Scottish Parliament, 3 May 2023

289 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions on the wellbeing economy, fair work and energy. As ever, I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant questions and I ask for brevity in questions and responses.

Energy Skills Passport

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the energy skills passport for offshore energy workers. (S6O-02164)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The energy skills passport project, for which we have committed nearly £5 million from the just transition fund, reached a key milestone at the end of in 2022 in the development of a prototype that will be tested with workers and employees in the next phase.

I am pleased that trade unions have been engaging their workforces in the design of the passport solution, and unions are representing workers directly as part of the project review group for the passport.

The Scottish Government supports delivery of a skills passport that will work for the different offshore energy industry sectors, recognising the cross-sector skills of workers and supporting a fair and managed transition. The offshore industries, including wind, have also demonstrated clear support for a solution that works for all and promotes a fairer transition in offshore energy.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

As the minister will know, the energy skills passport was due to launch in the first quarter of this year. We are now in May. The unexplained delays are reportedly due to opposition from the Global Wind Organisation—GWO—which is the offshore wind standards body. In the meantime, offshore workers continue to face barriers to transition.

Will the minister use her role and position to intervene and chair a crisis summit, which would include the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organisation, the GWO and the offshore trade unions—the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Unite—to resolve that crisis, end the delay and give offshore energy workers the certainty that they need in order to transition?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I support Mercedes Villalba’s call for the skills passport to be delivered in a timely fashion because we all want to support workers in a just transition.

Excellent progress is being made on that project. As I said in my first answer, the proof of concept and prototype of the skills passport was completed and signed off by union reps in December. We are progressing with a mapping exercise—mapping the alignment of standards—which is a big piece of work that will bring together in one place the standards from multiple offshore sectors. Currently, we are looking at the mapped equivalent of about 75 per cent of the core crew for an offshore installation, so that work is progressing well.

The project is moving into preparations for beta testing of the prototype, with the intention being to deliver the skills passport to end users in quarter 3 of this year.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Offshore wind was mentioned as a possible transition route for offshore energy workers. Ten years ago, the Government promised to deliver 28,000 jobs in offshore wind; by 2021, it had delivered just over 3,000. What action has the Government taken to examine the reasons why it has failed so badly, and to ensure that the promise of 28,000 jobs can be delivered?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

We are all keen for the offshore energy sector to have a just transition away from oil and gas to

renewable energy, in which Scotland has so much potential. The creation of the offshore skills passport is a key part of that process because it will, as it reduces the time and costs that are required for training, remove barriers so that workers can make the transfer between the sectors more simply and efficiently to allow the just transition.

The added benefit is that the passport tool will, when in use, give good visibility of potential career pathways and training needs, which relates to the desired goals in the sector to help businesses to plan their workforces and workforces to plan for the roles that they want.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Renewables is an important and growing sector, but some uncertainty remains for workers who have the desired skills because equivalent certification can be expensive. What support is available to offshore workers who are looking to transfer their skills?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

As I have just outlined, that is the whole purpose of the offshore skills passport, which means that various offshore sectors have agreed to align their standards. The passport will show the standards to which the worker can adhere in order for them to transition and move back and forth between different offshore energy sectors. That is exactly the purpose of the passport.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 2 has been withdrawn, so I call question 3.

Women in Entrepreneurship

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the recommendations of the independent review into women in entrepreneurship in Scotland. (S6O-02166)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We welcome the recommendations of “Pathways: A New Approach for Women in Entrepreneurship”—Ana Stewart and Mark Logan’s review on supporting women in entrepreneurship. The challenge is clear: there remains an unacceptable gap in participation in entrepreneurship. The report offers a clear path to closing that gap and supporting women to achieve their business ambitions, by opening up economic opportunities for women and contributing to building a fairer and more prosperous wellbeing economy for Scotland.

We are assessing and prioritising the report’s proposals and preparing our response, which I hope to publish in due course.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you. The “Pathways” report was published in February, and it identified 31 ways to dramatically increase female participation. The then First Minister said that the Government would respond quickly to those recommendations, yet when the new First Minister spoke about his Government’s priorities, he did not mention the review at all. Although the cabinet secretary has indicated that we can expect a response soon, I would like to know when we can expect it and when the recommendations will be taken forward, including with regard to the need for a women’s business centre.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Claire Baker for that question and for her work on the committee and the cross-party group for women in enterprise. We have a huge economic opportunity before us, if we can close not just the gender pay gap and the gender employment gap but the gender gap that exists in new enterprises being established in Scotland, which is pertinent to the question.

Of course, we will respond to the report as quickly as possible. We also have a commitment to the women’s business centre, so I am very excited about the opportunity for us, if we can close the gap and ensure that we are giving women the opportunity to get on in business.

Household Energy Costs

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

4. I welcome the minister to her new role.

To ask the Scottish Government what its latest engagement has been with the United Kingdom Government regarding financial pressures that households in Scotland are facing as a result of energy costs. (S6O-02167)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The disproportionate impact of high energy prices on fuel-poor households across Scotland is something that I am raising as a matter of urgency with the United Kingdom Government. Although I am disappointed that earlier requests from Scottish ministers to meet the secretary of state were not answered, I aim to meet the Minister for Energy Consumers and Affordability soon to seek action from them on issues including support for those who have been most affected by the ending of the energy bills support scheme, and the introduction of a much-needed social tariff for energy consumers.

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

I thank the minister for that answer. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the UK is expected to suffer the biggest fall in living standards since records began in 1950, with real household disposable income being expected to fall by 5.7 per cent over 2022-23 and 2023-24. Last week, I held an energy summit in Perth, at which experts from Citizens Advice Scotland, Home Energy Scotland, Scarf and Perth and Kinross Council shared information on and solutions for saving money on fuel bills and cost of living pressures.

What else can the Scottish Government do to press the UK Government to relieve the pressures that its economic mismanagement has introduced for far too many of my constituents?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank Jim Fairlie for his supplementary question, and I commend him for the work that he is doing to help his constituents.

As I said, we have called repeatedly for action from the UK Government—including ahead of the spring budget review, when a real difference could have been made—but it has failed to deliver. In addition to the meeting that I hope to have with the UK Minister for Energy Consumers and Affordability, I will be progressing work that was delivered as a result of the Scottish Government’s energy summit last year. I intend to give us and our partners in Scotland a stronger combined voice, which we will continue to use to challenge the UK Government on the need for more action to support those who are most in need.

I recommend that Mr Fairlie and all MSPs signpost any constituents who are having real difficulty paying their bills to Advice Direct Scotland, which is administering the Scottish Government’s home heating support and whose offices I visited yesterday.

We have tripled our fuel insecurity fund, but as Mr Fairlie alludes to, the core cost that is affecting families needs to be tackled by the UK Government, which has the powers to make a real difference in that area.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Has the Scottish Government discussed the potential for a UK windfall tax—given the unprecedented energy profits that are being made—and the Scottish Government’s plans for the energy company that it was proposing to establish? Will that be on the agenda with the UK minister, because we need to accelerate plans to invest in energy-efficient homes in Scotland in order to eradicate fuel poverty, to lower bills, to create jobs and to deliver on net zero. Would not that be a practical way to get going on that?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

A lot practical things could be done by the United Kingdom Government a lot sooner than some of the things that Sarah Boyack mentioned. Given that we in the Scottish Government really have powers only with regard to helping people to make their homes more energy efficient, that is where we are directing a lot of our powers and funding.

As I mentioned, we have built on the commitment to double the fuel insecurity fund. Our winter heating payment replaces the Department for Work and Pensions’ cold weather payment with a reliable annual £550 payment that is helping around 400,000 low-income individuals with their heating expenses.

