Scottish Parliament, 20 January 2022

268 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place. Face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

The first item of business is general question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would prefer short and succinct questions and answers to match.

Budget 2022-23 (West Scotland)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how the allocation of funding in its budget for 2022-23 will support local services in the West Scotland region. (S6O-00650)

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

The budget for next year delivers record levels of funding to help restore public services across the whole of Scotland including in West Scotland. It includes record funding for health, record funding to tackle child poverty and at least £2 billion in infrastructure initiatives. The local government finance settlement alone will provide more than £1.7 billion for vital day-to-day services such as schools and social care in the local authorities that are either wholly or partly within the West Scotland region.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Year after year, councils are targeted by the Scottish Government for core funding cuts and this year is no different, despite the council elections in May. The president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that both service cuts and council tax rises are “probably inevitable”. The cabinet secretary will know that all 32 council leaders, including Scottish National Party leaders, have unanimously condemned the Government’s budget as unacceptable. Some even say that it is the worst they have ever seen. Are those SNP council leaders wrong, and is the cabinet secretary really saying that every penny has been spent and that there is no more money anywhere in the budget to prevent service cuts and council tax hikes in the west of Scotland and across the country?

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

SNP council leaders do an exceptional job right across Scotland but, in terms of the overall budget, our position right now is challenging. There is a 5.2 per cent reduction in next year’s Scottish budget versus this year’s budget and we have made it clear that we cannot inflation proof any part of the budget. For local authorities, we have ensured that we protect the core budget in cash terms—I have already made the caveat about inflation—and on top of that we are providing additional funding for the pressures that local government has identified, not least in social care and education.

Land Speculation (Carbon Offsetting)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is planning to introduce to protect communities and ecosystems from land speculation associated with carbon offsetting. (S6O-00651)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Mechanisms already exist to support responsible investment in our land, including the Scottish land rights and responsibilities statement. However, I am very aware of concern about recent purchases and developments. Last year, I asked the Scottish Land Commission to review the rural land market and offer advice to the Government on how we can ensure that private investment in natural capital, which is needed to help Scotland to address the climate and nature crises, is done in a way that is helpful to our wider political priorities, including empowering and benefiting rural and island communities.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

We know that a range of companies and investors are already buying up land in Scotland to use for carbon offsetting.

BrewDog and Shell are two examples. Private investment funds and asset managers are generating and selling carbon credits. Even the Scottish National Investment Bank is putting money into that. Will the minister outline how much land has been bought for such speculation, how much public money has been invested in such approaches and what we can do within our limited powers to ensure that Scotland does not get sold for carbon-offsetting greenwash and to protect communities from displacement by green lairds?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I begin by stressing that I share many of Maggie Chapman’s views. My vision for a net zero Scotland is one in which more people can live and work sustainably on our land.

The member is right to highlight the risks and I assure her that I am alert to them. I am determined that increased investment in Scotland’s natural capital will deliver benefits for our local communities in line with those important just transition principles. That is why I have commissioned the work of the Scottish Land Commission, which I await, and why we are reviewing the Scottish land rights and responsibilities statement to ensure that it is as up to date as possible and that it addresses those contemporary challenges. I look forward to returning to Parliament to discuss those matters once I have that information in hand.

Video Doorbells

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has any concerns over the use of video doorbells in domestic properties. (S6O-00652)

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

Anyone who operates domestic closed-circuit television, such as a video doorbell, must ensure that they comply with the relevant laws and respect their neighbours’ privacy. People who believe that their privacy and data protection rights are not upheld should attempt to resolve that situation with their neighbour, and have the right to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner if that is not successful.

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

Video doorbells in communal areas of flats often record footage of anyone passing

via motion sensors. That footage is accessed remotely. It has been my experience that that factor can exacerbate neighbour disputes and the impact on vulnerable individuals. The suggestion from the Information Commissioner’s Office that those who are concerned about surveillance can request access to the footage that is held of them and ensure that it is deleted when it is no longer required is just fanciful.

Despite the reserved nature of data protection, how can we use existing powers over housing and community safety to work in partnership with housing organisations and Police Scotland to seek to review, regulate or restrict the use of video doorbells for residential flatted properties?

Ash Regan

The member makes many valid points. Avenues exist for people to challenge a neighbour’s use of a video doorbell. If they believe that domestic CCTV is used in an antisocial, harassing or intimidating way for instance, which might constitute a criminal matter, they will be able to contact the police.

The Scottish Government recognises that everyone has the right to feel safe in their community, which is why we are committed to tackling all forms of antisocial behaviour to create an inclusive and respectful society where individual and collective rights are supported and neighbour disputes are resolved fairly and swiftly. Police Scotland and local authorities lead on those interventions and a range of options are available to tackle this type of antisocial behaviour. We are committed to ensuring that all the agencies have the power and resources that they need.

Rodent Glue Traps

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to take forward the recommendations in the Scottish animal welfare commission’s “Report on the use of rodent glue traps in Scotland”, including the recommendation to ban such traps. (S6O-00653)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are committed to maintaining the highest welfare standards for animals, including wildlife. We have carefully considered the Scottish animal welfare commission's findings, alongside all other relevant evidence, and I am pleased to announce today that we intend to end the cruel practice of setting glue traps. The commission's report is clear that the use of glue traps relates to significant animal welfare issues, not only for rodents but for non-target species such as wild birds. Therefore, we will introduce legislation to ban glue traps in this parliamentary term.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I welcome that news. Glue traps are one of the cruellest methods of rodent control. As well as banning the use of glue traps, will we also ban their sale?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Our intention is to ban both the sale and the use of glue traps. However, implications arise from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which can undermine decisions that this Parliament makes, including in wholly devolved climate and environmental policy areas. We intend to work through those issues to achieve a ban.

Shotts Railway Station (Accessibility)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it and Transport Scotland have had with ScotRail and Network Rail regarding the accessibility of Shotts railway station. (S6O-00654)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Transport Scotland has been in dialogue with ScotRail and Network Rail to discuss a feasibility study on improving accessibility at Shotts station, which Transport Scotland commissioned following a meeting with local representatives and the now disbanded Shotts community council.

Unfortunately, progression of the study was delayed because of restrictions that were imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, analysis of the report is under way and it is anticipated that further discussions will be held with Network Rail in the coming weeks to enable the details to be finalised.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There has been previous work at Shotts railway station to install a new ramp, but its length and gradient are less than ideal, particularly in winter, for people who use wheelchairs or who have other mobility issues. As the minister suggested, I have previously contacted Transport Scotland about the issue on behalf of constituents, and there was agreement to conduct an accessibility review of the station. I understand that part of the responsibility for the matter is with Network Rail. Will the minister provide an update on the feasibility study and on whether the potential for a lift will be part of the review?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I commend Neil Gray and his predecessor, Alex Neil, for their diligence in this matter. All options for improving accessibility, including lifts, will be considered. I have asked my rail officials to keep Neil Gray updated as work progresses.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Has the Scottish Government had any communications with ScotRail regarding the impact on the most vulnerable rail users of reducing operating hours at Bellshill train station?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Ms Callaghan raises an important point. Clearly, technology has changed how people want to access information and buy tickets, but we must acknowledge that there is a place for staffed services on the ground where and when they are most needed.

The consultation offers the public the chance to have their say on how to provide an efficient and cost-effective service for the future. I encourage people to get involved—I include in that local MSPs and, in particular, groups that represent people who have support needs, because it is critical that we understand how any proposed changes might affect them.

Fuel Poverty

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action it is taking to address fuel poverty. (S6O-00655)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I know that the current situation with energy prices will cause many people to worry about the cost of their fuel bills. We share their concerns and, with the limited powers that are available to us, we are already taking action to address the situation, including through our £41 million winter support fund.

However,

with powers over the energy market reserved to Westminster, there must also be action from the United Kingdom Government. I have written to it, suggesting a number of measures that we believe it should consider, including a VAT cut and targeted support for people on low incomes.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The fuel well scheme, which was introduced by Dundee’s Scottish National Party administration and is supported by Scottish Government funding, provides financial support of between £90 and £150 to help those who are most in need with winter fuel costs.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, although the action by our SNP colleagues in Dundee is commendable, the UK Government, which has cut £20 a week from universal credit, needs to step up urgently and take responsibility for dealing with spiralling energy costs?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I absolutely agree. I commend Dundee City Council for its efforts to help people who are struggling with heating costs. That is an excellent example of the kind of schemes that local councils across Scotland have established through the winter support fund to provide vulnerable households with assistance.

Undoubtedly, the UK Government must do far more to protect households from the drastic increases in energy bills that are being talked about. Reversing the indefensible cut to universal credit would certainly help, but there are many other actions that we want the UK Government to take, including cutting VAT on energy bills, which would be one of the simplest short-term means of helping energy consumers. We need urgent action by the UK Government, because many households are already under severe financial pressure due to increasing energy prices.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Only a tiny fraction of all the homes in North East Fife—fewer than 1,000 out of 40,000—have access to the Scottish Government’s home insulation financial support packages. As we are in not only a climate emergency but an energy emergency, what will the Government do to speed up and expand that provision so that more people can access support?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member might be aware that we have invested almost £1 billion in home energy efficiency programmes since 2009, and we have set out our commitment to invest more than £1.5 billion to decarbonise properties and make them more energy efficient in the coming years. I have no doubt that the area-based schemes that we are operating in North East Fife will continue to benefit his constituents. However, we want to see those schemes expanded and developed in the future, to ensure that we make properties more energy efficient and that we meet our climate change targets.

Access Bikes Scheme

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment criteria it will use to determine whether the access bikes scheme represents good value for money. (S6O-00656)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The pilot scheme is designed to test whether providing interest-free loans can improve bike ownership and alleviate transport poverty. The fact that we have received 348 expressions of interest so far shows that there is demand for such provision. We will assess whether the scheme represents good value for money by the number of bikes that have been purchased by September 2022. Cycling UK will provide a report on the scheme’s operation after year 1. The scheme is in its infancy, and we will judge its effectiveness after the pilot period rather than after a few weeks, as well as continuing to develop the scheme in the light of on-going feedback.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, but I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask why a scheme that has access to £390,000 of public funds to offer 500 loans has failed to provide even one loan three months after it opened. Set against that, I am speaking to the social enterprise East Ayrshire Cycle Station, which rescues unwanted bikes, refurbishes them and sells them to the public at a fraction of what they cost new. So far, it has done 650 bikes, and it would like to extend an invitation to the minister to join me on a visit at some point. The organisation has been hugely popular in encouraging many people in the area to take up cycling, but it is now struggling to obtain funds to go further. With that in mind, will the minister commit to making funds equal to or greater than that allocated to his loan scheme available to support existing successful local initiatives such as Cycle Station?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

We support a wide range of organisations, including those that provide cycle repair and refurbishment. I would be happy to explore that issue in more detail with the member if he has specific local examples that I should bear in mind.

I find it a little bit odd that, during the winter, the Conservatives were claiming both that we had splurged £400,000 and also that we had not issued a single penny. I congratulate them on the intellectual agility that is necessary to believe both of those false claims simultaneously.

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the designation of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization biosphere reserves in Scotland as areas of significance for sustainable development and climate change. (S6O-00657)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

There are two biosphere reserves in Scotland: Galloway and Southern Ayrshire, and Wester Ross, which together are home to more than 100,000 people. Both of Scotland’s biospheres have received funding from our enterprise agencies, and we support the biosphere approach to community empowerment through the environment when that is chosen and sustained by a local community.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The Galloway and Southern Ayrshire biosphere, which covers my constituency, has had significant support from South of Scotland Enterprise, local government, a range of private businesses, environmental non-governmental organisations and community representatives. It is identified in the local development plans and regional spatial strategies for Ayrshire and southern Scotland. Does the minister agree that it is a great shame that the UNESCO biospheres appear to have been missed by the draft national performance framework 4? In recognising the importance of the key strategic values on which they lead—sustainability and contributing to the wider social, economic, environmental and tourism aspirations of the area—can the minister commit to ensuring that UNESCO biospheres are truly recognised and highlighted in the new NPF4?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In line with the member’s comments, the Scottish Government agrees that participation can build a community’s ability to tackle challenges and sustain a healthy, vibrant community. UNESCO’s man and the biosphere programme is based on that bottom-up, stakeholder-driven initiative; therefore, biospheres are inherently an initiative that must be developed and sustained locally.

Although the draft national planning framework 4 does not specifically name the two biosphere reserves, it clearly sets out that

“Local development plans should identify and protect locally, regionally, nationally ... valued natural assets, landscapes, species and habitats.”

In addition to the current parliamentary scrutiny of the draft NPF4, we are consulting widely until the end of March and would welcome comments on our draft to support what I hope will be a finalised NPF4 that will address those issues, which we can bring back to Parliament for approval.

Covid-19 Restrictions (Christmas)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Does the First Minister agree with Pete Wishart, who is currently the Scottish National Party’s longest serving MP at Westminster, who said earlier this week that it was “a fair point” that her Government had imposed too many Covid restrictions over Christmas?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am not sure that that is a fair representation of Pete Wishart’s comments.

First, I want to take the opportunity to recognise that Pete Wishart is, I think, Scotland’s longest serving member of Parliament, which goes to show what an outstanding service he does for his constituents. I am sure that Douglas Ross will join me in taking the opportunity to pay tribute to Pete Wishart’s public service.

