Scottish Parliament, 21 January 2021

258 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Place-based Economic Development Zones

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

Good afternoon and welcome to this virtual meeting of the Scottish Parliament. The first item of business is a statement by Ivan McKee on the contribution of place-based economic development zones. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Today, I have published “Scotland’s Economic Performance - The contribution of place-based economic development zones”, which is an analysis of the findings from a survey conducted at the end of 2020. I welcome the opportunity to set out some of those findings and the next steps to Parliament.

The survey sought the views of businesses, local authorities and other partners on how we might develop future plans to nurture Scotland’s regional and local economies. I thank everyone who responded to the survey.

The survey was conducted for two principal reasons. First, in mapping out the future of the current network of 16 enterprise areas across Scotland beyond March 2022, we wanted to obtain views on the efficacy of the enterprise area model and how it, and other place-based economic development initiatives, could be improved to support delivery of our fair work first and net zero agendas. Secondly, we wanted to obtain views on the merits or otherwise of United Kingdom Government plans for free ports and how they might work in the Scottish context.

The Scottish Government is clear that all our efforts to develop Scotland’s future economy must enable an inclusive and sustainable recovery from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, with wellbeing and fair work at its heart. The hallmarks of that recovery will include the creation of new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which we adopted as a national mission in our programme for government.

For now, Scotland finds itself outside the European Union and denied all the benefits of being within the single market and the customs union. The UK Government has cited the creation of free ports as something that is made possible by Brexit—that is, a new ability following our collective, enforced departure from the EU. Its narrative ignores the inconvenient fact that free ports operated in the UK while we were in the EU, and that they still exist across the EU. In that sense, they are being oversold as a Brexit dividend.

With that as our backdrop, the Scottish Government will leave no stone unturned in seeking to create a technology-enabled, net zero, inclusive wellbeing economy that delivers for every place and community in Scotland.

The very helpful returns to our survey have helped to frame our thinking and will be used to inform the Scottish Government’s policy position. The approach that I am setting out today is one that is informed by a range of opinion and knowledge from Scottish stakeholders.

In general, respondents were supportive of the development of a tailored Scottish approach to the free port model, tied to Scottish Government policy priorities around inclusive growth, fair work and the just transition. Some of the comments highlighted Scotland’s natural advantages around renewable energy and net zero transition activity and reinforced the need to create high-value jobs. Some respondents also reflected on the impact of Covid-19, in terms of the impact on current activity and timescales for progress in that area and the importance of new interventions to help with economic recovery.

We are already taking a range of initiatives to grow regional and local economies. We provide incentives and assistance to encourage cluster building through the enterprise area network. The importance of building on the strengths of places was reinforced in “Shaping Scotland’s Economy: Scotland’s Inward Investment Plan”, which identified opportunities for cluster building based on our strengths in high-technology, high-productivity and high-wage sectors.

Every part of Scotland has a commitment to new investment through the city region and growth deal programme. Many deals are in delivery, with communities beginning to benefit from a commitment of more than £1.9 billion of Scottish Government investment. We have worked with the UK Government and our regional partners to assemble a £5 billion programme over the next 10 to 15 years. Building on that partnership working, we have considered whether the UK Government free port proposition can fit our model of economic development by helping to drive inclusive and sustainable growth in Scotland.

The reputation of free ports across the world is mixed, with concerns having been raised about deregulation and the risks of criminality, tax evasion and reductions in workers’ rights. That is not a model nor an approach that the Scottish Government will sign up to or allow here in Scotland.

We have considered carefully those risks and the views that were shared through our survey, and I can confirm that the Scottish Government, having looked at the available evidence, has developed a proposal that adapts the published UK Government proposition to make it fit the Scottish context. We will take the UK Government’s free port model and apply Scotland’s values and priorities to it, so that it meets our ambition to deliver a net zero economy and uphold the highest standards of environmental protections and fair work practices.

I can announce that Scotland will turn free ports into sustainable and fair green ports. We will not engage with any economic model or mechanism that allows for a race to the bottom. Instead, the Scottish green port model will be an exemplar, adopting best practice to help us to deliver our net zero and fair work principles alongside support for our regeneration and innovation ambitions.

The designation of a green port, or operating within such a zone, will come with benefits and incentives. It is therefore right that it also comes with responsibilities to uphold high standards, put into practice our fair work principles and work towards a just transition to net zero.

We are conscious of the need to avoid economic displacement within and from Scotland. Scotland’s model will seek to anchor our newly designated economic development and trading zones. They will be designed to support the development of innovative industries that are committed to developing new green technologies and fair work opportunities, and to embedding themselves in the local communities in which they are based.

I am confident that we can align key elements of the UK model with our Scottish values to make sustainable and fair green ports work. The Scottish green port model will include the following key features. Clear conditions will be applied to ensure that such zones contribute to sustainable and inclusive growth. The conditions will centre on specific commitments being made by applicants, and subsequent obligations will be placed on successful applicants, which will be linked to a dual commitment to supporting decarbonisation and fair work. The conditions will include payment of the real living wage and the adoption of the Scottish business pledge by the operator of the zone and by all new businesses operating within the zone boundary that benefit from any governmental assistance through devolved or reserved tax incentives.

Applicants or applicant partnerships and new beneficiary businesses that are set up in the zone will also be expected to demonstrate how they are contributing to Scotland’s just transition to net zero emissions and a low-carbon economy—for example, by meeting certain standards related to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and waste. Under the model, applicants will be required to set out a robust and ambitious transition plan to show how they will contribute to a just transition towards a net zero economy.

As is the case with the UK Government’s model, the incentives and support offered to Scottish green ports will be a mixture of reserved and devolved tax benefits and other support. Devolved tax benefits, which might include non-domestic rates and land and buildings transaction tax reliefs, will be designed specifically for the Scottish green port model, taking into account the complementary reliefs that are on offer from the UK Government.

From my discussions with UK Government ministers, I am confident that we can realise our proposition for sustainable and fair green ports and that we can create something inspirational. We can set the standard in accelerating decarbonisation, promoting job creation and fair work, and sending out a signal about Scotland’s commitment to being a dynamic, open and principled trading nation, with fair work and the planet’s future at the top of our priority list.

Equally, I am clear that we will not allow any free port to be created in Scotland that enables or allows potential tax evasion. I have raised that specific issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It will be essential that the UK Government plays its part by including firm legislation and measures to ensure good tax behaviours. More widely, our Governments will want to work together on compliance, governance and management of performance related to the operation of Scottish green ports and the business that is conducted within their boundaries. I am happy to keep the Parliament updated as that work develops.

Having published the responses to our recent survey, our next step is to publish an application prospectus for green ports in Scotland for potential bidders. I aim to make that available for interested parties this quarter so that we are in a position to dovetail the establishment of the zones with the UK Government’s plans.

Place-based economic development has significant potential to grow our economy sustainably in communities across Scotland, not least through our cluster-building approach to key sectors. Work in that regard is under way and is being marshalled in particular through the regional economic partnerships and Scotland’s inward investment plan.

Our green ports proposal also plays a role in that respect. We will now seek to optimise key aspects of the UK Government’s free ports model, principally around innovation and regeneration. In particular, we will ensure that Scottish green ports help to drive desirable investment and inclusive growth in a way that is focused on the Scottish Government’s twin ambitions of creating a net zero carbon economy and promoting fair work. For those reasons, this Government now intends to move forward with our proposals to secure the development of Scotland’s first designated sustainable fair green ports, based on the criteria that I have just outlined, and we would welcome the Parliament’s support in that endeavour.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I can take us up to 1.30 pm with that.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement.

This is a humiliating climbdown for the Scottish National Party. Just a few months ago, Ivan McKee was claiming that free ports were a “shiny squirrel”, and the SNP conference backed a motion slamming them, so this screeching SNP U-turn is very welcome. It seems that the SNP has finally realised that businesses are desperate to reap the benefits of free ports.

For months, the Scottish Conservatives and the UK Government have said that the SNP should stop playing politics and start working constructively to take the proposals forward. Yet again, the SNP has treated the proposals as an afterthought and ignored the benefits in order to make political points. Only now has it finally backed down.

[

Inaudible

.]—hope that that will help the SNP Government to improve its poor climate change record. The recycling rate is now lower than it was in 2016, and transport emissions—[

Inaudible

.]—jobs have never materialised.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Golden—

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

Can the minister say whether the proposals for free ports will contain specific targets to reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, Mr Golden. My microphone was muted; I say to the engineer that it should not have been. Unfortunately, delivery of your question was a bit intermittent, so I do not know how much of it the minister managed to catch.

Minister—did you manage to catch much of that?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I caught enough, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Okay.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

To be frank, I am very surprised that Maurice Golden has not taken the time to read what we have actually said about free ports or green ports over the past few months. If he had done so, he would understand very well the Scottish Government’s position, which is that there is potential for economic development through adoption of a model that is designed—as I have just set out—to support and align with the Scottish Government’s economic priorities.

We have also made it clear—I made it clear in my statement that nothing has changed in this regard—that we understand that the UK Government is trying to position the policy as some kind of antidote to Brexit. As I said in my statement—as Maurice Golden would know, had he been listening—that is utter nonsense. The UK had free ports while it was in the EU; 80 free ports currently exist across the EU. The fact is that the UK Government is to some extent using the policy as a mechanism to take attention away from the disaster of its Brexit policy, which Maurice Golden supports.

We are considering practical measures, and we have taken the time to go out and engage with businesses. We have conducted a survey, and I and my officials have engaged extensively over a period of time in order to understand the practicalities regarding which parts of the free port model could be made to work in Scotland and which could not. My statement clearly identified which parts of the model can work, and what we need to do to adapt it to Scotland’s economic priorities, and to focus it on our fair work agenda and the net zero transition. Those two aspects do not appear in the UK Government’s model. We have gone beyond that model on those aspects in order to make it clear that green ports will be exemplars of fair work practice and of the transition to net zero, which is central to our economic development.

I make no apology for using the ports as a mechanism to support our clear focus on cluster building. Again, I say that if Maurice Golden had read our inward investment plan, he would understand exactly where the proposal is coming from and how it is centred in our economic development policies.

To answer Maurice Golden’s question, there will be measures within the model that is laid out in our bid prospectus that will require businesses and operators to comply with reductions in waste and greenhouse gases. That does not appear in the UK Government’s free port model.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

A lot was said there. I want shorter answers. Many members want to ask questions.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Ivan McKee for advance sight of his statement.

