Scottish Parliament, 19 April 2023

298 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Rural Affairs and Islands

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. We start with portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs and islands. There is a lot of interest in this and the next portfolio, so I make the usual plea for succinct questions and responses, and I advise that where I do not think that the question or the response is succinct, I will be intervening. I invite anyone who wishes to ask a supplementary to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Second Home Ownership (Rural and Island Communities)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

1. To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to its cross-Government co-ordination on islands policies, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding regulating second home ownership in rural and island communities. (S6O-02100)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands regularly engages with colleagues on a variety of issues, and I look forward to working with her on the important issue of rural housing.

Second homes bring benefits to those who own them and the businesses that they support, but in some communities they can impact the availability of homes to meet local need and it is important that we take action to pursue a fair balance. That is why we recently published a joint consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, seeking views on giving powers to local authorities to increase the rates of council tax on second and empty homes.

Ash Regan

The consultation on raising council tax on second homes is welcome, but I fail to see how that policy will have any impact on the numbers of second homes, which we know can be an issue.

The Highlands is the area that is most affected by second homes. Ullapool is one of many towns that are affected, and Ullapool Community Trust recently described the lack of housing supply there as a “real and persistent crisis”. Second homes reduce available stock for local families and can push up prices well beyond the reach of key workers. Then, businesses and the public sector can struggle to attract staff, as there is no housing available for workers.

One solution may be for our councils in hot-spot areas to limit second home numbers. Will the Government commit to looking seriously at that option?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Government is looking at a few things just now. We will publish an action plan for housing in remote, rural and island areas that will include up to £25 million from our affordable homes budget to allow suitable properties, including empty houses, to be purchased for long lease and turned into affordable homes for key workers and others. Ash Regan raised an important issue, and I have been engaging with ministers on that today.

We recognise that good-quality affordable housing is essential to help attract people to remote and rural communities and to retain them.

The point that you make is something that I would pick up with you in further discussions, if that is okay. We need to think about how we try to attract first-time buyers into such areas, because there is an issue regarding rural housing and depopulation. That is an important point, which we are looking at. There is support for first-time buyers under land and buildings transaction tax, which increases the upper amount of the nil rate from £145,000 to £175,000 and saves first-time buyers up to £600 in tax.

It is a complex issue and there a number of things that we need to look at. The rural action plan that I talked about will be a major step forward, and there are a few points that she mentioned—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, if you could address your comments through the microphone rather than to the member, I am sure that we will pick them up.

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

I welcome the COSLA and Scottish Government consultation, which aims to tackle the matter of the disproportionate number of second homes in many parts of Scotland, not least my own constituency. What additional measures will be put in place to introduce a limit on the proportion of second homes in comparison to homes that are lived in year round in specific communities, specifically because of the wider impact that the issue has on house prices in such places, which pushes all but a very small number of people out of the housing market?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The member will be aware that there are already additional measures that can support areas to manage the numbers of second homes and short-term lets, such as the introduction of short-term let control areas and the increase in the LBTT additional dwelling supplement to 6 per cent, which helps first-time buyers compete more fairly with buy-to-let investors or people buying second homes.

I mentioned the consultation and I look forward to seeing the responses about providing councils with powers that they can choose to use to achieve fairer taxation on housing. That will inform our next steps on this important issue.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will press the minister a bit further. Yesterday, he indicated that he might be prepared to go beyond only the council tax. We have done it for short-term lets in relation to planning and licensing. Would he be prepared to consider using that for second homes as well?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Yes. Again, if Mr Rennie wants to forward me proposals, I would be happy to look at them and discuss them. The First Minister mentioned that yesterday. If Mr Rennie has any proposals to forward, I would be more than happy to discuss them at a later stage.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, Katy Clark.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

A recent Scottish Parliament information centre report revealed that Arran has the highest rate of second home ownership in Scotland, accounting for 25 per cent of all privately owned homes on the island. Only 11 per cent of Arran’s housing stock is available for affordable rent, and, of course, rents on the island are more expensive than those on the mainland.

Will the minister advise on when the Scottish Government’s remote, rural and island action plan for housing will be published and on what is being considered that will particularly address areas where there is a very high density of second homes?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, minister.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

As, I think, I mentioned, the action plan will be published relatively soon. I will let Katy Clark know when it is available, at that time. We talked about some of the issues that there are. The buy-to-let control areas, which I think I mentioned before, are one part of that. I plan to visit Argyll and Bute and other rural communities to engage with them and talk about the issues

that have been raised. It is more complex than that. I talked about the consultation on the second homes supplement. Again, I would be keen to find out Argyll and Bute’s understanding of and position on that.

Highly Protected Marine Areas (Potential Impacts on Coastal and Island Communities)

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

2. To ask the Scottish Government what assurances it can provide to fishers in Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency who have reportedly expressed concerns about their livelihoods and the future of their communities in light of the potential economic and cultural impact highly protected marine areas may have on coastal and island communities once designated. (S6O-02101)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

First, I take the opportunity to say that I am aware of the strength of feeling arising from the

highly protected marine area consultation. We remain committed to continued meaningful engagement with fishers and coastal and island communities. Our consultation has just closed and we are analysing responses and carefully considering feedback.

I reiterate that no sites have been proposed yet. Site selection will be a participatory process, and the expertise of fishers, among others, will be crucial to ensuring that the proposals provide benefits for the sustainable fishing of our marine ecosystems.

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

Members will appreciate the need to tackle biodiversity loss, but, in many parts of the Highlands and Islands, human communities are at risk, too. The population of my constituency has nearly halved since the second world war and it is projected to drop by another 16 per cent by 2042. Given fishing’s strong economic and cultural ties across the west coast, does the minister understand why HPMA proposals have now inspired a Skipinnish song, and can she say how the proposals can be reconciled with the Scottish Government’s commitments around depopulation and other items in the national islands plan?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I thank Alasdair Allan for his question and for his concern about the matter. This concerns us all. If we do not take action in the marine space, there is a risk that the marine environment will not remain resilient enough to continue to provide the resources and benefits that we gain from it for the long term.

Protecting our marine environment not only ensures that we protect the natural asset upon which the fishing industry and other industries are built but helps to manage the potentially devastating impacts of climate change on the industry. Communities can absolutely benefit from

highly protected marine areas; indeed, the Lamlash Bay no-take zone was a result of campaigning by the local community group. Based on studies co-ordinated by that group, it has been noted that, since protection, commercially important species have increased in size, age and density.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have requests for a number of supplementaries. They will have to be brief, as will the responses.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

With communities up in arms and Scottish National Party back-bench rebellion looming, the Scottish Government now seems to be desperate to be seen to be listening on these plans. However, it has already caused huge anger among coastal communities. Will the minister now drop the plans, go back to the drawing board and engage fully to find agreement with local communities and stakeholders on a way forward?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Again, I absolutely appreciate the strength of feeling here. The consultation on these matters closed only on Monday. We will take the time to consider all the responses. Consultations are a tool that we use to collect views from interested groups. The Scottish Government is aware of the concerns of marine users and industries, including fishers, about the potential impacts that HPMAs may have on them. Those impacts may benefit certain fish stocks. HPMA studies show that they increase the stock, which can spill over into adjacent areas. That benefits fishers in the form of extra juvenile and adult animals, which has commercial benefit. Of course, HPMAs can also benefit recreational sectors.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Given the strength of feeling around HPMAs, will the minister listen to the consultation and withdraw the proposals, or does she see them as a red line in the Bute house agreement?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

As I said in my previous answer, the consultation has only just closed. It includes a very wide range of views, which we will now consider and assess. Of course, it is important to create the right balance in our marine space. We recognise the importance of continued investment in Scotland’s seafood and wider marine sectors, as well as the importance of balancing the needs of ecomarine protection and renewable energy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, Beatrice Wishart.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The minister talks about meaningful engagement and recognises the concerns that are being expressed across island and coastal communities throughout Scotland, but when will she meet the people who are most affected in their communities?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, minister.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I reiterate that no sites have been selected for this. We want the site selection process to be participatory at every step of the way. This is part of a just transition for our marine spaces and our work towards net zero. We absolutely intend to have meaningful community engagement every step of the way.

Conditionality Payments

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

3. Before I start my question, I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I have been involved in a farming partnership for more than 40 years.

To ask the Scottish Government whether all farmers will have the ability to apply for, and be granted, all conditionality payments under its new agricultural support scheme. (S6O-02102)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Our vision for agriculture sets our clear commitment to maintain direct support for our producers. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has said plainly in the chamber—and I re-emphasise—that our producers will not face any cliff edge as we transition to the four-tier support framework.

