Scottish Parliament, 31 March 2022

261 contributions from 71 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, and that face coverings should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.

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

Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc. (S6O-00950)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc is a great example of team Scotland—comprising the Scottish Government, Dundee City Council, Scottish Enterprise and the private sector, including Michelin—working together to deliver change.

MSIP continues to make significant progress since it was formally opened in July 2020. MSIP provides job opportunities and skills development to Dundee and Scotland as a leading global destination for innovation and investment in sustainable mobility and low-carbon energy. To date, MSIP has 11 tenants on site and has created 115 jobs, and £2.1 million of funding was announced last week for the MSIP skills academy, which is due to be launched later this year.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

What role can MSIP play in delivering Scotland’s ambitious net zero targets, particularly around use of hydrogen? How much involvement has there been by, and how much support has come from, the United Kingdom Government?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

MSIP is a key exemplar of the ambition that the Scottish Government has for a just transition to net zero by 2045. MSIP will be an international location for innovation in sustainable mobility and low-carbon energy, with a strong focus on hydrogen. It will have a mix of start-up, high growth and more mature companies, and both inward and indigenous investors.

There will be a research and innovation organisation, and facilities including the skills academy and incubator facilities for small and medium-sized enterprises. MSIP has a strong pipeline of interest and regular contact from companies in the hydrogen sector.

Officials continue to engage with the UK Government on the exciting and innovative opportunities that are available at MSIP, and to showcase Dundee as a leader in providing essential skills for future and green economic growth.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

When the closure of Dundee’s Michelin factory was announced in 2018, the company committed to involving Unite the union in development of the new innovation park on the site. Michelin also committed to offering the first opportunities for re-employment to former Michelin staff, and to encouraging new companies that were coming to the site to do the same. Given that the Scottish Government has already invested £60 million in the site, can the minister confirm precisely how many former Michelin staff have been employed there? What meaningful engagement has Unite the union had in the development?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Of course, we are keen that all partners are engaged in all discussions about development of that exciting opportunity. As I said, 115 jobs have been created, and the site is on target to create more than 800 jobs over the next five years. My understanding is that all 850 employees who previously worked at the site have found other work opportunities or have decided to take another course of action, including retirement. However, I am sure that businesses such as are now opening at the site very regularly will be keen to interact with former Michelin employees who are keen to work there, and that the businesses will seek to find employment opportunities for them.

Road Safety

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how much funding it currently provides to improve road safety. (S6O-00951)

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

In 2021-2022, the Scottish Government invested almost £20 million to support road safety across Scotland, through trunk road casualty reduction measures, national partnership works—such as the Scottish safety camera programme—and road safety campaigns and marketing activities, which are led by Road Safety Scotland. For 2022-23, we have increased that investment to more than £37 million. That includes the formation of a new road safety improvement fund, which will allow partners to deliver initiatives to reduce casualties, in line with our ambitious targets that were captured in “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030”.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Between 2007 and 2018, road casualties across Scotland dropped by nearly 50 per cent. The latest figures, for 2020, highlight that that reduction in the number of people being injured on our roads accelerated during the pandemic and now stands at 69 per cent below the 2007 number.

Unfortunately, however, in recent years there has been a worrying increase in the number of cyclists who are injured on our roads. What steps is the Government taking with its local authority partners to address that issue?

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

We want more people to choose to walk, wheel and cycle to get around, but it is obvious that more people need to feel safe to do so. Gordon MacDonald rightly highlights the worrying increase in injuries to cyclists in recent months.

There were 605 pedal-cycle casualties in 2020, which is 13 more than there were in the previous year. Among those were 11 pedal-cycle fatalities, which is one more than there were in 2019. We are absolutely determined to reduce those numbers, so the new road safety strategy includes the specific target of reducing deaths and serious injuries of cyclists by 20 per cent by 2030.

The Government has also increased the active travel budget—which is the largest in Scotland’s history—to £150 million next year, and we are sustaining our places for everyone programme and more than doubling the investment in the national cycle network next year.

Much of the delivery will happen, of course, in partnership with local authorities, which is why we are also increasing the capital funding programme through the cycling, walking and safer routes grant this year, which will go directly to local authorities. It will increase to £35 million from next year.

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

Further to that answer, what difference have the 20mph speed limit and dedicated cycle lanes had on road traffic accidents in areas such as my constituency?

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

The Scottish Government absolutely recognises that the 20mph speed limit is a key element in reducing road casualties and creating a safer environment for people to walk, wheel or cycle. The recent programme for government includes a commitment to ensuring that all appropriate roads and built-up areas have a safer speed limit of 20mph by 2025. We have formed a task group to plan the most effective route for that implementation. I welcome the work that Scottish Borders Council has done in that endeavour, in terms of introducing 20mph zones in Ms Grahame’s constituency.

Aviation Industry (Meetings)

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of the aviation industry to discuss the sector’s recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic and what issues were discussed. (S6O-00952)

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

The Scottish Government engages regularly with aviation stakeholders to discuss the recovery of connectivity. Officials engage with airports and airlines on a daily basis, and I had a very positive meeting last week with Edinburgh Airport Limited. We are committed, in this year’s programme for government, to working with Scotland’s airports to help to restore and to grow international connectivity, while not returning to previous levels of emissions.

In addition to our work with Scotland’s airports, last month Transport Scotland officials had productive meetings with 12 airlines to discuss existing, returning and potential new routes. Given the importance of aviation as an enabler for so many other parts of the economy, it remains our aspiration to help Scotland become as well connected as peer nations and regions.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Affairs Committee’s recent report “Airports in Scotland” concluded that the public funding received by Glasgow Prestwick Airport Limited

“has ensured there is not a level playing field across airports in Scotland, leading to a distortion in the market”.

What is the Scottish Government’s response to that conclusion? Can the minister provide any more information about the future of Prestwick airport?

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

Glasgow Prestwick Airport is required to operate on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, to comply with our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

On the future of the airport, it remains our intention to return the business to the private sector when the time and the circumstances are right for the business and for the Scottish Government, as the shareholder. We are not putting a timeframe on that.

I think, however, that we need to recognise the on-going challenges that the pandemic has brought to aviation more generally. We have provided support to the sector with the powers that are available to us and within our limited resources. We have also provided support through the granting of 100 per cent non-domestic rates relief to eligible aviation businesses for 2021 and 2022.

Department for Work and Pensions (Office Estate)

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Department for Work and Pensions regarding proposed changes to its office estate that could result in job losses in the north-east and elsewhere in Scotland. (S6O-00953)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Although the Scottish Government was not consulted prior to the announcement, officials have been in contact with the Department for Work and Pensions. We are keen to understand the impacts of that change in its estate strategy on individuals and communities, and to work with it to minimise the risk of any redundancies in Scotland. The DWP confirmed that the changes will not affect any public-facing roles and that, where possible, staff are being offered opportunities to be redeployed. The DWP also indicated that it does not expect to reduce head count through that process.

I appreciate that it will be an unsettling time for individuals; they must be our priority. We have made an offer to stand up our support through our initiative for responding to redundancy situations—the partnership action for continuing employment. The DWP does not think that PACE support is required at this time. However, the offer will remain open for anyone who requires it. If needed, PACE will provide individual skills development and employability support.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Last September, the First Minister announced the creation of more than 2,000 jobs in Social Security Scotland by the end of this year. The DWP staff who are at risk of redundancy have a high level of expertise in delivering social security benefits, which could prove to be useful in supporting roll-out of new devolved benefits. Therefore, will the minister commit to working with the PCS Scotland trade union and the DWP to explore redeployment of those workers to Social Security Scotland, particularly in areas where there is a high risk of redundancy.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I said, the information that we have from the DWP is that it does not expect to reduce head count through the process. PACE support is available, if it is required for people to seek alternative employment. That would, of course, include suitable opportunities that become available through Social Security Scotland or elsewhere. I am sure that the relevant minister will be happy to pick up that specific matter.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Impact of Spring Statement)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what the impact of the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement will be on Scotland’s SMEs. (S6O-00954)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

As with so many other aspects of the spring statement, it was a missed opportunity to help small and medium-sized enterprises, many of which are still reeling from the impact of the pandemic. In advance of the spring statement, we called on the UK Government to extend the VAT reduction for the hospitality sector, to introduce a temporary reduction of the VAT on fuels and to remove the incoming increase to national insurance contributions. Those measures would have helped to reduce costs for small and medium-sized enterprises across the country, but the chancellor did not listen.

The UK Government’s failure to provide adequate support and its decision to press ahead with an increase in national insurance when businesses are faced with the burdens of Covid recovery, inflation and energy costs, to name but a few, is extremely disappointing, to put it mildly. The measures that were announced in the spring statement are not nearly enough, given the pressures on businesses at the moment. We have urged the UK Government to take more action in reserved areas, but it has not done so with that spring statement.

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, minister.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

If the UK Government is not willing to use its reserved levers, those powers should be put into the hands of this Parliament, instead.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the minister for that very strong answer. He highlights the accelerating inflation, rising national insurance and so on, to which I would add borrowing costs. Much more should have been done to support SMEs. Will the minister meet me to discuss some ideas that I have about further specific actions that can be taken to support SMEs in my constituency of Falkirk East and across the sector?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I agree absolutely with the member that the chancellor should have offered more support to SMEs and all those affected by the cost of living crisis. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy wrote to the chancellor urging him to use the tax levers at his disposal to help people and businesses through the crisis. The failure to provide any substantial support to SMEs and the refusal to introduce a windfall tax on those who are profiting from the pandemic and the energy crisis are an indication of where the chancellor’s priorities lie. The chancellor should have introduced measures to raise the revenue required to support SMEs. I would, of course, be happy to meet the member to discuss these matters further.

Cycling Safety

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the Scottish National Party manifesto commitment for every child to leave school being able to cycle safely. (S6O-00955)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Bikeability Scotland is the national cycle training programme for schoolchildren. The programme is delivered by Cycling Scotland using Transport Scotland grant funding. Bikeability is now delivered in 31 local authorities across the country. Before the pandemic, 47 per cent of all primary schools in Scotland participated in the programme.

In consultation with Transport Scotland, Cycling Scotland adapted bikeability delivery in response to the coronavirus lockdown. In 2020-21, training was delivered for the children of key workers at 70 childcare hubs across 15 local authorities. As lockdown restrictions have eased, Cycling Scotland has been working closely with participating local authorities to restart delivery, including through issuing guidance, funding and other support.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful for that answer.

How many children will leave school in 14 weeks’ time being able to cycle safely on our roads?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I pointed out during my original answer, clearly, the Covid pandemic has greatly impacted the bikeability scheme’s ability to operate fully and most effectively, which I hope that the member appreciates is understandable.

The member can take heart from the work that Cycling Scotland is undertaking to ensure a great increase in the proportion of schools that are participating by September 2023, and the fact that it is keen to do even more in the years ahead.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary has already said, just 47 per cent of primary schools deliver on-the-road training, which is nowhere near enough. How does the cabinet secretary plan to increase that number?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Bikeability Scotland is already planning to increase those numbers in the next school year. It anticipates increasing the proportion of schools that are participating to 57 per cent by September 2023. We will of course continue to invest in the bikeability Scotland scheme to grow participation numbers beyond that.

“Highway Code” (Changes)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on travel in Scotland of the recent changes to the “Highway Code”. (S6O-00956)

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

As Liz Smith will know, changes to the “Highway Code” came into force on 29 January 2022, aimed at providing better protection for pedestrians and cyclists. A main change to the “Highway Code” is the introduction of the hierarchy of road users, which places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. Although that matter is reserved, the Scottish Government broadly supports those changes.

Transport Scotland continues to work with partners across the United Kingdom, including the Department for Transport, to align future awareness campaigns with any further changes to the “Highway Code”. Although it is too early to have assessed the impact of those changes thus far, they are being monitored and an assessment will be undertaken at the appropriate time.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am glad to hear that there will be some assessment, because the policing of those changes is a matter for Police Scotland. On account of the concerns that many constituents, especially elderly constituents, have raised that many drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are not properly adhering to the new code, what can be done to raise awareness of the changes and to ensure that those who are flouting the new regulations are properly dealt with?

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

To respond to some of Liz Smith’s points, in January of this year the Department for Transport informed Transport Scotland that it felt unable to embark on a communications or media plan in advance of the changes that would be coming into effect on 29 January.

Instead, it decided to propose a communication plan in two phases. The first phase was an awareness-raising campaign, which took place in early February, that alerted road users to the changes as they came into effect; the second phase is a broader behaviour change campaign that will take place in May and June, which will align with seasonal increases in active travel to help embed the changes and encourage the understanding that Liz Smith spoke to in her supplementary question.

It is fair to say that we were disappointed that the UK Government felt unable to promote those changes ahead of 29 January, so we took the proactive decision to do so ourselves in Scotland. Transport Scotland, Police Scotland, Road Safety Scotland and Traffic Scotland all used their social media to raise awareness of the changes, and the Scottish Government provided £75,000 for a three-week awareness-raising campaign, which ran in February on radio and social media.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The amendment of rule 126 to add that

“tailgating will be enforced by police as a dangerous and careless driving offence”

has great potential to improve the experience of road users.

A report by the Co-op from September 2020 highlighted that

“over half of young drivers feel pressured to drive faster by other motorists”.

Does the minister agree that that crackdown on inconsiderate driving is a welcome step?

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

I agree. Kaukab Stewart highlights a key issue about ensuring that young drivers are supported and that they feel empowered to make the right choices in how they drive their vehicles.

We know that, too often, young drivers are not just the cause of road traffic accidents but, sadly, their victims, and we need to change that. It is just not acceptable for anyone to drive aggressively or in a way that lacks courtesy to other road users.

Our new “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030” includes a strategic action to work with partners to change the attitudes and behaviours of road users in Scotland. Last week, I announced an increased funding package of £70 million for our road safety work.

The enforcement of road laws is, of course, a matter for Police Scotland, with which we will continue to engage on a regular basis on this and other road safety and driver behaviour-related issues.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time. Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery Her Excellency Saida Muna Tasneem, the Bangladesh High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. [Applause.]

Ferries (Construction Contract)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Presiding Officer,

“I think this is one of the achievements we are most proud of. This yard is iconic in Scotland”.

Those were Nicola Sturgeon’s words in 2016, when talking about the contract to build ferries at Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd. Does the First Minister accept that she has made the yard iconic for all the wrong reasons?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I still believe that the Scottish Government was right to do everything possible to save Ferguson’s shipyard. If it were not for those decisions, Ferguson’s shipyard would not still be open and employing significant numbers of people, as it is today. Douglas Ross and I may well take different views on this, but I think that it was right for the Scottish Government to protect and save jobs and the shipyard.

As I set out at First Minister’s question time last week, the delays to the timetable for the construction of the ferries and the cost overruns are a matter of deep regret. The Audit Scotland report that was published last week set out much of the detail on that, and the Scottish Government’s Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd is certainly intent on learning all lessons. However, I do not regret the fact that Ferguson’s shipyard is still operational and employing lots of people.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is good that people continue to be employed; we welcome that. However, there was not a single mention in the First Minister’s answer of the island communities that have been waiting for years for those lifeline services. That is where her regret should lie, but they do not even merit a mention.

The deal that the First Minister is so proud of has become a disaster. We now know that the Government waived a crucial safeguard that would have protected taxpayers’ money. International guidelines say that the refund guarantee is the financial cornerstone of a shipbuilding project. The guidelines state:

“it is unlikely that any shipbuilding contract would be signed if there was no such guarantee”,

yet that is exactly what the First Minister did, knowing the risks.

Last week, when I asked about the guarantee, she said:

“That decision was clearly taken based on the balance of risks.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2022; c 13.]

