

ligibility does not change, but the eligibility of an asylum seeker may well change, and there will be a process that they have to go through. I do not like that. I would like to redraw the entire migration and asylum system. This Parliament should have the right to do that. However, under the present system, eligibility changes; therefore, there is an enormous difference between those groups of people.

Mr Ruskell also mentioned documentary proof. If we were to agree to his amendments, we would be asking returning officers to seek additional documentary proof from a range of individuals whom they must, first of all, identify. At this stage, that is simply not practical. Would it be practical in the future? Mr Kelly is absolutely right—no problem is insuperable. However, we are making major changes. The returning officers are already saying that they have major work to do, that they cannot do any more and that there are special difficulties in relation to this matter. I do not consider it to be a responsible position to ignore that.

Reluctantly, I say—yet again—that I cannot accept Mr Ruskell’s amendments. I wish that I could. If there had been more time to do it and if the returning officers had entered into additional discussion, maybe what he proposes could have been done. We have been through two stages of the bill, and we are now at the final stage. In the view of those who are most deeply involved, what is proposed cannot be done without affecting the integrity of the register; therefore, as the minister with responsibility for elections in this Parliament, I cannot recommend it to the chamber.

I ask members to support the amendments that I have lodged—I am glad that those have been welcomed—and ask them to take a responsible position in relation to the other issue. This is not something that we are happy about, but it is a fact.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 8 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

This is the first division of the afternoon, so I will summon members to the chamber. I suspend Parliament for five minutes while I do so.

14:43 Meeting suspended.

14:48 On resuming—

We move to the division on amendment 21.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

Amendment 9 moved—[Michael Russell]—and agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a 30-second division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment

22

disagreed

to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Mark Ruskell].

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 87, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23

disagreed

to.

Group 2 is on eligibility for nomination, election and holding office in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Amendment 10, in the name of Michael Russell, is grouped with amendments 11 to 14, 24, 25, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 26, 16 to 19, 27, 28, 20, 20A, 20B, 20C and 29.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There is a connection between group 1 and group 2 in terms of eligibility, nomination and holding office, which I will come to in just a moment. However, I need to point out that this is a complex group of amendments, containing a number of different propositions in relation to candidacy rights.

It might assist members if I explain that the bill as introduced sought to extend candidacy rights only to those foreign nationals with indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. I appreciate that that position might have appeared somewhat harsh in respect of individuals who have lived here for many years on the basis of a succession of two or three-year leave periods, which have been regularly renewed.

As I said in the debate on the previous group, I would like to see full control over immigration to Scotland rest with this Parliament. However, the fact remains that it is presently—I hope not forever—a reserved matter and we cannot wish that fact away. Nor can we legislate as though it is not true. That is a really important point. I would like to, but we cannot.

Following discussions on candidacy at stage 2, I wrote to the Home Secretary to explore whether we could come to an agreement so that employment restrictions could be waived for those seeking to stand or be elected to serve as councillors or as members of the Scottish Parliament. The question has—I have to say, without any surprise—thus far gone unanswered.

As things stand, allowing persons to stand for election who have no guarantee of being allowed to remain in the UK for the duration of their term of office, or even to polling day itself, presents an unacceptable degree of risk. However, I highlighted a number of areas at stage 2 where I considered that we could go further within the current immigration framework.

I explained in the debate on the previous group that the advent of Brexit required an adjustment to how the bill describes the voting rights of EU nationals. The same position applies in relation to their candidacy rights. As a result, amendments 10, 11, 16 and 17 seek to ensure that any EU national whose leave to remain in the UK has expired cannot stand for election in Scottish Parliament or local government elections. The committee highlighted the need to take action on that in its stage 1 report.

The amendments recognise that, following Brexit, some EU nationals living here will have leave restrictions that allow them to remain for only a certain period of time. It would not be logical for a person whose right to legally be in the country has expired to continue to have candidacy rights. As a result, the amendments seek to put EU nationals on the same basis as all others.