We will deliver with our industry to ensure that future support is most effective and accessible for all types of farmer, crofter and land manager, enabling them to continue to produce high-quality food and deliver on our shared outcomes for biodiversity recovery and climate adaptation and mitigation.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Unfortunately, that did not answer the question; let us try one more time. Fifty per cent of the future farm payment will be based on conditionality. Will all farmers across Scotland be able to apply for and be granted those grants, if appropriate—yes or no?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I appreciate the member’s concern. Our commitment to co-develop and work with those who are directly impacted and will be expected to deliver the outcomes on the ground has been important. That is reflected in our creation of the agriculture reform implementation oversight board—the ARIOB—which is co-chaired by the cabinet secretary and the NFU Scotland president Martin Kennedy. The member can be assured that the interests of all farmers are very well represented in that work.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

What the Tories continually miss is that, in Scotland, we are committed to supporting active farming and food production. However, farming will have to adapt if we are to meet our net zero targets, and, indeed, farmers have the skills to do that. I ask the minister for examples of good practice that would see farmers become eligible under each of the tiers.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, minister.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The new support framework that is being co-developed with partners will support farmers to take the opportunities that the transition presents and help to deliver our vision for agriculture. We continue to support and invest in our farmers and crofters and to take action on climate change through a range of initiatives, including Farming for a Better Climate, which is Scotland’s farm advisory service, the agricultural transformation fund, the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, the agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network and the integrating trees network. Through those initiatives, we continue to encourage the uptake of low-carbon farming practices by offering financial support and providing practical advice and guidance, supporting knowledge and skills transfer and demonstrating the climate and business benefits of taking action.

Food Insecurity and Food Poverty

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with food producers, manufacturers and distributors regarding supply chains and how to tackle food insecurity and food poverty. (S6O-02103)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government has regular engagement with food producers, manufacturers and distributors, including via the food sector resilience group and the retail industry leadership group. We also engage directly with third sector food groups such as FareShare that redistribute food for social good.

Although third sector groups are able to provide inclusive community activities, the Scottish Government believes that everyone should have the money that they need to access food with dignity and choice. As promised in our programme for government, we will soon publish our plan, which is grounded in human rights. It sets out the further action that we will take to improve the response to hardship and reduce the need for food banks.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her response, and I am glad that she mentioned FareShare. We are seeing the highest rate of inflation in food prices for almost 50 years, and FareShare has reiterated the struggles that it is experiencing. As colleagues know, FareShare redistributes surplus food to charities and communities across the country, but it is seeing a reduction in what is available to it because of industry pressures.

Last year, the then Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands convened a summit on the issue. Will there be a follow up to that, and what more can the Government do to support charities such as FareShare?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I join Monica Lennon in commending the work that FareShare does, which, unfortunately, is still widely needed in our communities. She is right to point to the work that the cabinet secretary did in convening the summit. As part of my portfolio, I, too, am very interested in working with FareShare and other parts of the third sector to see what we can do to support it.

The important part—which I mentioned in my original answer—is our plan, which we are due to publish soon, to ensure that we are considering what can be done to support families and end the use of and need for food banks in Scotland. However, until we are at that stage, there is, unfortunately, a role for food banks and the work that FareShare does. I am happy to have further discussions with Monica Lennon about that, should she wish.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yesterday, Humza Yousaf’s flimsy document failed to mention agriculture and farming, and it also failed to look at the significant potential for innovation and technology—such as genetic technology—that will play a vital role in decarbonising the industry, improving yields, improving reliability of crops and improving food security. Will the minister or the cabinet secretary reconsider their intransigent position on gene technology?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Strangely enough, I do not agree with the premise or the context that the member put on the document that was published yesterday or on the work that has been done by the Government on that more widely. I appreciate that there are different views on the issue, but the Government has made its views clear. [

Interruption

.]

It is a shame that Rachael Hamilton is not listening to the answer to the question. Perhaps I will leave it there.

Livestock Worrying

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the steps that it is taking to tackle livestock worrying. (S6O-02104)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021 has been in force for more than a year. It provides Police Scotland and the courts with greater powers to deal with people who allow their dogs to worry, attack or kill livestock in Scotland’s countryside. Increasing awareness is a key factor in the prevention of livestock-worrying incidents and associated unnecessary suffering. The Scottish outdoor access code is clear on the rights and responsibilities of land managers and people exercising access rights, and it is widely publicised.

More generally, in 2021, the Scottish Government delivered an awareness-raising digital campaign in partnership with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to promote responsible dog ownership. The campaign has been rerun on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram on a number of occasions. It directs the public to information about the law on controlling dogs on the mygov.scot website. The website makes it clear that dog owners are responsible for the actions of their dog, and it sets out potential penalties for failing to control dogs.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the minister will be aware of the horrific attack on livestock on a farm near Kelty, in Fife, which resulted in the death of 20 lambs and more than £7,000-worth of damage. I note the minister’s responses, and I will come back to some of them.

Farmers in my region and across the whole of rural Scotland already have to deal with the stresses of the lambing season, and, although sentencing is a matter for the courts, I note that sentencing guidelines for a maximum fine of £40,000 and 12 months’ imprisonment, which were brought in in 2021, do not appear to have had the deterrent effect that they were meant to have.

A survey that was conducted by NFU Mutual in February found that 29 per cent of respondents knew about the potential fine and 32 per cent of dog owners understood that they could be imprisoned if their pets went on to attack. What more will the Scottish Government do to prevent the mutilation of defenceless animals and protect farmers’ livelihoods?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I understand the strength of feeling about this. Any dog attack—even just one—is one too many. The worrying of livestock by dogs is completely unacceptable. As well as causing obvious suffering to the animals concerned, the damage that is inflicted on flocks and herds can have severe financial and psychological consequences for farmers.

Estimates from Police Scotland show that 262 cases were reported in 2022, which was down from 301 in 2021, while NFU Mutual estimated that the cost of dog attacks on Scotland’s livestock fell by almost by 31 per cent—almost a third—last year.

I am pleased to say that the situation is improving, and the member is correct in saying that, under the 2021 act, which was introduced by Emma Harper as a member’s bill, owners of dogs that attack or worry livestock can be fined up to £40,000 or face a prison sentence of up to 12 months. Currently, we do not have any data for the implementation of the law, because it is relatively new, but sentencing in any given case is a matter for the independent court within the overall legal framework.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will have to move on to question 6, despite there being interest in supplementaries to this question. The responses will have to be briefer, and so, too, will the questions.

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

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

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is, regarding agriculture and the food and drink industry in Scotland, to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. (S6O-02105)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We are assessing the deal further and await more detail from the United Kingdom Government, although its own scoping assessments show that any benefits, including tariff reductions, will be limited, with a mere 0.08 per cent increase in UK gross domestic product.

Although there might be some growth opportunities for Scottish food and drink producers, those are very limited and there are significant risks, particularly for our sensitive agricultural products, which are set to be damaged by bilateral deals that the UK Government recently agreed with New Zealand and Australia. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already criticised them as poor deals for the sector. It also remains unclear how the UK will protect domestic standards against the arbitration process of trading.

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

Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, has said that the UK has joined a trade bloc in which food, farming and environmental standards are lower than our own. That raises concerns about the impact on consumer health and farm businesses in the UK. NFU Scotland and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have also cited similar concerns about animal welfare standards. Does the minister share my concern that this deal represents another post-Brexit race to the bottom?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister—as briefly as possible.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I very much share those concerns. Scottish ministers continue to argue for a role in UK trade negotiations so that we can safeguard Scotland’s interests and watch out for such risks, because we believe that the UK is potentially joining a trade bloc in which many food, farming and environmental standards are significantly lower than our own, which is not a good road to go down.

Emissions Reduction Targets (Agriculture)

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it anticipates its proposed agriculture bill and future payments framework will support progress towards meeting Scotland’s emissions reduction targets. (S6O-02106)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Farmers, crofters and other land managers have a key role to play in meeting our climate targets. The new support framework, which is being co-developed with partners, will support them to take advantage of the opportunities around this transition and help to deliver our vision for agriculture. That vision makes clear our commitment to enable producers of high-quality food to deliver on our shared outcomes for biodiversity recovery and climate adaptation and mitigation. The next climate change plan, the draft of which is due this year, will include policies and proposals to ensure that the agriculture sector continues to play its part in meeting our ambitious net zero national target.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Integrating woodland into farms is a big opportunity for farmers across Scotland and for local environments. Will the minister set out how the new framework and revised forestry grant scheme will improve support to all farmers seeking to establish woodland on their land or on land that they manage?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Again, as briefly as possible, minister.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

We are currently consulting on future grant support for forestry, which includes a specific question on how to better support farmers to establish trees on their farms. We look forward to hearing what stakeholders suggest. We envisage building on the principle of the recently introduced provision to include woodland creation as eligible activity in ecological focus areas.

We are actively promoting the integrating trees network—a farmer-led initiative that aims to encourage more farmers and crofters to plant trees and to raise awareness of the multiple benefits that planting trees can bring to agricultural businesses.

Seasonal Migrant Workers (Food and Drink Industry)

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last engaged with the United Kingdom Government regarding access for Scotland’s food and drink industry to seasonal migrant workers. (S6O-02107)

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government is clear that we need a migration policy that is tailored to the needs of Scotland’s economy, public services and communities. We need people to contribute at all levels of our economy.

However, the UK Government has repeatedly ignored calls from Scottish ministers for a workable immigration system that is fit for all sectors, including the food and drink industry. That is despite recent recommendations from independent researchers for the UK Government to closely involve Scottish agricultural representatives in shaping future policy and schemes. Clearly, UK Government policies are being implemented without a full understanding of their potentially catastrophic impact on rural and island communities. The UK Government must take a collaborative and evidenced-based approach to immigration policy before irreparable damage is done to our economy.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Key sectors in the industry are being left unable to access the workforce that they require and people who wish to come to Scotland to make a valued contribution. Brexit, being removed from the European Union and the end of freedom of movement have created barriers and are leaving our world-class food and drink industry hamstrung. Does the minister share my concerns about that? Will she continue to urge the UK Government to give an indication of how it intends to fix the mess that it has made?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, please, minister.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Absolutely. The

food and drink

sector, like others, faces significant workforce recruitment and retention issues. Many of those issues are not new, but they have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit. Many EU citizens have left the UK, resulting in a loss of skills that cannot be quickly and easily replaced.