Labour will work with the Scottish Government to support the endeavours that were set out in the statement. Some dangers could arise from free ports: for example, regions might compete against each other in a race to the bottom, as has happened in some countries. It is important that Parliament comes together to put Scotland’s interests first. That is why we will work with the Government.

Does the minister understand that trade unions and workers see much of the talk about green jobs and green ports as mere rhetoric, because we do not see the high-quality jobs that he talked about materialising? We need to see some progress in that regard. Does he understand why people are concerned?

Does the minister also understand the important roles of local economic development services and local authorities? Local economic development services have been cut to the bone, so their capacity to drive development must be better supported. Is the minister willing to consider supporting councils to establish regional skills academies across Scotland, in order to ensure that our people have the skills to get the jobs?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We want shorter questions from now on. We are using up a lot of time.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Alex Rowley for his positive contribution on the Scottish green ports model. I am willing to work with anyone in Parliament and across Scotland.

Mr Rowley is right that there are issues to address. We must ensure that the green ports do what we want them to do, and that they are exemplary in respect of fair work and our transition to net zero emissions. The bid prospectus that we are developing will make that clear and will include requirements for businesses and operators to meet our standards. I am happy to work with members to ensure that that happens.

I understand that unions and workers might be concerned by what they have seen of free ports in other jurisdictions. We are aware of those concerns and we are determined to ensure that what they have seen is not the case in Scotland. I am happy to work together with others to ensure that our standards are met.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I welcome the minister’s statement. Will Hunterston be considered as a potential green port, given the First Minister’s commitment to developing green energy and the circular economy there? Also, how will Scottish ministers ensure protection of the marine environment at our green ports?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Hunterston, like any other part of Scotland, can submit an application when we open the bidding process. I look forward to seeing any proposal that might come from Hunterston, along with many other proposals from across Scotland. The green focus that Kenny Gibson mentioned will chime with the requirements that will be set out in the bid document.

I assure him that there will be no reduction in existing marine protection standards, which will apply in order to ensure that Scotland’s green ports do not adversely impact on the marine environment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s change in approach. The analysis of survey responses that has been published today shows that non-domestic rates relief was the most beneficial of all previous interventions. Given that non-domestic rates are a wholly devolved tax, can the minister outline how he intends to offer rates relief to support development of new free ports and to attract businesses to them?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Again, I am surprised that Murdo Fraser has not heard what has been happening in this conversation over the past few months. If he had, he would understand much better the Scottish Government’s position.

On Murdo Fraser’s question about NDR, I highlighted that aspect in my statement. We will, recognising what the UK Government has done for its free port model, work through the details of incentives and how they will be positioned to support the green port model in Scotland. The details will be articulated in our bid document, when it comes out.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The minister said that there are potential tax incentives—both reserved and devolved. Does that mean that the Scottish budget will be reduced and that the Scottish Government will have, for example, to reduce the national health service budget to match the tax incentives?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

No, we will not do that. The point of economic incentives—be they tax incentives, incentives for businesses that are delivered through economic development agencies or other mechanisms to support business—is that businesses grow as a consequence of them and the tax take increases, too. That model applies to our enterprise areas and to any intervention that we make to support inward investment or supply chains in Scotland.

John Mason can rest assured that the purpose of the proposed activity, as with our other economic development activities, is to increase the tax take by targeting incentives where they will make most difference, and by ensuring that we have, as a consequence, more rather than less money to spend on public services in Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary might be aware of a proposal from Cromarty Firth and Moray Firth ports that includes 12 stakeholders. They promise high-wage and high-quality jobs, through creation of a renewable energy hub that would benefit the whole of Scotland. The jobs will be good new green jobs. Will the Scottish Government favour bids that would deliver high-value jobs and growth for Scotland while tackling climate change, over bids from locations that primarily import goods and are typically dependent on a low-wage economy?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

That is a good question. Our intended direction of travel is clear. I articulated clearly that the model is a green port model and that the intention is to attract investment and businesses and to grow good green jobs by making use of Scotland’s tremendous assets, technology and skills in renewable energy and many other aspects of the transition to net zero. Our bid prospectus will set out our focus on those requirements. We expect bids to be for green ports so that they comply with those requirements. They are the criteria that we will favour in the bid process.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Simply renaming free ports “green ports” does not guard against the race to the bottom in standards. In its submission to the survey, Forth Ports identified a new gas-fired power—[

Inaudible.

]—as a key net zero project. Will the minister—[

Inaudible.

]—the like of Forth Ports to build whatever they want? How are those powers linked to democratically decided local development plans?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, can you manage a reply, given that the sound was breaking up?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I caught only some of that, unfortunately. I do not know whether Mark Ruskell wants to repeat his question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but I want to get other members in. If you cannot answer the question—[

Inaudible

].

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I will answer based on what I heard.

It is important to be clear that referring to green ports is not just a semantic renaming exercise and semantics. Mr Ruskell will see that if he reads through the document. I am happy to meet him and other members to put their minds at rest on the matter. Central to our proposition is the requirement to meet fair work criteria. Payment of the real living wage and signing up to the Scottish business pledge are red-line criteria. It is, therefore, the opposite of a race to the bottom; it is a climb to the top and is about working with businesses that are committed to meeting those requirements.

Clearly, if any individual port authority or other enterprise in Scotland wants to submit a proposal, we will look at it in the context of the criteria that will be set out in the bid document. As I said, the transition to net zero and enabling, supporting and implementing fair work practices are central to that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If Mark Ruskell puts his full question in the chat box, that will be handy, because we can forward it to the minister.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The UK Government published its bidding prospectus in mid-November last year, and the period for applications closes in a couple of weeks.

The Minister for Trade, Innovation and Public Finance hopes to publish the application prospectus in the next quarter, with no deadline for applications. How will he catch up?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I think that Willie Rennie must have misheard me. The application process—the bid document—will come out in this quarter, in March, and will run for three months. We will receive bids during the summer, then the incoming Government will take a view on how to progress matters.

We are conscious of the timetable to which the English free port model is running. I am also aware that businesses will make decisions on where they will go based on fundamental considerations. I believe that we will be close enough to the timetable that applies to the rest of the UK for that not to be a material factor in investors’ and businesses’ consideration of our model, when it comes to making big decisions about long-term location of their activities.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Can the minister provide any more information on how Brexit will affect free ports, particularly green ports? Will the ports address any of the challenges that are currently faced by Scotland’s ports?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Let me be clear—I have said this already, but I will say it again, because it is important. The free port model cannot and will not undo the damage that is being caused to Scotland by the UK leaving the world’s biggest single market and customs union.

The impact of Brexit on businesses, ports and Scottish exporters is significant; in many cases, the impact will be critical. We continue to press the UK Government to fix the problems and to do whatever it can to resolve the difficult challenges that are being placed in the way of Scottish businesses.

I believe that our model will support Scottish economic development along the lines that I have described. Our green port model is focused on the journey to net zero, on delivering fair work and on supporting regional cluster building across Scotland. However, let me make it very clear that that does not fix the vandalism that has been done to Scotland’s economy by the UK Government through the Brexit process. It will help to resolve only some of the issues.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Graham Simpson. If I have time, I will call Rona Mackay next.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I, too, am pleased that the minister is now on board with the programme on free ports. Is he putting a limit on the number of free ports in Scotland? When does he expect the first one to be in operation?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Graham Simpson is another member who, unfortunately, has been sleeping through this process. If he had watched the various evidence sessions and followed our commentary on the issue, he would know that we have been watching the process closely in order to understand how we might take what the UK Government comes up with and make it work in the Scottish context.

However, I will say it again, because it cannot be said often enough: Scottish free ports will have commitments to fair work, with hard obligations on paying the real living wage and signing up to the Scottish business pledge. Such commitments do not appear in the UK Government model, neither does the commitment to net zero. Those commitments are essential to our green port model.

On the timescale, I have already laid out what will happen. We will release the bid prospectus this quarter, we will get responses from businesses in the following quarter, then we will lay out a more detailed timetable for implementation. Of course, that will be after the election; the incoming Government will progress that work based on applications that are received. That will be done as fast as it can be done.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that I do not have time for either Rona Mackay or Richard Lyle. I apologise. We have run out of time, and there is no extra time available this afternoon.

Rural Economy (Impact of European Union Exit)

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

The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the impact of leaving the European Union on Scotland’s rural economy.

The cabinet secretary will take

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

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Just three weeks have passed since Scotland was taken out of the European Union against our will, but we are already seeing catastrophic impacts across all sectors in our rural economy. The United Kingdom Government’s trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union has erected significant barriers to trade for Scottish producers and businesses. Already, real economic harm is being caused and many people are now extremely worried about the short- and long-term effects on their businesses and sectors.

Members will be aware of the challenges that Scottish seafood producers are facing. There have been similar challenges in the meat sector, where new trade barriers have led to significant reductions in the volume of Scottish beef and lamb exports to Europe. The Scottish Government and Scottish food and drink stakeholders repeatedly warned the UK Government that businesses needed a grace period to prepare for such fundamental changes. Sadly, the UK Government continually ignored those warnings.

Expecting businesses—particularly small businesses—to adjust, within days, to complex new administrative burdens and costs would be a big ask at the best of times; to expect them so to do when they are reeling from the impacts of the Covid pandemic is simply unconscionable. We should not forget that behind the headlines, the commentary and the images that we have seen represent real people upon whom families, employees and communities depend. Businesses that have taken generations to create and nurture are being brought to their knees, practically overnight, by a callous Tory Government that seeks to point the finger of blame at anyone and everything instead of owning responsibility for the Brexit chaos.

Therefore I will now bust a few Tory myths. The Scottish Government and our partner agencies have done, and continue to do, all that we can to help businesses to prepare for such wholesale change. Scottish export hubs were properly resourced at the end of the transition period, and Food Standards Scotland delivered all the export health certificates that businesses had requested. To ensure that rising demand is met, we have increased the number of staff at the hubs, in line with our resourcing strategy. Food Standards Scotland continues to work closely with businesses and UK Government departments to support exporters in arriving at ports fully prepared for inspections and the new, Brexit-driven export bureaucracy.