I think that we introduced a series of balanced protective measures over the Christmas period, which, coupled with the extraordinary response of the public in changing their behaviour and, of course, the extraordinary success of the booster programme, means that we are, thankfully, now in a better position than we might have been when we looked ahead before the Christmas period.

However, we not in a position that allows us any complacency. Covid rates are still high and there are still significant uncertainties ahead, which is why doctors, nurses and national health service managers and trade unions all expressed some concern about yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister to lift all restrictions at this stage, including the requirement to wear face coverings.

We will continue to take a proportionate and balanced set of decisions to get through the next—and, I hope, final—phase of the pandemic and to keep the country as safe as we can while we do so.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister said that what I put to her was not a fair representation of Pete Wishart’s comments. It was a direct quote. When asked whether

the First Minister in Scotland had introduced too many Covid restrictions over Christmas, his response was:

“That is a fair point.”

He agreed with the premise of the question.

The First Minister went on to laud Pete Wishart’s parliamentary career; perhaps she could listen to him, when he, an elected SNP representative, said that the restrictions that were imposed over Christmas were too much.

The First Minister imposed restrictions that had a massive impact on jobs, businesses and people’s mental and physical health, but we can now see that they were not needed. It was the Scottish public’s actions, not the SNP Government’s restrictions, that got this right. The First Minister has tried to build a reputation for caution during the pandemic, but she was far too gung-ho in imposing extra restrictions last month. Will she now accept that her Government went too far?

The First Minister

The public did comply—they complied with what the Government asked them to do.

I think that Douglas Ross is striking rather a desperate note right now. If he is seriously describing Pete Wishart showing—as all elected representatives should—some respect for the point that somebody was making to him as evidence that he agrees with Douglas Ross rather than with the Scottish Government, all that that says to people is that Douglas Ross is showing rather more political desperation than even we thought he might have done.

We have taken a balanced approach.

“Let me just say what I think. At the moment, this cautious approach is the one that we should be taking.”

That is my sentiment, but those are not actually my words. Those are the words of Sandesh Gulhane MSP on BBC Scotland on 7 January. If Douglas Ross is basing his entire line of questioning to me on something that Pete Wishart said, what is his response to his own MSP saying that the cautious approach is

“the one that we should be taking”?

In addition, Professor Susan Michie, who is a member of the United Kingdom Government’s scientific advisory group for emergencies, said:

“Scotland is doing something that is very good from a public health point of view”.

The Scottish approach is in line with the Welsh Government’s approach and the Northern Irish Government’s approach. We are taking a sensible approach through this. That is why infection levels, although they are now, thankfully, dropping in all parts of the UK, are lower in Scotland than they are in England right now. Over the festive period, the number of people who were in hospital was proportionately lower.

We are not out of the woods yet, although things look far more positive. I will continue to take a cautious approach because, frankly, the price of throwing caution to the wind is not paid by Governments; the price of throwing caution to the wind is paid by people across the country in ill health and, in some cases, serious illness and death. I do not think that I should impose that price on the people of Scotland.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Serious illness and death come not only from Covid; they come from restrictions being put in place that have a massive impact on people’s mental and physical health.

We have been living with the pandemic for two years. The First Minister would do better to respond to the points that have been made. She may not like them, but she should answer those points and questions rather than launching personal attacks on Opposition politicians who raise them.

Not only did the First Minister impose unnecessary restrictions, but she actually wanted to go further. Throughout December, the First Minister repeatedly claimed that the UK Government was holding her back from putting Scotland into lockdown again. She wanted to close down the economy, no matter the impact that that would have on Scottish jobs and businesses.

When her restrictions were introduced, the First Minister promised compensation. Now that we are coming out of those restrictions, that compensation still has not been delivered to many businesses. They have not received a single penny. This week, the Federation of Small Businesses said:

“Thousands of Scottish businesses needlessly go under every year because of late payment.”

Will the First Minister accept that her Government is currently the worst offender in Scotland in making late payments?

The First Minister

No. I say to Douglas Ross that it is the pandemic that is causing the serious impact on businesses and individuals across Scotland, the UK, Europe and the entire world. Much as we might all like to be able to do so—and, believe me, I would love to be able to do so—we cannot just magic that away. No country is able to do that.

Since Douglas Ross returned to this chamber, he has stood here at every key juncture in the management of the pandemic and has opposed the decisions that the Scottish Government has taken, even at times when exactly the same decisions were being taken by his colleagues in the Westminster Government. He has decided to take an entirely opportunistic approach to the handling of a global pandemic. People will judge that, and I do not think that they will judge it kindly.

If we had listened to Douglas Ross over the past months, we would not have had sensible measures such as asking people to wear face coverings. We would not have had other mitigations in our schools. We would not have sensibly advised people to work from home. Therefore, we would not be in the stronger position that we are now, when we are able to lift those protective measures from Monday of next week. Given that Douglas Ross has called it wrong at literally every juncture of the pandemic, forgive me if I do not start listening to him now.

On business support—[

Interruption

.]

Incidentally, on the issue of Opposition politicians quoting people, Douglas Ross opened his line of questioning today by misrepresenting, in my view, Pete Wishart. Then he took issue with the fact that I used a direct quotation from Sandesh Gulhane. I will repeat that direct quote:

“At the moment, this cautious approach is the one that we should be taking.”

On business support, much of that support will not be available to businesses suffering the same impacts south of the border. [

Interruption.

] If Douglas Ross does not think that they are suffering the same impact, I suggest that he needs to get out a little bit more.

All local authorities have begun processing payments. Some have made very good progress and say that they have already paid almost all the hospitality and leisure businesses that are eligible for support. All local authorities are on track to complete 100 per cent of payments to hospitality and leisure businesses that were affected by Christmas cancellations and physical distancing by 31 January. That is support that is available here but not available elsewhere. We will continue to do the right thing by businesses.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister needs to make her mind up. She accuses the Conservatives of opposing every measure that she puts forward, but then, in the same breath, she accuses the Conservatives of wanting a cautious approach.

It is not opportunistic to trust that the people of Scotland can learn to live with Covid rather than having to live with her Government’s restrictions. Those restrictions are having a massive impact on jobs and on businesses and communities across Scotland, which are not getting the money or the support that they were promised.

The First Minister has got the big decisions wrong over the past few months. She was too quick to bring in unnecessary Covid restrictions, too late to launch mass vaccination centres, too late to change the self-isolation rules and too late to get funding to businesses that need it. The First Minister says that she does not shy away from mistakes that she has made in the handling of the pandemic. Can she finally just admit that, by introducing the tough restrictions here in Scotland before Christmas and by wanting to introduce even tougher restrictions, she has simply made the wrong call?

The First Minister

I will let the people of Scotland judge the impact of the calls that I and my Government have made, but let me say this: right now, on first doses, second doses, third doses and booster vaccination doses, Scotland is the most vaccinated part of the United Kingdom. If Douglas Ross’s proposition is that we left it too late, what on earth does that say about his colleagues in the Westminster Government?

The Office for National Statistics figures this week show that infection levels in England are over 20 per cent higher than those in Scotland. I do not think that it is a competition, but if Douglas Ross wants to make these comparisons, there is the data.

I say gently to Douglas Ross, because I know that he is having a tough time politically, that it is entirely inconsistent—there is no consistency in this—to say, as his health spokesperson did, that the cautious approach is the one that we should be taking, and then oppose every cautious measure that we choose to take, for opportunistic reasons.

I suggest that Douglas Ross gets his own house in order, perhaps suggesting to more of his colleagues that they obey the rules that are in place when they are in place, and leaves this Government to get on with steering this country responsibly and in a mature, grown-up fashion through the global pandemic.

Offshore Wind Projects (Human Rights)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. The First Minister has said that the auction of major offshore wind projects was

“one of the most significant days ... that Scotland had seen in a very long time.“

I welcome inward investment, but it should not come at a cost to the Scottish economy, our just transition or our values.

Let us be clear about what has happened. The Scottish National Party Government has sold, on the cheap, the right to profit from Scotland’s energy transition to multinational companies that have questionable human rights records. One of the new owners of Scotland’s sea bed was fined $54 million for bribing Nigerian officials and $88 million for bribing Indonesian officials. Another was found to have committed human rights abuses at one of its construction sites, destroyed villages in Myanmar and relied on forced labour and used slavery to build pipelines. Surely those are not people with whom the Scottish Government should be doing business.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Crown Estate Scotland made the decisions on the companies—the consortiums—that would be awarded the status to develop projects around our coast. It has appropriate processes in place to do due diligence.

However, the sale is one of the most exciting things for Scotland in a long, long time, which is probably why Scottish Labour is being so negative about it. Not only does it give us the potential to meet our own energy needs from renewable sources, but it positions us with the ability to be a major exporter of renewable energy, including green hydrogen, and it gives enormous potential for our supply chain. The estimate is that for every gigawatt of power that will be generated from the projects, there will be £1 billion of investment in our supply chain. For the first time, of course, the companies had to set out in statements what they will do to support our supply chain.

The sale is good news. Complicated consenting and planning processes lie ahead, but it offers massive potential to Scotland—potential that we intend to seize with both hands.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I agree about that opportunity. However, values matter. Just last week, the Scottish National Party was right to accuse the Tory Government of tolerating human rights abuses as a “price worth paying” to secure deals for the United Kingdom. This week, the SNP has done the same. In effect, Nicola Sturgeon is saying that it is bad when the Tories do it but is okay when the SNP does it.

There is another concerning part of the deal. One of the new owners of Scotland’s seabed is the Swedish state-owned energy company, which can now use its part of the Scottish sea bed to keep energy bills down for people in Sweden. The First Minister once promised a Scottish state-owned energy company. In fact, the SNP Government spent almost £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on the project before scrapping the plans. Why is it that the people of Sweden now own a bigger stake in Scottish energy supply and distribution than do the Scottish people? The SNP is not “Stronger for Scotland” but stronger for Sweden.

The First Minister

Sweden is an independent country that has full control over energy—which, of course, this Government and this Parliament do not have. Anas Sarwar might want to reflect a little more on that.

Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport is talking about the opportunities and consultation on our plans for a public energy agency to steer such developments in the future.

This is a thoroughly positive opportunity for Scotland. It is no wonder, then, that Scottish Labour just wants to girn about it and be negative. That has characterised Scottish Labour for a long time and is why its members are sitting where they are, these days. They are not on the main Opposition benches, and they are certainly not on the Government benches.

I will just repeat what the opportunity is. It is an opportunity to meet our own energy needs from renewable sources and to keep energy costs down; to export renewable energy to other countries; to grow a supply chain and create thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of jobs; and, of course, to raise revenues for the Scottish Government, for public services in Scotland—£700 million from the lease options alone and then, when the projects are operational, rental fees in addition to that. This is a thoroughly positive opportunity, so perhaps, just for once, Anas Sarwar could find it within himself to be positive about the potential of Scotland.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I have said that I welcome inward investment. I have said that I welcome and recognise that opportunity. However, that was such a desperate and poor reply.

The First Minister often accuses Opposition parties of demonstrating a brass neck. There was a brass neck being shown by the First Minister in that reply—accusing the Tories of having bad values on human rights, but accepting bad human rights values as being part of the price that is worth paying for Scottish opportunities.

It is about the Scottish supply chain, Scottish companies and Scottish jobs. The sad reality is that the SNP Government does not understand economic development. Scottish bridges are built with Chinese steel. Scottish wind farm turbines are built in Indonesia. Ferries are built not in Scottish shipyards but in Poland and Turkey. Now, Scotland’s sea bed will be owned by foreign multinationals that have woeful human rights records.

We have heard before a list of promises from the First Minister. A state-owned energy company was promised but never delivered.

The Presiding Officer

Question, please.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That Scotland would become the Saudi Arabia of renewables was promised, but never delivered. One hundred and thirty thousand green jobs were promised, but never delivered.

The Presiding Officer

Question please, Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

After 15 years, is not it the case that the SNP Government has sold out Scottish jobs, sold off Scottish assets and, now, sold out Scottish values?

The First Minister

I have been sitting here reflecting, almost disbelievingly, that Anas Sarwar has just accused me of behaving like a Tory, the day after his party threw open its doors to a Tory MP. There is now so little difference between Labour and the Tories that their MPs are interchangeable. When it comes to brass necks, I think that Mr Sarwar will be polishing his for the rest of the day.

Anas Sarwar and his many predecessors as Scottish Labour leader—I have to say that I have forgotten how many predecessors he has had—have been trotting out those negative talk-down-Scotland tropes for years, but all that has happened is that they have gone further and further down in the ratings in Scottish politics and lost more and more votes, while my party’s share of the vote has increased.

I came into this chamber today expecting political desperation from Douglas Ross; I think that I have seen even more from Anas Sarwar, which probably says all that we need to know.

I will get on with encouraging the potential for Scottish renewable energy, Scottish jobs and revenue for the Scottish Government, and I will be delighted, at the next time of asking, to put that record before the Scottish people. I am not so sure that Anas Sarwar will be quite so keen.

The Presiding Officer

We will now take supplementary questions.

Energy Prices

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Increasing energy prices are of very real concern. What discussions has the First Minister had with the Westminster Government on help for families to combat the spiralling financial costs of the energy crisis?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The energy and cost of living crisis is increasing on a daily basis. It is of deep concern to this Government, and we are taking a range of measures, including our £41 million winter support fund and seven new benefits aimed at low-income households. Shortly, we will double the Scottish child payment.