Many of the powers that are required for a lot of the things that Sarah Boyack mentioned in relation to energy companies sit, at the moment, with the UK Government. Last week, I had a meeting with Andrew Bowie, who is the UK Minister for Nuclear and Networks at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, about some very small constitutional issues that might be able to help us to do a lot more in this area, but which need to be devolved to this Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Briefly, Willie Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In Scotland, 600,000 homes are in extreme fuel poverty—but last year only just more than 5,000 households were helped by the Government with the insulation programme. This year’s warmer homes scheme will not even open again until October. Why is the Scottish National Party-Green Government so slow on insulating people’s homes?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Our national fuel poverty scheme, warmer homes Scotland, is designed to help those who are living in or are at risk of fuel poverty. Unfortunately, in the past year or so, many people who were not in fuel poverty have been plunged into it—not because of the actions of the Scottish Government but because of increasing fuel costs and the increasing cost of people’s energy bills. We are ploughing in money to mitigate somewhat the crisis, but if we had some real action on bringing down the cost of people’s fuel in the first place, we would not be in this situation.

Tayside Aviation (Closure)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it anticipates that the reported closure of Tayside Aviation will have on the financial sustainability of Dundee airport and associated Tay cities deal funding. (S6O-02168)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I say at the outset that I am very concerned to hear of the job losses at

Tayside Aviation. My thoughts are with the workers affected and their families.

The Scottish Government remains committed to providing Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd with sufficient support to maintain operations at all 11 of its airports, including Dundee. Scottish Government officials will discuss the implications for the Tay cities region deal with both local partners and the United Kingdom Government.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

That the closure of Tayside Aviation does not threaten the future of the airport is of vital importance to Dundee, and I thank the minister for his assurance. Of course, it will be cold comfort to the 22 people who have lost their jobs.

Will the minister update Parliament on what the Government is doing to support the aviation academy for Scotland project and the Tay cities region deal project? What actions has he taken? Most important today, what assurances can he give those people who have paid money as students and who have lost the future that was in front of them? Has he had discussions with the Royal Air Force about the crucial contract that was in place—or which should have been in place—with the aviation academy? Will he meet me to discuss those really important issues?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I would be happy to meet Michael Marra to discuss those issues. I will also certainly check out his point about the RAF.

On his other two more general questions, it is important to say that no Scottish Government funding went directly to Tayside Aviation in support of students.

University students should have been contacted directly by their own universities. Scottish Government officials have been engaging with Middlesex University and the University of Central Lancashire, in particular, as delivery partners for the courses to understand what contingencies are in place to support those students who are most affected.

The wider aviation academy project, which is part of the local region deal, is a UK project of £8.1 million. Although the unfortunate business closure that we are talking about in Parliament today will certainly impact on the project’s future development, we want to continue to work with regional partners on exploring alternative viable delivery options.

As Michael Marra confirmed in his own remarks, we can confirm that funding will not be lost to the region and that we will continue to do what we can to support the airport.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At last week’s First Minister’s question time, I raised the issue that Michael Marra has just referred to about students, many of whom have paid large sums in fees up front for degree courses that were being partly delivered by Tayside Aviation. That is a huge financial issue for them, but the other question is how they can complete their degree courses without the provision of training local to their home base in Scotland. Does the minister have any suggestions as to what alternative provision might be made available to students caught in that situation?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I recognise the member’s interest in the issue. As I indicated in my previous answer, officials are in contact with the relevant universities to look at what alternative plans will be put in place and to discuss the wider implications of what has happened. I think that the best thing for me to do would be to speak to my colleagues and to drop a note to those local members who have an interest in the issue and its implications for the students concerned. We will provide an update as soon as we can.

Disabled People (Employment)

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its interim goals of reaching 50 per cent of disabled people in employment by 2023 and 60 per cent in employment by 2030. (S6O-02169)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The latest available Office for National Statistics annual population survey data indicates that, in the year from January to December 2022, the employment rate for disabled people in Scotland had increased to 50.7 per cent, from the previous year’s figure of 49.6 per cent. That means that we have achieved one year early our first interim target of 50 per cent of disabled people being in employment, and we are currently on track to achieve the subsequent target of 60 per cent by 2030. The refreshed fair work action plan that was published last December sets out the further actions that we will take to meet our aim of halving the disability employment gap by 2038.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

ACS Clothing in my constituency has recognised that standard interview processes often exclude disabled people from securing jobs right at the outset, and the company’s inclusive approach has helped earn it disability confident leader accreditation.

What further action will the Scottish Government take to support an increase in the number of employers practising inclusive and accessible interview processes, with a view to more local employers recognising and benefiting from the talents that disabled people bring to our workplaces?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Stephanie Callaghan for her question and, indeed, for her work through the cross-party groups on autism and learning disability to support the improvement of disabled people’s lives. I also congratulate ACS on the work that it is doing to create an environment in which disabled people can partake in and benefit from inclusive and accessible interviews.

The Scottish Government believes that a culture change is required for employers to have the competency and confidence to offer appropriate support to disabled people in order to access work. To date, we have invested close to £1 million in a public social partnership that is working to improve recruitment and retention rates for disabled people by developing and testing different types of support for employers. Through that partnership, ACS was supported to attain the accreditation that Stephanie Callaghan has referred to.

Last year, we commissioned a disabled people’s organisation to deliver a programme of training and development on disability inclusion and, equally, to do so on a test-and-learn basis in two fair start Scotland contract areas. The programme includes development of accessible interviews.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the Government plan to produce a refreshed employment action plan that will reduce the disability employment gap and address the challenges of the post-Covid labour market?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am certainly happy to consider that. We must recognise the impact that Covid has had on disabled people entering the employment market.

I am also happy to work with Jeremy Balfour and others to ensure that the United Kingdom Government is living up to its responsibilities in this area. I am old enough to remember the UK Government having a target to halve the disability employment gap. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Granton Waterfront

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

8. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the regeneration and development of Granton waterfront. (S6O-02171)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government is represented on the Granton waterfront strategic partnership, which enables regular engagement with the City of Edinburgh Council and partners on the development and delivery of their plans for the regeneration of the Granton waterfront area. Through the partnership, we are able to discuss ways in which collaborative cross-portfolio support can be provided for the on-going development and delivery of the place-based vision for Granton. That support has included investment of more than £9 million in the early phases of the development, to help unlock sites and support development of the Western Villages demonstrator project.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for the funding that the Scottish Government has committed to and the engagement that it has taken part in so far.

As the regeneration of Granton waterfront has remarkable further potential to deliver on multiple wellbeing, economy and social justice policy objectives, I ask the Scottish Government to consider how it could further support that nationally significant development project in a holistic way. As part of that, I ask it to consider how a process could be developed to allow a multiyear package of Government funding to be secured in order to meet the multiple policy objectives and deliver new housing, facilities and opportunities for the benefit of north Edinburgh, visitors and our capital city as a whole.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Ben Macpherson for his diligence as the local MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith and for bringing this important issue to the chamber. The Scottish Government is working with the Granton waterfront strategic partnership and providing support from the range of portfolios involved in delivering a place-based approach to the regeneration of Granton. That includes support for and advice on the completion of robust business plans by the partnership to identify the funding that will be required from a range of sources, including private investment. I would, of course, be happy to meet Ben Macpherson to discuss his suggestion and any further ideas that he might have.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that the United Kingdom Government’s levelling up funding of more than £16 million to restore and reopen the B-listed Granton gas holder is a welcome investment and can act as a catalyst to support the regeneration and redevelopment of Granton and the whole city waterfront.