However, sadly, we cannot fix everything. A whole new category of goods, now known as prohibited and restricted goods, is being impacted by Brexit. Those were previously traded freely with the EU, but Scotland and Great Britain can no longer export a wide range of produce there. We cannot export chilled mincemeat, meat preparations or mechanically separated poultry. Trade in category 1 and category 2 animal by-products is largely prohibited. Honey bees can no longer be exported to the EU or imported to Great Britain. Wild-harvested lobsters for on-growing cannot be exported. Some of those products, such as seed potatoes, are of great economic importance to Scotland. For months now, we have fought to secure equivalence to allow our highly respected Scottish seed potatoes to continue to be traded with EU states. Some, such as our good friend Ireland, are hugely dependent on receiving that stock. I have made it clear to George Eustice, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that should we fail to gain equivalence we expect Scottish seed potato exporters to be compensated for their losses.

However, it is not just trade with the EU that is being affected: the vast majority of such prohibitions and restrictions apply to trade in goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Northern Ireland protocol. At the last minute, the UK Government secured a derogation for some of the chilled meats that I have mentioned, which had been ordered by big retailers—but only for six months, and there is no certainty about what will happen after that.

Prohibited and restricted meat products are not included in the three-month grace period for export health certification. Their export is already causing issues, particularly for groupage exports. Last week, UK supermarket chiefs warned that further disruption was inevitable if border requirements dating from April were not simplified or the grace period for EHCs not extended. Many less fortunate businesses, which were not afforded such derogations, are struggling with the required export and health certification.

New health requirements have seen a halt to Scotland’s trade in sheep to Northern Ireland. Sheep cannot be moved unless they meet the scrapie monitoring requirements; that takes four years at a minimum and comes at a cost to the farmer.

The UK Government blithely dismisses all those impacts as “teething problems”, hoping that no one realises that the changes are permanent and will create permanent extra costs and burdens on our businesses, threatening jobs and livelihoods. However, as James Withers of Scotland Food and Drink pointed out yesterday, what we are reaping at the moment results from a kind of complacency and incompetence in thinking that, somehow, we were ready just to flick a switch.

The Tories have broken many Brexit-related promises, the worst of which is the promise that we would all be better off. That did not even make it beyond the Tory Government’s first spending review. It promised at least to match EU funding, but as matters stand Scotland is set to lose out on £170.1 million of equivalent common agricultural policy funding through to 2025 that rightly should be spent on our producers and rural communities.

We also have a right to expect £62 million for marine and fisheries funding, instead of the paltry £14 million that has been promised. We have a right to expect our share of the £100 million that was promised to sweeten the awful deal for fisheries to come directly to Scotland, for us to determine our investment priorities and needs.

I have called repeatedly for UK ministers to compensate the seafood sector for the disaster that it is facing. That disaster sits whole-heartedly with the Tories and their failure to secure anything like a satisfactory Brexit deal. The recent UK Government announcement on compensation for the sector shows what can be achieved when we keep the pressure on, but it is merely a sticking plaster. It provides short-term relief for only a few, and the conditions attached to the £23 million that was announced on Wednesday mean that few will qualify. It does nothing to fix the failing information technology systems, which are, in effect, being tested in real time, at the expense of our exporters.

However, we will not give up. I, together with the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment, Ben Macpherson, will keep the pressure on. We will keep working with businesses and stakeholders to find and implement solutions and to identify opportunities for recovery. We will continue to provide resources and expertise to fix what we can and we will keep fighting to protect and promote the interests of everyone in rural and island communities, using all the powers that we have at our disposal.

However, there is no denying that the rural economy is in peril, not least from the very real and brazen power and funding grab that is under way. The Tories at Westminster will increasingly sideline our interests; we are being made small and we are being isolated from our closest and most important overseas trading partners. All the gains made in 21 years of devolution for our rural and coastal communities will be reversed.

The Tories have betrayed our rural communities, selling out key rural sectors, and they have broken so many promises to so many that it is doubtful whether they will ever be either forgiven or forgotten. However, Scotland has an escape clause. We can choose a different future. By choosing to become an independent nation, we can rejoin the EU and benefit from frictionless and barrier-free trade within the single market. That future cannot come soon enough.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in his statement. We need to finish this item of business by 2 o’clock.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, and as a partner in a farming business, I know that many farmers will laugh at the Scottish National Party lecturing others about IT failures when it is responsible for perhaps the biggest IT disaster in the history of farm payments, the effects of which are still being felt.

However, it is another week and another statement from the cabinet secretary—heavy on politics but light on actual policy. It was an all-too-typical rant, so let us get some facts on record.

Fergus Ewing talks about farm funding; the UK Government has guaranteed to protect farm funding until 2024—that is a commitment that Fergus Ewing could not make if he had his way and Scotland was outside the UK. The Scottish Government promised a report on future farm funding by the end of 2020; it is 2021 and that promise to Scotland’s farmers has been utterly broken. When will we know what the SNP proposes?

Fergus Ewing said that no-deal Brexit would cause irreparable damage to the economy and to people’s lives, then he voted against a trade deal that NFU Scotland welcomed.

Fergus Ewing said today that he has increased the number of staff at Food Standards Scotland, which is an admission that he did not put in place enough staff to begin with. Although Mr Ewing pretends to be against trade barriers, the Scottish National Party’s policy of independence would erect more trade barriers between Scotland’s farmers and the rest of the UK and the world than any form of EU exit. Is it not time that the SNP was honest with rural Scotland?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Regarding farm payments, those problems were fixed and now farmers in Scotland have received their payments earlier than anyone else in the UK. This month, the LFASS—less favoured area support scheme—payments have been paid, as far as I can recall, at the earliest point ever. I have just announced today that the second tranche of the convergence moneys—moneys that were rightfully due to our farmers and crofters but which were withheld by the Tories for six years—will be paid out very shortly. I will not take any lectures from the Tories on that.

Yet again, we find that nobody in the Scottish Conservative Party, particularly not its rural spokesperson, admits that the deal is a poor one for Scotland and for the fishermen. Frankly, the longer the Conservatives take the approach of not mentioning Brexit and its impacts, the more self-inflicted damage they will cause.

To answer the only actual question that I could identify in the statement that Mr Halcro Johnston made, we are being honest about Scotland’s future. I have made it absolutely clear for the past five years that, on Brexit and particularly on fishing, the Tories were overpromising and underdelivering. It was the Conservatives who were not being honest or straight with the public, when they promised that the EU funding would be at least matched. The fact is that we face cuts in the money that we would have had if we had been in the EU amounting to £170.1 million. Similar cuts are faced in Wales and Northern Ireland, so it is not only Scotland but all the devolved Administrations that are making that argument.

In conclusion, as long as the Scots Tories refuse to face reality, they will be punished by the electorate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would appreciate short answers, cabinet secretary, as we move along.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

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

Although farmers and crofters across Scotland will be relieved that a catastrophic no-deal exit from the EU was avoided, there is no such thing as a good deal when it comes to Brexit, and there are extra burdens in accessing labour and markets for many producers. The trade deal that has been cobbled together falls short of what was needed and promised and leaves a huge amount of uncertainty.

Will the cabinet secretary update us on what progress is being made on the development of a set of post-Brexit common frameworks that protect the integrity of the UK-wide single market? The rest of the UK remains by far the biggest market for Scottish agriculture, so ensuring that there is adequate consistency in alignment between our nations is vital.

Crucially, does the cabinet secretary accept that our agriculture sector is crying out for clarity from him on what support schemes will look like post the common agricultural policy, after 2024? The NFUS president Andrew McCornick told the cabinet secretary to

“Stop dithering and start delivering.”

The clock is ticking. Surely by now the cabinet secretary can tell our farmers and crofters when they will see the detail of the future support mechanisms policy.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

That is not what the NFUS president Andrew McCornick told me this week when I spoke to him. He said that he is very satisfied with the payments that we are making and especially with our plan to reinstate LFASS payments next year at 100 per cent, with the payment of the convergence moneys within a very short period, with the earliest payment of LFASS and, generally, with the Scottish Government’s performance.

It is fortunate that I did not do what Mr Smyth advocated and make up a plan before Brexit was upon us because, had I done so, that plan would have been short by £170 million, which the UK has cut from our budget.

We have of course been working on frameworks for some time, and we have always sought to work constructively on those matters.

My last point in response to Colin Smyth’s remarks on Brexit is this: the purpose of my statement is to illustrate the fact that we are scarcely three weeks into Brexit and the damage is already being felt not only in seafood, where it is catastrophic, but across the whole rural economy. In other words, Brexit is already bad for Scotland not just in one respect but in just about every respect. That is the point to take from today’s statement.

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

The cabinet secretary has spoken at length about the shocking immediate impacts that are being caused by Brexit, but what does he understand to be the longer-term impacts for the rural economy in Scotland? Is he most concerned about what will happen in the longer term? Can he tell sheep farmers whether the French market for lamb at Easter—[

Inaudible

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that you are breaking up. I ask the cabinet secretary to answer the first question, and I caution members to ask just one question.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

As Ms Watt opined, I think that there will be long-term damage, which will affect markets and customers and the value and the volume of trade, and will result in the loss of protected geographical indicators for products such as Arbroath smokies, Orkney cheese and Scotch beef and lamb. That damage will include the loss of influence, the loss of workers, the loss of freedom of movement and the loss of frictionless trade. It is already clear that, in all those respects, Brexit will damage the rural economy in not just the short but the long term.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yesterday, the Finance and Constitution Committee heard evidence that the level of EU structural funds available to Scotland has declined significantly in recent years as a result of the SNP’s failure to spend all the money available.

In contrast, the UK shared prosperity fund will be invested in and delivered directly to rural communities across Scotland and rural organisations, thereby helping them to rebuild from the pandemic.

Will the cabinet secretary work constructively with the UK Government to allocate that extra UK funding directly to rural communities, as opposed to that money being hoarded and wasted at Holyrood, as has happened in the past?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The fact of the matter is that we still do not know much more about the UK shared prosperity fund than those four words. The fact is that that fund deals with entirely devolved matters and the UK Government is on a power grab, whereby it is seeking somehow to administer those matters directly. Of course, it cannot; it will be entirely reliant on our administrative services to do that. It is entirely a political move.

In order to get people to vote for Brexit, the Tories promised that there would be at least the same amount of money for the rural economy. They promised that throughout the UK, and the Welsh, the Northern Irish and I have argued that they have broken that promise. In our case, they have done that by reducing the funding for the period between now and 2025 by £170 million, which is a huge amount of money. It is really sad that none of the Scottish parliamentarians in the Tory party has had the guts to point out that that, frankly, is disgraceful.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Northern Ireland protocol has undoubtedly made trade with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland much more complex and costly. The cabinet secretary mentioned the problems that are being faced by sheep farmers. Are there other Scottish businesses and sectors that are going to have problems with trade?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes. There is a lot of concern in the whole farming sector and the meat sector, not just the sheep sector. I have also noticed that concerns have been expressed in the public press by AOG Couriers, Marks and Spencer and others. There are concerns that labelling of some products will, in effect, have to be doubled. For small businesses, it would not be productive or cost effective to have to provide two sets of labels for products such as whisky.