Of course, key powers remain reserved to Westminster. We have written to the United Kingdom Government countless times about poverty. Just last week, we set out further actions that it must urgently take to tackle rising energy bills.

If a Government, as is the case with the Westminster Government, is so busy trying to deal with self-inflicted sleaze and scandal, and daily defections and deflections, its focus is not on the cost of living crisis but on itself. That is both deeply regrettable and deeply serious, because right now the Westminster Government is neglecting the real issue that people are facing right across the country.

Diabetes

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Diabetes rates are rapidly increasing across Scotland, with diagnoses more than doubling in the past 20 years. Last week, Diabetes Scotland reported that access to the correct diabetes technology, such as insulin pumps, can be life changing for patients, but just over 10 per cent of 18-year-olds with diabetes use insulin pumps. The gap in diabetes outcomes between affluent and deprived areas in Scotland is widening. What urgent action can be put in place to ensure that that worrying trend is reversed?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is an important issue and we will work with Diabetes Scotland to take forward the findings of the report. Making sure that not only young people but people of all ages have access to insulin pumps is important, but it is also vital that they are used effectively. We have made improvements on that in years gone by, and we will continue to focus on making further improvements for the sake of people across Scotland who live with the condition.

National Insurance Contributions (Local Authorities)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

The First Minister will be aware of the anger in local authorities across Scotland that the Scottish Government is not planning to compensate them for the upcoming rise in national insurance contributions in the way that councils in England and Wales are being compensated. That will eventually cause further cuts to already-stressed services. How does the First Minister justify leaving Scottish local authorities worse off from this change than their English counterparts?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The United Kingdom Treasury block grant to the Scottish budget does not identify consequential funding for national insurance contributions, so there are no identifiable consequentials to pass on. However, we are providing to local government a settlement that is fair and, crucially, affordable. The overall local government funding package of more than £12.5 billion represents an increase in real terms of 5.1 per cent and, in revenue alone, it is a real-terms increase of 4.9 per cent. We will continue to treat local government as fairly as possible and support it as far as we possibly can in delivering the services that people across the country rely on.

Livestock Worrying

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As the First Minister will be aware, my Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 is now in force, and it provides Police Scotland and the courts with greater powers to investigate those who allow their dogs to worry, attack or kill livestock in Scotland’s countryside. Livestock worrying can have serious animal welfare implications as well as significant financial and emotional impacts on farmers. In light of the approach of lambing season, can the First Minister outline what action the Scottish Government is taking to promote public awareness of the updated legislation?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I again congratulate Emma Harper on her success with the legislation, which is extremely important. I can assure her that the Scottish Government will take appropriate steps to raise awareness of it and, of course, we will do everything that we can, working with partners as appropriate, to ensure appropriate enforcement of it. It is a significant step forward and one that I know will be particularly welcomed across rural Scotland.

Free Personal Care

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Since the extension of free personal care to people under 65, no data has been recorded on the number of people who have now received such care. We have seen problems during the pandemic for people accessing care packages, with many care packages being removed or cut. More and more people are reporting that it is individuals with complex needs and life-limiting conditions who are not getting that care.

Will the Scottish Government agree today to establish a national recovery group, alongside the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to ensure that people who are entitled to free personal care get that care, and that free personal care is fully restored and delivered across Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, everybody who is entitled to free personal care should get free personal care. Entitlement to free personal care in Scotland goes far beyond the situation in other parts of the United Kingdom.

I will not give a commitment today to the member’s proposition. I will consider it carefully, but I will not say, before I have had a chance to consider it, whether I think that it is the right way forward.

I will also look at the issue of data and come back to the member with an indication of when data is likely to be published, which will give a sense of how many people are taking up free personal care entitlement.

Flammable Cladding (Lancefield Quay)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Constituents in Lancefield Quay in Glasgow are living with what have been deemed 22 intolerable risks to life as a result of flammable cladding on their building. They have been struggling to get a single building assessment on the cladding, which was promised in June 2021. What could the First Minister and her Government do to assist my constituents in obtaining that information, as a matter of urgency?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I know, from my position as constituency MSP, how important that is. The Government is taking steps to ensure that single building assessments take place. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to write to the member with a full update on that work and what the next steps are.

BBC Licence Fee

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

What is the Scottish Government’s response regarding the impact on Scotland of reports that the BBC licence fee will be cut after the current funding deal ends in 2027?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am sure that every member across the chamber will, from time to time, have gripes about or criticisms of the BBC, but it is an important part of our broadcasting framework and we should all defend the principle of public service broadcasting.

I am deeply concerned by the announcements, or hints of announcements, that we heard earlier this week from the United Kingdom Government. I suspect—there is some evidence—that that was an attempt to divert attention from the Prime Minister’s troubles. Nevertheless, all of us have to stand up for those principles and guard against the UK Government and the damage that it seems willing to do to key institutions, often just to try to save its own skin.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister what impact the United Kingdom Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill will have on devolved functions. (S6F-00675)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government has profound concerns about the bill. We are currently considering its potential impact on areas that are devolved. If we conclude that there is an impact on the legislative competence of this Parliament, we will lodge a legislative consent memorandum, setting out the relevant provisions. There is no doubt, however, that the bill will have significant impacts on devolved services, local authorities and communities.

The Scottish ministers have written to the UK Government in relation to the bill five times, outlining our significant concerns, along with the Welsh Government, which shares those concerns.

I note that the House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights said yesterday that the reforms to the asylum system that are proposed in the bill

“would fail to meet the UK’s human rights obligations and risk exacerbating the already unacceptable backlog”.

We will continue to urge the UK Government to introduce a humane, effective and efficient system that delivers for people living in Scotland, including those who are fleeing war and persecution.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The Prime Minister’s intention to use the military to prevent asylum seekers reaching the UK is deeply immoral, as is the possibility of trading access to Covid vaccines for the right to open detention centres in other countries.

The First Minister will be aware of the appalling circumstances faced by many asylum seekers in Scotland, including in Aberdeen, in my region. They are accommodated in hotels, but not given basic support or things like toiletries, culturally sensitive food, language classes and so on. Although we do not have the powers to counter those racist policies, we can make sure that asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland are treated better.

I am sure that the First Minister will join me in condemning the plans by the Prime Minister and his cruel and inhumane Home Office. Will she also outline what lessons have been learned from the tragic death at the Park Inn in Glasgow, and say what more we can do to prevent the growth in the use of institutional accommodation across Scotland and improve the support available through local authorities so that asylum seekers are treated with dignity?

The First Minister

There is a lot of detail in that question and I undertake to ask the relevant minister to write to Maggie Chapman with more detailed answers than time will allow me to give today, including on the question of lessons learned from the dreadful circumstances around the Park Inn in Glasgow.

The UK Government’s plans to divert vessels in the channel are dangerous. It is important that we are all clear that they will significantly increase risk to life. Médecins Sans Frontières has stated:

“Pursuing a policy of forced returns and engaging in pushback tactics is dangerous, inhumane and is in breach of international law. It puts lives at risk at sea.”

People seeking asylum in the UK should be accommodated in communities where they can begin to rebuild their lives and have access to essential services and the support and advocacy that they need, and so that they can make a contribution to those communities. The UK Government is failing to provide that.

The Home Office has not yet shared its review of the tragedy at the Park Inn but, as I said, I will ask the Scottish Government minister responsible to write to the member with further details on that.

The comments that we saw at the weekend about the use of the military—a bit like the comments on the BBC—were an attempt to divert attention from the self-inflicted troubles of the Prime Minister. We should not be using the BBC, and we should absolutely not be using refugees and asylum seekers, in that way. I say “we”, but it is the UK Government that is using refugees and asylum seekers in that way. It is utterly despicable and is another sign of the moral decay at the heart of the UK Government.

The Presiding Officer

Stephanie Callaghan is joining us online.

Care Home Places

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to Public Health Scotland’s census data, which states that three out of four care home places are now provided by private companies. (S6F-00699)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Although the percentage of private sector care homes has increased, the overall balance of provision in care home places between the public and private sectors has not changed markedly over the past decade. The number of care home places has remained relatively stable, which reflects our policy to support people at home for as long as possible.

As we move towards the creation of the national care service, an ethical approach will be at the heart of how we commission and deliver services. All social care providers across Scotland from the independent, third and public sectors will continue to be subject to the same regulations, standards and guidelines, ensuring that the continuation of high-quality care home provision is and will continue to be the priority of the Scottish Government.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Given the prevalence of private care home provision across Uddingston and Bellshill, and Scotland more widely, how will the national care service deliver improved terms and conditions for private care home staff and ensure high-quality care for residents?

The First Minister

There is no doubt that the national care service will be the most significant change in public services, probably since the establishment of the national health service. We are committed to delivering a service by the end of this parliamentary session in order to ensure that everyone gets the high-quality care that they are entitled to, regardless of where they live in Scotland.

The consultation on the establishment of the national care service proposed that it will oversee the delivery of care, improve standards, ensure enhanced pay and conditions for workers and provide better support for unpaid carers, as well as supporting ethical commissioning of care.

All of that will lead to better outcomes for those who rely on our care services. It is important, difficult and, in many aspects, controversial work. I hope that by the end of this session of Parliament it will be a significant public sector reform that future generations will look back on as fondly as we look on the establishment of the national health service.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Irrespective of the status of the sector, the employees in social care are predominantly female and are predominantly low paid—it is still the case that people can get paid more working in hospitality and retail. There were vacancies before the pandemic, and the situation has been made worse by the pandemic. Will the First Minister back the GMB and Unite the union in their campaigns to pay care workers £15 per hour, starting with an immediate rise to £12 per hour in April?

The First Minister

We are increasing the pay of those who work in the care sector. It is important that, while Jackie Baillie sets out the problem, as she always does, it is the Scottish Government that is delivering the solutions. We are increasing the pay of social care workers, and we will continue to do that. We of course have to do that within the bounds of affordability, and we will do so, but we are also committed to a national care service that will have absolutely at its heart collective bargaining and better pay and conditions for social care staff.

We will continue to get on with doing the hard work that delivers the outcomes that Jackie Baillie calls for.

R100 Broadband Programme (Lot 1)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

5. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the delivery of lot 1 of the R100 programme. (S6F-00677)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Of course, broadband investment is reserved to Westminster. However, given the United Kingdom Government’s failure to deliver on that, alongside its failure to deliver on many other things, we have had to step in and make a difference.

The R100 north contract was signed in December 2020. Despite the pandemic, a huge amount of preparatory work has been completed since then. A remodelling exercise ensured that every connection that is delivered will be full fibre. Survey work has been done for more than 5,000 properties and 16 subsea cables, which will deliver vital backhaul connectivity to 15 Scottish islands.

We anticipate that, by the end of June, the north lot contract will have delivered more than 4,000 connections. The R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme also ensures that everyone who wants a superfast broadband connection can now have one. Around 750 connections have already been delivered in the north of Scotland.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I am not surprised by the First Minister’s response. She will no doubt continue to try to fool the public into believing that the roll-out of broadband is reserved.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The practical roll-out of broadband is devolved to the Scottish Government. Like the patience of people in rural Scotland, that line is wearing thin.

The Scottish National Party talked up the scheme as being about reaching 100 per cent, but rural communities are not getting what they expected. Nearly 37,000 properties in lot 1 will not get fibre from the main scheme, and the voucher scheme that the First Minister talks about is delivering nothing, with an uptake of only 4 per cent so far. Surely the First Minister should rename the R100 scheme that the SNP promised as the R40 scheme—and it is five years late. The SNP promised that its flagship R100 scheme would be delivered to everybody by 2021. Will the First Minister now apologise to people and businesses in rural and remote communities who might not get connected at all? Most of them will not get connected until 2027.

The First Minister

Through the R100 contracts, the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme and, of course, commercial coverage, we have ensured that every premises in Scotland can access a superfast broadband connection. Despite telecommunications being reserved—that is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact in the Scotland Act 1998, which Finlay Carson is free to check—to date, the UK Government’s contribution to the R100 programme totals £31.5 million, which is 5 per cent of the total, compared with £579 million invested by the Scottish Government. The UK Government’s own project gigabit has yet to award a single procurement contract.

Again, the Scottish Government is getting on with the job of delivering connections while all that the Scottish Conservatives can do is gripe and girn about it.

The Presiding Officer

I remind members to desist from shouting across the chamber when we are trying to hear questions and answers.

ScotRail Ticket Offices

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to ScotRail’s plans to cut ticket office opening hours at 120 stations and to close three ticket offices entirely. (S6F-00698)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The aim of the review is, of course, the modernisation of railway stations. It is clear to most people that technology has changed how people want to access information and tickets, but we also need to acknowledge, of course, the importance of local staff services on the ground where and when they are needed. The consultation offers the public the chance to have their say on how to provide an efficient modern service for the future, and we encourage people to get involved in it. We will await the consultation findings before any final decisions are made on the proposals.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Ticket office staff play a crucial role in making our railways safe and accessible. Many of those workers go above and beyond, such as those at Dalmuir whose quick thinking recently saved a life. A properly staffed rail network is essential to reduce car use and meet Scotland’s climate ambitions. However, under the Government, rail is being undermined. ScotRail is cutting 300 services per day, fares will be hiked up by 3.8 per cent next week, ticket desks are shutting, and there is still no fully integrated smart ticketing for passengers. To drive modal shift, the rail network must be more attractive and more accessible to passengers. Will the First Minister therefore stop these ticket office closures?