What work is the cabinet secretary doing to help with the next set of levelling up funding projects and make sure that every part of Scotland, especially Edinburgh’s waterfront, realises that potential?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Of course I welcome that funding. Miles Briggs would, of course, expect me to challenge the levelling up fund on the basis that it has not been as targeted as I think that it could be, nor has it matched the levels of expenditure of the predecessor funding that came through our membership of the European Union.

I will be looking to meet the UK Government to discuss the next phase of the levelling up fund, to challenge it to go further, to ensure that investment meets devolved priorities and to ensure that we are no longer cut out of the decision-making process.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on wellbeing economy, fair work and energy. Before we move to the next portfolio, there will be a brief pause to allow front-bench members to change places.

Finance and Parliamentary Business

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is finance and parliamentary business. I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question, and I again make the usual appeal for brevity in questions and responses.

Section 35 Order (Costs of Legal Challenge)

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated from its budget to cover the costs of its challenge of the decision of the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Scotland to issue an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-02172)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We consider that 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. At this stage, it would be entirely speculative to comment on what the costs of the challenge would be or who would meet them. Any costs that are incurred by the Scottish Government will be published in due course.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Most of the Scottish public remain opposed to the GRR bill. The wider gender self-identification policy contributed to the downfall of Nicola Sturgeon when she housed a male double rapist in a women’s prison. It is a deeply flawed policy, and many Scots supported the UK Government’s blocking of the bill. It appears that the sole reason why the Scottish National Party Government is sticking with it is to pick a fight with the UK Government, alongside keeping the extremist Green Party happy.

Is it truly worth wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on something that is likely to be defeated in the courts and that most Scots, including one quarter of SNP voters, oppose?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Let me remind Annie Wells that the bill was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament, with support from members of all parties. The use of section 35 is an unprecedented challenge to the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate on devolved matters and risks setting a dangerous constitutional precedent by allowing a veto on this Parliament’s democratic decisions. It is absolutely important to have clarity on the interpretation and scope of the UK Government’s section 35 power and its impact on devolution. Those matters and the use of the powers should be legally tested in the courts.

The mention of taxpayers’ money is a bit ironic in a week when the head of the United Kingdom’s Debt Management Office has said that the mini-budget cost the UK an eye-watering £74 billion, of which Scotland’s share would be more than £6 billion. Of course, that was through a Government that was supported and enabled by Annie Wells and her colleagues.

I will not take any lessons from Annie Wells or the Tories about the use of taxpayers’ money in the face of the eye-watering amount that was wasted by the UK Government.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Despite the UK Government’s claim to have concerns about the bill, it is my understanding that it has, as yet, refused to engage with the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to attempt to resolve those concerns. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the Conservatives have concerns about the costs of challenging the section 35 order, they could start to address them by pressing their colleagues at Westminster to actually engage with the Scottish Government on the bill, rather than undemocratically attempting to block it?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

That is correct. After the Secretary of State for Scotland made the section 35 order, I met him and proposed that our Governments work together to clarify and seek to address any specific concerns. He refused any further engagement and offered only three options: we could drop the bill; address his concerns in an amended bill, but with no indication of which areas the UK Government would want to be amended; or pursue legal action.

The legal challenge is not what we wanted to happen with the bill, after it was passed—as I said earlier—by an overwhelming majority of the Parliament, but we have been left with absolutely no choice in the matter. Of course, the UK Government could avoid those legal costs by revoking the section 35 order; we would then gladly resume dialogue with it on the issue.

Capital Budget (Impact of Infrastructure Project Delays)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what financial assessment has been made of any impact on the capital budget of delays in delivering infrastructure projects. (S6O-02173)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government continuously reviews the impact that factors such as project delays, inflationary pressures and market conditions have on our capital programme in order to ensure that Scotland’s money is being spent in the right places. That is done through the annual budget process, and periodically with our six-monthly reporting on the infrastructure investment plan.

The “Scottish Budget: 2023-24” set out over £6.3 billion of capital spending to support employment and the economy through our large-scale infrastructure plans to move us along the path to net zero carbon emissions and underpin the provision of quality public services.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We know that the cost of infrastructure projects has risen, partly due to inflation, partly due to the availability of materials, and partly due to not having enough construction workers. That will lead to cost overruns and delays. We are already seeing that with the national treatment centres and projects such as the replacement St Brendan’s hospital on Barra, which was promised by Nicola Sturgeon in 2007 and has now been completely cancelled.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to publishing a list of all capital projects, with revised costs and timelines, before the start of the summer recess?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Jackie Baillie is quite right to point to all the pressures that are impacting on capital budgets. She mentioned inflation, labour costs and the cost of materials, all of which are absolutely factors. In addition, we have the combined effects of Covid, Brexit and the war in Ukraine, and the flat and falling capital grant allocation that Scotland has received from the United Kingdom Government. That is all putting pressure on our capital programme.

We will continue to work through the capital projects, many of which—as Jackie Baillie will understand—are at different stages. Many are well advanced and some are at an early stage. We will of course inform Parliament of any major changes to the capital programme.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are a number of brief—I hope—supplementaries. The first is from John Mason.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The cabinet secretary mentioned inflation. Can she say anything more about that? It seems that the UK, with 10.1 per cent inflation, has a higher rate of inflation than Italy, at 8.3 per cent; Germany, at 7.2 per cent; and France, at 5.9 per cent. What is different about the UK?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

John Mason makes an important point. One of the key differences is the issue of Brexit, which has exacerbated all the global factors. There are also the UK Government’s economic policies, such as the mini-budget to which I referred earlier, which is costing the UK £74 billion. Those issues will impact on our budgets. Building materials were increasingly hard to source last year, and price inflation in the sector peaked at around 25 per cent last summer.

All those issues will impact on our capital budget, but we will ensure, through the difficult choices that we will inevitably have to make, that we prioritise our capital budget according to the clear priorities that have been set out. The prospectus that was launched by the First Minister reiterates what those priorities are.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In relation to Jackie Baillie’s question, is the cabinet secretary aware of concerns that have been raised at the Finance and Public Administration Committee by former ministers and former civil servants that when it comes to financial decision making, financial rules have sometimes been seen as “optional”? I ask that when she looks at infrastructure projects, that matter is also addressed so that we clearly see what the rules are supposed to be.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I look forward to giving evidence, along with the permanent secretary, on matters relating to decision making for ministers and the advice that is given by the civil service.

I do not recognise some of the characterisation in Liz Smith’s comments. In my experience as a minister for more than 15 years, decision making is very robust, not least because the advice that we commission and receive is the best advice available to ministers.

Does that mean that decisions are always correct in light of things that later occur? Of course any Government will face issues when decisions are made on the basis of the best available advice at the time but circumstances change thereafter. I look forward to getting into more of the detail of that at the committee’s evidence session.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Last year, the Auditor General, talking about the late ferries, said that there had been

“A lack of transparent decision making, a lack of project oversight and no clear understanding of what significant sums of public money have achieved.”

This year, the Government has admitted that the bosses were paid big bonuses that the Government had no clue about, and that the crew has been paid £1.6 million for ferries that cannot sail. Has the Government learned a single thing in the past year?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Yes, we have, and ministers have apologised

for the delay to the ferries and for the distress and difficulties that have been caused. The delivery of six new major vessels to serve Scotland’s ferry network by 2026 is of course a key priority for the Government.

The issue of bonuses has been gone over in fine detail. I wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee on the latest issue. On remuneration packages, the new chair of Ferguson Marine has been very clear that, going forward, bonuses will not feature in those packages, but those legacy bonuses could unfortunately not be avoided, due to contractual issues.