Joan McAlpine is quite right. Across a whole range of issues, there is huge concern that the frictionless and seamless trade that we enjoyed with Northern Ireland while in the EU will become difficult trade, expensive trade or lost trade.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Delays to exports of fresh produce have led to growing concern about mountains of food waste. There is an urgent need to break the deadlock on the export regulations, but what steps is the Government taking to create new domestic supply chain options for sectors such as seafood and fresh meat, which have been hardest hit?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We have certainly encouraged new methods of marketing food, such as direct marketing and online marketing. Many fishing interests—fishermen and fishing businesses—have been ingenious during lockdown in selling direct to the public, for example.

However, I make the point to Mr Ruskell that those efforts, worthy and to be commended as they are, are absolutely insufficient to make up for the potential loss of hugely valuable and very substantial European markets such as France, Italy and Spain. The scale of export of seafood produce to those countries is such that it would not be possible simply to divert that product elsewhere. We can, of course, divert some of it, and we should do that. However, that loss is a direct result of Brexit, and the point of my statement is to show the damage that has already been caused by Brexit across the rural economy, and the worries about that. We will do everything we can to avoid that damage, but, nonetheless, it will occur both now and in the future.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Fergus Ewing for early sight of his statement. I agree with much, although certainly not all, of what he said. At the very least, this SNP Government must now acknowledge the perils of non-tariff barriers, whether in relation to the EU or within the UK. As the Tories are finding, it is risky to use the fishing industry for one’s own political ends.

What consideration has been given to establishing accredited local clearance centres, possibly in Glasgow or even in Peterhead, to allow seafood exporters such as the Orkney Fishermen’s Society in my constituency a better chance of being able to continue supplying their customers on the continent?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We worked hard over a long period to do our best to prepare for what was to come with Brexit, but the best preparation—a derogation, which we and the industry asked for—was refused. However, in response to Mr McArthur’s question, I note that FSS had set up three hubs by September last year and it worked round the clock to ensure that they were properly serviced and staffed with sufficient resource of veterinary officers, for example. The principal one is at DFDS.

I am happy to work with Mr McArthur to see whether anything else needs to be done in respect of the interests of the fishermen and fishing communities in his constituency. I am engaging with their representatives and I expect that at least one of them will be present at a meeting next week. I am happy to consider any more detailed proposal that Mr McArthur may have if he wishes to write to me on that or discuss it with me.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The cabinet secretary mentioned that third-country status has been denied for our seed potato exports. Will he say more about the practical effect of that and how it affects this iconic Scottish industry?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Rona Mackay is quite right. Seed potatoes in Scotland are regarded as being of the highest quality in the world. Our provenance is respected and our expertise is admired throughout the world and valued by our trading partners.

I have been working with George Eustice to assure equivalence in an article 44 application, which is to be considered at the end of January by the section of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed that deals with these matters. I am working closely with the industry, which I have met on, I think, three occasions in the past three weeks, in order to pave a way for success.

If that is not successful, there is a risk that the industry will lose some of its stock, for which I believe that the UK must compensate it. Even more important is the fact that the industry must make decisions about planting seed potatoes for next year’s crop, and it must make those decisions in a matter of weeks, not months. The compensation that was required would therefore not just be for seed potatoes that cannot be exported legally now because of Brexit and the ban. The problem would go on and affect next year, with the potential loss of markets. We are working very hard to avoid that scenario, but if it arises, Rona Mackay is right—the UK must pay up for all losses.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The cabinet secretary says that he will keep working with stakeholders to find and implement solutions. The problem is that Mr Ewing needs to come up with solutions now. He has been criticised by the president of the NFUS for the lack of future policies, and yesterday Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, criticised the Scottish Government—not for the first time—for the delay in bringing forward a new agricultural strategy before 2024. Yesterday, he said—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, no, Mr Carson. Brevity.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the cabinet secretary stop—to use his own words—finger pointing, take responsibility and clearly lay out his vision for rural support post 2024?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I completely reject Mr Carson’s analysis. It is hugely disrespectful to the public servants working round the clock for Food Standards Scotland—staff who have been provided by FSS at our instigation—who set up the hubs, such as at DFDS. The problems that have arisen have not arisen because of a lack of staff or a lack of action on our part, but because the UK Government has foisted a hugely complex system on an industry without giving it the opportunity to try to test it or sort out the problems over a grace period or derogation period. The UK Government did not even ask for that.

The brazen cheek of Tory parliamentarians knows no bounds. We will get on and we are getting on with the job of doing all we can to solve these problems. That is my top priority.

My goodness me, we have had enough of the Tories’ broken promises and their complete lack of remorse or acceptance of responsibility. It is one of the most shocking things that I have seen in 21 years of political life.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If I may, I respectfully ask for a little more brevity from you as well, cabinet secretary.

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

Can the cabinet secretary explain to my constituents in the fishing industry, of which there are many, how the UK compensation scheme will replace the income that they have lost over the past few weeks?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I had a brief discussion with George Eustice, who gave me very brief details of the scheme, a couple of hours before it was announced in public. The little that the UK Government has told us indicates that the fishermen compensation scheme will actually exclude fishermen. It will be the first scheme in history that was designed to support a group of people who will be ineligible for any support therefrom.

Any support will be only for losses incurred by processors. I am pleased that some compensation will be paid, and I fought long and hard with the UK Government for that. My understanding is that the UK Government will not pay a penny piece to any fishermen anywhere in the UK for the losses that they have sustained through being unable to ply their trade because of Brexit.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Does the cabinet secretary share the anger of people in the north-east about George Eustice’s comments on the radio that the devastation and desolation at Peterhead fish market was caused by Covid and that there is no fishing in January anyway? What will the cabinet secretary have to say to George Eustice about those comments the next time that he speaks to him?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I have sought to work—and it is my duty to work—constructively with George Eustice, and in the past we have done so. I find his comments that Covid has caused this issue to be incomprehensible. Nobody believes that at all, and I am astonished that he made those remarks. Will the Conservatives not just accept responsibility and say that Brexit has not worked out; that the disruption that Michael Gove said would never happen has actually happened; and that although the losers at the moment are the seafood community and businesses, many other sectors in the rural economy are starting to be affected? Surely acceptance of responsibility for its Brexit boorach is something that we should expect from the UK Government.

Covid-19 Restrictions (Support for Tourism in West Scotland)

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to tourism businesses in the West Scotland region in light of the current Covid-19 restrictions. (S5O-04921)

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

I remind members that, if they want to ask a supplementary question, they should put R in the chat function.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government recognises the difficulties that businesses throughout Scotland face and the fact that, although the restrictions are necessary, they have had a devastating impact on the sector. We have allocated almost £3 billion to support businesses. I announced a package of support worth £104 million for tourism and hospitality businesses, which was developed following many discussions with industry. The roll-out of those funds is under way.

Many tourism businesses in Scotland can also obtain regular support through the strategic framework business fund. On 11 January, we announced top-up grants worth up to £25,000 for larger premises. We continue to assess what more can be done to support individual sectors.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

If members put R in the chat function, they have to make it clear which question they want to ask a supplementary question to, because their question could be about anything.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

The £104.3 million of support will help many tourism and hospitality businesses in my region, but what support—financial or otherwise—is available to businesses in the tourism and hospitality supply chain that primarily rely on that sector?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Mary Fee makes a very reasonable point. We have worked on that long and hard. There are elements of the supply chain that are largely dependent on tourism and hospitality; the wholesale sector in particular springs to mind. I have worked long and hard with representatives of the wholesale sector to ensure that they are not left out.

My task is to get lifeline support out to those who need it, and we have not completed that task. I am determined that we will continue to do that and reach out to businesses that have been impacted but have not had help. That is absolutely imperative. I am determined to carry on doing that task for as long as the Covid crisis is upon us.

Tourism (Support)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what support it plans to provide to the tourism industry in light of the uncertainty that businesses face in their decision making for this year’s summer season. (S5O-04922)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I agree that the restrictions will continue to have a devastating impact on our hospitality and tourism sectors, but they are, of course, vital in suppressing virus transmission. As our efforts to tackle the virus progress, we will continue to build on our very constructive dialogue with the industry and listen to its concerns as we move towards recovery. Indeed, that was one of the key recommendations from the tourism recovery task force report.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

I welcome the long-called-for announcement last December of the Scottish Government’s funding package for the tourism and hospitality industry, which is to include a sorely needed outdoor tourism restart fund. Outdoor and marine tourism businesses along the Firth of Clyde in my West Scotland region desperately need sustained support to recover and rebuild their services, such as for the functioning and renovation of their piers. What progress are the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government looking to make in co-operating with tourism bodies on producing detailed funding criteria and a roll-out plan that will help marine businesses, such as those in my region, to remain viable in the long term, especially given the challenges that they face in an on-going lockdown?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would like shorter questions and shorter answers, please.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We are working very closely with stakeholders, including the Scottish Tourism Alliance and Sail Scotland. We are working with marine tourism interests; I have met representatives and will continue to do so. To answer the member’s question, we are engaging actively with the marine tourism sector. I absolutely agree that it is an extremely important, growing and varied part of the tourism offering in Scotland, and it is hugely attractive to many throughout the world. I undertake that we will continue that work and do our very best to support the sector through the Covid crisis.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The cabinet secretary mentioned some of the responses to the Scottish tourism recovery task force’s recommendations. What engagement has the Scottish Government had with the United Kingdom Government regarding some of the long-term recommendations that were made by the task force?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I have regular engagement with the UK, Welsh and Northern Irish tourism ministers. I think that Nigel Huddleston and I have a good working relationship.

I made it clear that I felt that the furlough should be extended from October, and it was, to April.

I fear that the furlough, as we heard in the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee this morning, does not offer sufficient support to hotels and major employers in particular. I think that the case for extending the VAT relief period is very strong. I will be putting those points to Mr Huddleston in our next meeting, which I believe will be on 28 January.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Marine tourism misses out because boats do not have rateable values. I understand that some funding has been announced, and that is welcome, but it has not yet opened. Discretionary funding that is available to local authorities is also failing to meet those desperate needs. Those businesses cannot wait any longer. They will fail if they do not get funding immediately. What can the cabinet secretary do to give them immediate help, so those marine businesses—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Of course it is absolutely correct to say that many businesses are facing real financial pressure. That is why we have sought to provide support for many sectors, including marine tourism, that face real difficulties. For some areas of activity, such as taxi driving and the coach sector, there have been supports, such as the hotel fund and the pivotal enterprise fund, that I do not think have been replicated in England. We have gone an extra mile for some.