On the matter of continuing to press the UK Government, the cabinet secretary has written to the UK Government repeatedly and will continue to do so. I hope that the member will support those calls.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs and the islands.

Health and Social Care

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is health and social care. There is a lot of interest, and I make the same plea for brevity in questions and responses. I hope that we will have a slightly more positive response. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, I invite them to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

NHS Lanarkshire Public Health Annual Report 2021-22

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the NHS Lanarkshire annual report of the director of public health for 2021-22, which was published this March. (S6O-02108)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the NHS Lanarkshire public health annual report and the insights that it provides. It is encouraging to see the excellent initiatives that are under way and the renewed focus on health improvement. Persistent health inequalities remain, exacerbated by the cost of living crisis and the Covid pandemic. As the First Minister set out yesterday, the Scottish Government will support people with the greatest need, using every power available to protect the vulnerable. We will develop a sustainable health and social care system that ensures that people get the right care in the right place and at the right time, working with Cabinet colleagues to reduce poverty, prevent ill health and reduce health inequalities.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The report highlights the profound and disproportionate impact that Covid-19 has had on residents who are living in the most deprived areas of my constituency. As the minister said, that has been exacerbated by the current Tory cost of living crisis. Although the additional £1 million to directly fund general practice surgeries that are serving the most deprived patients across Greater Glasgow and Clyde is most welcome, will the minister consider extending vital targeted funding beyond the inclusion health action in general practice programme, specifically to Lanarkshire, where the burden of preventable long-term ill health is compounded by our proximity to Glasgow and the well-known Glasgow effect?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Stephanie Callaghan for her important and insightful question. The First Minister’s vision for Scotland, “Equality, opportunity, community: New leadership - A fresh start”, which was published yesterday, reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to tackling the causes of health inequalities. Inclusion health action in general practice is a new programme that needs to be tested and evaluated. We have deliberately targeted 2023-24 funding at practices in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde because there is clear evidence that that is where we have the areas of greatest deprivation. We want to ensure that that new programme is effective and that we learn from its first full year. However, I will ask officials to explore future expansion of the programme to other areas of high deprivation, particularly Lanarkshire.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome Jenny Minto to her new role.

Worryingly, the report also shows that the number of deaths from respiratory disease increased by nearly 8 per cent. Asthma and Lung UK has said that North Lanarkshire is an area in which people are more likely to die of lung disease compared with other parts of Scotland. Will the minister and her team discuss that with NHS Lanarkshire and let us know what action can be taken?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Monica Lennon for her question on that important issue. I would like to give careful consideration to my answer. I appreciate that poverty remains a key driver of poor health in some areas. I will speak further with my officials and will respond to the member in writing.

Health and Social Care Budget Reductions (Glasgow)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported £21 million of budget reductions for health and social care in Glasgow. (S6O-02109)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

National health service funding is at record high levels, and the draft 2023-24 health budget provides more than £1 billion of support for social care, meaning that social care spending has increased by more than £800 million compared to 2021-22.

From a Scottish Government perspective, that is well ahead of our trajectory to increase spending by 25 per cent—£840 million—over the life of the Parliament, despite inadequate block grant funding from the United Kingdom Government. Our settlements from the UK Government have suffered a decade of austerity, with average real-term cuts of more than 5 per cent, equating to a loss of £18 billion. In the face of the UK Government’s cuts to our budget, we have protected councils’ budgets, providing more than £13.2 billion in 2023-24, which represents a cash increase of more than £570 million, or 4.5 per cent.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that answer, but I feel that she cannot possibly be listening to trade unions or service users and constituents in Glasgow, whose quality of life depends on those services. The health and social care partnership is already long past the point of sustainable delivery, and now, according to its budget paper, it is likely to breach its statutory obligations to service users in the city. So, what is the Scottish National Party-Green Scottish Government going to do now to sort out the mess that Humza Yousaf has left behind in health and social care, and to properly fund and deliver the vital public services that the people of Glasgow need and deserve?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

My starting point in all of these issues, which I am sure we would all agree with, is the people using social care services and the workforce delivering that vital care. We absolutely need to ensure that people are cared for in the best environment, which, in many cases, is in their home or within their own community. We are more than happy to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and provider representatives—we do so regularly—to understand the issues that they currently face, and we encourage and welcome open communication. We remain absolutely committed to establishing a national care service—which, I am sure, many in the chamber will agree will absolutely be the answer to the challenges that the member is raising—and we are continuing our work with our co-design process. Our overarching ambition remains to end the postcode lottery in care provision throughout Scotland through a national care service, as was recommended in the independent review of adult social care.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Lightburn hospital, in my constituency, offers significant additional step-down, step-up capacity, which has been proven to relieve the pressure on bed blocking in acute hospitals, as NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde indicated to me in a letter, and to do so at far lower cost. Will the minister have discussions with the board to understand how best to maximise the use of that asset to clear bed blocking and help with waiting lists in a more cost-effective manner?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Again, my starting point is that we need to provide care for patients in the community, largely, but in the best place and the right place for them, and at the right time. I am more than happy to hear from the member the specifics of the case that he raises and will begin discussions with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in order to find solutions to the challenges that it faces.

All over the country, we need to encourage flexibility in how we provide care in order to meet the needs of patients, who should be at the centre of all the decisions.

University Hospital Ayr

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on reported potential reductions to bed numbers and the closure of a ward at University hospital Ayr. (S6O-02110)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

NHS Ayrshire and Arran has been clear that the planned closure of beds relates to additional pandemic capacity across the system and that there are no plans to close core beds at either Ayr or Crosshouse hospital.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Five months ago, I wrote to Humza Yousaf to demand that services at Ayr hospital not be reduced. He replied that there were “absolutely no plans” to close surgical, intensive care unit or accident and emergency services. Now, however, it is reported that ward 10 in Ayr hospital may close, 75 beds could be cut and ICU beds are being moved to Crosshouse hospital. One senior national health service staff member described that move to me as “shocking”. It lets down NHS staff and puts patient safety at risk.

Can the cabinet secretary tell us why the First Minister has broken his promise to the people of Ayrshire?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

First, we need to be careful not to conflate two different issues. The first issue is the surge capacity that was created during the pandemic. Ward 10 in Ayr hospital, which the member made reference to, was exactly that—surge capacity to deal with challenges during the pandemic. As boards across the country are going through that process, they no longer require that capacity and are, therefore, removing those particular facilities. That is exactly what is happening there. As has also been made very clear by the health board, core capacity remains the same.

The second issue that Sharon Dowey mentioned was in relation to the ICU beds. Members will be aware—as, I am sure, Ms Dowey is—that Ayrshire and Arran health board has put in place an interim arrangement to deal with the specific staffing issue of not being able to recruit a consultant to cover the ICU beds at Ayr hospital. I am sure that Ms Dowey will recognise that it is absolutely critical that beds of that nature have the right skilled medical cover to meet their needs. Those staffing challenges are exactly why the board has put in place that interim arrangement, which allows it to maintain its level of ICU beds across the health board area in a way that delivers the necessary quality of care and patient safety. It is important to recognise the staffing challenge for that board, which is exactly why it has had to put that interim arrangement in place, in order to facilitate safe patient care.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Jackie Baillie, who joins us online, has a supplementary question.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

As the cabinet secretary has alluded, NHS Ayrshire and Arran announced that intensive care beds at Ayr hospital would transfer to Crosshouse hospital on an interim basis, but I have subsequently been contacted by staff who tell me that the transfer is to be made permanent and that, consequently, vascular and orthopaedic surgery have already moved, with more categories likely to follow. That is a significant service change, so can the cabinet secretary advise whether that is the case and why that has not been subject to public consultation? Can he also advise whether the process for consulting on major service change is being amended? If so, why has that not been made public—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The answer to Ms Baillie’s latter point is that there has been no change to that particular process. If the board was taking forward permanent changes, it would be required to undertake a full consultation exercise in order to do so. That is why the board has confirmed that the arrangements that it is putting in place are on an interim basis, because of its staffing challenges and desire to make sure that it continues the full complement of ICU beds on a basis of 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, across the board area. For the reasons that I have just mentioned, the board has had to put those interim arrangements in place.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Colin Smyth has a very brief supplementary question.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The A and E target at Ayr hospital has not been met for two years; delayed discharge in South Ayrshire has almost doubled in the past year; and NHS Ayrshire and Arran has reported capacity levels of 100 per cent at Ayr hospital. Will the cabinet secretary accept that those cuts in bed numbers are nothing to do with a lack of demand or need, but are due to a lack of funding? NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s deficit is set to double to an eye-watering £56 million this year.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I have already mentioned—and I am sure that Colin Smyth heard me—the core bed capacity in NHS Ayrshire and Arran remains the same. Those surge capacity beds were put in place for the purpose of the pandemic. The health board has also made it very clear that the closure of those particular beds will be carried out in a safe, sequential manner over a period, as it manages its delayed discharges in order to see their reduction in the acute sector and moves towards more care support in the community. NHS Ayrshire and Arran has given an assurance that it will take that forward in an appropriate way, to make sure that quality of care is maintained going forward.