I am happy to write to Willie Rennie with more detail on the issue of the payment of crew for non-sailing vessels. Transport Scotland continues to work closely with CalMac Ferries, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and Ferguson’s to align the recruitment of crew with vessel deployment plans. If the member wants more information on that, I will make sure that I or the appropriate minister write to him.

Deposit Return Scheme (Costs of Delay)

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated from its budget to cover any additional costs resulting from the delay to the deposit return scheme. (S6O-02174)

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Scotland’s deposit return scheme is an industry-led scheme, in line with the principles of producer responsibility. The investments that have been made by businesses to date will be important for the success of the scheme when it launches on 1 March 2024. Accordingly, the Scottish Government has not allocated additional funding to cover industry costs due to a delay.

A wide range of businesses have welcomed the delay of Scotland’s DRS, and the Scottish Government, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and Circularity Scotland are working intensely so that we are ready for the launch in March next year. However, that will only be achievable if the United Kingdom Government urgently issues an exclusion for the scheme from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, giving businesses the certainty that they deserve and need.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is a concerning answer from the minister. The Federation of Independent Retailers has called on the Scottish National Party to compensate retailers who have already signed contracts for reverse vending machines due to the recently announced delay. What is the Government doing to support those who have entered into expensive contracts for RVMs who now might not need to provide RVMs as a result of the changes to the detail of the scheme?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Meghan Gallacher will be aware that the contracts to which she referred are a matter for the contract between Circularity Scotland and the producers. Members can be assured that only the largest producers are making those contributions. Retailers are now able to register, and smaller retailers in particular are able to apply for an exemption. However, many retailers are keen to be part of the scheme because it will attract footfall to their stores.

If Meghan Gallacher is concerned about further delay, I ask her to urge her colleagues at Westminster to ensure that the exclusion that we need to get the scheme up and running is in place as quickly as possible.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

A multinational company with a dubious environmental record is the sole logistics partner for the deposit return scheme, which should cause concern about the potential to distort competition in the waste management sector. The final business regulatory impact assessment—released in late 2021—does not look at that, but we expect a new assessment to be released when the regulations are amended. Will the new assessment examine the logistics contract? If not, will the minister ask the Competition and Markets Authority to do so?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

It would be best if the minister who is responsible for the scheme contacted Meghan Gallacher about that matter; I will ensure that she is aware of the member’s question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 was not lodged.

Tax (Responsible and Ethical Collection Practices)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support responsible and ethical tax collection practices. (S6O-02176)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of ensuring that responsible and ethical tax collection practices are in place and the role of the tax collection agencies in that regard.

Robust governance arrangements are in place with HM Revenue and Customs and Revenue Scotland, which both have a statutory function to protect revenue against fraud and tax avoidance. Local authorities are responsible for the collection of council tax and non-domestic rates. The Scottish Government has empowered them to tackle avoidance loopholes and encourage them to share good practice on debt assistance and collection.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Paragraph 28 of the fair work agreement between Scottish ministers and civil service trade unions states:

“Scottish ministers are committed to publicly run, publicly delivered public services and are committed against the outsourcing of public services.”

The outsourcing of tax collection is a test of that commitment.

Last year, a new contract was signed by HMRC with private debt collection agencies. Will the Scottish Government, which has a service-level agreement with HMRC, rule out the deployment of private debt collection agencies for the collection of Scottish income tax? Will the minister write into the agreement that income tax compliance in Scotland will be undertaken only by workers in the public sector, and does he accept that this is a question of moral responsibility and ethical standards and not simply an operational matter?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Mr Leonard for his supplementary question. He raises very significant points, and I know that he does so from a place of genuine moral and ethical concern. As he will appreciate, HMRC operates UK-wide, and, with regard to its debt collection practices in Scotland, it partakes in debt collection relating not only to the devolved aspects of Scottish income tax but to reserved taxes. One of those reserved taxes is national insurance, which could potentially be interlinked with debt pertaining to income tax.

Mr Leonard raised a lot of points. I will take them away and consider what further action can be taken, but I reiterate that HMRC operates UK-wide. Notwithstanding that, I will take the points away, and I will be happy to update him by correspondence in due course.

Budget (Third Sector Organisations)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what impact assessment it has undertaken regarding any reductions to core funding allocations in its budget for third sector organisations. (S6O-02177)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Scottish Government grant making is allocated across portfolios to various parts of the third sector to improve a wide range of outcomes. Some Scottish Government funding is issued through third sector intermediary organisations. Any assessments on funding levels will have been taken by individual policy areas.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I wrote to the former Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy over a month ago with regard to the future of Bridgend Farmhouse in Edinburgh, which has received Scottish Government investing in communities funding for the past four years.

On 15 February, the organisation received notification that it would not continue to receive that funding. It is a fantastic organisation, a host of more than three social enterprises and a place where the community can come together. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Bridgend Farmhouse no longer being able to operate would have a significant impact in the south of the city, and will she agree to visit Bridgend Farmhouse and review the cut to core funding?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

First, I say to Miles Briggs that I will look out that correspondence—it is not something that I am familiar with, but I will have a look for it.

Clearly, these are difficult decisions. Grant funding to third sector organisations is always oversubscribed—it is the same for social enterprise funding. Therefore, that grant funding is prioritised in a way that aligns with the clear priorities that the Government has set out on reducing poverty, net zero ambitions and sustainable public services, so it is not possible to fund every organisation that applies for funding.

However, as I said at the beginning of my response, I am happy to have a look at the correspondence about Bridgend Farmhouse, and I will write back to Miles Briggs once I have managed to do so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 7 was not lodged and question 8 has been withdrawn, so that concludes portfolio questions on finance and parliamentary business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.

Governing Party (Transparency)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-08764, in the name of Douglas Ross, on the transparency of Scotland’s governing party. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I hope that, with the early start, we have a bit more flexibility in some of the timings this afternoon, because I am keen that this is a proper debate and that we interact with each other. I am looking forward to interventions from members on the Government benches, who I am sure have a lot to say on this topic, because transparency at the heart of Government and indeed at the heart of the governing party is crucial. It is important to each and every one of us.

However, the fact is that we should not need this debate to get that transparency from the First Minister or from the Scottish Government, because I made a very open offer just a couple of weeks ago for the First Minister to come to the chamber and give a statement to the Parliament on the issues engulfing his party—the party of government here in Scotland. It was a genuine offer at First Minister’s question time for the First Minister to put on record his point of view and his responses to crucial questions that remain unanswered weeks into this sorry saga.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The member says that he is genuine—could he expand on that by telling us the membership of the Conservative Party in Scotland? Is it 6,500, which is the number of people who voted in the last leadership election?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is the most predictable intervention of the afternoon, which will probably be repeated by several others—I thought that such a question might have come from the minister, but maybe he has got it later on in his script.

The point is that the Scottish Conservatives announce their membership numbers during a leadership election. That has always been how we have approached this issue. [

Interruption

.]

The message from Scottish National Party members, and the noise from members on the front benches, seems to be that the Scottish Conservatives and other parties in Scotland should change their approach because the nationalists lied to the press and to the public across Scotland about the party’s membership numbers. I will take no lectures from the SNP, which wants to see other parties change their approach in order to cover up for the lies that those in the SNP told about its membership numbers. That is a serious allegation—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Ross, please resume your seat. At this stage in the debate, it might be instructive if I remind members that there are certain expectations about language in the chamber. We know that the chair will not tolerate an accusation that, for example, a fellow member has been deliberately untruthful. I remind members of a statement that was made by the previous Presiding Officer, the late Sir Alex Ferguson, who reminded members that the words

“‘lies’, ‘lying’ or ‘liar’ should not be used in the chamber in relation to other members—and preferably not at all.” —[

Official Report,

7 May 2009, c 17290.]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We clarified that through the Presiding Officer’s office this morning. I am not saying that any individual member in the Parliament lied; I am saying that, clearly, there were actions by the SNP on misleading claims about its membership numbers that led to the resignation of the SNP’s head of media and the resignation of the former chief executive of the SNP. Just days before he was arrested by the police, he resigned from the role that he had held for years because of the SNP’s conduct on its membership numbers. That is why I am saying that I will take no lectures from the SNP on the issue.