The First Minister

We will consult on what a modern system of railway stations and offices looks like. I absolutely agree on the importance of ticket office staff and, where they are necessary, it is important to recognise that. However, everybody knows that, in many railway stations, the ticket process is now automated. We have to reflect that in how those services are delivered in future, and it is right that we consult properly so that we come to the right balanced decisions. We are investing heavily in our railways and we will continue to do so to ensure that they provide a service that the people of Scotland need and deserve, and have a right to expect.

To continue the theme of Opposition parties calling for things while this Government gets on with delivery, this Government is in the process of bringing ScotRail into public ownership, delivering the nationalisation that Scottish Labour only talks about.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Given that passenger numbers on the railways are dramatically down, and ScotRail therefore depends on the public purse for an increased subsidy, does the First Minister agree that ScotRail has to look at its costs and reduce them if possible?

The First Minister

W

e have to make sure that we have a modern and efficient service and, of course, one that provides taxpayers with value for money. Right now, we are supporting our rail franchises with more than £1 billion, including £450 million of additional funding via the pandemic emergency measures. We will continue to do so in order to ensure that Scotland has the railway service that it needs and deserves. As I said earlier, we will bring ScotRail into public ownership, which I think the majority of people will welcome.

Covid-19 Restrictions (Cancer Diagnosis)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Fifty per cent of lung cancer patients are diagnosed at stage 4, and mortality rates for that cancer are high. During Covid restrictions, 25 per cent fewer people were diagnosed, and there were 25 per cent fewer people in treatment. Does the First Minister recognise that Covid restrictions have a significant impact on many other conditions that will be felt long after the Covid pandemic has passed?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I do. If memory serves me correctly, I think that we had an exchange on this important issue last week. Early diagnosis of cancer, and the earliest possible staging of cancer, is vital. That is why we are investing so heavily in the detect cancer early programme, and why we have established, or are establishing, fast-track cancer diagnostic centres so that people with less common symptoms of cancer can get the same fast-track access—and, we would hope, fast-track diagnosis—as those on the urgent suspicion of cancer referral pathway. That is really important, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring the earliest possible diagnosis.

Of course, staging is not the only important thing; we then need to ensure that people have quick access to high-quality care and treatment, and that is a big part of our focus in cancer services.

Child Poverty Targets

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

United Kingdom inflation is hitting a 30-year high and energy costs for households are spiralling, with no action from the UK Government, and the UK Government has cut the standard rate of universal credit by £20 per week. Will the First Minister outline what impact all that has had on her Government’s ability to meet her child poverty targets, and say whether she supports the Poverty Alliance’s campaign for the UK Government to scrap the punitive welfare cap?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I fully support the Poverty Alliance campaign. I will be blunt about it: the UK Government is making the poorest poorer, and it is doing so knowingly, which is utterly despicable. The removal of the £20-a-week universal credit uplift has impacted on some of the poorest families in our society. Those actions are making it more difficult for the Scottish Government to live up to our responsibilities to tackle child poverty.

However, we are doing more—for example, we are doubling the Scottish child payment. A payment like that does not exist in any other part of the UK and, having established it, we are now taking steps to double it. We are doing everything that we can, but if we were not up against a Government that is pulling in the opposite direction, we would be able to do more and have a much greater impact. That is, of course, a powerful argument for having all the levers in the hands of Scottish Governments and the Scottish Parliament, and not leaving them in the hands of Westminster Governments.

Nuclear Weapons Treaties

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The final item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-02639, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises that the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force on 22 January 2021; notes that the first meeting of state parties (1st MSP) will take place in Vienna from 22 to 24 March 2022; further notes that the 1st MSP will determine the rules of procedure for observers and state participators, deadlines for disarmament, verification and removal of nuclear weapons, and victim remediation with an emphasis on the disproportionate impact on indigenous communities and women and girls; recognises that the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will take place from 4 to 28 January 2022; understands that the UK is a state party to this treaty, and is accordingly bound by Article 6, which is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”; believes that civil society groups in Scotland, including in the Glasgow Anniesland constituency, consider that the decision to increase the UK’s nuclear stockpile creates a higher risk of an accident on Scottish roads, as warheads are transported to and from Faslane, Coulport, and notes the reported calls from civil society groups for the UK Government to uphold its commitment to Article 6 of the NPT and to engage with the 1st MSP on the TPNW in Vienna next year.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank my fellow MSPs who join me in this debate to bring attention to the serious concern surrounding, and the continued importance of, the international implementation of nuclear disarmament.

Saturday marks the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As the motion highlights, the 10th review conference of the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons—the NPT review conference—was scheduled to take place this month. However, as members may be aware, it was postponed due to the pandemic. It is now likely that the review conference will take place in August.

I am determined to attend the conference in person as the head of delegation for Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, or PNND—members can see why we use the abbreviation. [

Interruption

.] I laughed there because I thought that was funny. As the co-president of PNND, I will represent parliamentarians from across the globe who are committed to seeing the implementation of total nuclear disarmament.

We are debating two international treaties: the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is otherwise known as the ban treaty. Both are critical to nuclear disarmament.

The NPT, which has been in force since 1970, is a landmark international treaty through which nuclear states committed to stopping the proliferation of nuclear arms. The United Kingdom, the US, Russia, China and France, all of which are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the P5—are nuclear states that have signed that treaty. It is a highly important international treaty that needs to be respected by all its parties, as it underpins critical international security structures.

The NPT commits its members to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology to other countries and to stopping an increase in their own nuclear weapon stockpiles. Moreover, in signing the treaty, the P5 members all committed in international law to furthering the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and to actively working towards complete nuclear disarmament. Therefore, the treaty is hugely important. However, although the treaty entered into force more than 50 years ago, total nuclear disarmament obviously has not been achieved. Moreover, in recent years, there have been worrying instances of non-compliance among nuclear states, including the current UK Government.

As international security concerns heighten and the world changes, we need fresh impetus to encourage nuclear states to renew their investment in the nuclear disarmament process. That is where the new international Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—the ban treaty—comes in.

The threat of nuclear arms has not diminished, and, although the commitment of nuclear states to “no first use” of those weapons is welcome, it is not enough. The nuclear disarmament debate needs to be reframed and diplomatic thinking needs to be renewed. Nuclear-armed states need to reconcile their security strategies with the moral question of whether it would ever be right to use nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate. They do not target only a military base; they devastate entire nations, including hundreds of thousands of civilians who, in any country, cannot afford to have to bear the weight of the actions of their leaders.

The ban treaty is, like the NPT, a landmark treaty. For the first time ever, non-nuclear states and civil society led an international treaty on nuclear disarmament. That perhaps, ironically, helped the NPT in its 50-year-old commitment to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states.

The Scottish National Party has stood firm in its opposition to nuclear weapons, as the many invaluable civil society organisations in Scotland and MSPs from across the parties continue to do in our cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. As the convener of that cross-party group, I must mention that here, in the Scottish Parliament, we stand for the majority wish of Scottish people from across the parties in our commitment to rid Scotland of the nuclear weapons that are currently stored here against our will.

As many people will be aware, the international non-governmental organisation called ICAN—the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons—was the driver in getting the ban treaty into the United Nations and accepted and ratified in international law. ICAN won the Nobel peace prize for that work, and an atomic bomb survivor whom many of us have met—an incredible woman called Setsuko Thurlow—accepted the award on ICAN’s behalf.

After the atomic bomb was first made, Albert Einstein, one of Thurlow’s fellow Nobel prize winners, commented:

“I do not fear the explosive power of the atom bomb. What I fear is the explosive power of evil in the human heart.”

As much as the deterrence argument can persuade some, I believe that it can never rule out or compensate for the reality that evil actions take place and can sometimes override the good governance of nations. The only way out of that is through total nuclear disarmament and continued oversight of international agencies on compliance.

Until recently, the cold war felt long gone and it was easy to push the matter to the back of our minds, but the threat of nuclear weapons has not diminished. We have a responsibility, whether Scotland is devolved or independent, to look at that reality head on. I am pleased that the majority of MSPs have signed the ICAN pledge to support the ban treaty. That means that there is enough political will and commitment within Parliament to stand together in working for an end to the danger to the world’s long-term future that nuclear weapons stand for.

I take the opportunity to mention the work of all the organisations involved in the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament who have, over the years, continued in their efforts to promote the nuclear disarmament agenda among Scottish parliamentarians and the general public of our country. I must mention, in particular, Janet Fenton, the ICAN Scottish liaison and chair of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who has worked tirelessly in that regard and who has been a tremendous help to the cause.

Alongside those partners, I will—Covid rules allowing—attend the first meeting of state parties in Vienna this March, to develop the ban treaty rules further. I encourage my fellow MSPs from across the chamber to do likewise if that is at all possible.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I

thank Bill Kidd for securing this important debate on the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force on 22 January 2021. I acknowledge Bill’s long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament, peace and justice. I will not call him a veteran campaigner—the last time I did that, he did not like it very much—but I will say that his perseverance is inspiring.

The TPNW entered into force on 22 January 2021 and, so far, 59 states have fully ratified it and are now bound by its provisions. Countries that have signed up to the treaty must never

“Develop, test, produce ... acquire ... stockpile ... transfer ... use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons”.

They are also forbidden to host another country’s nuclear weapons on their territory or to assist or encourage anyone else to engage in any of those prohibited activities.

I have to ask why anyone—or any state—would wish to use these abhorrent weapons, which are the most inhumane instruments of destruction ever created and weapons that, when they are deployed, incinerate human life. Close to 250,000 civilians met that unimaginable end in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and many thousands more have since died from radiation-related illnesses.

To date, the UK has continued to insist that it will not sign the treaty nor be an observer at the first meeting of the state parties to the treaty, in March. The UK has also—shockingly—decided to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons, in clear breach of its obligations under the NPT. The TPNW, with its emphasis on prohibition and elimination, could rectify that deficit.

Safety and security are about more than the absence of violence and war. They are about creating a just and equal society in which everyone can achieve their full potential, in which no one is left behind and in which we help to nurture and support those who need it. The challenges and sacrifices that we have endured over the past couple of years have highlighted that point more than ever—they have highlighted what is important. As we build back from Covid, recovery must include the end of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are, of course, immoral. However, it is not just immoral but economically illiterate to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction when that money could be invested in a recovery that actually benefits our citizens.

Paragraph 4 of article 4 of the treaty has a clear relevance for Scotland. It states that

“each State Party that has any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its jurisdiction or control that are owned, possessed or controlled by another State shall ensure the prompt removal of such weapons, as soon as possible”.

When the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, endorsed the Scottish Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’s covenant to support the TPNW’s entering into force, she said:

“While the Scottish Government is unable to become a party to the treaty, as First Minister I strongly support the principles of the treaty and the work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. An independent Scotland would be a keen signatory and I hope the day we can do that is not far off.”

As Bill Kidd pointed out, the majority of parliamentarians in Scotland have signed the ICAN parliamentary pledge, and our First Minister has spoken in support of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the only way to guarantee an end to nuclear weapons in Scotland is for us to regain our independence as a nation, and I look forward to the day when we do that.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am a lone voice on the Conservative side of the chamber but I will do my best to contribute to the debate, which I am pleased to take part in.

I commend Bill Kidd not just for securing the debate but for his endless campaigning for nuclear disarmament. The name Bill Kidd is synonymous with that campaign not just in Scotland and the UK, but across the world. His letter to Joe Biden, the new president of the United States, is testament to that. I say to Mr Kidd that a Nobel gong is yet within reach and that, in my view, it would be well deserved. I suspect that some of my contribution might not always be in agreement with the premise of the motion, but I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who has a life-long passion such as that about which we have just heard. Politics with principles—who knew, Presiding Officer?

I am more inclined to agree with the motion than to disagree with it, because I do not want to live in a world in which nuclear weapons are a live and active threat to humanity. However, the sad reality is that we do, and it is difficult to see the end of that scenario any time soon.

The black and white images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where hundreds of thousands of civilians died, are the sort of images that stick in spongy minds—certainly that of a modern studies student, which I was. The thrice-postponed NPT summit, which we will hopefully get around to, will be as tough and monumentally important as the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—was last year.

However, there is a problem. The sad reality is that the NPT is plagued by a disarmament deficit. Five nuclear states that are parties to the treaty are currently not meeting their commitments, and tensions between the US, China and Russia are increasing—by the day—the unlikelihood of reducing that deficit.

The theory and the practice of disarmament are awkward friends. Bill Kidd is correct in saying that, for a safer world, all nuclear weapons should be dismantled—that is the theory, but the practice is different. The NPT must be worth more than the paper on which it is written. I agree with that. A treaty that was fit for purpose in 1968 is not necessarily fit for purpose in 2022—I note the absence from it of Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan, although the last two are more likely to have a change of heart on the issue. However, reforms to legacy treaties such as this are difficult and will not come easily. Negotiations will take a long time to conclude.

The practice is different from the theory. Right now, there are serious geopolitical threats to not just Scotland and the UK but all our NATO allies. That is what they are—our allies. Mr Kidd is on the record recently as saying that the three big issues that the next generation faces—

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Will Jamie Greene take an intervention?