However, I absolutely accept that the speed of dispatch of funds is extremely important. Frankly, my officials and I are working every day and sometimes at night in order to finalise the schemes and work with industry to get the money out to the people who need it. That is the absolute priority.

Agriculture Funding Review (Discussions with United Kingdom Government)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the recommendations of Lord Bew’s agriculture funding review. (S5O-04923)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In September 2019, I welcomed the UK Government’s acceptance of the “recommendations” and “wider observations” of the Lord Bew review. That came after five years of campaigning by the Scottish Government and Parliament for the UK Government to right that historic wrong. In its response to the Bew review, the UK Government welcomed the principle of uplift for less productive land and that collective engagement with the devolved Governments should take place on future funding. Disappointingly, no such meaningful engagement has taken place. Indeed, it took persistent pressure from me, alongside ministers in the other devolved Governments, to receive the commitment to such engagement from the Secretary of State for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in November last year.

The UK Government is causing considerable uncertainty about a sum of £77.1 million through to 2025 by not committing to, or even opening dialogue on, the future of Bew money. That sum is not in isolation; it is part of the £170 million that Scottish producers and rural communities are set to miss out on through to 2025.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that we simply cannot trust the Tories to do right by rural Scotland? What impact would the loss of the Bew review funding have on our farmers and crofters? Where would that leave Scotland in comparison with UK other nations in terms of payment rates for farming and crofting?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The cut by the UK of £170.1 million is devastating. Incidentally, a decision was not even made clear to ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; it was communicated at a meeting of officials in September.

It is a disgraceful decision. Michael Gove and George Eustice promised that, if we got out of the EU with Brexit, there would be no reduction in funding, and indeed there would be an increase—they promised that funding would be at least matched. That promise has been broken. The Tories have broken their promise to Scotland, and we can never trust them again.

International Tourists (VAT-free Shopping)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

4. To ask the Scottish Government to expand on the discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the continued operation of VAT-free shopping for international tourists visiting Scotland. (S5O-04924)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Your question is not quite as it was written in the

Business Bulletin

, but it is close enough—I will let you away with it.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Despite the serious implications for travel, tourism and retail, there was no prior engagement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on the matter.

On 22 October, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance sent a joint letter to the UK chancellor, expressing our opposition to the proposed change and requesting a review of the decision as soon as possible. We will continue to press the UK Government on the matter.

We believe that it is vital that these sectors receive the support they need to weather the difficulties they already face and the further challenges to come, thanks to Brexit, and we do not believe that this is at all an appropriate juncture at which to make such abrupt and significant changes.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Our retail and aviation sectors need all the support that they can get in the middle of this global pandemic. Given that the VAT scheme plays a critical role in helping the sector to create jobs and in helping businesses to survive, will the cabinet secretary call on the UK Government to see sense and maintain these crucial schemes, to protect thousands of jobs from being lost and businesses from going under?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes, I will, and I will do so when I meet Nigel Huddleston on 28 January. I am grateful to Rona Mackay for raising the issue in the Scottish Parliament.

The international tourism sector is the least likely to emerge from Covid rapidly. It is the most affected, and surely VAT-free shopping is one of the factors that help to bring people into international custom and visitation. To cut that is to cut the feet from under international tourism when it is on its uppers. It seems to me to be a particularly callous and ill-chosen decision. That is why the Scottish Government has resisted it, and, thanks to Rona Mackay raising it today, I will raise the issue with Nigel Huddleston next week.

Covid-19 (Support for Food and Drink Businesses)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what support it has provided to businesses in the food and drink sector whose operations have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. (S5O-04925)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Since the start of the pandemic, our support for business and the economy has totalled almost £3 billion, which demonstrates our commitment to supporting the economy and providing as much financial support as possible to affected business, including food and drink businesses.

We have also supported bespoke food and drink sectors. We have given £5.4 million to 40 businesses in the food and drink wholesale sector and £5.8 million to seafood processing businesses, which have been impacted very hard. We need to continue to provide help as we strive to balance our effort to suppress the virus, with the impact on business.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that many Glasgow-based businesses, including hauliers, are involved in the fishing and seafood sectors and that the problems with exports reach very far into the economy. Will the UK’s compensation scheme help everyone who has been affected by the chaos caused by the Tories’ Brexit?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

It is emerging that the compensation scheme will benefit only a few and that there will be quite high hurdles. Many businesses in the seafood sector that have been hit very hard during the past three weeks will therefore be absolutely spitting with rage when they find out that the promise from the Prime Minister will exclude them. He promised them El Dorado, but they are looking at insolvency instead.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Last year, ahead of stage 3 of the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Bill, the cabinet secretary announced that he was

“beginning a process of developing a non-statutory statement of policy on food”.—[

Written Answers

, 17 August 2020; S5W-31244.]

His argument was that it was a better alternative to the statutory national food plan that I called for because it did not need legislation. Five months on, can the cabinet secretary tell us what the timetable is for delivery of that statement on the food policy?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We are working on that at the moment, and I will get back to Mr Smyth with a more detailed answer. I respectfully point out that we are in the middle of not just one but two crises—a Covid crisis and a Brexit crisis. Frankly, my day-to-day focus is on trying to help businesses that face going under, people who face losing their livelihoods and businesses that are being crippled by Brexit. Forgive me, but that is where I am spending my time and doing my work all day, every day

.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Many food and drink businesses will have scaled up or, indeed, embarked on online operations. Earlier today, my colleague Beatrice Wishart raised with the cabinet secretary the importance of reopening the digital boost scheme, but can the cabinet secretary advise what support is available to food and drink businesses to improve packaging, distribution and other aspects that will allow them to take advantage of those opportunities?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Mr McArthur raises an important point on an issue that has, again, been exacerbated by the Brexit difficulties. It will have a significant impact on things such as labelling, requiring additional costs for additional, altered and different labels for different markets. In the light of that, we will have to reconsider whether there is more that we can do. The assistance on those matters came, in part, from the food and drink financial support from the European Union, of course, and that support has been massively cut—by £170 million—by the UK Government. Our scope for action on it, out of the EU, is far reduced from what it was when we were a member of the EU.

Brexit (Impact on Salmon Industry)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the impact of Brexit on the salmon industry. (S5O-04926)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Just as we warned, Brexit is having a devastating and immediate impact on the farmed fish sector, particularly salmon farming. The Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation has estimated that the industry’s losses since 1 January are several million pounds. That is due to salmon being stuck in transit, the inability to fulfil orders on time and the lack of groupage facilities, which is hampering smaller producers. Cancelled harvests and lost customers are adding to the impact, with a drop in spot prices for delayed and unreliable Scottish orders making Norwegian salmon more competitive.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his very worrying response. He will, of course, be aware of my constituency interest, given that Mowi has a salmon-processing plant in Rosyth that employs more than 600 workers. Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether it can really be the case that the rotten Brexit deal negotiated by the United Kingdom Tory Government enmeshes for the first time the future of Scotland’s aquaculture industry with the outcome of subsequent fisheries negotiations, with tariffs therefore not able to be ruled out?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

That is correct. The trade agreement negotiated by the UK is such that if, at the expiry of the five-year period, the European Union does not obtain a rollover or a satisfactory deal, it will be quite entitled to impose tariffs to the level of its estimated loss in fishing effort as a result. That would see tariffs imposed on aquaculture that would have nothing to do with the common fisheries policy—they would be entirely separate. The aquaculture industry will be punished for something completely separate and apart from it, which was an astonishing provision to agree to. It is completely irrelevant, utterly unjustified, appalling and just another example of how the Brexit deal let Scotland down badly. I am not sure that they know very much in Whitehall about Scotland’s aquaculture industry, and decisions like that prove that that must be true.

Gene Editing (Crops)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the gene editing of crop varieties in order to deliver greater food production and achieve environmental targets. (S5O-04927)

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

The Scottish Government’s policy on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms has not changed. We will maintain Scotland’s GM-free crop status in line with our commitment to seek alignment with high EU standards. We have made our views on that issue known to UK ministers.

We also await the result of the forthcoming study on the decision made by the European Court of Justice in 2018 that gene editing falls under the GMO legislation. That is the proportionate and appropriate approach to take.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

At the Oxford farming conference last year, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, said that the Scottish Government would not comment until the European Union had considered the prevailing European Court of Justice ruling that gene editing could be considered in the same way as genetically modified crops. We know that gene editing reduces the need for the application of pesticides, which, in turn, would help the Scottish Government’s poor biodiversity record and help the agricultural sector meet climate change targets. If England were to approve gene editing, would the minister and his SNP Government seriously disadvantage Scottish farmers and the environment by holding Scotland back on the basis of an outdated EU decision?

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

First, it is important to emphasise that the Scottish Government’s position on the cultivation of gene-edited crops remains precautionary. That is in line with our commitment to seek alignment with high EU standards when that is appropriate and in Scotland’s best interests. I should also emphasise that we have been opposed to the cultivation of GM crops in an open environment only in order to protect the clean, green status of Scotland’s £14.8 billion food and drink sector. It is important to bear in mind that that clean, green status is part of what makes Scottish produce so attractive to consumers in Scotland, in the UK and around the world.

It is also important to emphasise that the UK Government’s decision to consult on changes to the definition of GMO, which would differ to Scotland’s approach, is an example of why we believe the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 removes our competency to make decisions on the marketing of products in a devolved area. It is of concern that, although any definition change as outlined in the UK Government’s consultation would not, in legal terms, extend to Scotland, the UK Internal Market Act 2020 would force Scotland to accept marketing, sale and free circulation of products in Scotland that did not meet the standards set out in the Scottish regulations.

There is much to be concerned about. However, as I said, the Scottish Government will continue to take a precautionary approach.

Tourism Industry (Meetings)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what recent meetings it has had with representatives of the tourism industry, and what was discussed. (S5O-04928)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government meets weekly with the sector to discuss a range of issues including the impacts of Covid restrictions, the need for continued business support and the route to recovery.