The fact is that there remain serious questions to be answered. The First Minister seems quite happy to answer the questions outside the chamber—he always stops to speak to the press to give his views on a host of issues. As an Opposition leader, I want to see that continue, because he has only been beaten by Colin Beattie in his attempts to provide no more press stories but subsequently answering the press and providing us with plenty of nuggets. If the First Minister is happy to give those answers to the press just a few metres from the chamber, why is he not happy to come here to answer those questions? Not only is he unwilling to answer the questions in the chamber, he is unwilling even to attend this debate to respond.

There are so many questions, Deputy Presiding Officer. For example, how were the supposedly ring-fenced indyref2 funds that were raised through yes.scot and ref.scot spent? How was that money spent? Why did the party’s former chief executive Peter Murrell give the SNP a six figure loan, and when will that loan be repaid? Was the loan a consideration in any decision not to suspend Peter Murrell, Colin Beattie or, potentially, any other MSP currently serving in the Parliament who may find themselves arrested by the police? Why was the unused motorhome kept at the home of the former First Minister’s mother-in-law? Why were members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee refused information about the party’s accounts?

We have several senior members of the Government and the SNP in the chamber for this debate. That is a flavour of some of the questions that we would like to put to the First Minister. In his absence, can any SNP MSP answer those questions?

Silence. We have the Deputy First Minister of the Government and the deputy leader of the party in Scotland in the chamber, but there are no answers to very basic questions. These are basic questions that are being asked by our constituents and members of the public across the country.

It is important that we have transparency at the heart of Government and that we have a governing party that is willing to answer those questions. Sadly, we do not. In the time that I have left, I want to look at the amendments that will be moved by the parliamentary business manager for the Scottish Government. Incredibly, the amendment deletes massive amounts of the motion that I lodged, including some of the key lines.

George Adam wants SNP MSPs to vote for an amendment that deletes a statement allowing them to agree that the scandal engulfing the party of government in Scotland should be properly scrutinised and debated. Why would anyone not want the situation to be properly scrutinised and debated?

Mr Adam’s amendment deletes the line that calls for

“a more transparent budget process”.

Why would anyone not want that? It deletes a line saying that we should

“give arm’s-length bodies control over information publication”.

Why would we not want to give them more control over that? Further, it also deletes a line that calls on the Scottish Government to

“improve scrutiny of breaches of the ministerial code”.

Why would any MSP representing the governing parties in Scotland vote for an amendment that takes out those key lines on transparency and openness?

Today marks 16 years since the SNP was elected to government. During that time, we have seen secrecy, spin and cover-ups at the heart of the Government. Today is an opportunity for SNP members to say that enough is enough, and that it has been happening for too long. They can do that by voting for the Scottish Conservative motion, by supporting the Labour amendment, which adds to the scrutiny that we seek and by voting down the shameful amendment from the Scottish Government, which wants to delete much of the transparency that this Parliament and the people of Scotland deserve.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the First Minister, as leader of the governing party of Scotland, should make a statement to the chamber of the Scottish Parliament about the governance of the Scottish National Party (SNP); agrees that these are matters of public interest and should be properly scrutinised and debated in the national parliament; notes that the Scottish Government has lacked transparency and openness in its administration of government across Scotland; calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to end its pre-release access of statistics, deliver a more transparent budget process, give arm’s-length bodies control over information publication, publish a transparency list of public sector officials who earn more than the First Minister, set swifter publication dates for ministerial expenses and transport dates and improve scrutiny of breaches of the ministerial code, and condemns the SNP for its lack of candour about its membership and governance, and for its abject failure to concentrate on the priorities of the people of Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call George Adam, to speak to and move amendment S6M—

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Thank you, Presiding Officer—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, I have to read out my bit first.

I call George Adam, to speak to and move amendment S6M-08764.2.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I was just so keen to get involved in this debate, Presiding Officer.

That was definitely a thing from Douglas Ross—I am not sure what it was and I am not sure what relevance much of it had to what we are talking about today. However, right from the start, let me tell him that transparency and scrutiny of the Government is important, and that is why those things are in our amendment.

I will say one thing to start with: on 1 April—many people might find that date ironic—Douglas Ross was in the great town of Paisley, doing one of his many jobs. In this case, he was being a football referee at an important game between St Mirren and Livingston. Mr Ross had a terrible game, as he failed to spot a stonewall penalty in the first four minutes—luckily, that was corrected by VAR. However—this is the relevant and interesting point, Presiding Officer—there was a crowd of 5,894 people attending. Many contemplated the suggestion that that may or may not be the membership of the Scottish Tory party, but we will never know, because the Conservatives will not publish that figure. They will not be transparent and they will not practise what they are preaching here today.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

No, we have heard enough from Mr Ross.

The absolute hypocrisy from the Conservatives is almost laughable. We have to admire someone who has the brass neck to complain about transparency when they lead the Scottish Conservatives. Mr Ross’s political party illegally prorogued the United Kingdom Parliament to avoid debate and scrutiny and is the party of a Prime Minister who would agree to speak to the Scottish press only if he could hand pick the media and the questions. It is the party that packs the House of Lords with donors such as Scotland Office minister Lord Offord, who was appointed to the House of Lords for life and given a place on the Government payroll after giving the Tories £150,000, yet the Tories come to the Scottish Parliament and talk about our integrity.

The Conservatives have received hundreds of thousands of pounds from unincorporated associations that do not reveal the origin of their funding, yet they have questioned the integrity of others. We just cannot take the Tories seriously on this issue. They refuse to say how many members they have while criticising those that do. There is a word for a person who does that: hypocrite.

I am not going to stand here and claim that there are not issues in the SNP that need to be addressed, but I can stand here and say that they are being addressed.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Ah! Tell us about them!

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Mr Ross is having a lot of fun and games over there in the corner, shouting from the sidelines. It must be from his time as a referee.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We cannot have two members standing at the same time. Mr Ross, by not taking your intervention requests, the minister indicated that he is probably not planning to take your intervention. Minister, please resume.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I have said that we are dealing with that. Within days of his election as leader, the First Minister announced an urgent review of internal party governance and, as our amendment makes clear, this Government places a great importance on openness and transparency. We are fully committed to meeting the standards of open Government that our public rightly expects of us. I will give just a few examples of that: ministerial engagements and travel are published monthly; we also aim to proactively publish minutes of Government meetings on our website, so that people can see who their Government is meeting and what we are discussing, and understand how decisions are made. In addition, we are focused on making the necessary improvements in handling freedom of information requests, as set out in our published improvement plan, which was agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner. At around 86 per cent, our performance on responding to requests within the set time is comparable with the wider public sector in Scotland, but it is important to note that we are now responding to significantly more requests for information—the number has risen by more than 50 per cent in the past three years. We also recently enhanced transparency to Parliament and the public on Scottish Government finances, including through the provision of more detailed outturn reporting and more detailed material to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which all members of that committee have welcomed. In his closing statement here today, Mr Arthur will provide more detail on the steps that we have taken to improve engagement on budget.