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I do not have a huge amount of time, but I am happy to take an intervention if I will get some time back.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Yes, you will get time back.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I thank Jamie Greene for taking an intervention, as I know that we are short of time. I am interested in hearing his reflections on whether rising global tensions reinforce the case for getting rid of nuclear weapons and perhaps make that more urgent.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

They do reinforce the case, but the problem is that there are some very live active threats whereby the people who pose the threat are increasing their nuclear capability. Therefore, acceleration is inevitable and hard to stop. It is hard to see an end to that.

Since 2007, Russia has been completely overhauling its nuclear capabilities, with underwater nuclear drones and hypersonic missiles. It does not take much more than a cursory look at Channel 5 television in the evening to see real-life examples of what our armed forces are doing out in the seas to stave off threats. The fact that, at this very second, Russian troops are lining up on the Belarus-Ukraine border shows that these are not just military exercises but a real threat. China’s current hostility towards, for example, Taiwan—I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—is testament to the fact that these are not academic or theoretical questions but live issues, and how we react to them is a valid question.

Back in 2020, in the space of just six days, planes from RAF Lossiemouth took to the skies on three separate occasions to ward off aircraft that failed to identify themselves. The unidentified aircraft were not lost. Was someone testing our response times and capabilities? I am pretty sure that they were and that those three occasions were only the instances that officials were willing to talk about.

The issue of the continuous at-sea deterrent is a complex one. The capability sits in my region. I have been to Faslane and have met personnel there. I am proud of them and have faith that they take their monumental responsibility extremely seriously. In my part of the world, there are very mixed views about the presence of the deterrent, but I genuinely do not think—this is where I disagree with Bill Kidd—that simply moving it across the border to Liverpool or north-east England will move the problem away or make Scotland any safer.

It is worth noting that the global number of nuclear warheads is down from around 70,000 in 1986 to just over 13,000 last year, but that is 13,000 too many, because it takes only one. Clearly, more has to be done. The UK has a role to play in that, and we must do better.

Notwithstanding our differences of views and opinions, I commend Bill Kidd on his efforts. We, in politics, could perhaps learn from him and the zeitgeist.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate and for his long-term commitment to the cause.

Back in 1982, I was in the fourth year at Dunbar grammar school, sitting in class for my favourite subject, modern studies. We were asked to choose a topic to study as part of our work that year. In 1982, we were in the middle of the cold war, with President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher on one side and President Brezhnev and then Yuri Andropov on the other. I decided that I wanted my study subject to be the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I joined the CND that year and I have been a member ever since. It is a red line in my political beliefs and always will be. The phrase that stuck in my head from when we were researching the subject was “mutually assured destruction”—MAD. Let that sink in—mutually assured destruction.

Here in Scotland, we are the home of the UK submarine service, including the UK nuclear deterrent and the new generation of hunter-killer submarines. Hunter-killer—the name says it all. Those four submarines are permanently based at Faslane, at least until Scotland becomes independent and we remove nuclear weapons. We are told that Faslane was chosen to host those vessels at the height of the cold war because of its geographical position,

“which forms a bastion on the relatively secluded but deep and easily navigable Gare Loch and Firth of Clyde”.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—the nuclear ban treaty—is an international agreement between countries. All countries that have signed or ratified the TPNW have committed to a complete global ban on nuclear weapons, and on all activities related to the creation or use of nuclear weapons. Today we are celebrating the first year of the treaty; to be precise, Saturday 22 January marks one year since the treaty came into force as international law.

The nuclear ban has already begun to change the world. Billions of pounds have been taken out of investment in nuclear weapons, with more than 100 financial institutions completely disinvesting from them. Countries continue to join the treaty, while a growing number of non-member states have committed to observing the first meeting of state parties. Cities and local authorities around the world are showing their support in growing numbers through the ICAN cities appeal, where parliamentarians here in Scotland and worldwide stand firm in support of nuclear disarmament.

Scotland cannot sign the TPNW unless we become an independent country. However, we can be guided by the principles of the treaty and can take steps to embed as much of it as possible into domestic law. We can prepare for a day when Scotland is able to achieve full nuclear disarmament and sign up to the global nuclear ban.

ICAN asked parliamentarians to sign the following pledge:

“We, the undersigned parliamentarians, warmly welcome the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a significant step towards the realization of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

We share the deep concern expressed in the preamble about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and we recognize the consequent need to eliminate these inhumane and abhorrent weapons.

As parliamentarians, we pledge to work for the signature and ratification of this landmark treaty by our respective countries, as we consider the abolition of nuclear weapons to be a global public good of the highest order and an essential step to promote the security and well-being of all peoples.”

I was proud to sign that pledge, and I look forward to the day when Scotland becomes independent and nuclear weapons are finally removed from the Clyde.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to Parliament. As the motion points out, article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty is clear. It calls for the

“cessation of the nuclear arms race”,

but it also calls for “complete”—complete!—

“disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

In addition, 120 countries have now signed up to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which proposes a total global ban on these weapons of mass destruction.

For the avoidance of doubt, these are treaties that carry with them binding obligations. We hear a lot about the rule of law and the rule of international law, so what about the observance of this international law? I have a long-held view that nuclear weapons themselves are illegal, and nearly 40 years ago, along with others, I tried to take Margaret Thatcher to court on the grounds that their possession is in direct contravention of international law because they destroy lives indiscriminately. They kill completely innocent women, children and men.

Today, we continue to witness the flouting of international law with no evidence whatsoever of meaningful negotiation, of material progress, or of anything resembling even a strategy for disarmament. We are told that these weapons are a deterrent. The nuclear deterrent is part of the language, the doublespeak and the propaganda of the debate on disarmament. Does anybody really believe that the threat of first-strike nuclear weapons or their location 80 miles from this Parliament makes us any safer? Incidentally, their relocation to 180 miles away in Barrow-in-Furness would not make them any safer.

In wilful or ignorant defiance of the non-proliferation treaty—who knows which?—Boris Johnson announced last year that he was escalating the number of Trident 100-kiloton nuclear warheads from 180 to 260. By any definition, that is not multilateral disarmament—it is unilateral rearmament. It represents a proliferation of ballistic missiles, but it also represents a proliferation of risk, lies and disinformation; a proliferation of nuclear waste, missile convoys and terror threats; and a proliferation of instability, curbs on civil liberties and austerity in every other public service.

So, the honest division in this debate is not between those of us who support unilateral nuclear disarmament and those who support multilateral nuclear disarmament. The honest division is between those of us who believe in nuclear disarmament and those who, frankly, do not. That is what the Trident debate is about. Of course, it is also about jobs. We need to understand that the £200 billion that is to be spent on Trident’s replacement would create jobs—of course it would—but, with that kind of money, how many more jobs could we create to rebuild our manufacturing base, to invest in our national health service and to provide the education, health and environmental protection that the world is crying out for?

Finally, I am in no doubt that what we need at this time is political leadership, but I am equally certain that it will not come from the political elite whose heads are turned by the twin temptations of militarism and nationalism. It will come from the people, who will once again lead the leaders. That is what this debate—and the motion—is about. It is about summoning up a renewed spirit of popular resistance; it is about taking action in support of our moral objection to genocide to secure our common survival; and it is about grasping the historic opportunity to build a just, civilised and peaceful society in a just, civilised and peaceful world.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Bob Doris, to be followed by Maggie Chapman, who will be the final speaker before the minister responds to the debate.

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

I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing this important debate and pay tribute to him for his work over many years on nuclear disarmament. I also acknowledge his current role as co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

This debate and, of course, the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is the subject of it, are powerful reminders that there is nothing moral, normal, acceptable, palatable or humane about nuclear weapons and their use for human destruction and the destruction of the planet. Nations must raise their voices against them and, of course, meet their international legal obligations.

The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force almost a year ago. It is a sweeping treaty that was designed to outlaw and rid the world of weapons from a bygone, cold war era. Despite that, it is with great sadness that I note that the British Government has failed to ratify the treaty. Its failure to do so demonstrates the failure of the United Kingdom to be a world leader in the fight for nuclear disarmament. Westminster continues to fund a nuclear defence system that goes against the United Kingdom’s long-established commitment to the United Nations. Unfortunately, that Westminster nuclear obsession includes the UK Labour Party, whose defence spokesperson describes the UK’s nuclear weapons as “non-negotiable”.

However, I acknowledge that members of all parties, including the Labour Party, and of the Labour movement and, of course, wider civic society, have, over many years, campaigned to rid our shores and the world of nuclear weapons. I wish to see an independent, nuclear-free Scotland. We must make common cause with all those who seek the elimination of nuclear weapons, and I commend the work on that of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on nuclear disarmament.

The UK’s position is wholly counterproductive. How can Westminster condemn the actions of foreign states in their development of nuclear weapons while demonstrating its complicit failure to act on eliminating its own nuclear arsenal, on the replenishment of which another £200 billion is to be spent, as we heard from Richard Leonard?

If the British Government’s is not opposed to nuclear weapons for moral reasons, perhaps it ought to ratify the UN treaty on economic grounds. The annual cost to the UK of maintaining and running such a system is £18 billion, which equates to the state spending more than £30,000 per minute to continue the programme. That financial burden is itself a moral outrage. Such eye-watering sums could be better spent by helping those most in need at home and by contributing more to our overseas aid obligations, rather than cutting resources as the UK Government currently does.

It is the moral case that is at the heart of encouraging all nations to sign and ratify the UN treaty and to play their part in ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

I welcome the first meeting of state parties, which will take place in March this year. I am delighted that Bill Kidd will attend to discuss the continued strength of the UN’s commitment to nuclear prohibition. I wish all participants well when they meet in Vienna and I heartily thank Bill Kidd MSP for his on-going leadership in seeking to advance the cause of a nuclear-free Scotland and a nuclear-free world.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the minister, Ash Regan, to speak for up to seven minutes in response to the debate.

I apologise: the minister is looking at me with a confused expression on her face, and rightly so. I also apologise to Maggie Chapman. I got ahead of myself. I call Maggie Chapman to speak for up to four minutes.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

That is no problem, Presiding Officer. Thank you.

I thank Bill Kidd for lodging his motion and for securing the debate. I share his enthusiasm for the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and was delighted when it came into force a year ago. I also appreciate the detail that Bill and others have given about the prohibition and non-proliferation treaties.

It is absolutely right that we devote parliamentary time to this important issue. We have a role to play in educating ourselves and others. I thank Bill Kidd for his leadership in that and for acknowledging the work of Janet Fenton, who has been inspirational for so many in Scotland and further afield.

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, although I wish that it were not necessary. Nuclear weapons are a stain on us all. They are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They are unlike any other military force: they cause devastation in the moment and for generations, they are uniquely persistent and they spread genetically damaging radioactive fallout. They are weapons of indiscriminate intergenerational mass murder.

As if all that is not bad enough, use of nuclear weapons would destroy all forms of life, and their development disrupts life-support systems, including our climate. Use of less than 1 per cent of the nuclear weapons that currently exist in the world could disrupt the global climate and threaten as many as 2 billion people with starvation in a nuclear famine. The thousands of nuclear weapons that are possessed by just the United States and Russia would destroy the world. The expression “nuclear winter” does not even come close to describing what would be experienced.

That those weapons exist and that Governments play politics with them should shame us all. Nuclear weapons epitomise the worst of politics. To use the threat of world-obliterating force means that politics has failed. It teaches us that violence is a legitimate answer to difficult questions and indicates that Governments care more about their egos and about making shows of strength and power than they do about life.

As a South African citizen, I am pleased that South Africa made the conscious decision to disarm. The South African Government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons and was the first state in the world voluntarily to give up all the nuclear arms that it had developed. The country has been a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons since 1991 and ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons three years ago, thereby becoming the first country to have had nuclear weapons, disarmed them and gone on to sign those treaties.

For the many economic, humanitarian and moral reasons that have already been outlined by others, I wish that the country that I have chosen as my home could sign the prohibition treaty today. Unfortunately, it looks as if we must wait until Scotland is an independent country before we can do that. We must make sure that we do that when we can.

I agree with Jamie Greene and others. I do not just want nuclear weapons out of Scotland; I want them out of every country. We can, and should, use all our resources for good.

We must also use the powers that we have now, and powers that I hope we will have in the future, to restrict and stop the proliferation not only of nuclear machinery, but of the broader military-industrial complex. The two are related. As a priority, we should stop the preferential Government support for Raytheon, BAE Systems and other dealers in death. We can see in Yemen the damage that Britain, including Scotland, continues to do in the world through support for arms manufacture. We need to use all peaceful avenues that are open to us to prevent the UK Government from renewing its huge financial support for Trident and other nuclear weapons.

We can and must be a force for good in the world. We can be peace builders, we can be peacemakers, and we can say that we will never again use indiscriminate weapons of mass murder.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can, now, call the minister, Ash Regan, to respond to the debate. You have up to seven minutes.

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

I thank Bill Kidd for bringing his motion to the chamber for debate. I express to him and the wider cross-party group on nuclear disarmament my appreciation for their commitment and their work on this important issue, and I thank him for his powerful speech.

There have been thoughtful contributions from members throughout the chamber, including among others Ruth Maguire, Jamie Greene and Bob Doris. It is very good to see Ruth Maguire back in the chamber this week.

The Scottish Government is firmly opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons. We are committed to pursuing safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland and we have repeatedly called on the UK Government to cancel its plans for the Dreadnought programme.