In other words, she dropped a vital safeguard, which is standard for such contracts, in order to cut a deal. Five years on, does the First Minister accept that the risks were far too high and that it was a bad deal?

The First Minister

In my initial answer, I expressed deep regret—I think that those were my actual words—about the delay in the construction of the ferries and the cost overrun. Clearly, the people who are most impacted by the delay in the construction of the ferries are those who live on our islands. That is where my deep regret rightly lies.

On the wider question on the refund guarantee, I set out my response in full last week. There was a failure on the part of FMEL to offer the full-refund guarantee and, as I set out in detail last week, a number of steps were taken to mitigate the risk that was caused by that. The three key steps in mitigation that were taken were, first, the final payment that was to be made to FMEL for the delivery of the vessels was increased from 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the contract price. Therefore, in effect, CMAL would withhold more of the payment until the later stage. Secondly, CMAL would take ownership of all equipment, machinery and materials as they arrived at the shipyard. Thirdly, FMEL would require all major suppliers to offer the full refund guarantee, with CMAL as the payee.

Those were the mitigation steps that were taken, and there was then a requirement for ministers to take a decision on a balance of judgment. As the paperwork that has been in the public domain for some time now makes clear, CMAL articulated concerns about that—that is all laid out in the paperwork and the Audit Scotland report. However, there was also a view that the negotiations with FMEL had led to the best deal that could have been struck with FMEL.

Again, I express my deep regret at the delays and cost overruns in the construction of the ferries. Lessons have been, are being, and will be learned. I do not, however, regret the fact that the shipyard still exists and is now employing more than 400 people. As well as learning lessons from this experience, we are also determined to ensure that the shipyard has a bright future.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister stands there and says that lessons have been learned, but last week’s Audit Scotland report said:

“There is no evidence that the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland or CMAL conducted a formal project review exercise after the original contract failed.”

That is how to learn lessons, but her Government did not do that.

Despite her very long answer, the First Minister could not accept that the deal was a bad deal. However, she mentioned CMAL and its statements that are in the public domain and in the Audit Scotland report. CMAL knows that the deal is a bad deal because it said—let us remember that the company is owned by the Scottish Government—that it would not agree another contract with those conditions. A Government-owned company said that.

What else did CMAL say, according to the Audit Scotland report? Regardless of what Scottish Government ministers tell the company, because it is so opposed to the deal and can see the pitfalls, even if the Government and ministers told it otherwise, it would not take that approach. CMAL gets how bad the deal is, but the First Minister does not.

The issue is important to islanders and island communities, because the ferries are vital to their way of life and work, so let us look at what happened here. Nicola Sturgeon signed off a contract against the advice of experts. She started building ferries without agreeing a design. She threw good money after bad and £0.25 billion has been spent with nothing to show for it. Worst of all, the person who has ultimate responsibility, the First Minister, removed the essential safeguard that would have protected Scottish taxpayers.

A former Scottish Government shipbuilding adviser says that the final cost could rise to between £350 million and £400 million. Can the First Minister guarantee to Scottish taxpayers that that will not be the final bill?

The First Minister

The chief executive of the shipyard and CMAL have endorsed the latest cost estimate, which the finance secretary set out in the chamber last week alongside the latest updated timescale. That is significant, because it is the first time that it has happened. Those are the cost estimates, and all the efforts of those in the yard are now ensuring that the ferries are delivered.

I am not standing here and saying that there is not a great deal to deeply regret about the conduct of the contract. It clearly has not gone the way that anybody would have wanted it to. However, Douglas Ross said that there is nothing to show for it. As of the middle of March this year, 462 people have employment in Ferguson’s shipyard. That is something to show for the Government’s actions.

Douglas Ross also said that no lessons have been learned, then went on to narrate the lessons that CMAL has already learned and is putting into practice. We will continue to learn the lessons and, most importantly, we will continue to focus on completing the ferries, which is the most important thing for our island communities. We will also focus on ensuring that Ferguson’s shipyard and all those who work there now and in the future have that bright future that people across Scotland want.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I know that the First Minister does not like First Minister’s questions, because members hold her to account and seek answers from her, but she did not even make an attempt to give a guarantee. A former Scottish Government adviser has said that the costs will go to £350 million to £400 million, but we have heard nothing from the First Minister to guarantee to Scottish taxpayers that that will not happen.

What should have been, in the First Minister’s words, a proud achievement, has become a sign of the Government’s incompetence. In 2014, the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, said that the SNP would replace 12 ferries for £250 million, but it has not even built one ferry for that amount of money. It has ignored the experts, and islanders remain stuck with a rotten ferry service and no sign of improvement.

The First Minister’s Government struck a deal, on the balance of risks, that has been catastrophic for Scottish taxpayers, and any evidence as to why that call was made has mysteriously vanished. Audit Scotland could not find a shred of evidence—it says that in its report.

Nicola Sturgeon’s whole claim here, even after she has lost £250 million without building a single ferry, is that the deal was the best option available. Is she seriously saying that she would sign the same deal all over again?

The First Minister

That was the view at the time that the contract was signed. Obviously, we would not repeat what has happened; that is self-evident.

On the issue of the costs, Douglas Ross has quoted—I know that he was quoting somebody else—costs of between £350 million and £400 million. I simply do not recognise those numbers. The cost estimates are as they were set out by the finance secretary, and we stand behind those cost estimates. I have been very clear about that.

Our focus now is on ensuring that the ferries are completed in the interests of our island communities and that Ferguson’s shipyard and all those who work in it have a bright future. We will learn the lessons from what has happened. I have said several times today that I deeply regret the experience, and I take full responsibility—as I did last week—for that, but my focus, and that of the Government, is on learning the lessons and securing the future of the shipyard.

Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Holdings Limited (Turnaround Director)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. The waste of public money—a quarter of a billion pounds so far—by the Government at Ferguson’s does not end with the award of the ferry contract. In August 2019, Tim Hair was appointed as turnaround director at the yard. The emails that I have here, which were obtained through freedom of information requests, show that the appointment was rushed through, without the usual competition, in just a few days. Mr Hair was selected from a shortlist of only three people, all of whom were recommended by the corporate adviser PricewaterhouseCoopers. In the process of negotiating his salary, Mr Hair started by offering a rate of £2,000 a day, but he ended up being paid just under £3,000, plus expenses, per day. The emails also show that the First Minister was informed about all that and did not raise a single objection.

As people across Scotland tighten their belts, can the First Minister explain why she thought that it was right to pay Tim Hair more than £2 million, which meant that he earned in just 11 days what the average Scot earns in a year?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The decisions that were taken at the time were in line with proper processes and procedures and with market rates. I do not set the market rates at which people are paid.

A new chief executive is now in place at Ferguson’s, who has updated Parliament on the revised timescales and the revised costs for the ferries. We will continue to update Parliament, and Parliament will continue to hold the Government and the company—which, of course, is now in Government ownership—to account. We will concentrate on learning the lessons but, more than anything, we will concentrate on completing the ferries and on securing a good future for the shipyard. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has already said that that is of huge significance and that the Government was right to intervene to secure the future of the shipyard.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

A market rate of £3,000 a day—was the First Minister signing Lionel Messi? Who is the First Minister kidding? I do not hear any apology or any regret for paying Tim Hair £2 million. Let us not forget that that £2 million was to turn around the yard, but the ferries have still not been delivered, are costing more and have been delayed again.

The email that I am holding, which was also obtained through freedom of information requests, shows that Government advisers suggested that Tim Hair needed a decent pay package so that life was not “unnecessarily painful” for him while he swapped Hampshire for Port Glasgow. That is shocking and out of touch.

At a time when families are having to count every penny, it seems that the First Minister is suggesting that Tim Hair was, as he said, value for money. Does the First Minister honestly think that he has been value for money? If not, what will she do to recover £2 million of taxpayers’ money?

The First Minister

I make it clear that I do not think that the experience of the contract has been acceptable in any way, shape or form, but the focus now, under the new chief executive of the shipyard, is to get the ferries completed in the interests of island communities and to secure the future of the shipyard. That is what the Government will continue to focus on. That is in the interest not only of island communities but of those who work in the shipyard.

We should not lose sight of the fact that, but for Government intervention, the shipyard would no longer be operational, it would no longer be open and nobody would be employed. Right now, we have more than 400 people employed in that shipyard, and we intend to do everything that we can to ensure that it has a bright future, which I think is what people in Port Glasgow and across Scotland will want to see.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We are all for protecting jobs, but let us be clear: this was a public relations stunt to protect Nicola Sturgeon’s job, Derek Mackay’s job and the jobs of Scottish National Party MPs.

While people see their bills going up, they see a Government paying a quarter of a billion pounds when there are still no ferries. Contracts and jobs are going abroad, and £2 million has been paid to one person. This Government and this First Minister are all about spin and PR, while the public pays the bill.

Nicola Sturgeon says that what happened was normal and was done by the book, but Audit Scotland says the opposite. She says that she is open and transparent, but Audit Scotland does not agree. Nicola Sturgeon says that the delays are unacceptable, but then accepts them. She says that she wants to learn lessons, but she does not want a public inquiry. She says that the Government takes responsibility, but not a single person has. Why does she think that it is acceptable that, while people need help with the cost of living, they are instead paying the cost of her Government’s failure?

The First Minister

I do not think that Anas Sarwar really does support the protection and retention of employment. If we had followed what he has just set out, there would be no Ferguson’s shipyard and no one would be employed in that shipyard.

From the point of public ownership to November 2020, the number of permanent jobs at Ferguson’s more than doubled. A level of more than 350 permanent staff has been sustained since then. There are currently about 400 permanent employees, and there are additional agency workers. Since August 2021, 42 apprentices have learned a trade in the yard, and the yard plans to take on more apprentices later this year. More than 70 per cent of all the people employed at the yard live in Inverclyde. Those are people who are employed right now and who would be finding the cost of living crisis much harder had the Government not saved the shipyard.

That is the reality. The experience of the contract is deeply regrettable, but what is not regrettable is saving the shipyard and the jobs of those who work in it.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to supplementary questions.

Ministry of Defence Housing (Use by Displaced Ukrainians)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

In my constituency, many Ministry of Defence family homes around the Dreghorn and Redford barracks have been left empty for many years. Recently, I wrote to the Tory Secretary of State for Defence to highlight that issue again. Will the First Minister support my calls for the United Kingdom Government to consider using the hundreds of empty MOD homes in Edinburgh and across Scotland to house people who are being displaced as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The scale of the humanitarian crisis means that it is important that all housing options are fully explored. I think that MOD housing should and must be considered as part of that process. I would therefore welcome the UK Government, which has sole responsibility for MOD property, making empty homes available to support displaced people from Ukraine.

The Scottish Government is already bringing together key partners to ensure effective co-ordination of plans to address the accommodation needs of people who are settling in Scotland. We are committed to working with all partners to ensure that all arrangements in place are safe and sustainable, and offer true sanctuary for those fleeing the war.

Commodity Costs (Support for Farmers)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The First Minister will be aware that the war in Ukraine, which is closely linked to global gas prices, is having an impact on agricultural commodities. Borders farmers are facing rising costs for inputs, including manufactured fertiliser. The United Kingdom Government has announced steps to address that uncertainty among growers and to keep costs down for farmers, but we have not yet heard anything from the Scottish National Party Government. What action is the First Minister’s Government taking to support farmers at this very challenging time?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We continue to work with farmers to give them whatever support we can. It is important to point out that, although the impact of the war in Ukraine is obviously being felt by our farming community, that community was already suffering from the impacts of Brexit, so, in many respects, real responsibility actually does lie with the UK Government.

Racial Profiling (International Students)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that international students are not subject to racial profiling when trying to access accommodation in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Nobody—neither students nor anybody else—should be the subject of racial profiling, and we would take a very dim view of any evidence that that was happening. I would be happy to hear more of the information that lies behind the question, look into it if necessary and consider what action may be required as a result.

Fuel Poverty (Heating Oil)

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

I know that the First Minister is aware of the extreme impact of fuel poverty in the Western Isles, where 88 per cent of households are not connected to the gas grid. Although electricity prices will rise sharply across the whole of Scotland from tomorrow, the price of heating oil has already more than doubled since this time last year. There is little to no competition in my constituency, which leaves consumers without any choice of supplier. Will the First Minister give an assurance that the Scottish Government will continue to make representations to the United Kingdom Government to urge it to introduce proper regulation and price caps for the heating oil industry?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I assure Alasdair Allan that we will continue to make representations to the UK Government on that very important matter. It is an unregulated market and the powers to introduce regulation remain with the UK Government, but the Scottish Government recognises the impact of price increases on off-gas-grid energy consumers, and I am very aware of the severe impacts that fuel poverty has in rural and island communities.

We have confirmed that we will continue our fuel insecurity funding to support those who are struggling with bills regardless of what fuel they use, and we will continue to provide assistance for households to move away from dependence on heating oil where a low-carbon alternative is available.

Cancer Waiting Times Targets

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

This week saw the publication of another deeply troubling set of cancer statistics. They reveal that fewer than 80 per cent of urgent referrals are being treated within the two-month target, which is shamefully short of the target set by the Scottish National Party Government, and it cannot use the pandemic as justification for that. The target has now not been met for almost a decade and this is the worst performance since 2008. For all the time that the target remains unmet, patients and their families are left in limbo. What steps will the First Minister urgently take to recover 10 years of missed targets?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

On the extremely important issue of cancer waiting times, the member will be aware that there are two key targets. We actually exceed the 31-day target. On the 62-day urgent suspicion of cancer referral to treatment target, although in percentage terms that target is not being met—we are working hard to meet it—more people are being seen within that target than was the case a year ago and two years ago.

We have announced additional funding of £10 million this year and a further £10 million in the coming financial year, with a particularly strong focus on the colorectal and urology pathways, which are two of the pathways that have the most challenges in relation to waiting times. The initiatives that the funding supports include, for example, upskilling nurses and investing in diagnostic tests. We have also established three pilot early cancer diagnostic centres and continue to invest in our detect cancer early programme.

A range of initiatives that are backed by funding are under way as we seek to shorten waiting times under the 62-day target in particular. It is important to point out that the median wait under that target is 46 days, which is well within the target.

Nursing Vacancies

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

This week, the Royal College of Nursing reported record vacancies in Glasgow; it also reported that spending on bank and agency nurses has risen to £76.5 million. That is unsustainable and unacceptable; it means delays and a lack of continuity of care for patients, increased pressure on existing staff and more strain on an already extremely tight budget. Can the First Minister say what new actions the Government will take to urgently address the crisis, because current plans are not working?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met with the RCN yesterday. We have a range of initiatives in place, which I and the health secretary have spoken about in the chamber in recent weeks, to support recruitment in our national health service, which is very challenged at the moment for a variety of reasons that members are well aware of.

However, in Scotland right now, overall nursing and midwifery staffing—excluding vacancies, obviously—is at a record high. It has increased by 14.5 per cent since the Government took office. Overall NHS staffing has increased by more than 20 per cent to a record high since the Government took office. Record numbers are working in our NHS, but we want to recruit more and we have targets to do so. That is why we are investing heavily and working with NHS boards on targeted initiatives to make sure that that recruitment is successful.

Decarbonisation

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister what changes the recent shifts in fossil fuel prices and the need for energy security have made to the Scottish Government’s plans for decarbonisation. (S6F-00957)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government takes a comprehensive approach to meeting our net zero targets. Our draft energy strategy and just transition plan will consider technologies for transforming Scotland’s energy systems.