At the most recent meeting, on 13 January, I met the Scottish Tourism Alliance to discuss details of the new £185 million business support package and to hear about the progress of the new tourism and hospitality talent development programme.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will know that tourism businesses such as coach operators and visitor attractions have been waiting months for support. Last week, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities suggested that the support that was announced in December may not arrive until February or March. If that is the case, what is causing the delay, and when will those funds be paid out to struggling businesses?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In the case of the coach sector and most other sectors, I would expect payments to be made following the application process that is being launched either this month or in February. I would expect payments to be made swiftly thereafter.

Mr Scott raises an extremely important point. We must get this money out as quickly as possible. However, we must use public money carefully and avoid making any wrong payments.

On the payment to coach operators which is going ahead in Scotland, given that coaches travel across the border and work on a pan-UK basis, I had asked the UK Government for a UK scheme, but the UK Government declined. That is why we are going ahead with the Scottish scheme to compensate coach operators, which are an essential and quality part of the tourism offering in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on rural economy and tourism. My colleague Ms Fabiani will take over for the next set of questions.

Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next portfolio is transport, infrastructure and connectivity. I ask members who wish to ask a supplementary question to enter the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question.

Sustainable Transport (Investment)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to redirect investment from unsustainable modes of transport and into modes that are considered more sustainable, including rail infrastructure. (S5O-04929)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We are investing more than £1 billion in bus priority and active travel infrastructure. We provide more than £1 billion every year to support public transport provision and, over the course of the pandemic, we have committed £692 million of additional support.

Since 2007, we have invested more than £9 billion in rail infrastructure, and we continue to invest record levels in this control period, including funding to support our commitment to decarbonise the network by 2035. Decisions on future transport investment will be made through the second strategic transport projects review and will prioritise investment in line with the sustainable investment hierarchy.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary might have seen the “Rail For All” report, which the Scottish Greens published recently. Among many other recommendations, the report calls for a streamlining of the Scottish transport appraisal guidance—STAG—process, which is extremely complex, time consuming and costly, and which places a barrier to rail development. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the process needs to be shortened and aligned with the overarching aim of rapidly delivering low-carbon transport infrastructure, and that the change should begin immediately?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am aware of the report to which Mr Harvie refers, which makes a number of interesting suggestions that will be taken into account as we make decisions through STPR2. In our national transport strategy, which was published just last year, we set out a clear commitment to review the STAG process. I am conscious that there are some issues relating to the length of time that it takes and the costs that are associated with it. For that reason, we have already committed to carrying out a review over the next couple of years.

Mr Harvie will recognise that it is extremely important that, before we undertake any major transport investment, we have an assurance that it will deliver the intentions behind the scheme. That is why the STAG system is important. However, I recognise the need to reform it, which is why we have committed to doing so.

A75 Dualling (Progress)

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with dualling the A75. (S5O-04930)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The “South West Scotland Transport Study”, which was published in January 2020, contains in its recommendations the option of targeted improvements on the A75, including some partial dualling. That option will be subject to more detailed appraisal in the second strategic transport projects review.

The study emphasised the importance of a connected, safe, resilient and high-quality strategic transport network for south-west Scotland, and it found that targeted improvements, rather than full dualling, would be more proportionate in meeting regional transport objectives and the sustainable investment hierarchy that is set out in our national transport strategy.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer but, after 14 years of Scottish National Party inaction, does he not believe that my constituents deserve better? Will he explain to them why he was unwilling to take part in the union connectivity review, which has the potential to boost the case for improvements to this vital route?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Let me deal with both issues that Oliver Mundell has raised. It is wrong to suggest that no action has been taken by the SNP Government. We have just completed the south-west Scotland transport corridor study, which identifies areas for not only road improvement but wider modal improvement in south-west Scotland. That work is feeding into the second strategic transport projects review, which will be published this year and will set out the priorities for investment across the country, including in south-west Scotland.

The union connectivity review has no relevance to investment in the A75, which is a devolved matter that is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Equally, the member will recognise that the review was set up without any consultation or engagement with the devolved Governments across the whole United Kingdom. The Northern Irish and Welsh Governments have, just like the Scottish Government, raised very serious concerns about that. The review is nothing more than a blatant power grab by the UK Government, which is seeking to undermine the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament. I would have thought that Oliver Mundell, as a Conservative, would want to stand up for the people of Scotland and ensure that his constituents get the type of investment that is necessary, rather than signing up to a political agenda that is being pushed by his colleagues at Westminster.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The challenges of Brexit highlight more than ever how vital the A75 and A77 are as direct routes to the ferry port at Cairnryan. Can the cabinet secretary tell us specifically to what extent he will take into account the increased economic importance of keeping Cairnryan competitive when it comes to allocating what is likely to be—as he has made clear—a smaller budget for road infrastructure?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member raises an important point about the strategic importance of Cairnryan. Such key factors will be considered as part of the STPR2 process and in looking at potential modal improvements to both road and rail in the south-west of Scotland.

He also mentioned another important point, which is the fact that the UK Government has just cut our capital budget by 5 per cent. That will have consequences, not just for transport but for wider capital investment across the whole Scottish Government, and therefore across the whole of Scotland. Nevertheless, he can be assured that the strategic importance of Cairnryan will be a key factor that will be taken into account in determining investment for the south-west of Scotland as part of the STPR2 process.

Queensferry Crossing (Closures)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to reduce the impact of any closures of the Queensferry crossing. (S5O-04931)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

When there is a risk that the Queensferry crossing may have to close as a result of ice accretions, our operating company BEAR Scotland will be alerted in advance. Our five-point plan is then implemented: it includes enhanced patrols; a heightened focus on prevailing weather conditions; increased data and intelligence gathering; the pre-laying of traffic management measures; and enhanced stakeholder communications. During any emergency closure of the Queensferry crossing, a diversion route will be implemented using the Forth road bridge or the Kincardine bridge as appropriate, depending on the required duration of the closure.

As the member will be aware, the Queensferry crossing was closed this morning at approximately 4.30 am. The northbound carriageway reopened at approximately 9.15 am and the southbound carriageway at 10.20 am. The closure followed forecasts of a high risk of ice accretions between 5 and 7 am this morning, and the five-point plan was implemented successfully. As this morning’s disruption was forecast to be of short duration, traffic was diverted via the Kincardine bridge in accordance with the established procedures.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the cabinet secretary has recognised, the bridge was closed overnight and earlier this morning, which has caused significant delays and diversions for those who are travelling. What cost assessment was made for the ice prevention system that was considered as part of the construction plans for the Queensferry crossing? Why was it decided not to take that system forward?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I do not have the precise figure to hand, but I am more than happy to write to Claire Baker with further information on the actual cost associated with that system, which was part of the original design programme.

The reason why the system was not progressed is that it was identified that there was a low risk of ice accretion being a problem on the new Queensferry crossing, given the history of the site and the weather forecasting in the area over an extended period of time. It is clear, however, that ice accretion continues to be an on-going issue, which is why we have enhanced the current arrangements for managing such matters to try to minimise the disruption that is caused to Claire Baker’s constituents, which is always very regrettable. She should also recognise that the bridge is much more reliable than the Forth road bridge, which was closed regularly because of high winds; that is not the case with the Queensferry crossing.

I assure the member that we are trying to identify any measures that would further minimise the risk of disruption to the Queensferry crossing that is caused by the specific weather conditions that result in the accretion of ice. We will do all that we can to minimise the risk and the problems that occur due to such disruption.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary tell us what measures he is looking at to prevent further closures of the Queensferry crossing? The number of closures is becoming immensely frustrating.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise the frustration, but there have been only three or four occasions on which this problem has occurred. It was not a problem during construction and occurs only in specific weather conditions. For example, there were no problems on the bridge during the beast from the east.

We are looking at a range of options, which might involve ultrasound or a vibration system. Those may be appropriate means to address the problem, but any system for a bridge must be a bespoke design. The member may be aware that such problems have arisen on similar bridges in the United Kingdom and worldwide. Any new system would have to be a bespoke design that suits the parameters of the Queensferry crossing.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I was told in a helpful briefing from Transport Scotland that the reason why Kincardine was favoured this morning is that it takes five hours to put in place the contraflow, signage and road changes that would be required to open up the Forth road bridge as a resilience measure.

Given that the censors on the bridge have warned of ice accretion on almost every day since Christmas, it is likely to be a regular issue. What can be done to reduce how long it takes to stand up the FRB as a resilience measure? Will the Scottish Government commit the necessary capital funding for a permanent mitigating solution on the bridge?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We are committed to identifying a long-term solution to the issue. Research is on-going to try to make sure that we get a system that will address the problem.

Mr Cole-Hamilton is correct about how long it takes to implement a diversion. BEAR Scotland will be carrying out an exercise in the coming weeks to try to reduce that time. He will understand that if a diversion was implemented on every occasion when it was thought that there might be a risk to the bridge, that would cause significant disruption. There is a balance to be reached in making those judgments. BEAR Scotland’s on-going work and our own research will help to inform how we can help to manage the issue more effectively.

Covid-19 (Protection of Front-line Public Transport Staff)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what additional support is being provided to protect front-line public transport staff during the Covid-19 pandemic. (S5O-04933)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Since the pandemic began, Transport Scotland has provided guidance for transport operators to keep both staff and passengers safe. That guidance was produced in consultation with operators, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, regional transport partnerships, passenger groups and trade unions and is subject to on-going review.

The cornerstone of the guidance is an emphasis on the importance of undertaking a robust and on-going risk-based assessment with full input from trade unions and then keeping all risk mitigation measures under regular review so that transport facilities, vehicles and vessels continue to feel, and to be, safe for staff and passengers.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The on-going conversations about protection against Covid-19 are welcome. I have heard staff express concerns about the added risk of threats, violence and abuse on our public transport system. There are fewer people on board, and those who are there feel more vulnerable as a result of that.

What public information campaign could be run, and what further support can be given, to ensure that we are protecting our public transport staff not only from Covid-19 but from threats and abuse at work?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Scotland’s front-line public transport staff have been outstanding throughout the pandemic. They have shown a commitment to maintain public transport and to ensure that key workers and others can get to their places of employment during a challenging time.

Mr Sarwar raises an important issue. There have been reports of some in our public transport sector experiencing increasing levels of abuse, particularly when they try to enforce rules around social distancing and the wearing of face coverings. No worker should face any form of abuse in the course of their work, and I condemn any form of violence or inappropriate language that has been used towards transport workers in the course of their duties.