Nuclear weapons are morally wrong—that point was made by a number of speakers in the debate—as well as being strategically wrong and economically wrong, as Bob Doris said. They are indiscriminate and devastating in their impacts, and their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage.

Nuclear weapons are obsolete, dangerous and impractical, yet last year the UK Government broke its commitment to the international community by increasing the nuclear weapon stockpile cap to no more than 260 warheads. That represents a 40 per cent increase from its 2010 commitment to having no more than 180 warheads. The move is completely at odds with article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, to which the UK Government is a signatory. Two independent defence experts from the London School of Economics concluded that the UK’s increase of warheads constitutes a breach of article 6.

Nuclear weapons do not provide a meaningful deterrent to many modern-day threats, such as terrorist attacks, nor have they proved to be a deterrent to other nuclear-armed states carrying out atrocious acts on British soil. Rather than making repeated and damaging cuts to conventional military forces and capabilities, the UK Government would do better to use the £41 billion that it is spending on replacing Trident to invest in modern warfare capabilities that are relevant to today’s threats.

The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the non-proliferation treaty. We recognise the important role that the international community has in collectively creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. The three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty—non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energy—provide the international community with a balanced step-by-step framework for disarmament. We will follow the outcomes of both treaty conferences carefully in order to further our thinking on the nuclear debate.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have a question for the minister that goes back to my concept of theory and practice. If every signatory to the treaty got rid of all their nuclear weapons, how would the world deal with the countries that are not party to the treaty and have not signed up to disarmament but still hold weapons or have ambitions to do so?

Ash Regan

Jamie Greene raises an important point. As I said, that is the how we need to look at such things, which is why the Scottish Government will follow the outcomes of the treaty conferences carefully to help to develop our thinking further.

I turn to transportation of defence nuclear material. The responsibility for transportation of nuclear warheads lies with the Ministry of Defence, but the Scottish Government expects that transportation to be carried out safely and securely, and has made that expectation clear to the UK Government.

As lead Government department for the response to a defence nuclear emergency, the Ministry of Defence organises regular training and exercises in respect of its emergency response planning and arrangements, and Scotland’s emergency responders participate as appropriate. Although there has never been a defence nuclear transport incident that posed a radiation hazard, I understand public concern about those convoys, and I stress that we in the Scottish Government take the matter very seriously.

There is significant resilience planning in place. Scotland’s three regional resilience partnerships include the local authorities, but are led by Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and supported by Scottish Government resilience co-ordinator teams. Members might wish to note that those partnerships undertake risk and preparedness assessment processes regularly. The resilience register is maintained on an on-going basis, and the Scottish Government has published a range of guidance for the resilience partnerships, which enables them to identify and assess the main risks that are relevant to their regions, and to determine how prepared they are to deal with the consequences of those risks.

The MOD has provided assurance that transport routes that are adopted are carefully selected as part of a rigorous risk assessment process and are regularly reassessed for their continued suitability. The MOD has also provided assurance that operational planning always takes into account other factors, including road and weather conditions.

There are well-established resilience structures in place to manage the consequences of any emergency, and they have been and continue to be robustly tested and proved by exercises and real events.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Having seen the details of risk assessments, does the minister personally feel that there is ever an acceptable level of risk in having those weapons travelling on our roads and through our major cities at any time, but perhaps especially when we are in a pandemic and our emergency services are already stretched?

Ash Regan

Ruth Maguire raises a very understandable point. I completely understand public concern about the level of risk that nuclear weapons transport poses to communities in Scotland.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has put in place plans and has made pragmatic preparations to deal with incidents that involve nuclear defence material, including convoys of such material. Similarly, Police Scotland can give assurance that up-to-date plans are in place to deal with all major incidents, including nuclear incidents, and its procedures for defence nuclear material are current. Its resilience staff liaise regularly with the Ministry of Defence Police on a range of matters, including what I have outlined.

As I said at the outset, the Scottish Government believes that nuclear weapons are immoral, illegal and a colossal waste of money. We wish to see the Trident replacement programme being scrapped and the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money put to better use, and we have called on the UK Government to do that.

The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international treaties on nuclear weapons and we will work with partners to make an independent Scotland a nation that is free of nuclear weapons.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister; that concludes the debate.

13:28 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind members that Covid-related measures are in place and that face coverings should be worn while moving around the chamber and the wider campus.

The next item of business is portfolio questions, and this time the portfolio is constitution, external affairs and culture. I remind members that questions 3 and 6 are grouped and that I will take any supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary on any other question, they should please press their request-to-speak button at the point of the relevant question.

It will not surprise members to learn that we have quite a bit of interest in some questions more than others, so I would appreciate succinct questions and succinct answers from the ministerial team.

Creative Industries (Self-employment)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is giving to people in the creative industries who are self-employed and may have work cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-00642)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government recognises the substantial challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic has presented to self-employed people and freelancers in the creative industries. We have already provided £240 million to the culture sector over the pandemic, which includes £65 million to help alleviate the financial pressures that individuals and businesses have been facing following cultural venue closures and event cancellations in the light of the omicron variant. That support includes the £10 million cancellation fund for creative freelancers, to support freelancers who are experiencing immediate financial hardship following cancellations. Self-employed individuals operating as a cultural organisation are eligible for the new £25 million Covid-19 cancellation fund for cultural organisations, via Creative Scotland.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

How many freelancers have applied to the

cancellation fund for creative freelancers since it opened in the first week of January? Does the money that freelancers can claim extend to the hiring of equipment, which may have had to be cancelled? I know that that will be an issue for many freelancers in television production and live music, in particular.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The member is absolutely right. As of yesterday, 19 January, there have been 1,728 applications to Creative Scotland’s cancellation fund for creative freelancers, requesting a total of £2.94 million. Sixty-one per cent of applications have been from freelancers in the music sector. So far, Creative Scotland has paid £1.05 million to freelancers.

For the freelancers fund, applicants need to evidence cancellations and they then self-assess the cost of cancellation, up to the £2,000 limit. To answer the specific question, a creative freelancer can include hire of equipment in their application, as long as the claim does not exceed £2,000.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

What flexibility is in the guidance to support people to stay in our creative industries? I am thinking especially of those who have had to juggle behind the scenes and work incredibly hard to try and get work in other sectors, because a lack of employment has meant that they have not managed to keep going.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I can give Sarah Boyack my absolute assurance about the assessment of funding that is being undertaken by Creative Scotland—to which I pay tribute, incidentally. A lot of hard work has had to go into getting the schemes up and running during the festive season, to deal with closures in December and January, and, eventually, through to March.

Flexibility is being shown in the assessment of claims that are being made, especially to home in on individuals and businesses who are facing insolvency. I assure Sarah Boyack and colleagues across the chamber that Creative Scotland’s assessment process is ensuring that there is an understanding of the existential challenge that people and businesses are facing.

If colleagues are aware of any cases where decisions are not being taken as expeditiously as they might perhaps be in these extreme circumstances, I appeal to them to please raise them with me, and I will ensure that Creative Scotland will look at them. I have no reason to believe that that is happening, but I want to ensure that people are aware that a great effort is being undertaken to take these steps as quickly as possible.

Independence Referendum (Staffing Resources)

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what staffing resources it has allocated to the preparation work for a new independence referendum. (S6O-00643)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Work on the programme for government commitments to hold an independence referendum and develop a prospectus for independence in this session of Parliament is being co-ordinated by the constitution and cabinet directorate. Officials in teams across a range of portfolios will contribute to the work as part of their wider responsibilities to support the Scottish Government. I am pleased that Maurice Golden acknowledges, in his question, that there will be a new independence referendum. We intend that that referendum will be conducted during this session of Parliament.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Children’s education has suffered, the national health service is stretched to breaking point and the economy is still fragile. Even the Scottish National Party must recognise that recovering from the pandemic is the real priority for the people of Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary not see that another damaging, disruptive, divisive referendum will put the recovery at risk?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I say gently to Maurice Golden, because he is clearly rehearsing the speeches that he was giving during the Scottish Parliament election campaign, that that question has been settled. His party and my party went to the public to ask for their support in an election. His party lost that election. The Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party were elected on a mandate to conduct a referendum during this session of Parliament.

Normally in democracies, Opposition parties try to hold the Government to account on delivering what the Government has promised to do in its manifesto. We were elected with a mandate to deliver a referendum, and I look forward to Maurice Golden ensuring that we do just that. I will be happy to deliver on a manifesto promise that we were elected to deliver.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary advise the Parliament how staffing resources allocated to preparing for a new independence referendum compare to the number of staff who are currently dealing with Brexit, more than a year after we left the European Union?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As I explained previously, staff from a number of parts of the Scottish Government will be involved in work to prepare for a referendum on independence. To put that in context, civil servants from business areas all over the Scottish Government continue to work on matters resulting from the UK Government’s determination to pursue a hard Brexit against the democratic will of the people of Scotland. Such matters include the estimated £9 billion cut to Scotland’s gross domestic product by 2030 and the damage to Scottish businesses that wish to trade with the EU as a result of their facing all sorts of unnecessary new barriers. That work has, for example, required some 98 separate pieces of secondary legislation alone just to keep the statute law working.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Just because the Tories have got it wrong does not mean that the SNP has to get it wrong, too.

I cannot believe my ears. I shared a platform with the First Minister throughout the election campaign and I heard her say that she would not push forward with an independence referendum and campaign until the pandemic was over. We know fine well that the virus is still among us, but here we have a minister devoting scarce resources to an independence campaign. What on earth is he thinking?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I would have thought that somebody espousing liberalism and democracy would recognise an election result. Governments need to do a great many things, and one of the things that we will do, because we were elected to do so in a democracy, is to conduct a referendum during this session of Parliament. I am sure that Willie Rennie would be at the front of the queue if the preparation work was not being done in the run-up to that referendum.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome the allocation of resource to honour the SNP’s manifesto commitment to deliver a referendum in this session of Parliament. I welcome, too, the Scottish Government’s programme for government.

I wonder whether those preparations might include looking into whether the better together promises that were made in 2014 have since been honoured.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I can certainly raise that when we get to that stage of the preparations. I do not think that it will take a long time to research whether the promises and threats that were raised by the better together campaign of the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, who campaigned together, have been broken, because most of them have.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Can the cabinet secretary advise whether preparation work for an independence referendum will look at how the UK has fared economically and socially in the 21st century, compared to its neighbours in north-west Europe?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Can you be as brief as possible, please, cabinet secretary?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I give my colleague an absolute assurance that the answer is yes, and with good reason.

Afghan Refugees Resettlement

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding people in Afghanistan seeking resettlement in the UK who could be relocated in Scotland if they already have existing family connections, including in relation to correspondence from MSPs on this matter. (S6O-00644)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Katy Clark for being persistent on this issue—I know that she cares about it deeply.

We engage regularly with the UK Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, individual local authorities and other partners to ensure that people are provided with the safety and security that they need in order to rebuild their lives in Scotland.

The UK Government is responsible for refugee resettlement and relocation, and the Home Office is responsible for the provision of accommodation. However, we continue to request that consideration is given to preferences, including where there are family and other connections, wherever possible.

Scotland is committed to playing its part in welcoming people fleeing Afghanistan. I am delighted that all Scotland’s 32 local authorities have confirmed their participation in the scheme.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

My experience—and I suspect that it is the same for other members—is that the Home Office is not responding to correspondence from MSPs and MPs who are acting on behalf of individuals who are trying to get out of Afghanistan.

An investigation by Open Democracy in December found that more than 99 per cent of calls to the UK Government helpline were unanswered and only 5 per cent of callers received the necessary assistance. Will the cabinet secretary use his role to take that up with the Home Office and ask for more resources to be put into that work?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The situation with the Home Office is hugely disappointing. People who find themselves in such circumstances deserve respect—their situation should be dealt with expeditiously and they deserve consideration and empathy.

I encourage Katy Clark and any other members who have had such experiences in relation to constituency cases—it is not rare, unfortunately—to forward on any constituent correspondence to me and I will be happy to take it up with the Home Office. However, I have to say that I am not brimming with confidence that the Home Office will miraculously change its course in dealing with such matters.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding the resettlement scheme for Afghan refugees who may be resettled in Scotland. (S6O-00647)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government met with Victoria Atkins, the UK Minister for Afghan Resettlement on 10 January to discuss the launch of the UK’s Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. At that meeting, the cabinet secretary raised the issue of property offers by local authorities that are waiting to be matched with Afghan families and the need to make that happen as soon as possible. She reiterated that funding provided by the UK Government to support Afghan families in Scotland needs to accurately reflect the need in Scotland.

It was agreed that more regular four-nation engagement will take place to discuss Afghan resettlement across the UK, and I know that the cabinet secretary is looking forward to that.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees can only register Afghan citizens as refugees or asylum seekers once they are outside Afghanistan and in another country. However, there are still those in Afghanistan who remain at severe risk from the Taliban, especially if they are caught trying to travel to Iran or Pakistan to seek asylum through the UNHCR. Will the Scottish Government push the UK Government to clarify which safe routes will be available through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, particularly for those who would be at risk if they travelled to another country to seek asylum?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

That is an entirely reasonable suggestion, although we also need to bear in mind that some of the routes for people leaving Afghanistan are cloaked in secrecy so that the Taliban are not able to pursue those seeking refuge in other countries. I will consider the member’s request.