I will come back to the issue of party membership. Much has been said, but it is not enough.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way on that point?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

We are not hearing what the Conservatives’ membership numbers are; of the five parties that are represented in the chamber, only two—the SNP and the Scottish Greens—have published up-to-date figures of their party membership.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way on that point?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I am quite happy if Douglas Ross wants to say the membership number now.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful that the minister has finally taken an intervention. Will he accept that his party lied about its figures, and that led to the resignation in this Parliament of the head of the party’s media and then that of its chief executive? Will he apologise to the press and public for that?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

My goodness—I gave Douglas Ross the opportunity to build himself up into a frenzy, and that was a bit of a damp squib from him. That comes from the party of Boris Johnson and all the nonsense that is going on in Westminster.

Douglas Ross has refused to publish his party’s membership numbers. He says that he has nothing to hide, yet he continues to hide it. In an interview with ITV Border, his defence was that the party publishes its membership figures only during a leadership election. Given Douglas Ross’s performance today and in recent weeks, I do not think that we will wait too long for those figures to be published.

I move amendment S6M-08764.2, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“agrees that good governance and transparency are matters of the utmost importance; believes that democracy is best served when all political parties are transparent on their party membership and sources of income; recognises the improvements made to the transparency and openness of the Scottish budget process as a result of cooperation between the Scottish Government and parliamentary committees; welcomes the upcoming review of the Chief Executive Pay Framework and encourages all parties to clearly lay out their position on public sector pay policy ahead of the annual budget process; calls on all political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to refuse and return any donations from unincorporated associations that do not publish their sources of funding in full; believes that all political parties should refuse to nominate their donors for any form of honour bestowed by the Crown, including membership of the House of Lords; recognises that the only parties represented in the Scottish Parliament to have published up-to-date membership numbers are the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party, and calls on the leaders of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Scottish Labour Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats, in the interests of democracy and transparency, to publish their membership numbers as a matter of urgency.”

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

With the recent revelations about its finances, the culture of secrecy, spin and cover-up at the heart of the SNP has been laid bare for all to see. I find it extraordinary that, when it is being investigated by Police Scotland, the SNP’s sole defence is to demand membership numbers from the Opposition. The investigation is serious and it is not about the SNP’s membership numbers. Because it is a live police inquiry, we cannot comment on the substance of the investigation, but suffice it to say that, if someone had told me 10 weeks ago that I would witness the resignation of the First Minister; the arrest under caution of her husband, Peter Murrell, who is the SNP’s former chief executive; the arrest of Colin Beattie, the former SNP treasurer; and a blue forensic tent on the front lawn of Nicola Sturgeon’s home, I would have said that they were delusional. However, all those things happened.

It is a shameful episode in Scottish politics. People who believed in the SNP have been badly let down, but so have the people of Scotland. The governing party is mired in scandal, which is a complete distraction from focusing on the people’s priorities. We are now witnessing the arrogance of members of a party that has been in power for too long, so they think that they are untouchable and treat the Parliament and the public with contempt.

I know that many people will say that the party and the Government are two separate things, but that is simply not true in this case. The culture that pervades the SNP as a party pervades the SNP-led Scottish Government, too. They are inextricably linked. That is no wonder when we consider that the two top positions were occupied by a husband-and-wife team.

I will illustrate that point by taking us back to the inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints—otherwise known as the Salmond inquiry. I start by reminding members of Nicola Sturgeon’s words:

“The inquiries will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request ... My commitment is that the Government and I will co-operate fully”.—[

Official Report

, 17 January 2019; c 14.]

What hollow words.

The SNP, in the guise of Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff, Liz Lloyd, blocked every attempt by the committee to get information. The situation dragged on for months, if not a full year, as they defied the will of the committee and of Parliament at every turn. Letters from the Parliament’s lawyers were in effect ignored, and it took the threat of a successful vote of no confidence in John Swinney to get the material released.

Evading scrutiny and accountability underpinned much of the SNP’s approach to the Salmond inquiry. The use of SNP emails and WhatsApp groups by Cabinet ministers, the former FM and special advisers was widespread to avoid formally recording ministerial discussions and decisions.

The dissembling, the dishonesty and the duplicitous behaviour on the part of Government was routine. Then there were the memory lapses—the inability to recall or remember from people who up to that point had had the sharpest of memories for details, it has to be said.

Then there was the incompetence and a new low—the leaking of material by the then Deputy First Minister and his special advisers to journalists who were writing a book about the inquiry, after the inquiry, which had not even been shared with the inquiry in the first place. Although that breached the ministerial code of conduct and the special advisers code of conduct, the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, chose to do nothing about it—such contempt for Parliament.

It is time for an overhaul of the Parliament’s ability to hold this Government to account. Scottish Labour has a plan for doing just that. Let us start by seeing fewer cabinet secretaries and ministers; let us see binding sanctions for breaches of the ministerial code; let us see more power for committees to compel witnesses and evidence; and let us see less tribalism from members who try to deny the evidence that is presented to committees before their very eyes. Let us have a right of recall for MSPs who break the law, whoever they are.

The SNP is tarnishing the reputation of the Parliament and the Government. It is mired in scandal and it is divided, and its members are fighting like ferrets in a sack. The SNP is contemptuous of the Scottish people and has completely lost focus on the people’s priorities. It is time that it was held to account, it is time for a Scottish election and it is most certainly time for change.

I move amendment S6M-08764.1, to insert at end:

“; believes that the culture of secrecy, spin and cover-up has no place in good government; considers that there is a need to strengthen the ability of the Parliament to hold the governing party to account, and so calls for a limit on the number of MSPs who can take up cabinet secretary or ministerial roles in government and the creation of binding sanctions for breaches of the Ministerial Code, and supports the introduction of parliamentary privilege for MSPs, the election of committee conveners by the whole Parliament, stronger powers for parliamentary committees to compel the provision of evidence and the appearance of witnesses, and a right of recall for MSPs who have been convicted of a crime or face serious sanction by the Scottish Parliament.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It has been a painful few weeks for the SNP—a party that has seemed impregnable for the past 16 years is now shambling, anarchic and quarrelling. I almost—almost—feel sorry for it, but we must all feel sorry for Mike Russell, the modest, self-effacing president of the SNP. At the most recent election, for four whole weeks, he was forced to live in a smelly old horse-box. If only he had known, poor president Mike could have been chauffeured in that executive motorhome. I can almost see it; in fact, I cannot get the image out of my head—president Mike, thrust atop the luxury motorhome, draped over his chaise longue, dressed in his satin robe and addressing his adoring crowds at Dunoon pier. What a glorious sight that would have been but, like everyone else, he was kept in the dark, so we do need transparency.

The current troubles in the SNP have further undermined faith in the governing party’s ability to look after the public finances. That is on top of the waste of millions of pounds of hard-earned public money: £50 million to save 1,500 jobs at Burntisland Fabrications; £586 million to create 2,000 jobs at Lochaber, which are nowhere to be seen; and £300 million to build two new ferries, which are over budget and overdue.

The SNP has been boosting its public image by wasting public money. All that waste is happening when people are struggling to make ends meet; when people are desperate for a decent home; when the national health service is on its knees; when schools are struggling; and when the climate is in crisis. It is no wonder that people have had enough as the SNP Government spaffs their money up against the wall when the country and the people must count every penny.

However—I must get this off my chest—the Conservatives have got a nerve to talk about standards. No party has done more to damage faith in politics than the Conservatives. This is the party that gave us Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. With Boris Johnson, there were issues to do with parties during Covid, loans, the decor in the number 10 flat, personal protective equipment contracts for friends and the defence of friends who breached the rules. With Liz Truss, we had a reckless budget. That and the cavalier dismissal of the so-called blob cost billions, which ramped up the cost of mortgages and rents and the cost of living.