Health and Social Care Providers (Communication and Collaboration)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to improve effective communication and collaboration between health and social care providers. (S6O-02111)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government is actively involved in many programmes of work that are designed to maximise the benefits of health and social care integration through effective communication and collaboration between all partners in the system.

Several proposals, which the ministerial strategic group for health and community care has brought forward, are concerned with collaborative leadership and building relationships. Much work has been done in that area in recent years, including training for integration joint board members, and engaging with stakeholders to support integration, foster collaboration and encourage the sharing of practice across the health and social care sector.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the minister for her response and for outlining those areas.

I have been contacted by a number of constituents who have been discharged without an appropriate care package being in place. I have had cases relating to NHS Forth Valley and heard about experiences in other health boards such as NHS Lothian. Given the adverse impact that such discharges have on service users and their families, and the commitment to quality service integration, some of which she has already outlined, will the minister give more detail about the specific work that is being undertaken to reduce such instances?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I would be more than happy to look into any specific issues, if the member wishes to pass on the details to me. Although we absolutely recognise the pressures that are facing our health and social care system, individual discharge decisions should be undertaken by the relevant multidisciplinary teams to ensure that the appropriate care package, should it be required, is available, even if that is part of a discharge to assess decision. We are working very closely with the acute and social care system to ensure that best practice on discharge is embedded and sustained through our hospital occupancy and delayed discharge action plan, which was issued to partners last month.

Inclusion Health Action in General Practice

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the inclusion health action in general practice programme within the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area. (S6O-02112)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In March 2023, as part of our efforts to improve the health outcomes of some of the most disadvantaged patients, we provided new inclusion health action in general practice funding of £300,000 to practices in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde with the highest levels of poverty and disadvantage. On 5 April, the First Minister announced a further £1 million of inclusion health action funding for this financial year. The funding enables practices to take practical action to tackle challenges that they and their patients face in relation to health inequalities.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Last month, the Progressive Economy Forum published findings that United Kingdom Government austerity policies have lost £540 billion in public spending since 2010, compounding the situation that was set out in research from the University of Glasgow, which showed that people across the UK are dying younger as a result of austerity, with people in the poorest areas being hardest hit. Over the past 200 years, there has been consistent improvement in mortality rates, up until 2012, when life expectancy reduced specifically for people living in poverty. Does the minister agree that that is completely unacceptable?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Many of the health inequalities that people suffer that result in premature death are a result of the social inequality that they experience. That social inequality is largely driven by financial inequality in our society. The research that the member referred to, which was by the University of Glasgow and, I think, the Glasgow Centre for Population Health, clearly highlights the close association between austerity policy and its impact on social inequality and then directly on health inequalities.

There is absolutely no doubt about the evidential link that exists between austerity policies that are being pursued by the UK Government and their direct impact on life expectancy. That is why the measures that we put in place to tackle public health must be closely linked to tackling social inequality, including the measures that were discussed in yesterday’s debate in the chamber and the measures that we can introduce to reduce child poverty, which are systematically undermined by austerity policies that are being pursued by the UK Government, which result in greater social inequality and reduced life expectancy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary—as briefly as possible.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As the academics have highlighted, there is a clear link between the austerity policies of the UK Government and their impact on life expectancy in Scotland.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new role.

Data from Public Health Scotland shows that the overall risk of developing cancer is 30 per cent higher in the most deprived areas of Scotland compared with the least deprived. That is just one example of deprived communities paying the harshest price of health inequalities. Data shows that cancer, drug deaths and alcohol-related admissions are all more prevalent in those areas. In his new role, how will the cabinet secretary prioritise prevention to tackle the root causes of the multitude of health inequalities that have occurred under his Government?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member raises

a really important point, and I go back to the point that I made about social inequality being one of the major drivers of the health inequalities that we experience in our society. Some of the funding that we are providing for inclusion health action is about supporting the GP practices that are working with patients who have the poorest outcomes because of those social inequalities, to give them more time and support to work directly with that patient group. For example, in the deep-end practices, that additional capacity supports them in tackling some of the negative outcomes that patients experience as a result of public health challenges.

All the other public health measures that we are taking alongside that, including reducing smoking by promoting smoking cessation and ensuring that we are reducing the level of alcohol intake, play an important part. However, those measures can take us only so far, unless we tackle the endemic problem of social inequality, the root cause of which is austerity, which has been perpetrated by the Westminster colleagues of those on the Conservative benches.

Social Care (Unfilled Posts)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many social care posts remain unfilled across Scotland. (S6O-02113)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The Scottish Government does not hold that information. There are more than 1,200 social care providers across Scotland, with local authorities responsible for providing or commissioning services. Local authorities and health and social care partnerships will wish to ensure that, in providing a range of services, their workforce planning arrangements take full account of the need to have safe and sustainable numbers of staff. The Scottish Social Services Council, as the regulator of social care services, publishes an annual report on vacancies in social services, which can be found on its website.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The fact is that nobody knows how many vacant posts there are across Scotland. Local authorities—I have made freedom of information requests to most of them—can tell us what vacant posts they have, but they cannot tell us about vacancies in the private sector.

Let us take Fife as an example, where more than 60 per cent of social care is provided by the private sector. Social care companies are struggling to recruit; they cannot recruit. How on earth will we tackle the problems when we do not know exactly what the problems are? Across Scotland, tens of thousands of older people need care packages, but they are unable to access them.

Does the minister agree that we must tackle poor pay? Does he agree that we must tackle the unacceptable terms and conditions of workers in the private sector?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is why we have got the problem.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I agree with the member that we must tackle both pay and conditions to improve the situation in social care. Yesterday, I had an inspiring visit to a hub in Fife, where incredible work is going on. One of the things that I heard from those working there is the challenge of providing care in wealthy areas, where people who work in social care cannot afford to live. There are different challenges in different parts of the country, and this Government is determined to tackle every one of them.

On pay, we have already provided £100 million of additional funding to uplift pay for workers providing direct adult social care in commissioned services for this financial year. From April, those workers will see their pay increase to a minimum of £10.90 an hour, in line with the real living wage for the 2023-24 financial year. That represents a 14.7 per cent increase for those workers in the past two years, with pay rising from at least £9.50 an hour in April 2021 to £10.90 an hour in April 2023, and I guarantee that—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I want to get in a supplementary. I call Christine Grahame, whose question needs to be brief.

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

It is brief. What impact has Brexit had on staffing levels in the care sector?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask the minister to be similarly brief.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We are deeply concerned about the impact of exit from the European Union on the recruitment to critical front-line social care roles. The Scottish Government has always recognised the crucial importance of non-United Kingdom citizens to Scotland’s economy, to our society and to the delivery of our vital health and social care services.

The Scottish Government has provided funding to NHS Education for Scotland to lead the delivery of a programme of work to support social care providers to increase workforce capacity through international recruitment. The aim of the programme is to support social care providers to navigate the UK immigration system more easily and to have support available to alleviate some of that bureaucratic burden on the international recruitment—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. We move to question 7.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Outsourcing)

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting national health service boards, including NHS Ayrshire and Arran, that have outsourced child and adolescent mental health services in order to reduce waiting times, to bring such services back in house. (S6O-02114)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The use of the independent sector has been an option open to all health boards to help address short-term capacity issues.

Through Scottish Government investment, we continue to engage and support boards, including NHS Ayrshire and Arran, to build their workforce and to implement the national CAMHS service specification. In 2021-22, the Scottish Government allocated around £40 million to improve CAMHS and neurodevelopmental services for children and young people, and, in 2022-23, we invested £32 million via the mental health outcomes framework to improve the quality and delivery of mental health and psychological services for all.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

We are well aware of the pressures that health boards and CAMHS face, but the issues with long waiting lists are long-standing, and that is due to Scottish National Party inaction. Health boards are now having to outsource CAMHS to reduce waiting times. I would have expected the minister to commit Government to returning services in house.

Is the Government committed to supporting health boards to return those services in house? If so, what is the timetable for that?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, minister.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I can assure the member that we are absolutely committed to improving in-house services. Part of tackling the backlog is the use of private services. We have allocated £32 million to improve the quality and delivery of mental health and psychological services for everyone. The priorities of the funding were to continue to deliver improvement in CAMHS and psychological therapies, eating disorder services and neurodevelopmental services, as well as on-going innovation and service reform.

I hope to be able to return to the chamber sometime soon to report positive progress.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have a very brief supplementary from Tess White, who joins us online.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister think that the Strang report has been sufficiently implemented? If so, can she explain why waiting times for CAMHS treatment have gone backwards?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please be brief, minister.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I can assure the member that largely across the country waiting times for CAMHS treatment are going in the right direction. In some places, because of the focus on tackling long waits, the number of people who are waiting beyond 18 weeks has extended, but I expect that to be a temporary challenge as the situation improves. As I have said, I expect to be able to report real progress to the Parliament very soon.

Patient Travel Schemes (Review)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it will review the NHS Scotland patient travel scheme and the Highlands and Islands patient travel scheme. (S6O-02115)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The review is a substantial exercise for the Scottish Government and national health service boards and, regrettably, it remains delayed due to on-going prioritisation of the remobilisation of services. It will be taken forward as soon as possible, taking full account of the matters raised by members, including Ms Grant.