Through our heat in buildings programmes, we are driving the decarbonisation of homes and buildings, and we have enhanced support and advice schemes as part of the £1.8 billion investment over this parliamentary session. The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport recently wrote to the United Kingdom Government to outline Scotland’s proposals for decarbonisation, including accelerating the electricity network, increasing financial resources for renewables and resolving unfair network charges that are not aligned with net zero.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

There is an urgent need for action. People are facing a cost of living crisis now and energy bills are going up from tomorrow—all while the UK Government seems determined to abandon climate commitments and increase the growing profits of oil and gas companies. A crisis of this nature needs a concerted and holistic response. We must deliver, at scale, measures to help those most in need. We must insulate Scotland, retrofit buildings, invest in low-carbon heating and grow our renewables potential.

What is the Scottish Government doing to supercharge renewables and energy efficiency programmes? What plans are in place to ensure that the necessary workforce and skills are in place? Does the First Minister agree that the oil and gas companies should not be profiting from the cost of living crisis?

The First Minister

We believe that the UK Government should be doing more—and have set out ways in which it can do that—to help people right now with the cost of living crisis. We ourselves are taking a number of actions but, in the main, the levers and resources lie with the UK Government.

We also believe that this is a time for trying to accelerate the transition to net zero, not for moving off that ambition in any way. As I said in my earlier answer, we have extensive plans in place across the energy sector to meet those targets. They include, for example, investing £100 million in the hydrogen sector and boosting support for households to improve their own energy efficiency and to transition away from fossil fuel heating. Our green jobs workforce academy supports existing employees to undertake necessary upskilling and reskilling to secure green jobs opportunities. We have also called on the UK Government for an extended windfall tax on organisations, including oil and gas companies, that are making significant profits right now. Our most recent budget sets out record levels of investment to address the climate emergency and deliver a just transition to net zero.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Will the First Minister welcome the achievement of an 11 per cent reduction in emissions from North Sea operations, and does she agree that the production of more gas on the UK continental shelf means less imported liquefied natural gas—cutting emissions by nearly 300 per cent?

Should we in Scotland not be in the lead on opportunities for decarbonisation, such as the use of offshore wind to power platforms, hydrogen technology, and carbon capture and storage, which the UK Climate Change Committee says is vital to getting to net zero? Does she recognise that, without a thriving oil and gas sector, Scotland may simply lose those major opportunities to lead on net zero, because that sector’s skills, technical expertise and operational experience are essential to delivering them?

The First Minister

I certainly welcome the efforts of the oil and gas sector to decarbonise its own activities. That is something that we should all welcome. Of course, we also have to think about the impact on the environment of the use of oil and gas. That is an important part of getting to net zero as well.

I agree, and have made clear my agreement, that the skills, expertise and infrastructure of the oil and gas sector will be extremely important in making sure that we make that transition to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy.

We need to make that transition as quickly as possible, for a variety of reasons—the importance of that has been underlined in recent weeks—but we need to do that fairly and justly, as well. When he was a minister with these responsibilities, Fergus Ewing played an important role in helping to ensure that the Government is on the right track.

Nobody wants to increase dependence on imports of oil and gas, so we must therefore ensure that we are investing properly in the transition to renewables, and that is what this Government is seeking to do.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The First Minister just said that

“Nobody wants to increase dependency on imports”,

but reports this week suggest that, without political backing, the United Kingdom could be wholly dependent on imports of oil and gas within 15 years, due to a lack of confidence to invest.

Given that the Cambo field is priced into the Climate Change Committee’s net zero projections for decarbonisation and could help to reduce the cost of energy bills, create around 4,000 jobs and significantly help the UK’s energy security, will the First Minister consider giving her political backing to production from Cambo?

The First Minister

I have made clear my views on Cambo—they are well known and well reported. I am not the decision maker on Cambo, but I have made clear my views on that.

Everybody—even the member’s colleagues in the UK Government—accepts the importance of moving away from reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and that we need to do that justly. The question is how we best do that. Of course, right now, a significant proportion of what is produced in the North Sea is actually exported.

We need to invest more in renewables and low-carbon energy sources. As Fergus Ewing rightly said, we need to invest in carbon capture and storage, and, again, it is regrettable that the UK Government has not prioritised the Scottish Cluster—the Acorn project.

The transition away from fossil fuels is inescapable and the war in Ukraine has just reminded us of how important it is. There will be differences of opinion about the best way to transition, but that we must do so is inescapable. For this Government, the investment in and support of renewables is a crucial part of that.

Register of Persons Holding a Controlled Interest in Land

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

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government anticipates the impact will be of the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, which will launch on 1 April. (S6F-00968)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The new public register will increase transparency around land management and ownership. It will be held by Registers of Scotland and be free to access, and it will provide information about those who ultimately make decisions about the management or use of land, even if they are not registered as the owner. In short, it will mean that those who are in control of land and are taking the decisions about its use are not able to effectively hide their identities because they are not the registered owner.

The register will include overseas entities and trusts, irrespective of when the land was acquired, and the information will enable individuals and communities to identify and engage with those who make decisions about land that affect them. It marks a significant milestone in making land ownership in Scotland more transparent, which is a key objective for the Scottish Government’s land reform ambitions.

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

I welcome the legislation. To put the issue in practical terms, the First Minister will be aware that in many small towns, such as Galashiels in my constituency, town centres are blighted by many long-term vacant large retail outlets, whose actual owners or landlords cannot be traced, which prevents organisations such as Energise Galashiels and the local authority from redeveloping the town centre through either voluntary or compulsory purchase. Is that the type of difficulty that the legislation will, at long last, help to resolve?

The First Minister

That is certainly one of the issues that the register will help to resolve. As I said earlier, its main purpose is to improve transparency, so that the public have information about the people who are making the decisions about land use, wherever that land is, regardless of who is the registered owner of it. Anyone, including local authorities, who wants to contact the person who controls or influences those decisions will be able to use the register to find their contact details, where they are on the register. It will make it easier for communities to find and contact those who control land and properties, and then influence the decisions about the land and property that impact on them or their communities.

ScotRail (Improvements)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what immediate improvements the Scottish Government plans to deliver for passengers when it takes control of ScotRail on 1 April. (S6F-00958)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The transition of ScotRail passenger services into public ownership tomorrow will be a very significant milestone. It will also fulfil a manifesto commitment of this Government and mark a new beginning for ScotRail. It provides an opportunity to modernise and deliver passenger services that are efficient, sustainable, safe and fit for the future and that reflect the changing world we live in.

From tomorrow, services will continue as normal. It is important that we provide reassurance and familiarity to passengers in the immediate term, as we recover from the disruption and impact of the pandemic. Later this spring, we will launch a national conversation, offering rail staff, passengers and communities an opportunity to contribute to the future vision for Scotland’s railway and help to shape this new beginning for ScotRail.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

We know that the Scottish National Party is no good at running things—we just have to look at the ferries for that. Given that fiasco, rail passengers should be worried that NatRail will turn out to be CalMac on wheels.

On Sunday, the Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth, was quoted as saying:

“From day one, you might not necessarily see anything that looks different but the major difference is accountability.”

Ms Gilruth obviously did not get the memo that the Government does not do accountability. So far, what we know is that we will have rising fares, service cuts and ticket office closures. What part of that is an improvement?

The First Minister

The Government has already delivered significant improvements on our railways, and that is even before the railway comes into public ownership, as it will tomorrow. I know that the Conservatives like being reminded of this, so I will say again that, since 2009, under this Government, the communities of Alloa, Laurencekirk, Armadale, Blackridge, Caldercruix, Conon Bridge, Shawfair, Eskbank, Newtongrange, Gorebridge, Stow, Galashiels, Tweedbank and Kintore have all been reconnected to the rail network through the reversal of cuts. In the next three years, Reston, East Linton, Dalcross, Cameron Bridge and Leven will follow.

Under the Tories, railway workers in England have faced a pay freeze. A fair pay deal was delivered in October last year for ScotRail staff.

Lastly, we have taken action to keep rail fares down. ScotRail fares are, on average, 20 per cent cheaper than in those areas of the United Kingdom that are governed by the Conservatives.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The public ownership of ScotRail is very welcome, both to all reasonable members in this place and to the public at large. Does the First Minister think that it will increase opportunities for the railway and better serve Scotland’s people and economy?

The First Minister

Yes, I do. Bringing ScotRail into public ownership and control is a historic moment, and I am delighted that it is happening under this Government. However, many others, including the rail unions, campaigned for this to happen and it is important to pay tribute to them, too.

Our commitment is clear: we have invested £9 billion in the railway since 2007. I have just listed the stations that have been reconnected since 2009, with five more to follow. We have delivered a pay deal for staff, in contrast to the pay freeze south of the border.

We will continue to press for full devolution of rail powers, including full devolution of Network Rail in Scotland, so that we can truly deliver the railway that Scotland wants and deserves.

Long Covid Support Fund

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on what the £10 million long Covid support fund has been allocated for and how much has been spent. (S6F-00984)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Services and support are already being provided across Scotland for those with long Covid. We know that more is needed, not just now but for the long term, to support people in the most appropriate way. Our long Covid strategic network brings together clinical experts, national health service boards and those with lived experience, and will determine how we target the support fund at the areas where additional resource is needed and can make the biggest difference in the long term.

The first tranche of funding will be allocated over the next few weeks. The funding will be used by boards to strengthen the co-ordination of services across supported self-management, primary care, rehabilitation support and secondary care investigation and support.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the First Minister for her answer, but long Covid sufferers say that there are very few services in place. That funding was announced in September 2021. No indication was given at that stage that, six months later, not one penny would have been allocated to health boards to develop services. Instead, as we have heard, the money will be spread over the next three years. The number of people suffering from long Covid has been estimated by the Office for National Statistics to be 119,000 and rising. Why has the pace been so slow? When will every health board in Scotland have dedicated long Covid services to help patients and their general practitioners?

The First Minister

As I indicated in my initial answer, we have set up the long Covid strategic network. We did that deliberately so that the targeting of the funding would be driven and determined by clinical experts on the front line and by people with lived experience of long Covid. In addition, we have launched a long Covid information platform to help people to manage symptoms. We have worked to raise awareness of long Covid and signpost people to appropriate support. NHS Scotland is already delivering care in line with the recommendations of the clinical guidelines developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. That is underpinned in Scotland by the full range of NHS services, including primary care teams and community-based rehabilitation services with referrals to secondary care where necessary.

Long Covid clinics are one model that NHS boards may be considering. However, no single approach will fit all areas and circumstances. We will continue to support the development of multidisciplinary support services, because that support will be required for the long term.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Long Covid is becoming the biggest mass disabling event since world war one: there are nearly 120,000 sufferers. Those people need clinics, care pathways and long Covid nurses, yet we are still nowhere. I have asked the First Minister about the issue every month since the funding was announced in September and she said that an action plan was being implemented—six months later, we have just learned that not one penny of that £10 million has left the Scottish Government bank account. Will the First Minister apologise to Scotland’s long Covid sufferers? Will she wake up her ministers on the issue and get help to sufferers fast?

The First Minister

No, we will continue to support the development of services that are appropriate to those who need that support not just now but in the long term. That is already underpinned by the full range of NHS support services. I have outlined the work that has already been done and I have outlined why we took the decision to allow clinical experts and those living with long Covid to direct the nature of the funding that is being made available.

I have been encouraged by members in the chamber to follow the example of the approach that is, allegedly, being taken south of the border. A report was published just last week by the Westminster all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which stated that the pathways that have been established by the UK Government

“including Long Covid clinics are inadequate and do not meet current demand”.

It also said that

“some of those clinics may be experiencing temporary or even permanent closures”.

The reason why we are doing this in the way that we are is so that we do not somehow suggest that there is one model of support. The support needs to be delivered across the entirety of the NHS.

Of course, we still need to understand more about the nature of long Covid, which is why, right now, the chief scientist office is funding nine Scottish-led research projects to enable us to continue to develop our understanding of long Covid and ensure that services develop alongside that.

Ukrainian Refugees (Protection)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the First Minister what immediate safeguarding measures will be in place to ensure that arrivals from Ukraine are protected from organised criminal activity, human trafficking and exploitation. (S6F-00962)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Any form of human trafficking or exploitation is abhorrent and people must be protected from it. Police Scotland’s national human trafficking unit continues to engage with internal and external partners and enforcement agencies to maintain high visibility of human trafficking and exploitation risks at points of entry around Scotland. Anyone with concerns about human trafficking should contact Police Scotland.

On safeguarding, where people are opening their homes to displaced people from Ukraine, hosts can apply for expedited disclosure checks of the same level of scrutiny as the initial checks that are carried out for those working with children and vulnerable adults. That comes under the new regulations that were introduced last week to ensure that we have a safe, speedy and free vetting system.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

We all thank the huge number of Scottish families who have come forward to open their homes to the Ukrainians who are coming here through the United Kingdom-wide scheme. However, we have to be realistic about the fact that, sadly, not everyone who offers help will be well intentioned. In fact, organised criminal gangs may see what is happening in Ukraine as more of an opportunity than a tragedy.

A number of important organisations, including the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, or TARA, Survivors of Human Trafficking in Scotland and Scotland Against Modern Slavery have all raised valid concerns about the vulnerability and desperation of those who are arriving and the potential for harm as a result of arrivals being lured into low-paid, illegal or sexually exploitative activities or—even worse—simply being abused in private homes.

What work will be undertaken by the Government and its public agencies to adequately vet and prepare, and also educate, host families before the arrival of those who are coming to Scotland? After they have arrived and settled, what on-going safeguards will be in place in the medium to long term to ensure that we track, trace and monitor both the wellbeing and the safety of those who have resettled in Scotland to ensure that none of them is being exploited in any way whatsoever?

The First Minister

That is a very important issue. We are, and we have been, designing support services to ensure that appropriate safeguarding is in place and that we, and the partners with whom we are working, can take account of the on-going wellbeing needs of those who come to Scotland. Disclosure checks are an important part of that, but we are taking a multi-agency approach to ensure that people get the support that they need, not just on arrival and when they are first being accommodated but throughout the time that they may be in Scotland.

One of the reasons why we agreed the supersponsor route with the UK Government was to ensure that we could have an approach that gets people to Scotland quickly and accommodates them temporarily, while on a slightly longer timescale—I stress the word “slightly”—we can put in place all the wider support and do all the appropriate checks. We have support arrangements already in place, starting with the welcome hubs that have been established.

The big hold-up at the moment—we are working constructively with the UK Government to try to resolve this, and I met Michael Gove earlier this week to discuss it—is that, although we have the supersponsor route and the support in place, we are currently being held up by the slow pace of the granting of visas. I know that the UK Government is seeking to speed that up, and I hope that that happens quickly, so that we can start to welcome significant numbers of people to Scotland, with all the support that Jamie Greene rightly identifies as being vital for them.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions.

Benefit Sanctions

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-03259, in the name of Kaukab Stewart, on impacts of benefit sanctions. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with concern a recent paper by researchers from the University of Glasgow examining the impact of social security sanctions internationally on the labour market, and wider social impacts; understands that it found that any temporary positive impacts on employment carry with them negative impacts for job quality and stability in the longer term, along with increased transitions to non-employment or economic inactivity; further understands that the studies reported significant associations between sanctions and increased material hardship and health problems, and found some evidence that sanctions were associated with increased child maltreatment and poorer child wellbeing, and considers that this is further evidence of what it sees as the ineffective and punitive nature of the sanctions regime in the UK, which it considers negatively impacts people across Scotland, including in the Glasgow Kelvin constituency.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for giving me the time today to bring to the chamber my first members’ business debate. Less than a year ago, I never thought that I would be standing here as the first woman of colour to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. Having come from a very modest family background, I am well aware of the importance that benefits can have in supporting families at times of unemployment and redundancy.