What about Douglas Ross? Some call him dithering Douglas. He could not even make up his mind about the blundering Boris Johnson and gormless Liz Truss. He condemned them one minute, then hailed them the next. We need change in politics, but it will not come from the Conservatives or the SNP.

We need change, such as Katy Clark’s proposed member’s bill for extending freedom of information powers, because being able to follow the money will give us greater understanding of how it is spent. We need to deal with the pre-release of statistics, so that the Government cannot spend hours and days manipulating the facts before statistics are published. We must have a recall system like the one at Westminster, but such a system evades the Scottish Parliament and our ability to throw out recalcitrant MSPs. We need to have all those powers in this Parliament so that we can get change.

We agree with the elements of the motion about the ministerial code and transparency, but I must say that the rest of the motion is utter tosh. The Scottish Parliament is not the SNP conference, nor is it the SNP national executive committee. Our job in this Parliament is to run the country; our job is not to run the SNP.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate. Speeches will be of four minutes’ length.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It was only last Wednesday when the Parliament debated transparency, and we—all of us in that debate, including SNP members—agreed in principle that the Parliament has a primary duty to the public to be as open and transparent as possible when accounting for public money. Ministers have such a duty too. Surely taxpayers have a right to know exactly what their money is being spent on and, just as important, why elected members in this place make certain choices. As politicians, we need to be held fully accountable for every single decision that we make, most especially when it comes to spending other people’s money.

I completely understand that a police inquiry about current events inside the SNP is on-going and that it is not appropriate to comment on those recent events. However, as Douglas Ross rightly said, that should not overshadow the important issue of the lack of transparency inside the Government and inside Scotland’s ruling party, because that is interlinked. The Parliament has a clear interest in establishing probity, so we will not shy away from asking important questions of the First Minister.

Auditors general round the world acknowledge that there are five principles of good governance: accountability, leadership, integrity, stewardship and transparency. Personally, I do not see how anyone could argue otherwise or seek to undermine those principles. However, that is exactly what we see in the SNP currently, and that is a matter of public interest.

Just yesterday,

The Times

reported on the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into the efficacy of Scottish Government decision making. It does not make good reading for the Scottish Government, not just because too much decision making has been seen by senior civil servants and former senior ministers to be “rushed, unclear and unstructured” but because some financial rules have, on occasion, been found to be optional.

That must be a concern for us all, yet the Scottish Government seems to be rubbishing the report, although the committee’s inquiry is not yet concluded. That is just not acceptable.

As a member of that committee, I am very clear that all is not well when it comes to Government openness, transparency and accountability. It is true that Audit Scotland and the Scottish Fiscal Commission have welcomed efforts to improve transparency in the Scottish budget, but they have also warned strongly that that simply is not good enough. We have heard so much about the profligate waste of failed Scottish Government projects, which have cost in the region of £350 million. The committee has been told that we have to start thinking about serious reforms so that we get much better transparency.

The named person legislation, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, gender recognition reform, the deposit return scheme and the highly protected marine areas programme—which we will debate later today—are all examples of Scottish Government failures when it comes to good governance.

On top of all that, and worst of all, we have the murky and disreputable goings-on inside the party of government. Not only are openness and transparency good practice for measuring best value for taxpayers’ money, but they are essential if there is to be renewed trust between Government and the public. The loss of that trust currently is very serious, and it is particularly serious for this country. Therefore, I support the motion in the name of Douglas Ross.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

There is certainly a lot in the motion and the

amendments, so I will not try to cover everything in four minutes.

First, on the SNP accounts, I understand that a police investigation is under way, and we need to let that take its course. No one has been charged yet, and we have a system that says that a person is innocent until proven guilty, so it seems to be far too soon to be having statements or debates about that in Parliament.

The last published accounts of the SNP, which were for the year to 31 December 2021, show net assets of £610,000. They also report that the referendum appeal raised £740,000, of which £253,000 had been used. The balance in the referendum fund of £487,000 is therefore covered by the assets on the balance sheet.

On current membership of UK political parties, the House of Commons library makes it clear that parties do not need to publish numbers. However, it also shows that last September the Conservatives had 172,000 members. If we are generous and give the Scottish Tories 9 per cent of that figure, that means that they had some 16,000 members, although only 6,500 of them voted in 2020. In any case, they are way behind the SNP.

Labour was reported to have 432,000 members at December 2021; taking 9 per cent of that would give that party about 39,000 members in Scotland. However, the

Daily Record

reported that the figure was only 16,000—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

No—I am afraid that I have only four minutes.

With 74,000 members, the SNP is clearly well ahead of both those parties. As a percentage of the relevant electorate, SNP membership is about 1.7 per cent, Labour is at 0.9 per cent and the Conservatives are at 0.4 per cent. It is pretty clear which party has the most members, is the most popular with the public and wins the most elections.

Transparency about budgets is a serious point: I am not quite clear what practical differences the Conservatives want. For example, both the SNP and the Greens have been open and clear that, if we want better public services, we need to consider raising taxes. By contrast, the Conservatives have called for lower taxes but simultaneously asked for extra spending on a range of areas. That is neither honest nor transparent—in fact, it is impossible. The Tories might set an example in transparency by saying where they would cut public services to match tax cuts.

When it comes to transparency in political parties, we could do no worse than look at the House of Lords. As members know, the SNP does not take seats there because the lords are unelected, which is an affront to democracy. Britain cannot be considered a true democracy as long as one half of its Parliament is appointed and not elected.

How do those people get appointed? Some may be there on merit but, for others, it seems that they just pay money to the Conservative Party. I understand that about £3 million is the going rate. We are told that 15 of the past 16 Conservative Party treasurers have been offered a seat in the House of Lords, having each donated more than £3 million to the party.

It is not only party treasurers; it has been reported that, since 2010, 22 of the Tories’ main financial backers have been given peerages, having donated at least £54 million to the party. Other nominations have been blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission; it tried to block Peter Cruddas in 2020, but Boris Johnson overruled it and Peter Cruddas got his peerage.

OpenDemocracy and Brunel University London have said that the chances of

“so many ... Tory donors ... ending up in the ... Lords is equivalent to entering the National Lottery 12 times in a row—and winning the jackpot every time.”

To be clear, it is illegal to sell titles for money, but that rule has been enforced only once—in 1933.

I mention in passing that Labour seeks the right of recall for MSPs. We should not forget that, although Labour’s Mike Watson had to resign after he got a 16-month sentence for trying to set fire to a hotel, he still sits as a Labour member in the House of Lords. Maybe Labour should clean up its own act first.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to conclude, Mr Mason.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

In

conclusion, politics can be a dirty business and no party is completely squeaky clean. However, if we are looking for a party that is heavily engaged in sleaze and underhand deals, which lacks transparency and which sells seats in the House of Lords, it is the Conservative Party.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is a pleasure to follow John Mason, although I am not sure that the concept of squeaky clean parties will resonate with our constituents. This has already been a rambunctious debate, which was to be expected, but there are very important questions at its heart that Parliament needs to ask itself and that the people of Scotland need to ask themselves. It is about understanding the difference between political parties, the Scottish Government and the Parliament, and it is about where the Parliament’s powers should lie in order for it to hold the Scottish Government to account.

It is right that any party, member or, indeed, citizen of Scotland should be interested in upholding the basic democratic principles that we have here and should look to strengthen Parliament, and it is right that the Parliament should be able to properly hold to account the Scottish Government, irrespective of the party membership that makes up the chamber. That is the role that constituents send us, who are not in the majority party that then forms the Government, here to do.