Amendments 12 to 15 and 18 to 20 seek to ensure that European Economic Area nationals with pre-settled status may stand in Scottish Parliament and local government elections and then hold office. The bill currently sets out candidacy rights for those with indefinite leave to remain, which will include EEA nationals with settled status, but not persons with time-limited leave. Persons are granted pre-settled status when they have not been able to evidence five years’ residence in the UK at the point of application. In many cases—even the UK Government says this—the individual will progress to settled status in due course. The amendments seek to provide candidacy rights during that pre-settled stage, which is a logical extension of the policy of maintaining the rights of EU citizens following Brexit. Amendment 15 makes the principal change in respect of Scottish Parliament elections and amendment 20 is the principal amendment in relation to local government elections.

Mr Ruskell has made two separate sets of proposals in relation to candidacy rights for those foreign nationals who are not already covered by the bill. One set of proposals is set out in amendments 15A, 15B, 15C, 20A, 20B and 20C. They envisage allowing the Scottish ministers to grant candidacy rights by regulation for Scottish Parliament and local government elections for certain categories of foreign nationals who have limited leave to remain. The other proposal, as set out in amendments 24 to 29, seeks to allow the Scottish ministers to grant candidacy rights to all foreign nationals with limited leave to remain but to set out exceptions by regulations. Logically, the two sets of proposals represent, in essence, an inclusive set and an exclusive set.

The law here is complex and I appreciate why Mr Ruskell has sought to present alternate options. However, the second proposal would be outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. I return to what I said earlier. It would have a direct bearing on a reserved issue—the employment capacity of foreign nationals. I appreciate that the amendments seek to grant a power to exclude certain categories of persons in order to avoid encroaching on that reservation, but that is not how the law works. The power would come too late. The bill would already have trespassed into the reserved issues of employment capacity before we could exercise the power. I therefore have to invite Mr Ruskell not to move amendments 24 to 29, because they would move the bill out of scope and into a reserved area.

Mr Ruskell’s other proposal, which is set out in amendments 15A, 15B, 15C, 20A, 20B and 20C, seeks instead to allow ministers to extend candidacy rights by regulations to certain additional categories of foreign nationals with limited leave. As I have said, I remain sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments and I have reflected on them, but I have come to the conclusion that I cannot see a realistic circumstance in which we could actually use the powers. That is because we could only allow those who were not subject to a work or study restriction to stand, and we are unable to readily describe all those persons. As Mr Ruskell knows, to identify in regulations every category of persons with leave restrictions would be no easy task. It would also be like painting the Forth bridge; it would never be done. The list would have to be continually updated as the Home Office adjusted immigration categories or changed the law. Indeed, the Home Office announced details of a new system this very week.

I accept that some categories of persons with limited leave and no employment restriction would be easier to identify than others, but acting for them alone would raise serious considerations of fairness and equity. Suppose we allowed refugees to stand as candidates. Somebody in a much less clearly defined group, such as the spouse of a person who is here for a specific job, might well be able to raise a challenge that they were being treated unfairly.

I again recognise that Mr Ruskell’s intention is good, but his amendments are not practical propositions and one set of them would be exceedingly dangerous in relation to the competence of the bill. To adopt them would be to risk confusion. I cannot see the powers that they bestow ever being used while the immigration system, which is an area of near constant flux, remains reserved to Westminster. I know that I would have Mr Ruskell’s support were we to bring the immigration system home, and I want to do that, but we cannot legislate as if migration is already completely devolved, however much we would like that to be the case.

I therefore—reluctantly, but firmly—invite members not to support amendments 15A, 15B, 15C, 20A, 20B and 20C or the alternatives that have been proposed.

I move amendment 10.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for those points. Having reflected on his views on amendments 20A,

20B, 20C and 29

, I will not move them.

I will, however, focus on the group of amendments that starts with amendment 15A.

I welcome the other amendments in the group that were lodged by the cabinet secretary to extend candidacy rights to one group who have a limited leave to remain, namely EU citizens who have pre-settled status. I have engaged with many such citizens within my region, and at public meetings with Ben Macpherson and Bruce Crawford. Those citizens are a valued part of our community and absolutely need to have candidacy rights, so I welcome the extension of those rights to that group.