I put on record my thanks to the research team at the Medical Research Council and to the chief scientist office, which funds the social and public health sciences unit of the University of Glasgow, which is based in my constituency. Glasgow university has a long pedigree of developing and applying the latest methods of multidisciplinary research, in order to identify mechanisms that can bring about change, and of developing and assessing policies and programmes to improve health and reduce inequalities.

The motion in my name is based on research that was recently published in the Journal of Social Policy by Drs Marcia Gibson, Serena Pattaro and Nick Bailey. I hope that Marcia and Serena will shortly be able to join us in the public gallery to hear the debate.

That research was one of the most comprehensive reviews of the international quantitative research evidence on the labour market and the wider impacts of benefit sanctions. The body of qualitative research has already established that intensified sanctions and conditionality have had important implications for public health and health inequalities. The new scoping review reported positive impacts for employment, but the research also reported negative impacts for job quality and stability in the longer term, along with increased transitions to non-employment or economic inactivity.

Today, I will focus on three important issues that arise from the study. First, benefit sanctions mask the impact that they have on children and young people through no fault of their own. The United Kingdom Parliament’s Work and Pensions Committee reported in 2018:

“Children play no part in a failure to comply with conditionality, yet when a sanction is imposed they feel the effects just as acutely.”

How can anyone penalise a child because of the consequences of a parent or guardian’s actions, over which the child has no control? It is heartening to know that the Scottish Government took a different path when employment services were devolved. Gone were the mandatory schemes and in came the new Scottish approach of dignity, respect and fairness, in order to improve outcomes.

My second issue concerns benefit sanctions and a subsequent reduction in welfare payments. They are a false economy and often hide the true cost to Government of increased crime, poorer physical and mental health and an increased need for social care. The wider impact that poverty has on individuals, families and communities can manifest itself, for example, in family breakdown and, sadly, an increase in the number of children entering the care system.

Sir Robert Devereux, the former Department for Work and Pension permanent secretary, admitted as much when he was asked whether the reduction of the welfare budget under his watch had led to increased costs for other Whitehall departments, such as health and justice. He did not know. He was concerned only with reducing DWP spending. Therefore, while the DWP was being rather smug at its success in cutting welfare costs, other departments were faced with picking up the pieces and paying heavily for it. Who knows what the true cost to society is? Members just need to think about the huge rise in food banks since benefit sanctioning really took off.

The third issue that I will focus on is a request—actually, it is a demand. The DWP needs to give researchers access to data in order to ensure that there is robust independent scrutiny of the results of benefit sanctions. How many sanctions have been issued? How long are they? What impact have sanctions had on job searching activities? What was the quality of the jobs that were found? How long did they last? How many people took a low-quality job in order to escape that draconian regime? Originally, sanctions could have lasted anything from six months to three years. Although Amber Rudd reduced the maximum time to six months, that is still a longer sentence than people receive for some criminal convictions.

I draw members’ attention to the 94 reviewed studies from across the world. What would give us the 95th? The UK releasing appropriate data to allow independent research to be conducted. Today I have written a letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, calling on her department to promptly grant access to anonymised data from the claims and sanctions histories of the Department for Work and Pensions to the research team in Glasgow so that its inquiry can be completed. I encourage my colleagues across the chamber to add their names to that letter, which I will issue shortly.

Since 2010, the coalition and successive Conservative Governments have claimed that the Government has been helping people to find and use open Government data. However, despite numerous requests, freedom of information requests and assurances given to successive work and pensions committees that such data would be released, it is still not available. I ask myself why. What is it that they do not want anyone to find out? Why would they not want robust independent scrutiny to validate their evidence and confirm their success?

This Parliament has debated the impact of benefit sanctions for nearly 10 years now. Despite a Scottish approach, new voluntary employment support services and the new Scottish child payment, the management of social security support for the unemployed is reserved. Reserved it may be, but the sanctions have a knock-on effect for the Scottish Government.

It is time for us to be open with our data. It is time for the UK Government to step up to the mark and be open with its data. Only then can we truly learn from its analysis of what works, what does not work and—literally—who pays for failure. Once again, children bear the brunt of adult decision making.

I look forward to contributions to the debate from across the chamber.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Marie McNair joins us remotely.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

As a long-standing champion against the negative impacts of the so-called “welfare reforms” of the UK benefits system, I am keen to participate in the debate. I congratulate Kaukab Stewart for securing it and for highlighting the important work done by the researchers on behalf of Glasgow university.

It is no surprise to see that they conclude that benefit sanctions do not work and that, in fact, they have a detrimental impact on claimants and their children. The UK sanctions regime has inflicted much misery and hardship on many of our constituents for many years, for no real positive return. It was introduced as part of a callous war on welfare for political impact and gain. It is a vehicle for penalising those who are in need of benefits that has been used by successive UK Governments for many years. The Tories, Labour and the Liberals have all used them. In fact, Dr David Webster, an honorary senior research fellow at the University of Glasgow, has pointed out that the number of sanctions in the UK rose to among its highest levels when the Labour Party’s John Hutton was secretary of state at the Department for Work and Pensions.

The main benefit to which sanctions are now applied is, of course, universal credit. So, the appalling sanctions regime is added to all the other unjust parts of that benefit: the five-week wait that forces people into debt, the removal of the premiums for disabled people, the two-child policy and its appalling rape clause—the list goes on.

In his recent regular briefing on sanctions, Dr Webster points out that there is a “rapid rise” in benefits sanctions again. He states that the harshening of the conditionality policy with the introduction of the DWP way to work scheme is also bound to increase the numbers of sanctions, despite that approach being widely criticised.

I thank Inclusion Scotland for its very helpful briefing, in which it points out that sanctions have resulted in many disabled people and their families experiencing greater poverty in work than when they were unemployed. More will face such poverty in the future as universal credit is rolled out. The briefing also agrees with Dr Webster’s analysis that the number of sanctions has seen a big increase recently, to the extent that we will see the highest annual figure for total sanctions on all benefits since 2016.

Inclusion Scotland also points out that disabled claimants were between 26 and 53 per cent more likely to be sanctioned than non-disabled claimants. The rhetoric from the Tories and others that sanctions are not impacting on disabled people is blown out of the water by those statistics. Quite frankly, any politicians who are immune to the hardships that sanctions are causing need to get out more. I have seen the impact at first hand when volunteering at a food bank in my constituency. I have seen the look of despair and the empty kitchen cupboards that sanctions cause.

I pay tribute to advice agencies, council staff, food banks and the caring communities in my constituency for everything that they do to assist people who are struggling because of benefit sanctions. Out of concern about the impact of that harsh policy, the Scottish Government has amended the Scottish welfare fund guidance to allow crisis grants to be awarded. That is just another example of us having to mitigate the inhumane Westminster welfare policy. Given the likely rise in the number of sanctions, it is even more important that the Scottish Government makes sure that it is widely known that support is available.

I am in no doubt that a policy that leaves people and their families with no money or less than they need cannot have anything good in it. It will have no part to play in a compassionate Scotland that has all the welfare powers that are needed to look after our citizens and help our young people to thrive.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

A well-run and effective welfare state stands to benefit not just the people who rely on it directly for support but wider society, as it allows many people to continue engaging in society even when times are tough, and times are just that—tough.

While the country begins to recover from the global pandemic, wrestles with inflation and deals with the humanitarian and supply-chain crises resulting from President Putin’s war in Europe, there has been and continues to be a tremendous amount of pressure on the people of this country, who turn to the welfare state to relieve some of that pressure on their and their families’ lives.

I take a moment to commend the front-line employees and agents of the DWP who, day in and day out, are working hard to ensure that people are supported by every system and lever that is available to them. Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting one of the new Jobcentre Plus centres here in Edinburgh to see the joined-up thinking that is taking place. In debates such as this, it is sometimes easy to vilify the people on the front line. I urge all the speakers in the debate to minimise that kind of contribution.

Moving to the substance of the debate, I have a couple of points that I would like to raise. I have a feeling that many representations will be made about sanctions over the next few minutes that will not be strictly accurate. Sanctions will be painted as a regular excuse to deny help to people who need it by heartless agents of the state. However, that simply does not match up to reality. Sanctions are used infrequently and executed only after careful consideration.

In her opening speech, Ms Stewart asked for data. Let me give her some data from the Partick jobcentre, which is in the constituency that she represents and is also mentioned in the motion. According to DWP figures for that centre, no one was sanctioned between July 2019 and July 2020. We can therefore see that the handing out of a sanction is not something that is done liberally and without thought but rather a tool that is used in a targeted and thoughtful way.

It is also worth noting that the University of Glasgow study that is cited in the motion is yet to be published and is not specific to the UK. Rather, it has a much broader international focus, so we should be careful of mapping its findings directly on to the UK. I close by advising caution to people who would use that unpublished paper, which is not specific to the UK, simply to make political points. We should keep in mind that the way in which sanctions are portrayed in the media and by people who have their own political agenda is not always accurate, and that sanctions are, to use the language of the Scottish Government, a “targeted and proportionate measure”.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The benefit system in the UK is set up not to help people into work or provide stability but to punish people who are not in work, and it does so regardless of whether they are able to work. Disabled people are more likely to be sanctioned, more likely to end up worse off financially when they take up part-time work, and more likely to experience serious harms when they are sanctioned.

The system is not only punitive; it is also discriminatory. Jeremy Balfour just reassured us that sanctions are not carried out liberally; the point is that they are carried out. I frankly do not care whether someone has missed a job interview for a reason that is not deemed good enough; no reason is good enough to remove somebody’s recourse to purchase food and fundamentally stay alive. However, that is what the UK Government does, and frequently.

There needs to be more recognition that people’s lives—particularly the lives of many who need to rely on universal credit—are not predictable or rational enough to be measured by some inflexible flowchart in DWP offices. To give just one example, in 2016, I had to rely on universal credit after the loss of a job. I soon reported that I had found work—a full-time job in the Scottish Ambulance Service—and my monthly payment was duly reduced to £0 a month. My new steady income made me look sensible enough to convince a landlord that I deserved a roof over my head, so I moved into a studio flat and got on with my life.

One lunchtime, I unlocked my phone to find that I had missed a call and had a stern voicemail message instructing me to get in touch as soon as possible. After an impromptu 45-minute performance of Vivaldi, I got through to be told that I had to attend an interview the next day, as I had failed to fill in a change of housing circumstances form. It should be noted that that change of housing circumstances would have qualified me for higher housing support and had come to the DWP’s attention when it received my change of address form. I had committed the horrendous crime of secretly moving into a flat and then clyping on myself by covertly sending the DWP my new address.

I explained that I could not attend the meeting, because I would be at work, and I was threatened with a sanction on my £0 payment. The DWP carried on phoning me daily for almost a week. I then received a letter underlining my transgressions at the address that the DWP insisted that it knew nothing about.

For me, the DWP’s nonsensical approach to my getting a job and a secure tenancy was just ludicrous rather than life threatening, but it is an indicator of how an uncaring, inconsistent and often incomprehensible process cannot be rigidly applied to real lives. Many others learn that lesson in a much harsher way.

One of my constituents had to isolate with Covid and ended up in a desperate situation when the stay-at-home guidance meant that she had to cancel a coach meeting at short notice. She and her children suddenly found themselves stuck in a home that they did not know whether they would have money to heat, while waiting for those advocating for her to convince the DWP that quickly and cruelly cutting her already insufferably low income was not right or reasonable. That situation is not unusual.

As Kaukab Stewart outlined, the sanctions situation is so bad that the DWP will not even tell us how bad it is. That same DWP publicly admitted that it had wrongfully pressured disabled people to accept less support than they were legally entitled to, and it will not give researchers access to data on sanctions. The research that the University of Glasgow has undertaken is therefore vital to help us understand more about what the DWP will not tell us. I thank the university for its work and my colleague Kaukab Stewart for bringing it to the chamber today.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am happy to add my name to the calls against the inhumane UK benefit sanctions regime, under which so many have suffered. I am glad that the issue is being recognised in Parliament today, and I congratulate Kaukab Stewart on her motion. The research that the motion mentions confirms what I am sure many of us already knew from seeing the direct impacts that social security sanctions have on those who have to endure them.

Although not specifically related to sanctions, the direct human costs of the DWP’s inhumane practices are highlighted perfectly in the film “I, Daniel Blake”. I encourage any member who has not seen that film to do so, as it brings home the realities of being out of work and trying to access basic support. I mention that to members across from me on the Tory benches, in particular, because it is their Government in Westminster that insists that sanctions are effective.

Only two months ago, we found out that the UK Secretary of State for Work and Pensions blocked sight of an evaluation of the effectiveness of benefit sanctions, which the DWP commissioned back in 2019 as part of its internal research on the benefit of sanctions. At that time, the DWP promised to make the findings public. I do not doubt that the research had similar findings to those of the paper that we are talking about now, which means that it was a political choice to continue punishing people, even though it is obviously not an effective policy. On top of that, we found out this month that, shockingly, the DWP blocked data from a study on whether benefit sanctions are linked to suicide.

Thankfully, there is now a massive amount of published evidence that shows that threatening claimants with the loss of benefits does not incentivise them to take up unsuitable jobs; instead, it has direct impacts on their physical and mental health and even on economic activity, which is what proponents of sanctions claim is their main purpose. The evidence all shows that, plainly and simply, cruelty is at the centre of those political choices. Previously, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation made the point clear, when it said:

“Sanctions are going too far and causing destitution.”

In Scotland, we now have the opportunity to change some of the culture through the expansion of benefits under Social Security Scotland. I call on the Scottish Government to make it clear that, for new benefits that are administered by Social Security Scotland, it will not pursue a sanctions regime. I have already been told by a number of constituents in one of the pilot areas for the new adult disability payment that accessing information on the eligibility criteria was difficult and there was a lack of clarity, which caused stress and confusion. I understand that transfers and changes of benefits will be difficult but, from the outset, it must be a better system than the one that people faced under the DWP.

I hope that the Scottish Government listens to the criticisms of the new system that people raise as we go forward, and that it commits to making it much fairer. I hope that we all continue to speak out against the DWP’s unfair and meaningless sanctions, which do not help anyone.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Kaukab Stewart for securing the debate.

The University of Glasgow study makes a major contribution to our understanding of the current impact of sanctions. The evidence from studies and charities that is outlined in the report suggests that sanctions

“have a wide range of negative impacts, including increased hunger, material hardship and debt, inability to pay bills, and deteriorating health.”

The report states that, given the evidence of potential harms, policy makers should consider limiting sanction policies that remove benefit income from households that are already likely to have very limited incomes or savings.

My constituency of East Lothian was the first in Scotland to pilot universal credit. In what my council colleague described as an “experiment in cruelty”, two thirds of council tenants fell into rent arrears and were left without any money for weeks on end. A report by the local citizens advice bureau found that more than half of the people who were moved on to universal credit in East Lothian were, on average, £44 a week worse off.

Like the rest of the UK, East Lothian was hit hard by the implementation of universal credit, and claimants continue to be penalised with cuts and unfair and unjust sanctions.

The new law that was passed last month reduces from three months to four weeks the period during which claimants can seek a job in their preferred sector without being forced to look elsewhere for work. Claimants can now be hit with sanctions if they do not take a job offer after four weeks, no matter the sector. The emergency bill went through unscrutinised and has come under fire for being “unjustified” and

“with no clear means in measuring success”.

The new rule lacks legitimacy, reinforces an insecure workforce and creates an environment that does not value meaningful employment.

In the previous three months, food bank usage in East Lothian has grown by 40 per cent, 28 per cent and 54 per cent respectively. Statistics show that more than 90 per cent of people who use the service are working poor. That proportion has grown in the past few years and months.