We have engaged with both Police Scotland and the British Transport Police on what further action could be taken to address the issue. However, I can assure Mr Sarwar that the BTP in particular is proactive in pursuing matters where problems are identified across the transport network. We will continue to work with and support the BTP in that important work to address the issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will have a quick supplementary, please, from Alex Rowley.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have been contacted by constituents who have had to use buses for essential shopping and have found that a number of people on the buses are ignoring the need to wear face coverings. Given the previous question, what needs to be done to ensure the safety of people using buses when other passengers refuse to wear face coverings?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The current system requires operators to have prominent signage and information that encourages those who use buses to wear a face covering and indicates the rules for use of that transport during the pandemic. We have provided operators with support around communications that they can use, and expand on, in their networks to encourage service users to wear face coverings and to ensure that they do so.

However, we also have a collective responsibility to play a part in helping to reduce the spread of the virus across our communities, and face coverings are important in that regard. Ultimately, enforcement is a matter for Police Scotland when it comes to buses. If Mr Rowley hears that his constituents are experiencing a persistent problem on particular routes, he should engage with the operator and potentially with Police Scotland about that.

M74 (Soundproof Fencing at Uddingston)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when soundproof fencing will be erected on the Uddingston section of the M74. (S5O-04934)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

My officials continue to press Scottish Roads Partnership for details of how it will deliver its obligations under the contract. Scottish Roads Partnership is considering how best to address the matter, therefore the programme for mitigation measures that may be required is unknown at this stage. The subject requires detailed specialist input, so my officials have sought independent specialist advice to aid the resolution of the issues in discussion with Scottish Roads Partnership.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The cabinet secretary knows that I have pressed on this issue for a number of years. I will continue to do so until I retire. My constituents were promised soundproofed fencing if noise levels increased. Given that noise levels have increased, as per recent surveys, what steps is the Government taking to press SRP to ensure that that promise is kept?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise that Richard Lyle has pursued this long-standing issue vigorously on behalf of his constituents. To ensure that we make further progress on the issue, my officials have sought independent specialist advice on the noise assessment that was undertaken by Scottish Roads Partnership. I can assure Mr Lyle that that will be used to ensure that the necessary suitable mitigation measures that the contractor is contractually required to take forward will be implemented. The specialist advice will assist us in ensuring that progress is made on the matter.

Edinburgh to Perth Railway (Upgrade)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government when the Edinburgh to Perth railway line will be upgraded. (S5O-04935)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Record levels of investment continue to be made on the rail network in the current control period, including to the routes linking Edinburgh to Perth. Improvements include electrification from Edinburgh to Dunblane, the new Blackford freight terminal and the new high-quality Inter7City service.

Scottish ministers are committed to ensuring that the railway meets future growth needs for passengers and freight. For example, work to implement the rail services decarbonisation action plan includes consideration of electrification options for the routes to Perth.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but he knows that, in relation to the green recovery and addressing climate change, the Scottish Government’s own experts have advised that infrastructure development and greener transport are essential. He also knows that the timescale for a journey between Perth and Edinburgh is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago. What priority is the Government placing on the upgrade? What is the exact timescale for any improvements that will be made?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member should be aware that we are investing record amounts into our railway during control period 6, and that we are the first part of the United Kingdom to commit to decarbonising our rail network by 2035. That will involve significant investment not only in electrification but in new zero-carbon-emitting rolling stock. All that investment is a significant recognition of the importance that rail has in helping to achieve our climate change objectives.

Regarding the line between Perth and Edinburgh, as I mentioned we have already electrified the line to Dunblane, and we are considering the potential for further electrification, which delivers faster services and increases capacity on the route network. Alongside that, we are looking at improving the existing signalling system and the timetable; again, that would help to improve journey times between Edinburgh and Perth.

M8/M73/M74 Motorway Improvements Project (Evaluation)

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when the next evaluation will be carried out of the M8/M73/M74 motorway improvements project, in line with the Scottish trunk road infrastructure project evaluation guidance. (S5O-04936)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

[Inaudible.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Matheson, your sound appears to be on mute. I think that it is okay now, so could you start your answer again?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer.

Transport Scotland has undertaken an evaluation of the M8/M73/M74 motorway improvements project one year after opening, in line with its guidance. The evaluation report will be published shortly, after a technical review has been completed. Given the scale and impact of the project, the evaluation requires extensive data collection and analysis to ensure its robustness.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

[

Inaudible

.]—flooding

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Ms Mitchell. We have a sound issue with you, too. Please start your question again.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Surface water and flooding during heavy rain continue to be a worrying issue on large parts of the upgraded M8. There have been countless gantry warnings telling drivers to take extra care and/or speed restrictions put in place to control traffic on roads that have been made hazardous by surface water. What is being done to address that dangerous issue and make the roads safer for drivers in wet conditions? Has drainage been identified as the problem? If so, perhaps the issue is rubble from the upgrade of the project.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise the important safety issue that Margaret Mitchell raises. I am not aware of any specific problems on that area of the M8, or on the M73 or M74. However, I will ask officials to engage with our trunk road operating companies to ensure that, if there is a particular problem, that issue is addressed.

If Margaret Mitchell has specific details about sections of the road on which she believes that that is a problem, I would be more than happy to ensure that officials pick that up and investigate the matter properly.

Justice and the Law Officers

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

The final portfolio is justice and the law officers. I remind members that questions 2 and 6 have been grouped together. I will take any supplementaries on those questions after both of them have been answered. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should indicate that by entering an R in the chat function during the relevant question.

European Union Security Protocols and Law Enforcement Organisations

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on security and safety in Scotland of no longer having access to EU security protocols and law enforcement organisations, including the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust. (S5O-04937)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The impacts will be significant. Under the new deal, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service now have to use slower and, frankly, less effective tools than those that they had previously.

Key impacts are the loss of access to the Schengen information system II—SIS II—database, which means that Police Scotland will no longer have access to real-time or immediate alerts from European Union partners on wanted or missing persons, and the loss of the European arrest warrant. As the new system allows EU member states to refuse to extradite their own nationals to Scotland, bringing someone to face justice here is likely to take longer and to cost more than it would have done when the UK was an EU member state.

Although the deal enables some co-operation with Europol and Eurojust, that is still less than was possible when we had full EU membership. Frankly, the only people who will benefit from such a loss of capability are those who commit crime.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, I am finding your sound quite quiet. I do not know whether that is just me or whether it is the same for all members. I ask Ms Robison to say whether she was able to hear your reply clearly.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Yes, I was—thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer, albeit that it was very concerning.

Does he agree that it is clearer than ever that Scotland will now have suboptimal security and safety arrangements, and that the only way to ensure the safety of our citizens will be to rejoin those vital cross-border agencies by becoming an independent nation inside the EU?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Shona Robison is right to say that such arrangements are now suboptimal. They mean that it will take longer to extradite someone. We have absolutely lost access to the SIS II database, which Police Scotland formerly accessed millions of times a year and which alerted it to missing or wanted people. The only way to rectify that situation would be for Scotland to take up EU membership as an independent nation. That is not only because of the important social and economic benefits that it would bring; it would also afford us greater co-operation on security with the rest of the EU.

Covid-19 Lockdown (House Parties)

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how many house parties police have been called on to disperse since the current Covid-19 lockdown was imposed. (S5O-04938)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The latest available data shows that, for the period from 31 December until 6 January, Police Scotland attended 565 house gatherings, 343 of which were found to have breached restrictions. In addition, 240 fixed-penalty notices were issued and 15 arrests were made. Police Scotland regularly updates such data on its website. We continue to work closely with it on the provision of a weekly Covid-19 bulletin, which is published on that site and summarises the position in various areas of policing, including enforcement of measures during the pandemic.

Alison Harris (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The Scottish Government recognises that house parties are a major source of the spread of coronavirus, which is why the police are being called on to attend to disperse them. Why are the very same police officers not being prioritised to receive the Covid-19 vaccine when the Government expects them, as part of their daily work, to put themselves at even greater risk by attending to break up such parties?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I say to Alison Harris that—regardless of the political party to which we might belong—I am certain that every single one of us credits Police Scotland and its officers for the difficult job that they do even in normal circumstances, let alone the risk they place themselves in during the pandemic.

I should say that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation prioritisation for the Covid-19 vaccine that we follow here in Scotland is exactly the same as the one that is being followed by the Conservative United Kingdom Government and the Governments of the other devolved UK nations. Priorities are set in order that the vaccine will be received by those who are at most risk of death or serious illness.

I can give an absolute assurance to Alison Harris, and indeed to any police officers or police staff who are listening, that when it comes to phase 2 of the vaccination process, the prioritisation of first responders, including Police Scotland, is very much at the forefront of our minds.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I move to question 6, cabinet secretary, can I ask you either to speak up or, at some point, to raise the volume, if you could? You are slightly quiet.

Covid-19 Restrictions (Enforcement by Police Scotland)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on Police Scotland’s enforcement of the current Covid-19 restrictions. (S5O-04942)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will try to both speak up and to sit slightly closer to my tablet, so hopefully you will hear me a little bit better, Presiding Officer.

As I said in my previous answer, I appreciate the hard work of Police Scotland throughout the pandemic and the professionalism that the police have shown. I speak weekly with the chief constable about enforcement of the Covid regulations. Enforcement of the restrictions is of course an operational matter for the chief constable and Police Scotland, and Police Scotland has been clear that it will operate under the principle of policing by consent. It will also follow the four Es approach, whereby the police will engage, explain, encourage and only then enforce as a last resort to protect public health. Of course, the police can accelerate to enforcement if they believe that the circumstances warrant it.

As the member will be aware, John Scott QC was commissioned by the chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority to review Police Scotland’s use of the new emergency powers to respond to the coronavirus outbreak. The group will report directly to the SPA. The latest data on enforcement is available on the Police Scotland website.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am interested in how information is now flowing between Public Health Scotland and Police Scotland—for example, around breaches of quarantine. Over the—[

Inaudible.

]—

lull especially, experts were telling us that quarantine was routinely being—[

Inaudible.

], that systems were incapable of responding to those situations and that that was leading, in turn, to outbreaks.

What work has the Scottish Government done to establish the extent to which that contributed to the spread of the virus and, looking forward, what is the plan for travel restrictions and enforcement for the period after lockdown?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Forgive me, I did not hear all of Alex Cole-Hamilton’s question, but I think that the majority of it is probably better directed towards the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, who is leading on issues around international travel, and indeed domestic travel.