Financial support for travel remains available for patients and authorised escorts, according to eligibility criteria and medical requirements. Boards are expected to support patients to identify and access the support that is available, while taking into account individual circumstances and ensuring that patient care is at the centre of all decisions.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Patients can travel long distances to access healthcare, and it can be really expensive, especially if an overnight stay is necessary. At the moment, they can claim back £50 for an overnight stay, but budget rooms in Inverness can cost in excess of £400 in the summer. That means that constituents are cancelling treatment. They are also not able to take family with them because the criteria are unreasonable.

The situation is now urgent. Will the minister make it a high priority to review this as soon as possible?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, minister.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise exactly the issues that Ms Grant has raised, having experienced them myself and having many constituents who have experienced them. The Scottish Government continues to work with boards to limit the need for travel in the first place, where that is possible and clinically appropriate, especially by utilisation of the Near Me service. However, I understand the issues that she has raised, and I am happy to look into them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions.

There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow front benches to change.

Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill: Section 35 Order

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on challenge to the United Kingdom Government’s section 35 order on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Parliament has already been informed of the petition that was lodged by Scottish ministers last Thursday for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Scotland’s decision to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 preventing the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to royal assent.

I must make it clear that, as always with live legal proceedings, there are strict limits on what I can say, and I must not enter into the substance of our petition or the UK Government’s statement of reasons. I am sure that members will understand that restriction. However, I wanted to make this statement to explain the decision as fully as possible to Parliament.

We have not taken this decision lightly—we have considered it carefully, and it was clear to us in our deliberations that allowing the UK Government’s veto on the democratic decisions of this Parliament to go unchallenged would undermine our democracy. Equally, the veto was used with no prior discussion or warning, and without ever hearing from the UK Government about what amendments it would have wanted in the bill. That cannot go unchallenged, because of the implications for future legislation and for devolution, particularly as the secretary of state refused our offers to work on potential changes to the bill.

I can confirm that, to this day, the UK Government has not offered up a single area for amendment that would satisfy it in relation to the issue of gender recognition reform. Therefore, if we want to take a stand and protect our democracy and devolution, there is no option but to pursue a legal challenge.

The Scotland Act 1998, which established devolution, included section 35, which allows the secretary of state to make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting a bill for royal assent, even though that bill is within this Parliament’s legislative competence. The intention behind how the powers should operate was made clear in comments by the UK Government minister Lord Sewel in July 1998, when he said:

“These powers of intervention are of course meant to be long stops ... Their existence should be sufficient to ensure consultation between Whitehall and Edinburgh so that there may be no need for them to be used.”—[

Official Report

,

House of Lords

, 28 July 1998; Vol 592, c 1392.]

There were concerns at the time that powers under the 1998 act could amount to a veto on devolved legislation. There was discussion of the need for controls on how the powers might be used, and of the fact that they could be used as a political tool. Indeed, the clause was dubbed the “governor general clause” and was described by Conservative MP Michael Ancram as having

“a power to bring the actions of the Scottish Parliament to a halt.”—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 12 May 1998; Vol 312, c 265.]

The need for some control around the use of Scotland Act 1998 powers is reflected in the memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. Updated in 2013, the memorandum clearly states that, although the legislation contains powers for the secretary of state to intervene in devolved matters, these powers should be used

“very much as a ... last resort.”

In fact, the UK Government’s unprecedented use of section 35 was the very opposite of a last resort.

The memorandum goes on to state:

“The UK Government and the administration concerned will therefore aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion so as to avoid any action or omission by the devolved administration having an adverse impact on non-devolved matters. If formal intervention should become necessary, the UK Government will whenever practicable inform the devolved administration of its intentions in sufficient time to enable that administration to make any representations it wishes, or take any remedial action.”

There were no such representations from the UK Government. There were no representations made in the consultations of 2017 and 2019, when, of course, the UK Government planned to make similar reforms. There were no representations throughout the nine-month passage of the bill. The UK Government took no steps to resolve its concerns and did not raise the possibility of a section 35 order with us.

The Scottish Government has been proposing gender recognition reform since 2016, to bring the law into line with international best practice. We held two public consultations, including on a full draft bill and impact assessments. With over 30,000 responses combined, that was some of the widest consultation ever undertaken on Scottish legislation. The UK Government made no response and did not provide a view.

In fact, the UK Government proposed similar reforms and, in its 2018 consultation, explicitly recognised that Scotland could take its own approach, stating:

“Gender recognition is devolved to Scotland. That means Scotland can have its own system for gender recognition if it wants to.”

The UK Government undertook to work closely with the Scottish Government on the implementation of the Scottish proposals,

“especially on the implementation of its proposals where powers are not devolved”,

and on

“mutual recognition of certificates issued in different parts of the UK across the UK.”

Although the UK Government subsequently dropped its proposed reforms, the joint work on implementation went ahead. At official level, there were fortnightly meetings between UK and Scottish officials as the bill progressed through Parliament, including early work on a section 104 order, which is the usual method for resolving impacts between devolved and reserved law.

Far from raising concerns, the UK Government explicitly endorsed Scotland’s ability to take forward reforms, and otherwise made no comment. The UK Government gave no response to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s call for evidence, and there was no ministerial contact until the UK Minister for Women and Equalities responded to a letter sent in October by my predecessor as social justice secretary, Shona Robison, which led to a meeting the day before stage 3 of the bill. Cross-border effects were discussed at that meeting, but no changes were requested by the UK Government, and there was no mention of consideration of a section 35 order.

The Secretary of State for Scotland’s first contact on the bill was a letter on the night of 16 January informing us that he would be laying a section 35 order the next day. The UK Government did not allocate debating time for a House of Commons motion seeking to annul the order, so rather than raising concerns or amendments through the normal Government channels and rather than following the memorandum of understanding, the secretary of state used the section 35 power exactly as even Conservative MPs feared would happen at the time of the 1998 act—as an absolute veto to strike down any devolved legislation passed by a majority of this Parliament that he dislikes, without discussion and based on political, not policy, judgment.

Immediately after receiving Mr Jack’s letter in January, Shona Robison offered a meeting with the secretary of state and a potential way forward: the Scottish Government would work with the UK Government at both ministerial and official levels to explore potential amendments to the bill. The secretary of state absolutely refused that offer, stating that there would be no further meetings between the Governments on the issue. He set out three options for the Scottish Government: we could drop the bill, which was passed by a majority of this Parliament, altogether; we could address his concerns in an amended bill, but he did not say which areas would need to be amended to allow the section 35 order to be dropped; or we could pursue legal action.

The UK Government’s statement of reasons does not provide a basis for amending the bill, and Mr Jack, in direct contradiction to the position in the UK consultation, has stated that any divergence of approach in Scotland would be unacceptable. He has said:

“In short, two different regimes create adverse effects.”—[

Official Report

,

House of Commons

, 17 January 2023; Vol 726, c 218.]

It has therefore proved impossible to find a way forward or to consider a form of amended bill that this Parliament would agree to and that would lead the secretary of state to revoke the order.

The Scottish Government remains committed to the bill, as amended and agreed by a majority in this Parliament, which would make it easier for trans people to live their lives and access their existing rights. More than 350 million people around the world already live in countries and regions with the type of system that is proposed in the bill.

Irrespective of people’s views on the bill—I recognise that some remain firmly opposed to it—challenging the UK Government’s use of section 35 is the only option for a Government that wants to uphold and defend the democratic will and devolved powers of this Parliament. To not challenge the order would mean accepting that the secretary of state can ultimately strike down any devolved legislation, even after full and detailed scrutiny by Parliament and after MSPs have amended, debated and voted on a bill. If, after all that, one person can simply decide that a bill should not proceed, without that decision being questioned, it sets a precedent that calls into question devolution itself.

If the UK Government can use that power once without being challenged, how long will it be before it uses it again? As we have seen with the Sewel convention, once a precedent has been set, the UK Government will find it easier to justify using a power again and again, gradually eroding the hard-won devolved powers of Scotland.

I know that, although the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of members, not all MSPs and not all of the wider Scottish public agree with the bill’s aims, but I hope that we can agree that the unprecedented intervention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to halt a bill on devolved issues that has already been passed by this Parliament must be challenged. That is why the Scottish ministers have lodged the petition for judicial review. We will fight to defend the devolved competence and democratic function of this Parliament, and it is right that we do so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I am an advocate.

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement.

It is, of course, deeply disappointing that the Scottish Government has chosen to challenge the section 35 order in the courts. It is plainly doing so now to divert attention from the serious crisis that is currently engulfing the Scottish National Party.

A lengthy and expensive litigation is the wrong choice for the bill and for all those whom it impacts. It does not benefit the trans community, it does not benefit women, and it does not benefit the Scottish taxpayer.

Lord Hope, who is one of Scotland’s most eminent judges and a former deputy president of the UK Supreme Court, has described the prospects of success in the case as “very low” and has implied that it is a waste of public money.

We should remember that the Scottish Government was warned of the impact of the bill on the Equality Act 2010 during the bill’s passage, yet it ploughed on regardless. Furthermore, despite the UK Government publishing its very detailed statement of reasons behind its decision to make the order, we are yet to see the details of the Scottish Government’s legal position. I am fully aware of the restrictions that apply here, but if it is in the public interest for the Scottish Government to challenge the section 35 order, it logically follows that it is also in the public interest for the Scottish Government to publish its legal advice.