Boris Johnson has indicated that he wants to see a highly skilled, highly motivated workforce. Benefit sanctions will not achieve that. In fact, they will be counterproductive. This is all about the stick—there is no carrot.

The UK Government claims that sanctions are used to motivate claimants into getting jobs, but its own publications admit that, although claimants are more likely to enter jobs, they are often low-paid jobs with limited retainment. In fact, evidence from the London School of Economics and Political Science shows that sanctions are unhelpful in moving people into work. Instead, just the threat of sanctions creates unmitigated distress that gets in the way of finding work and has potentially life-altering negative consequences.

Benefits sanctions, cuts and austerity are plunging children into poverty. Rising energy prices and the cost of living is expected to increase the poverty rates across Scotland and the UK. The Scottish Government has put in place six new benefits, including the Scottish child payment, to mitigate the impact of those toxic policies.

With 40 per cent of children in poverty coming from a single-parent household, at its peak, around one in five single parents a year was referred for a sanction, and one in seven had a sanction imposed. Such measures only push single-parent households further into poverty.

Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that benefit sanctions have a disproportionate effect on young people under 25, and there is also evidence of severe impacts on homeless people and other vulnerable groups.

There is a strong link between benefits sanctions and increased poverty. Those who are on the breadline cannot afford to have the little amount of income support that they receive removed as a cruel and archaic punishment.

I stand by the Scottish Government, which wants a Scottish social security system that treats people with dignity, fairness and respect, and does not impose life-altering sanctions on the most vulnerable people in society. Politics is all about choices and priorities. The UK Government has made the wrong choice and the poorest in our society will suffer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before calling the next speaker, I advise that, because of the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Kaukab Stewart to move the motion without notice.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Kaukab Stewart]

Motion agreed to.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I start by congratulating Kaukab Stewart on giving us the opportunity to discuss benefit sanctions and I thank the University of Glasgow researchers for their very important work.

When a new drug is developed, it must go through careful testing and it will not be approved unless there is clear evidence that it does what it claims to do, and does so safely. It is strange, then, that we do not apply the same principle to benefit sanctions. Hundreds of thousands of benefit sanctions are issued each year, yet there is little evidence that they have significant positive impacts. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to suggest that they have a range of highly negative outcomes for individuals and for society at large.

I want to highlight the mental health impact of sanctions. Take some of the poorest people in the country, make them live on an income that does not stretch to putting three meals a day on the table and heating the house properly, and then threaten to remove even that meagre amount at any moment. That is a recipe for a mental health crisis, and a reality that too many people face, such as Charlie whose electricity was cut off on Christmas day because of sanctions. He told University of Essex researchers:

“There was this image which will probably stay with me for the rest of my life. On Christmas day I was sat alone, at home just waiting for darkness to come so I could go to sleep, and I was watching through my window all the happy families enjoying Christmas and that just blew me away. And I think I had a breakdown on that day and it was really hard to recover from and I’m still struggling with it.”

A University of Glasgow study tells the same sad story: every 10 sanctions applied per 100,000 people were associated with an additional eight people experiencing anxiety and depression and an additional one person receiving mental health treatment. It is therefore no wonder that the National Audit Office found that receiving an employment and support allowance sanction resulted in reducing disabled claimants’ time in employment, which is precisely the opposite effect to that intended.

Meanwhile, the DWP refuses to acknowledge the harm that it is causing.

All that is also before we consider the equalities impacts. An LSE study found that

“Independent of age and gender, White claimants were less likely to be referred for a sanction, and less likely to ultimately receive a sanction, than were claimants from other ethnic groups. Black claimants and claimants of Mixed ethnicity were ... more likely than claimants from other groups to be referred and sanctioned.”

Benefit sanctions, quite simply, are racist.

However, there is another way. I am proud that it was Greens who first pointed out that the devolution of employability programmes to this Parliament was an opportunity to reduce the number of sanctions. That is why fair start Scotland has been, from the outset, entirely voluntary. Moreover, it works. Participants benefited from “not feeling pressured” by the service and felt more able to engage with the support on offer willingly and more effectively.

Finland’s nationwide trial of universal basic income—something that the Scottish Greens have long supported—removed all requirements to seek work and, in doing so, did not reduce a person’s likelihood of becoming employed and led to less mental distress and fewer feelings of depression and loneliness. Those are the things that we should be talking about and focused on.

Benefit sanctions are not only dangerous and a form of violence against some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our communities; they do not help people find work and, indeed, can make doing so even harder. Most fundamental of all, they contravene basic human rights. We all have the right to live in a warm safe home, to have food and to have clothing. It is what we pay social security for—and it should never, ever be taken away.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I congratulate Kaukab Stewart on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to speak in it.

As we have heard, a recent paper by University of Glasgow researchers notes that the cruel and heartless benefit sanctions imposed by the UK Government have a significant impact internationally on the labour market and have negative widespread social effects. What is more, they do the exact opposite of what they are intended to do, in that they result in unemployment and economic inactivity as people are forced into low-quality jobs that they are not matched to.

I want to highlight the work of Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow, whose research on the labour market contributes to the work of the Child Poverty Action Group. His most recent publication in February states that

“the rapid rise in UC sanctions which was noted in ... November 2021 ... has continued.”

Last month, in the unelected House of Lords, the junior DWP minister Baroness Stedman-Scott was adamant when she said:

“we are not having tougher sanctions.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2022; Vol 818, c 1011.]

However, that is simply not true. In November, there were nearly 50,000 claimants serving a universal credit sanction, well above the pre-pandemic peak of 36,780—and, yes, I did say “pre-pandemic peak”.

As we look forward from Covid and aim to build a fairer society for everyone, the Conservative Government is increasing cruel and ineffective sanctions—and we should be in no doubt that they do not work. The UK Government has announced the new way to work initiative, which has the noble ambition of getting half a million people into work by June. How is it going to do that? It will use the threat of sanctions to force claimants to look for work more quickly outside their chosen sectors and to widen their search into fields where they have no experience after just four weeks. According to Dr Webster,

“It is bound to increase the number of sanctions”

handed out by the DWP and will result in

“worse matches between people and jobs, damaging earnings, morale and productivity”.

That is exactly what we do not need right now. We often talk about evidence-based approaches to policy—well, there is the evidence.

Of course, the UK Government is not interested in the evidence. In his research, Dr Webster found that

“Under Secretary of State Thérèse Coffey, the DWP appears to have adopted a comprehensive policy of blocking information on the effects of benefit sanctions.”

That raises the question: what do they have to hide? Dr Webster is not the only one to think that. The chair of the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee, Stephen Timms MP, has said:

“This emerging pattern of obstruction suggests that a culture of secrecy is entrenched in DWP.”

The UK Government’s ignorance results in people having to make choices between heating their homes and feeding their children. That, unfortunately, is Great Britain in 2022. It is the real experience of people who are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis, which the Conservatives have no intention of doing anything meaningful about.

That ignorance is forcing people into the arms of food banks in my constituency. The volunteers at food banks do a fantastic job, but they should not be needed in 21st century Britain—although, of course, Jacob Rees-Mogg thinks that food banks are “rather uplifting”. Kind, compassionate and caring conservatism that is not.

Although I am glad that we are getting a chance to debate the matter, members should be under no illusion: Boris Johnson does not care what we have to say. He does not even care what his own MSPs have to say. What is the way out of this mess for the people of Scotland? I know what it is. It is most certainly not Boris’s benefit-sanction Britain. It is that Scotland becomes an independent country with full powers showing more compassion to people who need it.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I thank Kaukab Stewart for securing the debate. Colleagues have outlined extremely well how benefit sanctions are inhumane, callous and cruel. They are nothing but a symptom of the UK Tory Government’s out-of-touch and hostile attitude to the people who most require support.

Sanctions have consequences. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that benefit sanctions increase the risk of homelessness and put financial and emotional stress on families, which harms children. Ms Stewart described that in detail. Sanctions also cause health harms.

Tackling poverty and the cost of living crisis already have many challenges. We have heard about people choosing between paying their bills and buying food—between heating and eating. There is no evidence that sanctions work.

In 2018, I supported a constituent who had battled the DWP for three years before contacting me to receive the support to which she was entitled. I contacted the local MP, who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland, to help, because the DWP is a reserved matter. He offered no support, provided no help and said that he had full confidence in the DWP’s decision making. Because of the issues with the DWP and the extreme stress that that piled on her, my constituent sadly took her own life, leaving a young son and her partner behind. That directly links to what Alex Rowley said about suicide being linked to sanctions. It is a tragic case that simply highlights how the UK Government and the welfare system do not treat people with dignity and respect.

I will highlight the particularly negative impact of benefit sanctions on rural areas, including across Dumfries and Galloway. Rural transport is hugely challenging, particularly for people who are on welfare support and are more reliant on public transport to attend jobcentre appointments. Jobcentre appointment times do not coincide with rural transport timetables, but I have found the jobcentre’s approach to accommodating the needs of people who live in rural settings to be extremely inflexible. One person whom I supported was sanctioned and lost 100 per cent of his income because his bus was five minutes late.

That punitive approach appears to be continuing, now that face-to-face appointments have resumed following removal of Covid-19 protections. I call on the minister to work with the UK Government to consider the need for a flexible and person-centred approach to appointments for people across rural Scotland, and for not penalising people for living rurally. I welcome the fact that, in contrast, Social Security Scotland considers rural needs by offering telephone appointments and advisers who will even visit people in their own homes.

The Parliament and the Scottish Government are constrained because we do not have complete control over welfare; we cannot mitigate every measure that is foisted on the Scottish people. The only way to truly address the unequal, cruel and callous Tory welfare system is by Scotland taking its future into its own hands and becoming a normal independent country.

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

I, too, thank my colleague Kaukab Stewart for securing this important debate.

First, I want to take a moment to remind us all how we got to where we are today. The former Tory Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, said:

“Alongside what we have already done with the mandatory work programme and our tougher sanctions regime, this marks the end of the something-for-nothing culture”.

I repeat:

“the ending of the something-for-nothing culture”.

Let that sink in. That treats those of us who have been recipients of UK social security as if we have been taking something that we do not deserve—as if we are feckless, lazy and grubbing.

The stigma of that experience still lurks in the recesses of my mind. Thinking back to when I used my income support to buy my baby son’s babygrows from charity shops, I was not thinking about the circular economy nor about reducing, reusing and recycling. I was trying to figure out how to make the small amount of money that I had go further, in a time before baby boxes. Wow! How 24-year-old me could have done with one of our amazing levellers, the baby box. That, too, is seen by people in some quarters as being “something-for-nothing.

We should make no mistake about it: benefit sanctioning is a political choice. We have yet to be presented with any real and tangible hard facts that show that removing people’s only source of income—income at a level that is so low that it is already recognised as being the minimum amount that a person needs in order to survive—has any positive outcome. It is a choice that politicians have made and it is a culture that they have created, in our UK benefits system. It is punitive and punishing—all stick, and scant carrot.

I worked as a senior caseworker for a member of Parliament, and I will never forget the benefit sanctions cases that we had coming into the office—they were people who were in desperate need of support. I did not see, standing in front of me, people for whom hunger and destitution were an appropriate punishment for their missing an appointment—for being on a late-running bus, for being ill, for having the audacity to have to collect kids from school at the same time as a DWP appointment, or for not showing evidence of 35 hours of job searching. Who knew that a person could actually demonstrate 35 hours of job searching? That blows my mind.

I saw many people who were experiencing multiple and complex trauma being retraumatised by a system that was designed to be hostile, designed to end the “something-for-nothing culture” and designed to reduce people to being so hungry that they would open a can of soup to drink it cold, straight from the tin, in a food bank, because they had not eaten for days and their pittance of a hardship payment was gone within seconds of their receiving it.

What kind of country creates a system that is designed to punish people for being poor and for having everyday real-life situations, like those that I have outlined, happen? I ask members to imagine that, each time they missed an appointment or did not manage to finish something in the time allotted, they lost a full month’s pay. Now, I ask them to imagine losing six months’ pay while they are living a chaotic life that is beset by substance use and trauma, and is built on a foundation of adverse childhood experiences. Is that someone who is living the high life and getting something for nothing? I proffer the radical thought that the life choices of that individual would be continually knocked, and that the imposition of harsh sanctioning would, in fact, only add to and exacerbate the deep poverty that they are experiencing.

We can contrast that with our Scottish social security system, which is being created with dignity and fairness at its heart. It is lifting people out of poverty and supporting folks, instead of punishing them.

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

I, too, commend my colleague Kaukab Stewart for bringing this important issue, and her research, to the chamber, and I thank all colleagues who have contributed to this important debate. It has highlighted the strength of feeling among members on all—or certainly most—sides of the chamber that the punitive sanctions that are imposed by the UK Government in respect of universal credit simply do not work.

As colleagues have articulated, the Scottish Government has, for some time now, been deeply concerned about the UK Government’s current sanctions policy for universal credit claimants. As we have heard, it allows any claimant to be sanctioned at any time, at the discretion of jobcentre staff.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the minister acknowledge that, back in November last year, 0.88 per cent of those on universal credit were sanctioned? We are talking about less than 1 per cent, so it is not something that is being used willy-nilly.

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

I take in good faith the statistics that Jeremy Balfour has relayed to Parliament. However, I point out—I will say more about this shortly—that although, during the pandemic, the Department for Work and Pensions took the decision to move away from using sanctions, they are now, to great concern, being reintroduced and potentially ramped up.

In relation to something else that Mr Balfour said, I express my gratitude for the many jobcentre staff, who do important work to help people, but the discretion of jobcentre staff to impose sanctions can be problematic, as we heard in different accounts from members across the chamber—some of them personal, as in Emma Roddick’s case.

Sanctions are just one of a number of issues with the current universal credit system, which is failing the people it is designed to help and should be helping, with punitive policies such as the five-week wait, which I cannot believe is still in place; the two-child limit; and the benefit cap, which the Scottish Government will mitigate, as we recently announced.

As today’s discussion has emphasised, there is long-standing evidence of the detrimental impact of sanctions, with the mental health charities Mind and Activity Alliance both reporting that sanctions can instil in many people a sense of fear and distrust of the welfare system. We are trying to change that through our new social security system, with regard to Scottish benefits.

A new study by the University of Glasgow further emphasises the wrong-headedness of sanctions and their appalling impact on people’s job stability and health, and more widely.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

If the Scottish Government was in charge of universal credit, would it simply get rid of all sanctions or would it amend them and do things in a different way?

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

Again, I will say more about that shortly, time allowing, but in our employability programmes, we have shown—this is a conceptual point, but we all know it instinctively from anecdotal experience—that people respond much better to support and encouragement than they do to threat and fear. That is at the heart of our social security principles, which are dignity, fairness and respect. As Maggie Chapman emphasised, they have been shown to be effective when it comes to employability through our employability programmes.

Sanctions increase hardship and lead to poorer child wellbeing. As the report concludes,

“The high proportion of adverse impacts on measures of material hardship, health and child outcomes is sufficient to give significant cause for concern.”

As others have said—Kaukab Stewart emphasised this in her opening remarks—the unintended consequences of benefit sanctions are significant. The cost to the state and to all of us as citizens in different areas is significant. The report rightly emphasises that, and the costs, of course, fall on community organisations, whether that is food banks or third sector organisations; on UK Government departments, as Kaukab Stewart emphasised; and on the Scottish Government. That is exactly why we are right to be talking about the issue today. The costs that arise elsewhere in the system are significant and detrimental.

It is clear from the research and from today’s debate that sanctions are ineffective in helping people out of long-term unemployment. That is why, unlike UK Government approaches, our employment support services are voluntary, meaning that people are not driven to take part in them through fear of benefit sanctions. Instead, they are supported.