However, the amendments lodged by the Government do not extend to people from outside the EU, who are in Scotland on a similar basis, with equally limited leave to remain.

Why should an EU national be entitled to stand as a candidate from day 1 of their arrival in Scotland, when a refugee from Iran would have to live in Scotland for five years, and successfully apply for indefinite leave to remain, before they had the right to stand? What is the difference between those people? They would both be resident in our communities. Why is one more fit than the other to stand for public office? I recognise what the cabinet secretary says about the immigration system being in constant flux. If only it were controlled by this Parliament; he knows my views on that. However, that is not an excuse not to work to the very limit of the powers of devolution, to give those people, who are part of our communities, the utmost rights to participate in our democracy.

I recognise the limits. I recognise that extending candidacy rights to asylum seekers would be difficult, given the restrictions on their ability to take up paid employment. For others, however, who are allowed to work, full participation in democracy, and a matching of the franchise with candidacy rights, should be the norm. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary says about the flux within the immigration system, and that it would require regulations, but surely we should take whatever action we can to enfranchise those people and to give them candidacy rights within our communities.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Group 2 deals with candidacy and elections.

The Government has lodged amendments 10 and 11, which will make provision for a European national whose leave to remain has expired, to lose the right to stand in elections to the Scottish Parliament. Similar arguments apply to amendments 1 to 9 in the previous group. I consider that the amendments do little more than recognise the position following the UK’s departure from the EU; therefore they are reasonable and we will not oppose them.

By extension, we will not oppose amendments 16 and 17, which address the same issue in relation to local government elections.

Amendments 12 to 15 and 18 to 20 recognise that EU nationals with pre-settled status would not lose the right to stand for and hold office within the Scottish Parliament and council elections. Those with pre-settled status will be resident EU nationals who have come to the UK and previously enjoyed the right to vote and to stand in elections to the Scottish Parliament and to local authorities. We do not seek to withdraw the existing rights that EU citizens resident here have enjoyed but, on this side of the chamber, we are also clear that voting rights for people with pre-settled and settled status should be replicated for British nationals who are resident in the rest of the EU.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I warmly welcome my friend and former Justice Committee colleague, Jenny Gilruth, to the Government front bench, and confirm that I will support the cabinet secretary’s amendments in group 2.

For the reasons that the cabinet secretary has set out, and that I set out earlier when I voted in favour of asylum seekers having the vote, I have a great deal of sympathy for Mark RuskeII’s amendments in group 2. However, there are complications and unresolved issues that make it difficult to support Mr Ruskell on this occasion.

Voters deserve clarity when people stand: clarity that the person whom they are voting for has the right to work and take up the position to which they are elected; clarity that they will be able to serve the five-year term, because the system should not invite by-elections; and clarity that the person whom they are voting for can be paid in the same way as everyone else. I am not comfortable entrenching existing inequalities by asking people who already have disadvantaged backgrounds to somehow work for free. My colleague Christine Jardine MP has tried to change the law to give asylum seekers the right to work after three months, which would be a vast improvement and make a real difference, but that is still not the case.

There is also a significant danger that the Parliament would be acting outwith its competence. I expect that the Advocate General for Scotland would take a close look at Mark Ruskell’s amendments were they to be incorporated in the bill.

Many parts of the bill are very welcome and it is important that they are in place before the elections next year. I am reluctant to provoke another dispute like the one that we saw over the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, because it is not clear to me whether the changes that Mr Ruskell proposes would withstand a court challenge. On that basis, I cannot support Mr Ruskell’s amendments in the group.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

Scottish Labour will support Mr Russell’s amendments in the group. We believe that they bring necessary legal clarity around candidacy rights. I note Mark Ruskell’s comment about the amendments that he will not move. I listened carefully to the arguments from both Mark Ruskell and Mike Russell in relation to amendments 15A to 15C and 20A to 20C, and I am persuaded by the cabinet secretary’s arguments, particularly on the issue of certainty for candidates. As Liam McArthur said, if voters are going to the poll, they have a right to expect that the person whom they elect will be able to fulfil that duty for the full term. In addition, the cabinet secretary makes valid points around legal competence.