My questions are specific. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Lord Advocate has tendered legal advice on the prospects of success in the judicial review? Will she now publish that advice, and will she advise Parliament on the estimated cost of the litigation if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As the member well knows, there is a convention of not publishing legal advice, and the UK Government will take exactly the same position as it moves forward with the matter. I highly doubt that Donald Cameron will be suggesting that the UK Government publish its legal advice. Let us have a debate about what we can and cannot do on a realistic basis.

We are very keen to be as transparent as possible on the matter, which is exactly why we have asked for the court’s agreement to publish the petition. We have recently received an agreement that we can do so, and we hope to publish the petition in due course—tomorrow, I hope, now that that confirmation from the court has been received.

Nevertheless, I again strongly caution against any suggestion that we are doing this out of a desire to take this route as our first course of action. We have no option—as I detailed in my statement, the alternatives that we had were closed down to us not through our decisions, but by the UK Government. Neither I nor the Scottish Government wanted to get into that position, but if the UK Government is going to refuse to have discussions with us, I make no apology for standing up for the rights of the Scottish Parliament and for a bill that the Scottish Parliament has passed.

When it comes to the cost, I appreciate that that is a matter of concern for members and, indeed, for the public. This is not the way that we would have wanted to go about things, and therefore we did not want this cost to be incurred. However, we will, of course, publish the costs for the action once it is completed. It is impossible for us to be able to do so beforehand because we do not know how the matter will proceed in the courts. However, once it has gone through due process, we will, of course, be very transparent and publish the costs regarding this issue.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement and for outlining to Parliament the decisions that were taken during the recess.

It is critical that we do not lose sight of the purpose of reform, and every day that the bill spends in court is another day in which trans people do not have access to a reformed process.

The UK Government’s use of a section 35 order was the wrong approach. As the cabinet secretary said, it is a mechanism to be used as a last resort. The issue is too serious and too important to be reduced simply to a political debate or a constitutional football.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the section 104 meetings between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, which were held in relation to the UK Government’s 2018 proposals. In response to the letter that was sent by my predecessor in the role of Scottish Labour spokesperson, Pam Duncan-Glancy, the former Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government confirmed that the Scottish Government had committed to working with the UK Government under section 104 in relation to the bill. Can the cabinet secretary outline the detail and outcome of those discussions? We asked for that confirmation throughout the bill process, and it was confirmed that that was in hand.

Moreover, given the length of time that the case is likely to take, as has been widely reported, will the cabinet secretary give an outline guide to the Parliament on how long she expects the matter to be in the courts, in line with the legal advice that she will have received?

Finally, while reform is locked in legal proceedings, can the cabinet secretary outline what specific actions the Government is taking to support trans people, in particular, to access important services such as healthcare, for which waiting lists remain too long?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

In the same way as many people will be concerned as we progress to legal action, we will be concerned because of the delay to the bill and the impact of that on the trans community. I am deeply sorry that it has come to this and that we are not moving directly towards royal assent.

The section 104 meetings were progressing. Discussion was on-going between officials—that was positive and constructive—and nothing was raised with ministers that flagged that a section 35 order was coming our way or that suggested that we would not move forward with a section 104 order in due course, as we do with many bills in the area.

How long it will take in court is a matter for the court. It will be for the court to decide when the case is heard. Obviously, it is not too late for a change of heart on the part of the UK Government and for it to withdraw the section 35 order and save us all the challenge of a court process and the impact that that will have on the trans community and, indeed, others who are concerned about the bill. It is not a matter for me to lay out a timetable; I am afraid that I am unable to do so.

However, Paul O’Kane has raised an important point about other matters relating to the trans community on which it is important that we step forward, because, although this was an important piece of legislation, it is not the only aspect of my portfolio—or, indeed, of other cabinet secretaries’ portfolios—that can assist. Paul O’Kane has my full assurance that we will continue to move forward on those issues across Government.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Along with members of all parties, the Scottish Liberal Democrats voted for the provisions of the bill in good faith after repeated assurances from the Scottish Government that it was both legally competent and within the reach of the Scottish Parliament. As such, it would have been surprising had the Government not taken the section 35 order to court.

Alister Jack has signalled several times that he does not believe that that form of gender recognition is appropriate. That should imply that there is a form of gender recognition that is appropriate, in his sight. The Government has signalled that there has not been further contact since the section 35 order. Has there been any signal from officials in his department or other Scotland Office ministers as to what reforms could be made to the bill to make it competent in their eyes?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Alex Cole-Hamilton raises the real crux of the matter, which is that the alternative to court action was possible only if we could work with the UK Government on possible amendments. I have to say that the sum total of those discussions is zero. We have not had any suggestions. I am not saying that we are asking the UK Government to write the amendments—of course we are not; we are not asking it to write the legislation—but the first step in the process would, of course, be getting in the room and having a discussion about where the areas of concern are and working out where the bill could be amended.

Of course, we would then have to see whether that would be something that the Scottish Government and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament—because the bill is now the Scottish Parliament’s bill—would be keen to amend, but at least we would have been able to go through that process.

We have been absolutely unable to get even to step 1. That is a deep disappointment to us, and it leaves us no option but to move to court action. However, it is deeply disappointing that the secretary of state did not take up the invitation to go through that process.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Cabinet secretary, post-Brexit, we have seen a dramatic shift to executive power decision making by the UK Government on devolved matters. The Sewel convention underpinning intergovernmental relations has been ignored nine times, and we now have the unprecedented use of a section 35 order in a devolved area of competence on a bill passed overwhelmingly by this chamber.

UK Government ministers have declined invitations to allow committees of this Parliament to scrutinise the use of the order for the first time in 23 years, in terms of both policy and constitutional implications. Cabinet secretary, is it not imperative that our democratic settlement, which is being eroded at every opportunity, is protected? Is it not the case that not challenging the order as a matter of principle would be to step back and let the Westminster—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

—executive power grab—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the cabinet secretary.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

—ride roughshod over this Parliament?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Clare Adamson raises a very important point. As a Government, we have an obligation to ensure that we stand up for this Parliament and the decisions of this Parliament. Not to do so would be a dereliction of duty on our part.

The reason why that is particularly important is that—I say this with deep regret—we now have a UK Government that does not pay attention to Sewel motions and rides roughshod over many aspects of what we would normally see as usual due process. Because we are in that state and because this is a series of decisions that the UK Government has taken over a number of issues, which have certainly suggested very strongly a challenge to devolution, we have an obligation to stand up for the rights of this Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Another eight colleagues wish to ask questions and we have just under nine minutes before we move on to the next item of business, so I would appreciate slightly shorter questions and slightly briefer answers.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The SNP dragged the UK Government to court over a referendum; now it is pursuing another unnecessary grievance over gender recognition reform. The new First Minister is desperate to divert from the scandals that are tearing his party apart, rather than focusing on the priorities of the people of Scotland.

Humza Yousaf knows that the vast majority of the public oppose this absolutely reckless self-ID bill, but he is picking a fight with the UK Government anyway.

Having failed to answer the question from my colleague Donald Cameron, will the cabinet secretary say how much the SNP’s manufactured and divisive court battle will cost the taxpayer?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We know that the easiest way to save the taxpayer money would be for the UK Government to revoke the section 35 order and let us get on with proceeding to royal assent.

The deadline for when our announcement was made was based on when the section 35 order was laid by the secretary of state. Let us get back to why the announcement of the decision was made last week—again, that was based on the deadline set by the UK Government.

It is a deep disappointment, but perhaps not surprising, that the Scottish Conservatives are once again not standing up for the Scottish Parliament.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

As the cabinet secretary has already touched on, offers to work with the UK Government on potential changes to the bill have been refused by the secretary of state, leaving a legal challenge as the only reasonable means of resolving the situation. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the justification that the UK Government has provided for the complete lack of engagement?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

One of the many things that are deeply disappointing is the fact that the UK Government has not set out why it is refusing to engage with us. I fully understand that we might have different views on what was in the bill and on whether a section 35 order could be used, but the fact that UK ministers were invited to give evidence to the Westminster Women and Equalities Committee on the section 35 order but refused and that they refused to give evidence to parliamentary committees in the Scottish Parliament is deeply disappointing. The very least that this Parliament deserves is a better explanation from the UK Government of why it has decided to go down this route and has left this Government with no option but to seek legal challenge.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Has the cabinet secretary been advised that there are reasonable prospects of success for the petition? Can she confirm the main legal principle that the Scottish Government will be advancing in court? Is it that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, if enacted, would not impact on the operation of the Equality Act 2010?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

If Katy Clark will forgive me, I will not comment in detail on what she has said. I laid out in my statement that I cannot get into the substance of our petition or the UK Government’s statement of reasons, as there are on-going live legal proceedings, but I hope that the fact that we are willing and keen to publish the petition will assist with some of the points that Katy Clark raised.

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

It appears that the UK position on gender recognition in Scotland has shifted since 2018, when it was that

“Scotland can have its own system”.

I know that no amendments have been proposed by the UK Government. As a last resort, to truncate litigation, would the Scottish Government be sympathetic to a sist of proceedings, with the agreement of the UK Government and leave of the courts, to see whether the bill could be amended to both parties’ satisfaction, while still protecting the Scottish Government’s right to proceed if that does not happen?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I cannot comment on how the legal challenge could proceed, as that relates to live legal proceedings. All that I would say to Christine Grahame is that that is not a decision that would be for the Scottish Government; it would also require the UK Government to act in a certain manner.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I also pay tribute to Shona Robison for her steadfast commitment to the bill and equalities.