The UK Government suspended sanctions at the height of the pandemic, as I mentioned. However, since their reintroduction in June 2021, the number of sanctions being issued has risen sharply. Almost 50,000 people in the UK received a sanction in November last year.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I am a bit pressed for time now. I apologise to Mr Balfour.

Sanctions can cut a person’s standard universal credit payment or, in some cases, reduce it to zero. I want to make an important point in response to Alex Rowley. With regard to the Scottish social security system, no sanctions are applied to claimants of Scottish Government benefits. That is already the position. If sanctions are applied to someone who is in receipt of universal credit in the UK system, resulting in a zero award, they will still be entitled to and eligible for the Scottish benefits that are linked to universal credit. There are no sanctions in those cases, and we are doing what we can to help people if they receive a sanction in the UK system.

I ask Mr Rowley to write to me about the points that he made about information sharing in his region, and we will work together to make sure that we provide the information to give people more clarity, because we are absolutely committed to that.

I underline the fact that sanctions are nonsensical. The UK Government tells us that sanctions get people into work faster, but, as the research highlights, they are nothing more than a quick fix, and they adversely impact people’s longer-term outcomes. In many cases, sanctions are more about filling the gaps in the labour market that have been created by the UK Government’s bad economic management, including its Brexit position.

As the report highlights, sanctions are associated with a range of adverse impacts, including worsening job quality and stability in the longer term. Sanctions do not make sense and do not work. The report goes on to state that, although sanctions might get people into work quickly in the short term, they fundamentally lead to higher rates of exit to non-employment or economic inactivity, and to more rapid returns to benefit claiming. They do not help people to get into the labour market in a way that is good for them and the economy as a whole.

To back up Kaukab Stewart’s point, I think that it is important that the UK Government releases its research. I add my voice to the calls for the UK Government to issue that information in a transparent way.

Today’s debate and the research that has been generated prove that the UK Government’s punitive sanctions policy is ineffectual, unfair and fundamentally damaging to the very people the social security system should be supporting. The matter is clearly ideological on the part of the Conservative Party, which is why the UK Government does not want to release the information, but it should. That is why the Conservatives continue to have a policy position of sanctioning when it clearly does not work. They should change that position. I am glad that the vast majority of members of this Parliament have made the case clearly that our social security system should help people. When it comes to our devolved powers, that is exactly what we will focus on.

13:42 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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

The next item of business is portfolio question time, on constitution, external affairs and culture. I remind members that questions 5 and 6 are grouped together. I will take supplementaries after both questions have been answered.

As ever, if any member wishes to ask a supplementary, I ask them to press their request-to-speak button or type R in the chat function during the relevant question. I make the usual plea for brevity in questions and answers, to allow us to get through as many questions as possible.

Independence Referendum (Work on Prospectus)

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how many of its staff members are working on the prospectus for another independence referendum. (S6O-00942)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The work to prepare an independence prospectus is being co-ordinated by the constitutional futures division within the Scottish Government’s constitution and Cabinet directorate. That division is currently comprised of one senior civil servant and 14 other officials. The work will draw on other officials across a range of portfolios, who will contribute to varying extents as part of their wider responsibilities in supporting the Scottish Government.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

People across Scotland will be dismayed to discover that the Scottish National Party Government is diverting yet more precious staff and resources towards another referendum. The SNP’s programme for government said that work on that would take place only if the Covid crisis was over. Why is the cabinet secretary’s Government ignoring its own programme and squandering money on its obsession with a referendum, which the people of Scotland do not want?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I commend the member for the implicit recognition in his original question that there will be an independence referendum. That is very welcome.

The member and I differed on the issue in the Scottish Parliament election last year but, as democrats, I hope that we all recognise that the parties that were committed to there being a referendum won the election, and that the parties that opposed a referendum, such as his, lost the election.

We are now getting on with delivering on the policy of the Government, including a prospectus, ahead of the independence referendum, and I look forward to further announcements on that in the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

A couple of members have supplementaries.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary tell us how many Government staff are currently working on Brexit-related matters for a policy that Scotland did not vote for, unlike an independence referendum, which Scotland did vote for? Does he agree that the £120 million that the United Kingdom Tory Government squandered on its ludicrous festival of Brexit earlier this month was a complete waste of public money?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As I have mentioned, the constitutional futures division that is working on the prospectus is comprised of one senior civil servant and 14 other officials. The far-reaching consequences of Brexit have meant that almost all parts of the Scottish Government have had, or continue to have, officials dedicated to assessing and responding to the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Brexit has resulted in exports of UK goods falling by 14 per cent in the three months to January, while the global average continued to rise over the same period. The opportunities of independence stand in stark contrast to the economic damage that is being caused by Brexit, and it must be up to the people of Scotland to decide their future.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Despite the war in Ukraine, the pandemic that is raging, with Scotland having the highest infection rates in the whole of the UK, the enormous hospital waiting times, the fact that people are desperate for care home packages and the ferries construction scandal, the cabinet secretary carries on regardless. If even independence supporters do not think that there should be an independence referendum now, why is he carrying on regardless?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I always thought that, in a democracy, it was recognised by democrats, including those who stood in the name of the member’s party, the Liberal Democrats, that when one stood in an election on a manifesto that opposed something and lost, the party that won that election—which in this case it did on a manifesto to deliver a referendum—should deliver on that. I would have thought that even a Liberal Democrat would recognise that the democratic result of last year’s election would compel us to get on with our policy platform, instead of jeering from the sidelines in opposition to that democratic result.

Correspondence (Russian Ambassador)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what response it has received to the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture’s letter to the Russian ambassador on 26 February. (S6O-00943)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I wrote to the Russian ambassador on 26 February condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in the strongest possible terms and laying out the Scottish Government’s position that Russia’s illegal aggression against Ukraine had no conceivable justification.

I have not received a response from the Russian ambassador. I will continue to condemn Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and to offer my unqualified support for Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The solidarity that people have shown with Ukraine is undiminished after more than a month of fighting. So, too, is the resolve of the international community to isolate instruments of the Russian state. To reinforce the sentiments that he expressed to the Russian embassy, will the cabinet secretary agree that more should be done here in Scotland to divest public money from sanction-hit financial institutions such as Sberbank? Will the Scottish Government encourage companies trading with Russia to take economic action and will it support our public sector pension funds and other Scottish institutions to do so, too?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The short answer to the points that Neil Bibby raises is yes. In addition, it is important for us to stress that this country stands together with all those in the international community who oppose this illegal war, whether they are in Russia, Belarus, here in Scotland or elsewhere in the world.

I understand that Police Scotland has engaged directly with Ukrainian and Russian communities to provide reassurance and to encourage them to report any concerns so that it can work with communities to address those. Universities Scotland has confirmed that institutions are reaching out to Ukrainian and Russian students with offers of support.

Mr Bibby asks if there is more that we can do to identify whether there is any way of hitting the Putin regime and those in the Russian economy who support him. The answer is yes. If the member has any further suggestions, I would be really pleased to hear those, because there is a consensus across Parliament that we should do everything that we can to oppose the aggression by the Russian Federation against the people of Ukraine.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The cabinet secretary’s letter stated:

“Our quarrel is not with the people of Russia, nor the Russian community who live and work in Scotland, but with President Putin’s regime and its deplorable actions.”

Will the cabinet secretary further reassure us about any work that is being done to provide support to Russians and Belarusians who oppose authoritarianism in their homelands, but who may be at risk of unfair treatment here in Scotland?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

That is exactly the point that I was making a moment ago about our interactions with the Ukrainian consulate in Scotland and with Ukrainian community organisations. We also send out a message to people who are of Belarusian or Russian heritage and living in Scotland. Our quarrel is not with those who stand, with the rest of us, in opposition to aggression by the Putin regime. The war is not their fault.

I have already mentioned the efforts undertaken by Police Scotland. We must do everything that we can to ensure that community relations are maintained. At the same time, we are unequivocal about our opposition to the naked aggression against Ukraine. We will do everything that we can to help Ukrainians in Scotland as well as those who seek refuge and wish to come here to get out of harm’s way and away from the aggression being wrought on their country.

Global Affairs Framework

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its global affairs framework. (S6O-00944)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Work on the global affairs framework is continuing and the framework will be published in due course.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his brief answer and look forward in due course to the publication of the framework. Is he able to update us now on the work of the Scottish council on global affairs, which I believe was set up last autumn? Will he also take the opportunity to report on the work that is being undertaken to expand the fantastic resource of the Scottish diaspora network across the world?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish council on global affairs will be Scotland’s first international relations institute, providing a hub for collaborative policy and relevant research and a home for informed non-partisan debate on all areas of global affairs. I am pleased that the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh and St Andrews will formally launch the institute at the end of April.

There is a wide range of activity across the Scottish Government to engage with our diaspora groups and those who have a connection with, or affinity for, Scotland. Our external network of international offices will work directly with our diaspora communities in key locations around the world, and two new overseas offices in Copenhagen and Warsaw will further expand the network. We are also undertaking research to inform our future approach to diaspora engagement to expand our international impact.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On the issue of expanding our global impact and the network, what is the Scottish Government doing to support Covid recovery and work with partner countries and to support them in addressing monopoly production and protections? Only 5 per cent of Malawians have been vaccinated and they do not have access to testing. I have just been to a meeting with Global Justice Now, at which that was a key issue. What can we do through our global network with our partner countries to help to tackle Covid?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The good news for Sarah Boyack—I hope that she knows this—is that that is a major priority for the Scottish Government, and Neil Gray and I have been underscoring the issue. In fact, during the Commonwealth day members’ business debate this week, I made that point about the support that we wish to offer to our partner countries, and the fact that that is a priority for the Government. I hope that that assures Sarah Boyack that there is much more that we can do as we all emerge from beneath the cloud of the Covid experience. We have established relations with a number of countries, and we wish to do everything that we can to pursue the priorities that she highlights.

International Offices

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its international offices are functioning and improving international relations. (S6O-00945)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scotland’s international network works to create domestic opportunities, attract investment and, ultimately, benefit the people of Scotland. Our offices are focused on improving Scotland’s international profile, helping businesses to trade internationally and protecting Scotland’s interests in the European Union and beyond. Together, that will continue to further Scotland’s economic, cultural and policy visibility in key countries in the months and years ahead.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sure that, like me, the cabinet secretary takes pride in Scotland choosing to pursue world-leading human rights and equalities legislation. How will his international offices help the Scottish Government to promote best practice in equalities policy internationally?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

That is an excellent question. We believe that our actions abroad should be consistent with our focus on equality and inclusion at home. That is why Scotland is developing a feminist approach to foreign policy, which will help us build on our international work to date, such as the Glasgow women’s leadership statement on gender equality and climate change at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and a review of our international development programme, which led to the incorporation of a new equalities funding stream. We will also continue to promote our policies internationally, such as the groundbreaking approach on period poverty.

Ukrainian Refugees (Warm Scots Welcome Scheme)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the warm Scots welcome scheme for Ukrainian refugees. (S6O-00946)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have worked rapidly with a number of partners to set up our warm Scots welcome programme and supersponsor scheme, linking in to the United Kingdom Government’s visa and homes for Ukraine scheme.

We have established welcome hubs to support displaced Ukrainians who are arriving in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cairnryan with a place of safety and security. Those will provide meals and accommodation and will triage people to find out what support they need. We will ensure that everyone is treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

We continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Government to understand when and how people are arriving in Scotland, and we share the frustration of those who want to provide accommodation in Scotland, and the anxiety of those fleeing war, at the slow pace of the Home Office in turning applications into visas. We are working with UK ministers to encourage them to move at a quicker pace, to allow people to arrive as quickly as possible.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Does the minister agree that the safeguarding of refugees in the UK is a top priority, and that policies to eradicate the human trafficking, procuring and sexual exploitation of women and girls are an important aspect of protecting those who are more vulnerable to such exploitation, such as lone women and children who are fleeing conflicts and humanitarian crises?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes. It is, of course, vital that those who are fleeing the illegal war in Ukraine are protected as they seek to find a place of safety. Any form of human trafficking or exploitation is completely unacceptable, and I encourage anyone who has concerns about human trafficking to report them to the modern slavery and exploitation helpline or to Police Scotland. We have translated a range of key information on the Scottish Government website and I urge people who are seeking sanctuary in Scotland and those who are assisting them to follow those guidelines.

Police Scotland’s national human trafficking unit continues to engage with internal and external partners and enforcement agencies to maintain a high visibility of human trafficking and exploitation risks at points of entry around Scotland.

This week, we have introduced new regulations to ensure that we have in place a safe, speedy and free vetting system. That means that people who are opening their homes to displaced people from Ukraine can apply for expedited disclosure checks of the same level of scrutiny as the initial checks that are carried out for those who work with children or vulnerable adults.

Ukrainian Refugees (Support)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what support Ukrainian refugees will receive after arriving at a welcome hub in Scotland. (S6O-00947)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Multi-agency teams will be on hand at our welcome hubs to triage people, assess their needs and provide support such as healthcare, translation services, clothes, food, temporary accommodation and trauma support.

The people who come here from Ukraine have a right to work and to access social security and public funds, so we will ensure that they are aware of and get access to the wide range of services and support that they need. Welcome packs in Ukrainian will provide information on accessing a range of support, translators will be on hand to help and trauma experts will be on call.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I have been contacted by many constituents who are looking to host refugees fleeing Ukraine. How is the Scottish Government co-ordinating with local authorities to ensure that refugees and hosts are given proper support?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Siobhian Brown for giving me the opportunity to thank people around Scotland for their incredible generosity in wanting to open their homes to those forced to flee Ukraine.

Scotland has a wealth of experience and learning from previous refugee schemes. As set out in the “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy 2018-2022”, we have a tried and tested approach to integrating refugees into our communities, schools and workplaces.

We are working closely with a range of partners to develop clear guidance for local authorities and individual hosts, as well as to put in place support for Ukrainians who arrive through that route. We are also encouraging all those who wish to provide support to look at the Ready Scotland website, which has information about local refugee support groups. I encourage people to reach out to those groups, to see what more they might be able to do to help.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Sharon Dowey, who joins us remotely, has a brief supplementary question.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Much has been made of the supersponsorship scheme, but what of the next steps? As of last night, officials at the City of Edinburgh Council said that they were still waiting for data on those who have expressed an interest in hosting Ukrainians, so that they can start pairing refugees with homes. Meanwhile, hundreds of Scots who are ready to open their doors are still waiting for an update. Has that data been made available to councils since last night? How many Ukrainians who have arrived in Scotland have been matched with a home?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Sharon Dowey will share my frustration at the slow pace of receipt of data from the United Kingdom Government. At the end of the day, we are still reliant on the UK Government’s immigration system in order to work at speed.

To be fair, an incredible effort was made following the First Minister’s conception of the supersponsor idea on one Friday to getting the system up and running on the following Friday. However, since then, it has been a very slow process in getting applications turned into visas and in our receiving the data.

I appreciate the frustration that the member feels. We feel it too, and we are asking the UK Government to move much faster to make sure that those who are offering support with accommodation here in Scotland and those fleeing war in Ukraine get what they need as quickly as possible.

Post-Brexit Funding Arrangements (Engagement)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture has had with United Kingdom Government ministers regarding the post-Brexit funding arrangements, including the UK shared prosperity fund, which is due to launch this Friday, on 1 April. (S6O-00948)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish ministers have always maintained that the replacement for European Union funding that is included in the UK shared prosperity fund ought to be devolved to the Scottish Government in line with the principles of devolved Government and that investment must support national economic priorities.