We are in regular touch with the Home Office. We would all welcome having greater clarity on that, although we also accept that there is necessary secrecy around some of the routes through which refugees are safely able to get out of Afghanistan in the current circumstances.

Performance Venues (Covid-19 Restrictions)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been made of the impact of Covid-19 restrictions over the festive period on theatres and other performance venues. (S6O-00645)

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but we do not appear to be able to hear the Minister for Culture, Europe and International Development. Maybe you can start your response again, minister, and see whether the issue has been resolved.

I am afraid that the connection is still not working. Bear with us for just a minute, minister. In the meantime, we will go to the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture for a response to the question. We will try to resolve your microphone issues for the subsequent questions, minister, and come back to you.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The omicron variant has come at a particularly challenging time for the sector, in which recovery from previous waves of the pandemic was beginning and significant sales for Christmas shows were predicted. I have spoken to theatre groups and performance venues directly, and I receive daily updates about the impact that Covid-19 restrictions are having on the sector.

The Scottish Government has made available £31.5 million for support for cultural businesses, organisations, venues and independent cinemas and for grass-roots venues. The impact assessments associated with the restrictions, including a business and regulatory impact assessment, will be published in the coming weeks.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for understudying for his minister at short notice.

Capital Theatres in Edinburgh lost dozens of performances across the festive period. The King’s theatre alone lost 36. That came after two years of missed Edinburgh festival performances. Those are paying months for Edinburgh’s theatre industry. What more will the cabinet secretary’s Government do to support the theatre industry in its revival?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Speaking as the cabinet secretary for culture and the MSP for Edinburgh Central and many cultural venues in the capital, I say to the member for Edinburgh Western that I am absolutely seized of that issue. There is a challenge, the scale of which we understand. The fact that the Scottish Government reached very speedy agreement to find £65 million prior to Christmas to address the scale of the challenge evidences the seriousness with which we treat it.

I say to everybody in the chamber that, as we begin—I hope—with confidence the early stages of emerging from the omicron variant, we all have a role. We can support our cultural venues and attend shows, concerts, exhibitions and the like.

We need a two-pronged approach. We need to support our venues, which have suffered over recent weeks and months, but we also need to ensure that, as we are able to return and support the cultural sector, we do so whole-heartedly. I appeal to Alex Cole-Hamilton and everybody else in the chamber to join us in doing so.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

The city of Edinburgh was hit particularly hard when restrictions were imposed, with no notice to the culture sector, including our treasured theatres. Many were left in limbo without the financial support that was needed to keep the sector going. Can the cabinet secretary assure members and the culture sector that, if restrictions were to be imposed, adequate notice would be given to prepare the sector and financial resources would be ready to be disbursed to cultural venues?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

That is a very important question. Throughout these circumstances, we have had the closest working relationship with the cultural sector. I have had many Teams calls with people throughout Scotland’s cultural and artistic community.

At the earliest point at which notice can be given of any public health measures, they are shared with the sector, as they are with the wider business community.

I hope—as I am sure Foysol Choudhury does—that there will be no necessity to return to any form of safeguards or restrictions that impact on the cultural community. In the meantime, we will do everything that we can to disburse the necessary funds to ensure that individuals, businesses and venues remain solvent and are able to bounce back.

I make the same appeal to Foysol Choudhury and all colleagues in Edinburgh and throughout the rest of the country that I made to my Liberal Democrat colleague. Please let us do everything that we can to give as much confidence to people who are returning in supporting the cultural sector and our venues. That will give them the greatest chance of success.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you for stepping in, cabinet secretary.

Culture-led Regeneration of Town Centres

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the culture minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding culture-led regeneration of town centres. (S6O-00646)

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

I want culture to play a crucial role in the regeneration of town centres as we look towards recovery from the pandemic. Mainstreaming culture across Government portfolios is a central part of our current work. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture and I held ministerial bilateral meetings on that, both last week and only yesterday. Our discussion with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy specifically explored culture’s role in our commitment to ensuring that no places or people are left behind. I also intend to discuss that with Tom Arthur, who has ministerial responsibility for town centres.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

From Wigtown book town to the Stove Network in Dumfries, which led to the development of the Midsteeple Quarter, there are many good examples of culture-led regeneration across Dumfries and Galloway. However, given the big crisis that our town centres face, does the minister share my view that we need to redouble our efforts by increasing the support that we give to culture-led community-driven regeneration? We need a town centre-first approach not just in planning but in funding new cultural facilities in our towns.

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

I broadly agree with the sentiment of what the member has outlined. As he will know, we have a manifesto commitment to develop a national towns of culture scheme. We have started scoping what that scheme will look like, and I think that there is a real ambition to create a network across Scotland that celebrates our towns and our unique stories. That is particularly pertinent given that 2022 marks Scotland’s year of stories. The scheme itself will build on Scotland’s long track record of taking a place-based approach to our cultural programmes, such as our innovative culture collective scheme, which was launched last year.

I know that, in Mr Smyth’s region, the Stove Network does fantastic work in the community and is currently benefiting from the support of our culture collective funding.

More broadly, with regard to funding and how we link up better across different Government departments, I hope that Mr Smyth listened to my original answer, in which I alluded to my meeting with Tom Arthur. I would like to speak to Mr Arthur about the regeneration of town centres to ensure that we get greater policy coherence. With regard to funding in communities, the cabinet secretary and I are committed to driving a cultural recovery from the pandemic that is rooted in our communities.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

In Renfrewshire, spending on culture and heritage decreased by more than a third between 2016 and 2019; Clackmannanshire saw a drop of 27 per cent, and Glasgow saw a drop of 18 per cent. How will the minister promote culture locally when some of her party’s own councils are slashing their arts and heritage budgets by a third?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, please, minister.

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

Sharon Dowey raises an important point, which is the role of local authorities in the delivery of culture locally. One of the important ways in which we can do that while respecting the autonomy of local authorities is through the culture conveners group, which I met just before Christmas, and which I will meet again in March. I hope that that reassures Sharon Dowey that I take the matter very seriously. It is imperative that we look at the different approaches that local authorities are using and ensure equity of access across the country in terms of our cultural services.

Cultural and Arts Sectors (Worker Support)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting people working in the cultural and arts sectors. (S6O-00648)

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

I appreciate that this is a difficult time for the cultural sector, even with the announcement of the easing of restrictions on Tuesday. The Scottish Government has previously provided £175 million of emergency funding to the culture, heritage and event sectors since the start of the pandemic. As a result of the recent restrictions, we announced an additional £65 million for the sector. That includes £31.5 million for cultural businesses, organisations, venues, independent cinemas and grass-roots venues; £2 million for the national performing companies, £10 million for freelancers; £19.8 million for the events sector; and £1.7 million for museums, galleries and heritage.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Following the First Minister’s announcement in December requiring theatres to be restricted until next week, I have been contacted by constituents working for the Ambassador Theatre Group in Glasgow, who work across the King’s theatre and the Theatre Royal. The ATG took the decision not to call up any of its staff on zero-hours contracts or its casual workers during the period of closure, which has meant that 150 of my constituents have lost out on at least four weeks’ pay. Instead, the ATG recommended that, to ease the financial burden, they use their holiday hours. Fully contracted staff have continued to receive full pay—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We need a question, please, Ms Duncan-Glancy

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Those workers support moves to stop the spread of the virus.

Does the minister agree that workers should not shoulder the financial burden of such decisions? Will she guarantee that any emergency funding that is offered to arts and events organisations is contingent on conditions that they do not use zero-hours contracts and that all zero-hours staff will be compensated for the loss of earnings?

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

I share Pam Duncan-Glancy’s concerns about zero-hours workers not being supported for their losses as a result of theatre closures and am aware of the situation in Glasgow.

My officials have discussed the issue of zero-hours contractors in the cultural sector with Creative Scotland, which administers the funds, as Ms Duncan-Glancy will appreciate. As she will know, the freelancers cancellation fund excludes zero-hours contract staff. However, the cultural organisations cancellation fund does not exclude organisations from applying for costs for zero-hours contract staff. I expect any organisation that applies to the Creative Scotland cultural organisations cancellation fund to use any money that it receives to pay all staff it employs, and that should include any zero-hours contract staff. I hope that that reassures Ms Duncan-Glancy.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the minister provide any further detail as to what assessment has been made regarding the impact of the removal of furlough on people who work in the culture sector?

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

Jenni Minto is correct to point to the importance of the furlough scheme to the creative sector throughout the pandemic. It provided a layer of financial support that we, as a devolved Government, simply could not. Its removal has increased anxiety in the sector and led to many creatives simply walking away. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on the matter in December and it was raised in the four-nations culture call on Tuesday last week.

Live Music and Night-Time Industries

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of the live music and night time industries sectors and what was discussed. (S6O-00649)

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

Since the pandemic started, the Scottish Government has engaged regularly with the live music and night-time industries to discuss issues such as guidance and business support. The Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee, who is responsible for the night-time industries, last met the Night Time Industries Association on 12 January. I met music industry representatives on 22 December, along with the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, to discuss the impact of omicron. Most recently, I met Celtic Connections and Glasgow Life on 18 January.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The live music, night-time economy and hospitality sectors in the north-east continue to suffer as a result of the vaccination passport scheme. The Night Time Industries Association has highlighted losses of up to 30 per cent in trade. When will the Scottish Government heed the calls of business owners and scrap that punitive scheme?

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

I apologise, but I cannot share the sentiment of the member’s question. A number of the cultural organisations that the cabinet secretary and I have met welcomed the vaccination passport scheme because it allowed them to stay open safely. It is crucial to us reopening safely and allowing our cultural venues to open and succeed in the coming months and years. We very much hope that the challenges that the sector faced this Christmas will be behind it.

The vaccination passport system has not been rejected by people in the cultural sector, so I cannot agree with the sentiment of the member’s question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Due to the technical difficulties, I will let the item overrun a little further to allow a supplementary question from Stephanie Callaghan. I ask her to be as brief as possible.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

We have already heard that event cancellations are having a substantial effect on the live music sector. Do the reinsurance schemes that are provided by the United Kingdom Government go far enough to protect the sector?

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

The Scottish Government has called for the UK Government to take action to address the market failure for events insurance since the pandemic began. The UK Government responded to those calls on 5 August last year with the announcement of an £800 million scheme, which extends to Scotland, but it is regrettable that it chose not to engage with the Scottish ministers on the scheme’s development.

Many stakeholders have also indicated that the scheme is not working in practice. That means that event organisers cannot afford the cost of the UK Government scheme, which they argue is financially prohibitive. I reiterate our call on the UK Government to work with the sector to identify improvements to the scheme. I raised that matter most recently during the four nations culture ministers call.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause while the front benches change for the next item of business.

Strategic Transport Projects Review 2

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on publication of the second strategic transport projects review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am pleased to announce the publication of the second strategic transport projects review and will set out some of the significant recommendations it makes that will provide real and lasting benefits for people and businesses in Scotland.

The report will inform the Scottish Government’s transport investment programme over the next 20 years and help to deliver the vision, priorities and outcomes set out in the national transport strategy, in which we committed to reducing inequalities, taking climate action, delivering inclusive economic growth and improving our health and wellbeing.

The review’s recommendations represent a repositioning of our transport investment priorities. The focus is firmly on how transport can help us to protect our climate and improve lives. It applies a balanced approach, covering all modes of transport and all areas of Scotland. It considers which measures can be best deployed to improve the greatest number of people’s lives and make the biggest improvements to communities and our environment.

I want to highlight four key areas of investment that we have identified that will help us to make truly transformational changes to how we travel in Scotland. Those areas are mass transit in our biggest city regions, improved connectivity for transport in rural and island communities, decarbonisation of public transport and improving active travel infrastructure.

On mass transit, the Clyde metro project, for example, represents a multibillion pound investment that, when completed, could better connect more than 1.5 million people—from Clydebank to Cambuslang and from Easterhouse to East Kilbride—to employment, education and health services in the Glasgow city region. Having better access to affordable and reliable public transport in our city regions has the potential to significantly reduce inequalities and to enhance opportunities for many people who live and work in some of the most deprived areas of Scotland. The project will make a substantial contribution to tackling climate change by reducing car-based trips and associated emissions. The difference that it could make to the lives of people and communities in the Clyde area is huge.

On rural transport, as well as significant investment in port infrastructure, we are recommending the further investigation of potential fixed links—bridges or tunnels—at the Sound of Harris and Barra, and between Mull and the Scottish mainland. Those could improve communities’ access to goods and services and make those islands more attractive for people to live and work in and visit.

The review also recognises our strategic connections, including investing in cross-border rail as well as enhancing safety, resilience and reliability by making improvements to the A75 and A77 strategic road corridors, which connect into the port of Cairnryan.

We are already making real progress in decarbonising public transport. STPR2 takes that to the next level. We plan to renew and replace lifeline ferries, and progressively to decarbonise the fleet. We will also invest in more rail electrification and ensure that more low-carbon buses operate on the network. We will work to ensure that more freight is taken off the roads and support the delivery of infrastructure to assist in the transition to zero-emission vehicles.

We also want to see improvement of infrastructure that encourages more people to walk, wheel and cycle more often, and not just for short journeys. That improvement would have a huge range of benefits for the climate, the natural environment and the economy, and for people, neighbourhoods, communities and businesses. In particular, we want children and young people to benefit, and we will invest in measures to promote active travel for them and encourage safe and sustainable travel to schools.