The cabinet secretary has made clear that there was no meaningful engagement by UK Government ministers on the GRR bill and no amendments that would satisfy them. Does she agree that that is a very clear indication that the UK Government is acting in bad faith, with no intention of genuine discussion and against the principles of devolution, and that the section 35 order is being used as a weapon in the culture war against trans and wider LGBTQIA+ rights?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is very definitely an example of the UK Government acting in bad faith. Maggie Chapman is right to point out that there has been no intention on its part to have genuine discussion on the issue. Members can draw their own conclusions about why that might be.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

As the cabinet secretary knows, I was opposed to the bill and I remain opposed to the bill. However, it seems that if Westminster is allowed to veto this legislation, it could veto any legislation. Can she confirm that that is the case and that it could stop our budget or absolutely anything else?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank John Mason for his question, because he raises a very important point. There are members in here from different parties, including my own, who held a different position on the bill, but the dangerous constitutional precedent that this sets should be a worry to all of us, regardless of our position on the bill. Indeed, that was why Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, was quick to criticise the order. He said, referring to the then First Minister:

“I think the UK Government’s decision to use powers that have never been used in the whole history of devolution is a very dangerous moment, and I agree with the First Minister of Scotland that this could be a very slippery slope indeed.”

He is quite right to point out that there is a principle behind this that all of us should be aware of. All of us should be willing to stand up for this Parliament when the UK Government intervenes.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Humza Yousaf said that a double rapist who was sent to a women’s prison was “at it”, but if Humza Yousaf gets his way, there will be no way of stopping any predatory man who is at it. Can the cabinet secretary explain how the legal action will resolve this fundamental contradiction?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Of course, not for the first time, Russell Findlay is trying to connect the bill with something that has nothing to do with whether someone has a gender recognition certificate. Again, I fully appreciate and respect that members across the Parliament have different views on the bill. However, in considering why the section 35 order was made by the UK Government, let us ensure that we recognise that we have taken the decision to lodge this petition for judicial review because we cannot have a UK Government that has a veto over a bill that was—

yes—hotly contested but was amended and passed by an overwhelming majority in this Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Finally, I call James Dornan, who joins us online.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Can the minister give any further clarity as to why the UK Government used the section 35 order against the clear will and competence of the Scottish Parliament rather than a section 33 reference to the Supreme Court?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The UK Government has not used a reference under section 33 as it is not challenging the legislative competence of the bill. That shows that it accepts that the bill is within the devolved competence of this Parliament. The use of the section 35 order is unprecedented because it vetoes a bill within devolved competence that has already been passed by this Parliament. It is now up to the courts to look at that in detail.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes this item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow members on the front bench to change over.

Scotland’s Finances and Wellbeing Economy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-08604, in the name of Neil Gray, on managing Scotland’s finances and working with business to drive the wellbeing economy. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is a privilege to open my first debate in my new role as the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy. Before I start in earnest, I pay tribute to my predecessors who held responsibility for elements of the portfolio that I am now in charge of. John Swinney, Michael Matheson, Ivan McKee and Kate Forbes have contributed and will continue to contribute a huge amount.

It is particularly pleasing to have seen Kate Forbes back in her place this week after her period of maternity leave. I know what a wrench it is to return to work after such periods—in my case, paternity leave on three occasions. I wish Kate and her family, Ali and Naomi, well for adjusting to the new normal that we all have to adjust to after that process.

A growing, thriving economy is about more than just numbers. Economic success means making the most of the incredibly rich resources that Scotland has. It means high living standards, people being able to fulfil and exceed their potential and a dynamic and strengthening business base that, in turn, feeds into strong and sustainable finances that support public services and communities.

I take this opportunity to underline my commitment to working closely with our business community to maximise Scotland’s sustainable economic growth potential. Yesterday, the First Minister set out plans to agree a new deal for business and the introduction of a new group co-chaired by me that will explore, among other things, how Government can better support our businesses and communities using the policy levers that it has.

Our message to Scotland’s businesses is clear. We hear your concerns about high United Kingdom inflation, supply chain issues, labour shortages and the impact of regulation, and we will continue to work with you to mitigate the potential impact of those issues. In return, we will work in partnership with you to support fair work and support businesses to develop and internationalise, which will drive prosperity.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Do I have time to do so, Deputy Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Yes.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the cabinet secretary to his new role. I look forward to working with him. The First Minister said in the chamber on 30 March that, throughout the period of office of the former First Minister, Scottish gross domestic product growth had outstripped that of the UK as a whole. That statement is not true—he misled the chamber. Will the cabinet secretary apologise for the First Minister making that false statement?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The First Minister was referencing the most recent GDP figures, which show that Scotland’s GDP growth is outstripping the UK’s. It may be sad for the Conservatives to admit that

it appears that the Scottish economy is doing well, but we will continue to work well to ensure that our economy continues to thrive. This week, we have incredible labour market statistics that show that unemployment in Scotland is at a record low. Surely that is something that we all welcome and seek to build on in partnership. I look forward to working with Murdo Fraser constructively, as I will with all colleagues across the chamber.

The past few years have seen the cost crisis, the pandemic, the impact of the UK’s disastrous Brexit and the fiscal instability brought on by the decisions in the UK Government mini-budget. Those things have brought untold damage to the wellbeing of people and businesses in Scotland and they have laid immense pressures on our precious public services and community and voluntary sectors.

Output in the global economy is forecast to slow in 2023, and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continues to present a risk to global trade and activity. However, the International Monetary Fund forecast says that the UK economy has the weakest growth outlook in the G20 for 2023. As a devolved Government, we do not have all the levers that other countries have to bring forward economic interventions to support their economies, businesses and people, or the levers to mitigate UK decision making.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I

agree with the cabinet secretary about his assessment of the UK economy, but can he explain why the Scottish economy is going to perform even more poorly than the UK economy? According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, its decline will be greater than the decline of the UK’s economy. Can he explain why that is going to happen?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

W

e obviously want to reverse that. We are putting in place measures through the prospectus that we put forward yesterday, and we are coming forward with a wellbeing economy to ensure that we can take advantage of the massive resource potential that we have in Scotland. Of course, we are constrained in that not all the economic levers that a normal, independent country would have at its disposal to generate economic growth are within our gift and, as Willie Rennie accepted, we are reliant on a failing UK economy and economic approach. He has to recognise that we are doing what we are doing with one arm tied behind our back. It is perhaps time that we had full control of all the fiscal and economic levers, to ensure that we can take advantage of the economic opportunities that we have.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Do I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a bit of time in hand if you wish to take the intervention.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will take a last intervention from Liz Smith.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am very grateful. I, too, welcome Neil Gray to his position. As I understand it, some of his colleagues are currently looking at ways to use the powers of this place better. Does he agree with that assessment when it comes to improving the economy, and does he accept that it is well worth looking at that?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We will always look at ideas that can ensure that we maximise the opportunities that we have. That is not only about policy levers, because we also have to recognise the limited resources that we have in this Parliament. As I said in response to Willie Rennie, we have to recognise that we do what we do to try to generate economic growth with limited powers and resources compared with those that a normal, independent country would have. I am happy to work with Liz Smith if she has ideas on some of the areas that we have within our gift that would allow us to generate further growth, and I look forward to that. I am looking to engage with the Opposition spokespeople in the coming weeks.

The UK Government needs consistently higher levels of public investment. Our foreign direct investment competitors are committing greater budgets to incentivise investment. The UK needs to invest using the levers that it has—which we would like to enjoy—on a scale that matches our ambitions. As was shown in a recent publication by the Resolution Foundation, Britain is a “low investment” state, which

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, I have given you some latitude because you took a number of interventions, but I ask you to bring your remarks to a close now.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Of course, Presiding Officer.

The development of offshore wind can help to achieve a just transition to net zero, decarbonise our energy system and create good-quality jobs. It is also one of the lowest-cost forms of electricity generation at scale. We have huge opportunities in relation to our ScotWind offshore project, looking at hydrogen and the tidal and marine sector—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, I really do have to ask you to conclude.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

In conclusion, it is clear that we have the plan, the opportunities and the ambition that are needed to deliver a wellbeing economy. However, to succeed, we need everyone to be round the table. The prize when we succeed will be a prosperous, dynamic, thriving Scottish economy where everyone shares in and benefits from our success.

The Government’s motion indicates the steps that we need to take to ensure that we get there and reap the opportunities that are there for us all.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the need to create a wellbeing economy that is democratic, works for people and planet, and supports communities to fulfil their potential; believes that such an economy must be equitable, sustainable and dynamic in order to address the climate crises, the current financial and economic challenges, and to deliver a just transition to net zero, reduce child poverty and enhance public services; notes that plans to expand childcare support and implement the National Strategy for Economic Transformation and the Just Transition Plans will deliver new opportunities for communities, businesses and individuals across Scotland; considers that the development of community wealth building legislation will be a key component of the approach to local and regional economic development and empowerment, will promote and sustain fair work, create and retain more wealth within communities, build Scotland’s tax base, strengthen its economic resilience, increase wellbeing for current and future generations and support the delivery of high-quality public services, and recognises that independence would allow Scotland to make greater progress, but, until then, calls for the devolution of additional powers, in relation to energy, the economy and employment law, to the Scottish Parliament to support Scotland’s transition to a wellbeing economy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Liz Smith to speak to and move amendment S6M-08604.1.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As well as welcoming Neil Gray to his position, I welcome Michael Marra to his. I look forward to working with them both.