However, there is of course a data-sharing arrangement between Public Health Scotland and Police Scotland whereby, if public health officials are unable to reach somebody they are trying to reach in relation to those who are quarantining or should be quarantining, they can pass that data on to Police Scotland for enforcement. A memorandum of understanding on that was developed between Public Health Scotland and Police Scotland. In addition, Police Scotland has tools that it can use for enforcement, or indeed it can issue a fixed-penalty notice if necessary in relation to any breaches of quarantine.

My understanding is that the figures on Police Scotland’s follow-up are routinely published in relation to international travel. However, if Alex Cole-Hamilton requires any further details, particularly around international travel, he may want to write to the transport secretary.

Covid-19 Restrictions (Education in Prisons)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what guidance it has produced regarding the provision of education in prisons under the current Covid-19 restrictions. (S5O-04939)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The

Scottish Government has produced guidance for colleges, universities and student accommodation providers during Covid-19; on 15 January 2021, we published further guidance on arrangements for the current term. Although the guidance is not specific to prisons, education provision across the public prison estate is modelled on our further and higher education systems, so the guidance acts as a guide for delivery within the prison community.

I know that education, like all other aspects of the prison regime, has been impacted by the necessary restrictions that have been put in place to manage the challenges of Covid. There is no alternative to face-to-face learning within prisons, and at a time when the whole country is being asked to minimise all but absolutely essential interactions and travel, prison education has been temporarily suspended.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, staff who provide learning across 13 prisons in Scotland are employed by Fife College and subcontracted by the Scottish Prison Service. As per guidance, the college has moved to remote learning, but staff who are subcontracted to the SPS—[

Inaudible

.]—their place of work, which can mean attending three different workplaces. Will the cabinet secretary clarify whether he believes that that approach falls within the current restrictive guidance and, if so, why it is different from the guidance that was issued in March last year?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As I said, prison education has now been temporarily suspended. I understand that none of the staff who teach in prison learning centres has been in the establishments since 12 January. However, I will double check that and confirm it for the member.

For clarity, the SPS has a contract with Fife College to provide education, but management of staff is an issue for Fife College. Stay-at-home regulations came into effect on 5 January 2021, and they place a duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to minimise the spread of coronavirus.

The member is welcome to raise those specific issues directly with the SPS, who can provide him with more information but, as I said, my understanding is that, from 12 January, Fife College advised its prison-based staff not to return to learning centres in prisons for the remainder of that week and, on the Friday of that week, it took the decision to furlough its prison-based staff until 12 February. I understand that the college will review that decision on 31 January and that it intends to bring its staff back from furlough at the earliest opportunity.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will take two brief supplementary questions—the word is “brief”.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The number of people awaiting trial in Scottish prisons has doubled since April last year, yet those on remand cannot access education programmes and often have little time out of their cells. What purposeful activity is currently on offer to those sitting in Scottish jails on remand and what is the cabinet secretary doing to help to reduce the ballooning remand population?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

With Covid and the current restrictions, that activity is very limited. The SPS is doing what it can within the restrictions to allow some element of purposeful activity, but public health will of course always be our number 1 priority. I am happy to ask the SPS to provide the member with a fuller answer on purposeful activity.

On the rising prison population, I am more than happy to write to the member with fuller detail about all the steps that we are taking in relation to remand prisoners and prisoners who have been sentenced. I share an absolute concern that the prison population in Scotland is too high, and we are taking detailed measures to ensure that we reduce that population in good time.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Given that some prisoners have been released early on licence, it is unlikely that they will have had full access to pre-release support. What support will be available in the community for them and for those who have community disposals to ensure that they get the support that is required to address their offending behaviour and rebuild their lives as part of the community?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is drifting a little off education in prisons, but feel free to answer it, cabinet secretary.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am happy to answer it, because Rhoda Grant has raised an important point.

We fund third sector organisations that help with prisoner integration on their release such as the Wise Group, Sacro and the Shine public social partnership, which works with the female offending population. That said, I am keen for the SPS to re-establish its throughcare officer support, which was suspended when the prison population rose quite significantly last year. If the member wishes, she can write to me or to the SPS directly and we can give her further detail on what support we can provide prisoners on release from prison.

Collection of Data on Sex and Gender (Draft Guidance)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what involvement the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and his officials had in the development of the draft guidance on collecting data on sex and gender. (S5O-04940)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The sex and gender in data working group is led by and reports to Scotland’s chief statistician. The draft guidance has been developed by the chief statistician in consultation with members of the working group and through engagement with stakeholders. The work of the group is transparent, and details of group membership as well as papers and minutes are published online. Membership relevant to the justice portfolio includes an official from the Scottish Government family law unit as well as representatives from the Scottish Prison Service and Police Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

[

Inaudible

.]—assault and domestic abuse are overwhelmingly male and the victims are overwhelmingly female. Given the recognised approach of prevention through education, protection through legislation and provision through support for women victims, how can the Scottish Government measure the scale of offending by men and any success in tackling that behaviour without collecting data on the sex of the offender? Does the cabinet secretary agree that it matters to record whether a rapist is male?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I might have missed the very end of Ms Lamont’s question, but I think that it was about the recording of rape. Again, I will correct the record—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that it was about recording the gender—whether male or female—of the person who committed the rape.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes, I believe that that is what the question was about.

I am happy to correct the record if I am incorrect, but my understanding is that, although Police Scotland may well record somebody’s gender, there are exceptions to that, and one of those would be in a case of rape, in which somebody is recorded by their biological sex. Of course, there are certain elements to the offence of rape that can be carried out only by those who were born male or who are post-operation trans male. I will double-check that and provide clarification to Johann Lamont.

On the broader point that Ms Lamont raises, she is absolutely right: domestic abuse is largely a crime that is committed by men towards female victims. The data that is currently gathered bears that out. The draft guidance says that it is up to organisations to decide whether to record the gender or the sex of the person concerned, but there are exceptions that organisations can make, depending on the circumstances.

As I said, it is draft guidance, and stakeholder responses are still being made. I encourage Johann Lamont, if she has not already done so, to respond by giving her views on the matter to the chief statistician.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask for shorter answers. I know that important matters are being discussed, but I have three more questioners to fit in.

Reduction in Criminal Trials (Support for Victims)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

5. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the decision by the Lord President to reduce the number of criminal trials, what further support it will provide to victims. (S5O-04941)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We have provided additional funding of £5.75 million to support organisations that provide front-line services to those who experience violence or domestic abuse. That is on top of annual budgets of £18.7 million to support victims and £12 million to tackle violence against women and girls. In addition, we increased our budget to provide compensation for victims of violent crime to more than £21 million. All in all, we have provided £57.5 million of funding to support victims and organisations that help victims.

Although the Lord President’s decision was a difficult one, I think that it was the correct one from a public health point of view. I have spoken to Victim Support Scotland about that decision, and I have further meetings lined up—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

John Mason, please. Sorry—had you finished, cabinet secretary?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Not quite. I have a number of meetings lined up with a number of other victim support organisations to address the issue.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Many of us feel that the justice system is very slow at the best of times, but the current delays mean that witnesses will forget what happened in an incident and victims will feel let down. Is there any way of speeding up the justice system?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I can confirm to John Mason that active conversations are taking place with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the legal profession and victims organisations, and between me and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, about tackling the backlog of court cases. We have funded the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service for external jury centres, which has increased capacity in the High Court and will result in capacity in the sheriff court returning to pre-Covid levels. The best thing that we can do is provide funding to tackle that backlog.

Of course, the budget will be announced next week. I would not want to pre-empt that, but I can say that the finance secretary is considering the provision of finance to tackle the backlog so that victims do not have to wait so long for their case to come to court.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will allow a brief supplementary question from Liam Kerr.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am very grateful, Presiding Officer. In September last year, the First Minister announced that a victim surcharge fund would open by the end of 2020, but we now know that it will not pay out a penny until March 2021. Furthermore, the reduction in criminal trials means that there is even less money going into that fund. What is the SNP going to do to mitigate the impact on the victim surcharge fund of the SNP’s delays to the scheme and the reduction in court trials?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I hope that you heard that, cabinet secretary. The sound was a bit strange at the beginning.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes. I got the general gist of it.

First, I am pleased that Liam Kerr mentioned the ground-breaking victim surcharge fund that the SNP Scottish Government has brought in. It will make a real, tangible difference to victims right across the board. He will forgive me—in the midst of a global pandemic, there may well be a few weeks of delay to certain matters, but it has been no more than that.

There has been an impact due to the reduction in the number of cases because of Covid, but the victim surcharge fund will be open to victims. I am delighted that victims right across the board and right across Scotland will have the ability to receive further support from the Scottish Government due to our ground-breaking victim surcharge fund.

Naloxone

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the roll-out of providing naloxone for front-line police officers to respond to suspected overdoses. (S5O-04943)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Police Scotland announced in November that the chief constable had approved proposals for a test of change for police officers to carry intranasal naloxone spray. The test of change will take place in three test bed areas: Falkirk, Dundee city and Glasgow east. Approximately 700 officers will be trained across the three areas and will be eligible to carry naloxone, with training expected to commence shortly, in the spring of this year. It will be the largest test of change for police to carry naloxone in the United Kingdom to date.

The programme will be delivered in collaboration with a number of key partners and agencies and with significant support from the Scottish drug deaths task force. It is anticipated that the test of change will provide a strong evidence base to inform policies around police carriage of naloxone in Scotland. The Scottish Government fully supports the initiative and looks forward to supporting a full roll-out throughout Police Scotland following the positive results that we expect the pilots to deliver.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detail on the pilots. However, the Minister for Drugs Policy announced recently that take-home naloxone kits will be given to people who are at high risk of accidental overdoses in order to urgently save lives. Can the cabinet secretary explain why a more cautious approach has been adopted by Police Scotland, with only very limited trials taking place in certain areas on a voluntary basis? When can we expect a roll-out throughout Scotland?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not agree with Mark Ruskell’s characterisation. I have spoken to the chief constable and his senior executive team about the issue, and they are very enthusiastic about doing everything within their powers to reduce drug deaths right across Scotland. It is a bold initiative. As I said, it is the largest test of change of its kind—in relation to the carriage of naloxone—anywhere in the UK.

I hope that the member will appreciate that it is important to gather evidence of how that carriage will, as we hope, save lives. Issues and concerns have been raised by the likes of the Scottish Police Federation, and it is important that we continue to work with staff unions and, indeed, staff associations so that we get them on board. I expect positive results after the test of change, and, if they are as positive as I expect them to be, I hope that we will be able to begin a full roll-out thereafter.