In the past month, my colleague Richard Lochhead has met UK Government ministers twice to advocate for Scotland. Although no date has been confirmed by the UK Government for the fund’s intended launch next month, I am optimistic that future engagement can continue to take place to ensure that the shared prosperity fund aligns with Scotland’s policy aims.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Obviously, given that the fund is due to launch tomorrow, it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary still awaits information. The Finance and Public Administration Committee has been advised in evidence that the shared prosperity funds are being top-sliced from Barnett consequentials—a situation that did not apply before Brexit. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether that is, indeed, the case? If that is the case, will the shared prosperity funds that are directed by Westminster simply reduce those that are available to this and other devolved Administrations?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

That is a key question from Kenneth Gibson. Although the United Kingdom Government has outlined the overall value of the shared prosperity fund, Scotland’s specific allocation is still to be determined, and it remains unclear what methods will be used to allocate the fund nationally. There has been no indication that it will be top-sliced from Barnet consequentials. In November 2020, Scottish Government officials calculated that replacing the European structural funds, including the European territorial co-operation and LEADER programmes, would require £183 million of funding per year.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The UK shared prosperity fund and the levelling up fund are fantastic ways in which the UK Government can invest in Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree how disappointing it is that Dundee City Council failed to submit a bid for the first round of the levelling up fund?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Despite the engagement to which I drew attention a moment ago, there is a strong likelihood that, in financial terms, the UK shared prosperity fund will be insufficient. Last autumn, the announcement of the UK spending review noted that the fund will provide only £2.6 billion over three years across the whole of the UK, with £560 million of that already ring fenced for the UK Government’s multiply programme on adult numeracy. That falls far short of the calculations of what is necessary to maintain the levels of investment of the European Union structural funds. Replacing the European regional development fund and the European social fund in Scotland would require £162 million per year, and an additional £21 million would be required each year to continue the work of the LEADER and European territorial co-operation programmes.

I would welcome the co-operation of Scottish Conservative Party members to apply pressure on the UK Government to at least match the commitment that was shown to Scotland by the European Union, which the UK has not done so far.

Cultural Attractions (Support for Local Authorities)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting local authorities to make best use of their cultural attractions and facilities. (S6O-00949)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

In 2021-22, we have provided councils with an overall Covid-19 support package of up to £1.5 billion. It is for locally elected representatives to decide how best to use resources to deliver culture services.

We are continuing to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others towards recovery and renewal of the culture sector, including at local level. I recently met COSLA’s community wellbeing spokesperson and look forward to meeting the culture conveners group soon after May’s elections.

Creative Scotland supports culture at local level, including through its place partnerships, with a range of local authorities across the country.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Local authorities’ spending per head on cultural attractions varies greatly across Scotland. Even before the pandemic, Clackmannanshire, which is in my region, had one of the lowest spends per head in the country, at just £2.01 in 2019-20. What action will be taken to support the cultural sector in Clackmannanshire, to ensure that it makes a strong recovery from the pandemic?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We place great value on the cultural recovery that we want to see in our facilities, events, attractions and arts and creative sector. We have a great understanding that it is not just an economic recovery that will be important, but a wellbeing recovery. Over the past two years, we have all suffered from not being able to attend the facilities, events and attractions that bring us great joy, as we would have wanted to. Re-opening will have a converse affect, and will, we hope, help our wellbeing. We will continue to work with Clackmannanshire Council, which is well led, and many other local authorities, so that we can continue to ensure that our culture facilities are well looked after.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Public libraries are a vital social and cultural hubs in communities in Scotland, including in my constituency. Will the minister provide an update on the roll-out of the public library Covid relief fund, as libraries continue to play their full part in supporting wellbeing during the pandemic recovery?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, I will. This week, we announced the final tranche of the support through that fund. Seven libraries received, I think, £200,000, which brings the total funding through that fund to £1.25 million. We will continue to support public libraries, because we understand the clear role that they play in local communities, in terms of culture and heritage. They also have a wider role to play, and we will be looking to support our public libraries to continue the good work that they are doing.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio question time.

Investment in Natural Capital

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Màiri McAllan on interim principles for responsible investment in natural capital. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The recent United Nations 26th conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow highlighted Scotland’s international reputation for its natural capital and supporting policies. Those include the First Minister’s endorsement of the leaders pledge for nature to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 and our significant public investment in woodland creation and peatland restoration as nature-based solutions to climate change.

Our natural capital has become an increasingly attractive proposition for private investment. That investment is largely focused on delivering carbon management, but it also supports a wide range of benefits, including economic development—especially in rural areas—biodiversity improvements, resilience of food supply and natural flood management. That investment is welcome and necessary, but it must be responsible. We share concerns about the need to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits of that investment with local communities and wider society, including when the investment involves the purchase of land or carbon rights for the purpose of carbon offsetting.

That is why, during COP26, we emphasised our ambition to develop a values-led and high-integrity market for natural capital. We want responsible investment that delivers a wide range of our environmental, social and economic policy priorities; that is high integrity, so that it verifiably restores and enhances nature; and that is genuinely values led, so that it supports a just transition and involves and benefits communities. That commitment is now also embedded in our national strategy for economic transformation. Private investment in natural capital is critical to enabling the pace and scale of action required to fulfil Scotland’s world-leading ambitions on addressing climate change and halting ecological decline. We have already committed significant public funding to the natural economy—more than £500 million over this session of Parliament—but the fact remains that no Government can, alone, meet the funding required.

The Green Finance Institute has estimated the investment gap for nature restoration in Scotland to be around £20 billion over the next decade. We are determined to ensure that that necessary private investment is socially responsible and provides wider public benefit, including for our local communities. As stated in our global capital investment plan, we want to work with investors who share our values so that we encourage the right investment in our natural capital. We want to work with communities to ensure that they are empowered and poised to benefit from our journey to net zero.

Our approach offers significant opportunity across our economy in terms of increased investment in good jobs and fair work, in land management, and in the supporting fintech, agritech and supply chain sectors.

NatureScot estimates that there are currently around 200,000 nature-based jobs in Scotland and that the sector has been responsible for a third of the jobs growth in Scotland over the past five years. Increasing the right kind of private investment will be important for continued jobs growth, especially in rural communities, and will also provide new income streams for farmers and land managers. We know that young people are increasingly interested in nature-based careers that help to fight the twin nature and climate emergencies.

In order to restore our natural capital, ensure a just transition, deliver good jobs and secure a vibrant future for our rural communities, we must design a market for investment with those objectives at its heart. Today, we are setting out our ambition and strategic direction to support and promote the type of activity that we want to see—striking a balance between, on the one hand, the need for responsible private sector investment that supports our policy priorities, such as climate change mitigation, fair work and a just transition, and, on the other, the need to support community rights and ambitions.

There are examples from other industries, such as onshore wind energy, of how the benefits of land-based private investment can successfully be shared with local communities. Furthermore, our groundbreaking land rights and responsibilities statement, published in 2017, sets out principles that underpin the Scottish Government’s vision for a stronger relationship between the people of Scotland and our land, where ownership and use of land deliver greater public benefits through a democratically accountable and transparent system of land rights and responsibilities. We are currently conducting the statutory five-yearly review of the land rights and responsibilities statement to assess whether it needs to be updated to remain fit for purpose and future challenges.

The Scottish Government is committed to that and to community empowerment. For example, the new Scottish land fund is now open and has awarded a total of £6.5 million to more than 80 projects so far this year. The budget for this year is £10 million and will be doubled to £20 million by the end of this session of Parliament.

The new land reform bill will aim to ensure that the public interest is considered in transfers of particularly large-scale land holdings in order to tackle problematic scale and concentration that can hamper community ambition. We will also aim to introduce a pre-emption in favour of community buy-out where the public interest test applies and where it is appropriate to do so.

Our proposals will complement existing community right-to-buy mechanisms and guidance that supports community engagement in land-based decision making. That includes our guidance on engaging communities in decisions relating to land and the Scottish Land Commission’s good practice programme, which comprises a series of land rights and responsibilities protocols.

In addition, the Scottish Government is working in close collaboration with partner agencies. That includes the work that the Scottish Land Commission is taking forward as a matter of urgency to help us to better understand the implications of investment in natural capital on the land market.

In advance of more formal policy developments, today we are publishing a set of interim principles for responsible private investment in Scotland’s natural capital. The interim principles set out our ambition for the market in Scotland and spell out our commitment to ensuring that the interests of thriving and empowered local communities and the wider public are at the very heart of our approach, both now and in the future.

As a priority action under the national strategy for economic transformation, we will develop new market infrastructure, rules and governance arrangements for responsible private investment in natural capital. The approach will build on existing investment mechanisms, such as the Woodland Carbon Code and “The Peatland Code”. Market development will take time to come to fruition and will depend on partnership work across the public, private and third sectors.

On that note, I extend my gratitude to the economic, environmental and societal agencies whose insight and expertise have been instrumental in the development of the principles. As I mentioned, Government cannot achieve the scale of our ambition alone—we need to build a broad coalition of the willing. That collaborative approach will be continued through discussion with communities, land managers, investors and other stakeholders on the interim principles and how they will apply in practice, and to help us to develop best practice and options for market infrastructure.

To that end, we will engage on the interim principles through existing initiatives such as the Scottish Forum on Natural Capital, the Scottish nature finance pioneers group and networks such as those used by the Scottish Land Commission to support the land rights and responsibilities statement. Collaboration will be critical to achieving our aims.

No Government has all the answers or has all this worked out yet. However, we are here and ready to lean in to the challenge, alongside those who share our commitment to a high-integrity, values-led market and to learning by doing. That will not be easy, but the things that are worth doing seldom are. I hope that we can all get behind the challenge, and I very much look forward to working with Parliament to turn the vision into reality.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the minister for prior sight of her statement.

The statement goes some way towards addressing the interim principles for responsible investment in natural capital, and we welcome aspects that the minister has touched on today. However, it falls short of the expectations of many people in rural Scotland. Although the Conservatives support investment in natural capital, it has to be done responsibly and while ensuring that rural livelihoods are not lost in the process—a sentiment that I believe we all share.

I recently spoke to the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association about the loss of agricultural land as a result of the expansion of large-scale forestry by companies that are seeking to offset their carbon footprint. We have seen not only tenant farmers but other rural workers, including gamekeepers and ghillies, moved off their land. Tenant farmers’ primary concerns are around agricultural tenancy laws, which allow for the facilitation of the disposal of land for greenwashing.

Alongside the new interim principles, will the minister consider further supporting tenant farmers so that they, too, can benefit from net zero and from these principles? Will she seek to ensure that tenancy laws in Scotland reflect the need to prevent productive agricultural land being lost to so-called Highland clearances?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Rachael Hamilton for welcoming what the Government has set out today, in so far as she did so. I am very aware of both the opportunities and the challenges that are presented by the move to net zero, and of the centrality of our land within that. That is partly why we are here today. Within that, I am aware of the concerns of farmers, including tenant farmers, and crofters. I and my colleagues across Government—because this is a genuinely cross-Government effort—engage regularly with farmers, crofters and tenants.

To give Rachael Hamilton some comfort—I hope—on the extent to which the Government is aware of that issue, I will read from principle 6 of the principles that we are publishing today, which is headed “Investment that supports diverse and productive land ownership”. Point 3 states:

“Where there are leases or other forms of tenure in place, for example in agricultural tenancies or crofting tenure, investors should identify and engage relevant parties early in decision making and consider opportunities for shared benefit.”

As I said, this statement today is the beginning, not the end. Following the publication of the principles, there will be a process involving further engagement and the development of best practice. I hope that that reference to inclusion gives Rachael Hamilton some comfort on the point that she raised.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. However, given that an important statement on ferries was bumped for this one, it really ought to have contained a lot more substance. Today’s statement does nothing to address the fact that Scotland’s land market continues to be dominated by private investment and that wealthy individuals continue to own vast amounts of land.

The Scottish Government is seeking to improve transparency around land ownership through the register of persons holding a controlled interest in land, but the enforcement measures that have been announced for non-compliance with the register are weak. A £5,000 fine will not deter those wealthy landowners who can afford to pay. Can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government will remove public subsidies from landowners who refuse to comply?

Although the Scottish Government has published the interim principles today, it is unclear how landowners will be made to comply with them. Will the principles be incorporated into the land rights and responsibilities statement? Will the Scottish Land Commission be given the powers to turn those interim principles into an enforceable code of practice for landowners?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I share Mercedes Villalba’s concerns and I am considering all of them as we develop this work and the land reform bill.

However, this Parliament voted for what were then—and are still—regarded as the world’s most ambitious targets for emissions reduction.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister answer the question?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

If the member gives me a chance, I am answering the question.

Because the Parliament voted for the targets, it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that we achieve them. In Scotland, we are fortunate that we have ample scope in our natural world to sequester carbon and support diversity, but it is absolutely clear that the Government cannot fund that work alone. There is a £20 billion investment gap between what the public sector can do and what is needed in order to do the land-based work that will allow us to fulfil our targets.

The member is asking me to answer her question, but I am afraid that many of the questions that she has posed today are part of legislation for which the consultation is still being developed, and it would be inappropriate for me to come to the chamber and divulge that information prior to public consultation. However, I assure her that I am considering all of that work, as well as the review of the land rights and responsibilities statement and the advice that I will get from the Scottish Land Commission on what are informally being called “green lairds”. All of that will be fed into the legislation as it is developed.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Those principles clearly touch on issues that will be of huge interest to the agricultural sector, so how do we take the crofters and tenant farmers with us on that journey as we seek to restore and enhance nature?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Jim Fairlie is absolutely right that, when it comes to Scotland’s land, our farmers and crofters are key. Not only do we rely on them to produce our food and fulfil the Government’s good food nation ambition that we are rolling out, but their stewardship of our land makes them an absolutely key player in the delivery of a net zero Scotland that lives in harmony with nature. Therefore, I assure the member, just as I did Rachael Hamilton, that the Scottish Government is seized of the importance of supporting farmers to deliver sustainable food production and to fulfil what we need them to do—and what they are well poised to do—in relation to climate change mitigation and support for biodiversity. The member knows that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands is undertaking that work through the agriculture reform implementation oversight board—ARIOB—but it is also front and centre of the work that we are publishing today. I refer the member again to principle 1,

“investment that delivers integrated land use”,

principle 6,

“investment that supports ... productive land ownership”

and principle 6.3, which I read to Rachael Hamilton.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Last year, against the Scottish Government target of 20,000 hectares, 5,600 hectares of peatland were restored. That is the fourth year in a row that that target has been missed. Ambitions and targets are relevant only if there is a route to achieve them. There is a lack of qualified men and women in the green economy. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the education system is supported to develop green economy qualifications, in order to enable the national capital investments, which the minister talks about, to be realised?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Again, the member touches on the crux of the issue that we are facing. The public sector has a role to play in setting targets, including those on emissions reduction and peatland restoration. We can invest money to provide stability in the market, and we are doing that with peatland restoration. We have committed £0.25 billion over the next decade, but there is, inevitably, a gap. The principles that we are publishing today are exactly about trying to rise to the challenge of that gap by leveraging in private investment, but doing so in a responsible way.

The member is absolutely right to mention the importance of skills, because not only are they essential for all the work that we need to undertake in woodland creation, peatland restoration and marine habitat, but young people are continually crying out to be involved in those areas—they want to be part of the green sectors of the future. A number of pieces of work are being undertaken in my portfolio, including a review of land-based learning, and investments are being made in land-based work as part of our skills guarantee. I would like to assure him that we are trying to rise to that challenge, not only because it is necessary but because young people are calling out for us to do so.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the minister for her statement, which highlighted that the estimated investment gap for nature restoration in Scotland is around £20 billion over the next decade and that Government alone cannot address that gap. As she has said, responsible private investment will be critical to that, so could she please expand on how the Scottish Government will balance the need for private investment in a way that ensures harmony with its land reform ambitions and with any aspirations that are expressed by communities?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I have said today, we are absolutely committed to taking action to ensure that increasing levels of natural capital investment in Scotland are delivering benefits for local communities and wider society. That is part of fulfilling not only our legal commitments to emissions reduction but, equally, our important legal commitment to a just transition. I have mentioned already the package of work that I am expecting from the Scottish Land Commission to help the Scottish Government find a pathway to balancing the need for private sector investment in natural capital with community rights and with that all-important legal commitment to a just transition.