The minister was quite right when he said that there are issues with the UK economy, but issues with other European economies have been flagged up by the International Monetary Fund and by various economists.

However, I want to concentrate on the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s sustainability programme, which was missing from the First Minister’s comments yesterday. I was a bit surprised about that because—Willie Rennie was quite right in what he said—the situation for Scotland when it comes to fiscal issues is considerably worse than the situation for the rest of the UK. That is partly to do with our ageing population demographic, but it is also to do with the fact that the tax base in Scotland is not nearly as broad as it should be. That also has an effect on productivity.

There are some serious concerns about what the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said—not least about the fact that social security spend alone is predicted to increase from £4.2 billion in the past financial year to £7.3 billion in financial year 2027-28.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will, in a minute.

That is a very substantial increase and it takes into account only one area of considerable spending.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Liz Smith concentrates quite a lot on the idea that we do not have enough people to work and that, therefore, more people are not working. Will she accept that a relaxed immigration system of some kind is absolutely necessary?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that. However, I also think that the issue is not just about immigration; it is about ensuring that coming back into the working population are people who have not, perhaps because of Covid or other challenges, been participating in the workforce.

The issue is also about more than that: it is about the tax take that Scotland desperately needs from people in the working population, in order to ensure that we are addressing the problem. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s most important conclusion is that the current tax and spend model in Scotland simply will not cut it. I think that that is the most serious issue that is confronting the Government. Kate Forbes—I am pleased to see some of her colleagues who have similar ideas on the back benches—quite rightly focused on exactly that issue, and she is right to see that as the main problem that Scotland needs to get over if we are going to succeed.

The Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee was very clear in paragraph 63 of its recent “Budget Scrutiny 2023-24” report that the efficacy of the tax system in Scotland has to be questioned. It needs a complete overhaul, because many tax elasticities and behavioural changes are simply not being properly accounted for.

However, what are the actual tax rates? There is a debate about the structure of tax as well as one about tax rates. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the First Minister have been telling us that they want a much more progressive tax system. In theory, and in terms of social justice, that is absolutely fine, but in practice it cannot work, because we do not have the wide tax base that we need. Simply hiking up tax rates for middle and higher earners and, as a result, increasing the tax differentials between Scotland and the rest of the UK is a serious issue, and it will not bring in the money that we require in order to ensure that the economy is on the right footing.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will, in a minute.

That is the point that Willie Rennie raised in a debate just before the Easter recess. In continuing to increase the tax rate, there comes a point at which that will have diminishing returns.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will in a minute, Mr McKee.

Way back in 2016, my colleague Murdo Fraser quite rightly questioned the previous—infamous—cabinet secretary, Derek Mackay, about the Laffer effect. In continuing to squeeze middle and higher earners, there comes a point at which not only does the amount of revenue reduce but there is a detrimental effect on economic activity.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I will not entertain the chamber by going through the differential calculus that lies behind the Laffer curve, but Liz Smith should have a look at it, because it does not say what she says. This is really about understanding exactly where we are on the curve, because that will give a different perspective.

I am trying to understand the point that Liz Smith made about the Scottish Fiscal Commission. She is on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, so she should know that the Scottish Fiscal Commission does a behavioural analysis and factors that in to the tax-take numbers in advance of any tax changes being made. By the time the numbers are presented for the budget discussion in the chamber, the behavioural impact has already been factored in. I do not know about Liz Smith, but I trust the SFC to make sure that it checks its work and that it understands that the behavioural factor ratios are correctly implemented.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I absolutely trust the Scottish Fiscal Commission, and Ivan McKee is quite right to say that a lot of its analysis is first class. Indeed, the analysis that it has just issued in its “Fiscal Sustainability Report” is groundbreaking and has never been done before. However, the key point is that the overall conclusions of the SFC are damning, because they suggest that there will be a 10 per cent deficit for who knows how long—perhaps 50 years. That is serious.

I will help the SNP out a little bit with regard to what we need to do. We, on the Conservative side of the chamber, are unashamedly the party of economic growth. That means having a competitive tax and investment structure, and putting emphasis on creating a modern infrastructure for housing, transport, net zero and the rural fabric of our nation. We are also unashamedly on the side of business and of breaking down the tax barriers and red tape that stifle enterprise and innovation. That requires that all levels of government—local government, the Scottish Government and the UK Government—work together to support business and our local communities, including through placing emphasis on levelling up.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am in my last minute.

We are unashamedly on the side of promoting jobs, transferable skills and incentives to keep people in the workforce. There has been lots of chat from the SNP about that, but we need a lot more detail on exactly what policies are to be put in place.

Finally, I ask the minister, please, to ditch the Greens when it comes to this matter, because they do not have the first idea about or understanding of what it means to have economic growth underpinning the new Scottish Government.

I move amendment S6M-08604.1, to leave out from the first “recognises” to end and insert:

“is grateful to the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) for its ground-breaking work contained within the recent

Fiscal Sustainability Report

, which forecasts Scottish economic trends for the next 50 years; notes the concerns cited by the SFC that current tax and spend structures and current models for public services will not deliver the necessary revenue that Scotland requires to address the substantial fiscal deficits, which are forecast to be around 10% each year, and calls on the new Scottish Government to be fully focussed on improving productivity, on widening the tax base and delivering the economic growth that Scotland so desperately needs.”

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome Neil Gray to his place and his promotion to cabinet secretary. I know that it has been a bumpy old start for the Administration, but I wish him well.

However, t

he motion that Parliament is considering today is little more than a collection of platitudes, and is little different to the motion that we debated just a few weeks ago, which was the former Deputy First Minister’s swansong. I am afraid that the tune is none the sweeter for having a new singer, so far.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you. No singing, please, Mr Gray.

The SNP is a political movement and a Government that exists to deny difficult numbers, and we have heard a little bit of that already. When the numbers showed that we were falling down international education league tables, this Government withdrew Scotland from those tables. It was a self-serving mistake that amounted to self-harm on this country. Yesterday, finally, after 13 years, that mistake was reversed. I imagine that whatever benefit the First Minister believes will now be accrued has been lost over all those long years without those measures.

Further, when the Government’s official kite-marked figures, which were produced by the Office for National Statistics, showed that we benefit to the tune of an average of £10 billion a year from fiscal transfer within the UK, the SNP decided that those figures had to be trashed. That approach started in the dark corners of the internet with sad little men in their bedrooms, but it has eventually become a rite of passage for SNP leadership contenders to do exactly that by savaging “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” figures in meetings of party members across the country—GERS deniers, each and every one of them.

Now, of course, we have seen the video of the former First Minister—in relation to whom Humza Yousaf is proud to call himself the continuity candidate—saying, when the numbers showed that the SNP was running out of money, “Don’t ask questions. Wheesht for indy.”

As a wise man once said:

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”

That wise man whom I am quoting is, of course, Colin Beattie MSP, who was speaking at the Public Audit Committee in January 2022. For those of us who are less familiar than Mr Beattie is with the works of the Roman poet Juvenal, the translation is “Who watches the watchmen?” Well, Colin Beattie and the SNP know now: it is Police Scotland.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

It really is astonishing for the SNP to slink out from the blue crime-scene tent to come here today and preach probity in public finance, and it is equally astonishing that, in its forensic search for relaunch policy ideas, the Scottish Government has stumbled on the concept of economic growth. That is an idea that was wilfully expunged from this Government’s policy agenda in its partnership with the Greens. So, I say to the cabinet secretary today that if the Government wishes to trade in economic concepts such as a wellbeing economy, as laid out in the works of Trebeck, Williams, Jackson and Raworth, it must be able to explain where the ecological and social limits of growth are. That is what a wellbeing economy is.

There is, to be frank, no evidence in any of the muddled thinking that has been presented so far today, in the motion, in the cabinet secretary’s speech or in the First Minister’s intervention yesterday, that the Government is engaging in anything more than wilful abuse of that concept as a branding exercise.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Rather than just serving up soundbites in his speech, I implore Michael Marra to look at the prospectus paper that was published yesterday, to see the outline of the work that the Government is looking to embark on in order not only to achieve the wellbeing economy but to look at the wellbeing economy metric—it is available and publishable and can be seen—that will track the progress that we hope to make in order to ensure that we achieve the wellbeing economy. If he could engage on those facts, which I hope he does as we engage across the chamber, we will be closer to, rather than further away from, what he has outlined.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am certainly happy to engage with the cabinet secretary on any of the metrics in a discussion of what any of it means. As I outlined in my most recent speech in the chamber on the economy, after years of listening to economic policies from this Government that have, frankly, jumped from one idea to the next over 16 years, I struggle to believe that the latest bandwagon that is being jumped on will be any more coherent or delivered than any of this Government’s previous attempts.

We are being invited to celebrate other broad concepts. The high bar of this Government is to not do ridiculous things, to decide not to continue to do ridiculous things or to decide to pause doing ridiculous things for a short while before starting them again. What do the deposit return scheme, the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the ban on alcohol advertising all have in common? The answer is the ineptitude of a Government that can turn any crumb of a decent idea into a toxic morass almost as quickly as it tries to blame Westminster. Of the mess that the Government has made of the deposit return scheme, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland said:

“This is a bitter betrayal of Scotland’s natural environment.”

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

While Michael Marra talks about the “morass” of the economy, could he confirm that the last words of the most recent Labour UK Government were that there was “no money” left?