STPR2 sits at the heart of our plans and efforts to ensure a green recovery from Covid-19 and a fair and just transition to net zero. The pandemic has shown that people have a huge appetite to change travel patterns if we get the policy and support right to help them to do so. We want to support more people in continuing to make the sustainable travel choices that have been seen during the pandemic, so that people can return to public transport and so that our economic recovery does not overly rely on road-based travel.

Transport policy has moved on since the first STPR in 2008, and big economic and social changes happened in that time. Therefore, this set of recommendations importantly reflects a more rounded, sustainable and environmentally focused approach to transport, as the national transport strategy sets out.

The core of that thinking is to support two key policy pillars. The first is that, for most journeys, the natural and easiest choice should be active travel, then public transport. Even when a car is used, car pooling or sharing should be easier. The second is the sustainable investment hierarchy, which focuses first on measures that are designed to reduce the need to travel; secondly, on effectively maintaining and safely operating existing assets; thirdly, on making better use of existing capacity; finally, on targeted infrastructure improvements when they appear to be the only feasible solution.

We will no longer predict and provide road infrastructure for unconstrained growth in private car use. In short, the recommendations will contribute to the fairer, greener Scotland that we are seeking and that we all want to live in.

STPR2 has been a collaborative undertaking from the start. Early on, 11 regional transport working groups were established to inform the development of proposals. We have involved communities and transport users across Scotland. The online consultations in the Borders and the South West of Scotland received several thousand responses, as did the national feedback to phase 1 last February. I thank the wide range of people and organisations that were involved, whose contributions have added invaluable insight as well as vital local knowledge and experience at every stage of the process.

That undertaking has been significant. We have distilled 14,000 initial ideas or suggestions from across Scotland into a long list of 2,800 options that were then consolidated into 1,400 stand-alone proposals, which were collated into 80 similar groups. The detailed appraisal process resulted in 45 recommendations for transport investment, which we are now sharing with stakeholders and the public for their views.

As I have been speaking, the review, with its 45 recommendations, has been published on the Transport Scotland website. That publication marks the start of 12 weeks of public consultation, with the survey now live on Citizen Space. Now, people all over Scotland get to have their say, and we will do our best to promote the consultation and encourage people to get involved.

STPR2 has a crucial role to play as we lead a green recovery from the pandemic and as we seek to deliver on our net zero ambitions. We know that it will not be easy for people to make changes, which is why the review focuses on creating the infrastructure and connectivity and delivering the transport modes that will help people to change how, why and when they travel.

Transforming Scotland’s transport requires a cohesive national effort and a repositioning of the type of transport investment that the Government makes. The 45 recommendations seek to achieve that. Some of the most important ones are the most local, but they are all focused on delivering outcomes that will make life better for us all.

As we embark on the next steps of the journey to transform how Scotland travels, by working and taking these crucial decisions together, we can create a Scotland that is fairer and greener for all.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question would indicate that by pressing their request-to-speak button or placing an R in the chat function.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. However, a bit like last week’s statement on cutting car mileage, this statement and its accompanying document raise more questions than they provide answers for. We can see the direction of travel, but we do not know how we will get there.

The cabinet secretary cheekily mentioned East Kilbride when referring to the Clyde metro project. He has a bit of a nerve, given that investment in the East Kilbride line is being cut. However, perhaps the situation has changed since he was last there, wearing a hard hat, for a photo call. I like the sound of city metro systems, but there is zero to say how and when that will be achieved or how much it will cost. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could clear that up.

Sticking with rail, why is there still no timescale for a smart ticketing system? Why is there only mention of talks, rather than action, on cross-border high-speed rail? What are the plans to improve the situation in the north? Will the far north line be dualled? There is no mention of that.

STPR2 was an opportunity to set out a different route for our failing ferry system, but there is nothing there. No multimillion pound investment has been set out. Where is it? Islanders are calling out for it. If we want our buses to be net zero, we need to spend more, but the statement says nothing about how we will achieve that. This is a series of missed opportunities and there remain a lot of questions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful for Graham Simpson’s comments, although I obviously do not agree with the sentiment behind them. As ever with Mr Simpson—in this case, on important measures to transform our country—the glass is half empty rather than half full.

STPR2 is a blueprint that will transform the way in which transport infrastructure is delivered in Scotland. The Clyde metro system is a good example of mass transit that will transform areas along the Clyde; it will make a meaningful difference to communities and the 1.5 million people who will benefit from it. I am sure that Graham Simpson will recognise that it is a multibillion pound, multiyear project. STPR2 is a 20-year programme, and delivering and driving forward the Clyde metro programme is part of our vision for the next 20 years, which will make a significant difference to people who live in that area.

I will pick up on the brass neck of the Tories coming here and talking about high-speed rail, given that high-speed rail is not only financially out of control in England but is being cut right back so that it does not go as far north as was intended. It is a bit rich of Graham Simpson to come here and start demanding that we take action on high-speed rail.

My final point to Mr Simpson is about bus investment. If there is one thing that this Government has done, it has invested in decarbonising our bus infrastructure in a way that the UK Government has utterly failed to do. We are helping to support crucial industries, such as in the example of ADL, through a really difficult period. That is why STPR2 sets out how we will continue to invest in our bus infrastructure so that it delivers for the people of Scotland.

Am I disappointed? No, I am not. It is not unusual for Mr Simpson to be disappointing and he has proven me right yet again.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. It has been a long time coming, but appropriately, when it comes to transport projects, we now have the very late publication of STPR2. Given the Government’s track record on transport, few communities will believe that the vague commitments that have been made in the review will be delivered.

Given that the Government has cancelled not one but two Glasgow airport rail links in the past 14 years, why should communities believe the cabinet secretary when he says, “Some time in the next 20 years we might build a Glasgow metro. In the meantime, the public can continue to use the train services that we’re cutting, at the ticket offices that we’re axing”? After years of being the forgotten region, why should communities in Dumfries and Galloway and Ayrshire in the south-west believe the cabinet secretary when all they are being offered is vague commitments to possible improvements to the A75 and A77, with no commitments to recognising the strategic importance of Cairnryan to Scotland’s economy?

On smart ticketing, the review says that the Government will continue the on-going development of fully integrated smart ticketing. I wonder where this on-going development is taking place because I have certainly not seen it. When will communities actually see the detailed timescale for when the projects will be delivered and the budgets for them? When will they be delivered?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Mr Smyth for his comments. He referred to the delay to STPR2 and he will be well aware that it was delayed because of the pandemic. In order to help the process, we published phase 1 last February to bed in some of the gains that we saw during the pandemic, particularly around active travel.

I will pick up on some of Mr Smyth’s other points. He will be aware that we are at the start of the 12-week STPR2 consultation period, and at the end of that process, we will publish a delivery plan that sets out how we take forward the recommendations that are set out in STPR2. That includes areas in which I know he has a particular interest, such as the A75 and the A77, to which we have committed to improving in specific areas in line with the pre-appraisal work that was carried out on the south-west Scotland transport corridor.

One of the real challenges with implementing a smart ticketing system across the whole of Scotland is the number of operators of different scale. We have more than 200 bus operators, all utilising different systems for ticketing. One of the real challenges that we face is aligning all that work, alongside the shift that the public are making in using tap and go technology. It is about aligning all that to ensure that we have an integrated system right across the country.

Mr Smyth can be absolutely assured of this Government’s on-going commitment to ensuring that we take forward that work to deliver the kind of smart ticketing system that he is looking for.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The A737 is a major arterial route through North Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. Previously in the chamber, the cabinet secretary has assured me that the A737 will be considered for inclusion in the STPR2. With more than 8 million vehicles travelling along this increasingly congested road each year, is that still the case? Can we look forward to significant investment in the A737, not least for reasons of safety, during the current parliamentary session and beyond?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I can confirm that the A737 has been considered within STPR2 and that work has identified problems and opportunities to address congestion, particularly in Kilwinning, to which the member refers. The recommendations are that we should consider renewal and improvements in reliability, including on the A737, and those improvements are anticipated to be part of the on-going work that we will take forward following the delivery plan for STPR2.

That being said, we have already invested a significant amount—£36 million—in this road; the construction of two new road schemes and the construction of the Dalry bypass and the Den realignment have also helped to improve safety and make for better journey times in those areas. I assure the member that the road has been considered and it continues to be one of the priorities for future investment.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The document provides warm words, but no specifics around rail in the north-east. Will the programme of enhancements deliver the full 20-minute reduction in journey times to the central belt that the Scottish National Party has promised since the first STPR in 2008? Will the much-trumpeted £200 million be spent on that and, if so, when?

I see no mention in the document of relaying the Dyce to Ellon line. Is the cabinet secretary telling the people of the north-east that the Scottish Government will not be relaying any rail lines in the north-east?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is clear that Liam Kerr does not understand STPR2, which is for strategic investment purposes—in other words, it relates to national projects and programmes, not rail enhancement programmes. Such rail programmes are dealt with through the rail enhancement programme, which is published on a five-yearly basis. We are presently in control period 6. It sets out the vision and the measures that we will take in that regard. [

Interruption

.]

The second thing to point out is that STPR2 recognises that the enhancements and improvements in the seven cities programme will be a key part of future investment. That includes investment in the north-east of Scotland, including in Aberdeen. The investment to which Liam Kerr referred is still committed, in order to help to reduce journey times on that route. The challenge relates to where that investment should go if the improvement in journey times is to be delivered. That investment to reduce journey times to Aberdeen might not necessarily be spent directly on areas in Aberdeen.

In relation to Ellon, Liam Kerr will be aware of the commitment to the rapid bus transport programme for Aberdeen, which is a very ambitious programme. It will extend all the way out to Ellon, so that the vision that has been developed by the North East of Scotland Transport Partnership, which we are helping to fund, can be taken forward. That will be transformative for the north-east of Scotland. That is another clear example of how this SNP Scottish Government is investing in the north-east to ensure that it delivers for all the people of Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I encourage members to ask their questions, but not to provide a running commentary on the answers as they are being given.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I have continually lobbied for the strategically important A75 and A77, which connect Scotland to Europe and the rest of the UK, to be upgraded on the grounds of safety and efficiency. I have also called for improved rail and bus frequency and improved rail connectivity, which would be brought about by, for example, reopening Beattock station, to attract people and businesses to the south-west.

Will the cabinet secretary give examples of how STPR2 will improve transport infrastructure across the south-west, and reiterate how it will improve the attractiveness of public transport?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I acknowledge Emma Harper’s long-standing interest in the matter and how she has pursued it diligently over many years.

I recognise the importance of strengthening our connections. One of the 45 recommendations of the review is on improving access to Stranraer and the port of Cairnryan. That includes a package of proposed targeted road improvements on both of the south-west routes that Emma Harper mentioned.

We have looked at realigning the route of the A75 around the villages of Springholm and Crocketford and we are targeting accident locations in order to further improve road safety in the area. Our work on the A77 is focused on resilience improvements, including provision of overtaking opportunities and expansion and development of areas around Turnberry, Girvan, Ballantrae and Cairnryan.

On public transport, we are looking at the option of upgrading or relocating the existing railway station at Stranraer in order to provide greater connectivity.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am conscious of the number of questions that we still have to get through. I again plead for concise questions and answers that are as concise as are possible.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Glasgow city and region has not had a serious transport project under the SNP Administration since 2007, but we desperately need one. The proposal for the Clyde metro has no timescale and no serious funding allocated to it. It appears to be more of a concept in a document than a real and tangible transport project.

When is that project likely to start? When will it be a reality? Will it be in five years or 10 years, or is the cabinet secretary saying that it will take 20 years? I think that the people of Glasgow and the wider city region have a right to know.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise Pauline McNeill’s concerns about investment in transport infrastructure in Glasgow. The good news is that STPR2 will deliver that vision with the Clyde metro programme, which will cover an area reaching about 15km from the city centre. It will build on the work that has been done by the Glasgow connectivity commission, which was helpful in detailing improvements that could be made. We will build on that to put in place the work that is necessary to develop that programme.

That will include working not only with Glasgow City Council but with all the local authorities in the region. We work with a range of local authorities and other partners on how we can take forward that strategic investment programme over a number of years. I cannot give a specific timescale, other than to say that it will happen within the STPR2 period. That is because a detailed work plan for the whole proposal must be developed.

I assure Pauline McNeill that I believe that a project such as the Clyde metro could, if we get it right, be absolutely transformational for communities in Glasgow and the wider Clyde area. We are determined to drive that forward and will engage with all stakeholders to do exactly that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

My plea for succinct questions and answers appears to be falling on deaf ears, but I repeat it.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

How does STPR2 seek to promote sustainable transport in Stirling?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Evelyn Tweed may be aware that STPR2 includes a strong commitment to active travel. To build on our active travel commitment, we are currently investing some £115 million per year on active travel, which is a significant increase, and we have committed to increasing that to more than £300 million per year by 2024-25, which is 10 per cent of our transport budget. Communities such as the member’s constituency will benefit from that. Her constituency currently benefits from some £7 million that we committed to improving active travel, through the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The plans to renew and decarbonise lifeline ferries are welcome. In the final First Minister’s questions of 2021, the First Minister acknowledged the national strategic importance of the Unst space port. Unst is dependent on ferry travel. Fixed link infrastructure, along with the space port, could transform north isles communities such as Unst. Given the concerns about depopulation of the outer isles, will the minister add to the Scottish Government’s recommendations fixed links between islands?