That is all reflected in what we are publishing today, which are the principles for our values-led high-integrity market. All of that is set out in the papers that have been published. Moving forward, we will take what we have published today, which I am pleased to note is already being welcomed by stakeholders, to communities, crofters, farmers and investors. We will use those principles as a vehicle to better understand best practice and to inform how we set the rules for the market. A number of land-based pieces of legislation are due to come through Parliament this term, which I expect all of this work to feed into.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister’s statement is vital and detailed, especially regarding the green lairds who have already been buying up huge swathes of Scotland. Will she bring forward proposals to regulate our land market to stop land being bought and used when there is no public interest? Will she confirm whether the right of pre-emption for communities will mean that they no longer have to register an interest in land?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Rhoda Grant for that question; again, I know that she cares very much about this issue, and she and I have had exchanges about it in Parliament before.

I would like to assure Rhoda Grant that this work, as well as the other work that is being taken across the land reform and environment portfolio and in others, is entirely geared towards the objective that a net zero Scotland should be a country in which more people live and work sustainably on our land, and not fewer. Community empowerment is a huge part of that.

There are examples of how we can empower our communities. It can be through jobs, for example, as has been mentioned before. It can be through community benefit. I think that all of us across the chamber will have examples in our constituencies and regions of town centres that have been transformed by funds that have flowed from renewables development.

As regards the right of pre-emption, I have to tell Ms Grant what I told her colleague. I am still very closely considering the content of the land reform bill and how it will function, but I hope to publish the consultation shortly.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister made mention in her statement of jobs in rural communities. Is there anything that the Scottish Government is able to do to ensure that private investors make a contribution to the rural communities that they will come into contact with?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The member touches on another important issue. There are changes in the market, and the centrality of our land to our climate and nature aspirations is driving this quite rapid development in our market. That presents opportunities and it presents risks. In what we are publishing today, the Scottish Government is seeking to mitigate the risks and rise to the opportunities. Some of those opportunities could be for community benefit, as I discussed in my response to Rhoda Grant, and they could be for jobs and they could be for a series of other things.

On jobs, as I said to the member on the Tory benches, we know that people are increasingly looking for jobs that will help them to contribute to the restoration of our natural world. Not only that, those jobs could allow young people from constituencies such as mine, who perhaps feel that they have to leave their local communities in order to find opportunities, to stay and contribute to something substantial.

On the specifics of Emma Roddick’s question, I draw members’ attention to principle 2,

“Investment that delivers public, private and community benefit”,

and to point 1 under that, which reads,

“Investment in and use of Scotland’s natural capital should create benefits that are shared between public, private and community interests contributing to a just transition.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the minister for early sight of her statement and add my welcome to the long-overdue recognition at COP26 of the role that nature and biodiversity must play in helping us to keep global warming below 1.5°C. The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that nature restoration and rewilding are key to achieving our net zero and biodiversity targets. Will the minister commit to setting additional targets for rewilding of publicly owned land and will she say how she will ensure that proper due diligence is carried into any private investors?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I tend not to use the term “rewilding” because I sometimes worry that it could mean rewilding to the absence of people. As I have said, my and the Government’s vision for a net zero Scotland is of a rural Scotland with more people living and working sustainably on the land. Although there are aspects of rewilding that we support, which can be actions ranging from very small scale to landscape scale, I prefer to use the terms “rewilding” and “repeopling” together, which I know is something that the member will appreciate.

As regards targets, I will not pre-empt the content of some of the work that my colleague Lorna Slater will be taking forward in a natural environment bill this session. I have no doubt that Ms Slater will be keen to engage with the member on that.

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

Can the minister say more about the way in which the principles will continue to reshape people’s relationship with the land in Scotland and the pattern of that relationship, given that the relationship has often been skewed historically by iniquitous patterns of land ownership and use?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

That is a very important point, because that iniquitous pattern of land ownership is partly why we are here today and it is why the Government maintains an unwavering commitment to continuing Scotland’s land reform journey. Too often in decades and centuries gone by, developments in Scotland have happened at the expense of communities. As part of a just transition, we cannot allow that to happen again; we must learn from the mistakes of the past.

We want empowered communities to be able to benefit from the opportunities that land and land use change will present over the next 20 years. As I have mentioned, the principles that we are publishing today will be taken forward as part of an on-going engagement process. That will allow us to develop an evidence base to ensure that best practice is being undertaken and it will inform future laws including part of the land reform bill and others.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. It is heartening to hear the Government reiterate its commitment to community empowerment through mechanisms such as the pre-emption in favour of community buyout where a public interest test applies. Will the minister outline what is being done to support communities to get organised so that they can grasp the opportunities that will arise as a result of the new legal mechanisms delivered by the Scottish Government and the Greens?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I thank Ariane Burgess for that question, because I agree that, although we have a job in the Executive and the legislature to make sure that the rules are there to facilitate land reform, it is equally important that communities are able to utilise those and be supported to do so. Thankfully, communities in Scotland have more options than ever before to take ownership of land and assets, including several distinct rights to buy in existing legislation, and they can now choose which route to community ownership best suits their aspirations. Measures in the forthcoming land reform bill will aim to complement what has gone before and support existing rights.

However, communities ought not to wait for the next land reform bill but should use the opportunities that are currently available to them, which include grant support to help them with the acquisition of land and land assets through the Scottish land fund, which I mentioned in my statement. Grants of up to £100,000 are available as part of that fund.

My feeling is that the land reform laws that have gone before have created a culture in which communities feel more able to use and buy assets to suit them; that they do not always use the legislation to do that is a good thing. However, the march of land reform in Scotland continues apace.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister talked at length about the need for private investment in natural capital and said that there was a £20 million gap. However, I do not think that I heard in the statement how the Scottish Government will encourage and incentivise individuals and firms to make those investments, what the identity of those firms and individuals might be and where, for example, they are registered as companies. Can the minister assist me now?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The question of leveraging and mobilising funding is a good one. Ultimately, investors value certainty, and the principles that we have published today provide clear policy signalling that tells investors where we stand in Scotland, which will allow them to take investment decisions based on that knowledge and on the certainty of the Government’s position.

As I said to the member’s colleague, the interim principles are a start and not the end. They are designed to be a vehicle for engagement with the investment community that will ensure that we establish a market that works for investors and communities.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Following on from Liam Kerr’s question, can the minister go into more detail about the kind of natural restoration enhancements she envisages private sector investment bringing about, and does she perhaps have a current example thereof in Scotland or elsewhere?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Yes. That is another good question, which goes to the heart of why we are here. I bring my comments back, again, to the fact that Parliament set world-leading climate targets and is committed to treating the climate emergency and the ecological emergency as twin crises. We are very fortunate in Scotland that marvels of our natural world will come to our rescue in those challenges.

The member asks for examples. Woodland creation is a key example. In the past few years, Scotland has planted 80 per cent of all trees that have gone into the ground across the United Kingdom. Another example is peatland restoration, which is truly a win-win in the climate and nature emergencies, as it sequesters carbon, supports biodiversity and creates green job opportunities.

Onshore and offshore renewables are, of course, other good examples of land-based investment, and an example of increasing importance is blue carbon, which includes seagrass and salt marsh restoration.

All of those nature-based processes will help us take on the climate emergency, and all of them are opportunities that Scotland is so well placed to utilise.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the statement. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Scotland’s Vision for Trade (Annual Report)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Ivan McKee on “Scotland’s Vision for Trade Annual Report March 2022”. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Scotland is a proud trading nation. For centuries, we have exported goods and services around the globe. Today, our food and drink, higher education and science and technology exports, to name but a few, are renowned the world over. In Scotland, we recognise that international trade is a force for good. However, it can present us with difficult challenges—from how we respond to world events outwith our control to how we ensure that the benefits of trade are shared equitably and responsibly.

In recent years, the complex system of international trading connections has come under considerable strain. The Covid-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges to the supply of critical products. The United Kingdom’s hard exit from the European Union compounded those challenges, creating barriers to our access to the goods and services that we take for granted and to our ability to share what we produce with our neighbours.

In January 2021, amid that disruption and uncertainty, I presented “Scotland’s Vision for Trade” to the Parliament. The vision offers a longer-term perspective on and a coherent approach to trade, and a set of guiding principles that we can use to underpin our trade decisions and relationships.

I am pleased to present the first annual report, which details our progress so far in implementing the vision. The context in which I do so is, of course, marked by further dramatic shifts in the global trading system. The need to apply principles to international trade decisions has become even more important. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a new global crisis and humanitarian catastrophe. Trade and economic relationships with Russia have been a particular focus of the co-ordinated worldwide response. The vision provides our guiding principles as we stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

The report documents how we have been putting the core principles of inclusive growth, wellbeing, sustainability, net zero and good governance into practice to meet the needs of Scotland’s people and businesses. It sets out the actions that we have taken to implement our vision, our progress in using the levers that are available to the Scottish Government and how we have sought to influence the UK Government in areas in which levers are currently reserved. As I said last year when laying out our vision to Parliament,

“actions speak louder than words.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2021; c 22.]

I will therefore take a few moments to highlight a few of the actions that we have taken so far.

Last year, Glasgow hosted one of the most important gatherings of world leaders this century. Scotland can be proud of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—for many reasons. One of those reasons is that it marked the end of our overseas support and promotion activities that were solely focused on fossil fuel goods and services. We made that commitment in “Scotland’s Vision for Trade”.

Looking ahead, we are turning our focus to supporting the energy and climate transition, using momentum from COP26 to deliver opportunities for Scotland. For example, creating trade opportunities is a core part of our hydrogen action plan, which will help to make Scotland a leading nation in the production of reliable, competitive and sustainable hydrogen.

In this first year, we have focused on improving the trading environment for Scotland’s businesses, which can face a number of barriers to trading internationally. Something as simple as product labelling requirements can deter companies from entering a market or increase costs, and addressing such market barriers can open up significant opportunities for businesses. We have therefore developed a methodology to identify and prioritise the most significant market access barriers that affect Scottish trade, so that we can begin to address them.

In taking advantage of trade opportunities, we have consistently sought to strike the right balance between competing priorities in order to ensure that trade rules do not jeopardise other important aims. The vision provides us with a framework for doing so. For example, our green port proposals adapt the UK’s free port model to help to deliver a net zero economy and a fair work first approach, and our notification to the World Trade Organization of our single-use plastics regulations allowed us to demonstrate transparency and openness with regard to the scrutiny that comes with effective global governance, while ensuring that trade rules do not prevent Scotland from meeting ambitious environmental targets.

However, as the report makes clear, there is much more that we can do to advance Scotland’s economic, social and environmental aims through trade. We are at the beginning of implementing our vision, and we are open, honest and ambitious about the work that lies ahead of us.

Actions in that regard will not be taken in isolation from other strategies, but will underpin and support them by helping to create optimal trading conditions for Scotland’s businesses. For example, the vision will directly support the national strategy for economic transformation’s aim to strengthen Scotland’s position in new markets and industries and to generate new, well-paid jobs from a just transition to net zero, and it will support Scotland’s export growth plan, “A Trading Nation”.

For our economy, that includes identifying further opportunities to make it easier for Scottish businesses to trade digitally, while boosting our international recognition as an ethical digital nation. Those objectives are also set out in the recently published technology sector export plan.

For Scotland’s people, in recognition that there are winners and losers from trade, we will build our evidence base on what those differential impacts are and how we can address them. That approach aligns with our ambitions for our economy to drive progress towards a fairer and more equal society, as set out in our national strategy for economic transformation.

For the planet, we will continue to build coherence between our climate, environmental and trade ambitions, while developing our understanding of the strengths and opportunities that are presented by our environmental goods and services sectors.

Although we are clear about the actions that Scotland can and should take in relation to trade, we also rely on others acting in a way that supports our economy, our people and the planet. As the report details, we have pressed the UK Government to use the trade-related levers that sit with Westminster to support Scotland. For example, since leaving the European Union against Scotland’s wishes, the UK Government has pursued a series of ad hoc free trade agreements with countries around the world. Although they have been presented as a benefit of Brexit, in reality, the expected economic benefits from those deals are tiny, and they in no way compensate for the economic impact of our exit from the EU.

Given the impact of those agreements across a wide range of devolved and reserved issues, we and the other devolved nations have repeatedly called for a full role for the devolved Administrations and legislatures in all trade negotiations. Despite the UK Government’s refusal, we have engaged fully on each and every agreement, pressing for greater opportunities for Scotland’s strong services sectors and the reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers for our priority goods exports. In doing so, we have drawn on the principles set out in the vision to promote and protect Scottish trade priorities.

Our call for increased involvement is not just about process. The UK Government recently signed free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, both of which raised issues of profound importance to Scotland, but our lack of a formal role led to our concerns being ignored. We have consistently pressed the UK Government to protect Scottish producers from imports that originate from countries with different environmental and animal welfare standards. Appropriate protection was not included in either agreement. Now, for example, a Scottish premium beef exporter risks being undercut by competitors from Australia and New Zealand who are not competing on a level playing field of like-for-like standards.

We also continue to press the UK Government in other areas. We continue to push for the UK Government to build on the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement and deepen the UK’s relationship with the EU, as our nearest and largest trading partner. We are also engaging with the UK Government to ensure that Scottish interests are identified, protected and promoted at the World Trade Organization, which reflects commitments made in the vision.

In the vision for trade, we issued an open invitation to individuals, businesses and other organisations in Scotland, and globally, to discuss trade policy with us. I reiterate that call for engagement. Those inputs are crucial to our work on implementing the vision, and they will ensure that our approach is informed by their experience and expertise.

Last year, I told the Parliament that the vision made clear the kind of country that we want to be, with strong principles to guide how we do business around the world so that people, companies and other Governments know who we are and what we represent as a nation. One year on, the report demonstrates that we remain absolutely committed to openly, transparently and unapologetically setting high standards for ourselves and for others.

I began my statement by reflecting on Scotland’s proud trading legacy. In a context of turbulent global affairs and strains on the international trading system that are unprecedented in modern times, Scotland does not forget its principles, nor does it compromise them when it suits. Today, we continue that legacy.

The Presiding Officer

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if members who wish to ask a question would press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for the early sight of his statement.

In the first paragraph of his statement, he rightly mentions that the higher education sector is one of the key sectors when it comes to improving a range of economic factors. He is absolutely right about that. However, Universities Scotland has commented that Scotland is not sufficiently competitive when it comes to economic growth, and that was one of the unanimous conclusions of the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee.

I will read a short section of the Universities Scotland comment on that. It says:

“The research excellence grant has declined 18.2% in real terms since 2014/15”.

It continues:

“Over the same time period, Scotland’s universities have won a progressively smaller percentage share of UKRI resources, from a 15.4% share to a 12.9% share.”

What does the minister think is the reason for Scotland not winning so many of those research grant projects, and what is being done to address that?

Secondly, the minister talked about improving the trade environment for Scotland’s businesses. He will know that one of the big asks of the business community—and, indeed, of the Scottish Funding Council—is that much more needs to be done to upskill and reskill our workforce, and to provide a much greater focus on digital skills, data science and leadership and management skills, by making far more resources available through the national transition training fund. Is that going to happen?