It is fair to say that there has been an increasing lack of transparency, over 16 years, as to how the Scottish Government operates. We have already heard discussions over the budget, and there are calls in the motion and the Labour amendment to make that process more transparent.

However, I would like to use the short time that I have to draw attention to other matters that the motion and the Labour amendment address. The first matter is in respect to the size of the Government in Scotland, which, bar one position, can be drawn only from members of the chamber. We have seen an increase in the size of the Government in both the number of cabinet secretaries and the number of ministers who support them.

Those increases clearly cause challenges when it comes to supplying members for committees. Given that we are a unicameral Parliament, the responsibility on committees to hold the Government to account is enormous, and the pool that can be drawn from to make up those committees is reduced when the number of ministers is increased.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I sympathise with much in the Labour amendment, but that is the line that I have a problem with. Would Mr Whitfield acknowledge that, although the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are far more powerful than they were in 1999, the number of members remains unchanged? Instead of the number of members in the Government, is the issue not the number of members in the Parliament?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome the recognition of the increased powers that devolution has given to the Government and Parliament in Scotland, and I agree that a challenge exists around striking that balance. Looking at the D’Hondt calculation, I wonder whether a more balanced approach could be achieved by reducing or deducting from that calculation those members of the predominant party who are in Government, which would then balance speeches and debates across the Parliament.

I am conscious that there will be many positive contributions, but I want to mention my colleague Katy Clark’s proposed member’s bill—the proposed freedom of information reform (Scotland) bill. I look forward to seeing that come forward.

The final issue that I ask the cabinet secretary or minister to address at the end of the debate relates to breaches of the ministerial code. The ministerial code is not overseen by the Parliament or by any committees within it, and we have a situation in which, in essence, the judge is judging itself. We have seen the problems with that down south, at Westminster, and I invite ideas as to how that can improve under the current Scottish Government.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The SNP is engulfed in scandal. Police Scotland is following the money, arrests have been made, resignations have been rapid, front pages have been lurid and the wheels of justice are turning.

However, that is actually a familiar story. For decades, the Scottish Labour Party arrogantly viewed Scotland as its fiefdom—its iron grip unbreakable, no matter how badly it behaved or how poorly it performed. We know what happened: people grew sick of being taken for granted, they finally rejected the sleaze and corruption, and Labour went the way of the dinosaurs.

Self-righteous SNP politicians such as Nicola Sturgeon were the noisiest critics.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will not, as, unfortunately, I have only four minutes. I am sorry.

Their party would be different—that Scottish politics would be cleansed was their pious pitch. Honesty, integrity and transparency were the buzzwords. Dear, dear me—look at where we are now. These past 16 years of SNP rule have been a disaster for our country. The SNP is a single-issue party that is perpetually distracted by its incoherent obsession with breaking up the United Kingdom. It is a party with all the power in the hands of Nicola Sturgeon and her husband. It is a party that does not tolerate reasonable questions from its own people. It is a party that thinks nothing of destroying those who do not toe the line.

In recent weeks, I have seen SNP members in a state of shock. Party unity is shattered as they have been put on the spot and forced to pick a team. One newspaper identified the following seven factions:

“The Yousaf loyalists, the Forbes followers, the Sturgeon establishment, the Westminster wing, the rebel alliance”,

who, I believe, sit up at the back,

“the watchers … and the sheep.”

Many in the SNP are trying to tell us that that is private party business—that it has nothing to do with Parliament or Government. Well, they are wrong, because the toxic culture of the SNP has been allowed to infect St Andrew’s house and Holyrood. We have a Government that operates by three main principles: secrecy, spin and self-preservation. It deprives the public of information while preaching about transparency. It misleads the public while preaching about integrity. When cornered, when evidence of wrongdoing and corruption are laid bare, it responds with aggressive deflection and deception.

Let us talk about accountability. This Government acts as if it answers to no one. Even the Auditor General for Scotland is impeded in his work, unable to access critical yet basic financial data. Everyone else is blamed. Colossal and costly failures usually result in promotion, not the sack—we need look no further than Humza Yousaf. The SNP has forgotten that principles matter. Values of honesty and integrity are gone from this Government. The only values that it is interested in are the ministerial salaries of Humza Yousaf’s continuity cronies.

What is now clear is that SNP politicians have absolutely no right to wag their fingers at anybody else. Just like the pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, the SNP now looks no different from Labour. These scandals have exposed an out-of-touch governing class of careerists and chancers. They could travel Scotland in their mysterious motorhome, but they will never find the moral high ground. They are as transparent as the painted windows of the ferry that was launched by Nicola Sturgeon. They have lost their way, and, if political justice is done, they will also lose the power that they take for granted.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, for coming in slightly late at the beginning of the debate.

At the outset, I will concede one point to the Tories with regard to the motion that we are debating today: it is abundantly clear that my party faces a range of issues at present. It is a party that has had stability for 19 years, a party that has been the party of choice for the electorate in this Parliament since 2007, and a party that has been the party of choice at Westminster for Scots since 2015. The issues are certainly not of my choosing, but I am convinced that we will get through them—and, with a huge amount of work, I believe that the electorate will continue to place their trust in us to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Many aspects of the motion surprise me. For example, I am pleased that the Tories seem now to accept that Westminster does not speak for Scotland, as their motion speaks of

“the governing party of Scotland”.

The Tories continually proclaim that Scotland has two Governments. Does that mean that the Tories are about to give up on the long-discredited union and the absolute shambles of a Government down the road at Westminster?

Ultimately, nobody in Scotland will be fooled by this debate. It is the Tories who are playing cheap party-political games, chasing headlines with absolutely zero credibility. Describing last week’s debate on the abhorrent and inhumane Illegal Migration Bill, Brian Whittle said:

“We could have had a constructive debate this afternoon, but we have instead had an exercise in performative anger.”

Brian Whittle also described that debate as

“an exercise in posturing in the absence of policy.”

Later, he described it as

“a point-scoring exercise and nothing more.”——[

Official Report

, 25 April 2023; c 56, 54, 56.]

I genuinely had no idea that Brian Whittle is the Scottish Parliament’s very own Nostradamus, but his predictions are so very apt for today’s debate.

The Tories talk about transparency as if they actually care about it. This from the party that has been up to its eyeballs in scandals, including cash for honours, cash for contracts, texts for tax breaks and even cash for curtains. In the eyes of the public, it is a UK Government that has normalised sleaze.

Let us take one example of that abuse of power: the cash-for-honours scandal.

Fifteen of the

Tory party’s main treasurers, who happened to hand over £3 million to the party, were coincidentally given life peerages in the House of Lords. Twenty-two of the Tory party’s top financial backers have all coincidentally been given peerages since 2010. In total, this group has stuffed the Tory party coffers with £54 million—yes, £54 million. We even have a situation whereby the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, tried to give his dad a peerage. Come on—what was all that about? Stephen Kerr is laughing, but Boris Johnson even tried tae gie his dad a peerage.

The Tories’ claims about transparency indicate the parallel universe in which the Tories live. Only last week, it was the Tories who wanted to shut out the press from asking their Prime Minister questions at their Scottish conference. The economic lessons that we were supposed to take from Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s time in charge were much lauded by Mr Ross before he quickly realised that he had backed the wrong horse. That is on top of the lying and scheming of the Brexit campaign led by Boris Johnson, which is estimated to have made the UK economy 5.5 per cent poorer than it would have been if we had stayed in the European Union, with UK imports and exports expected to be 15 per cent lower. It is no wonder that the International Monetary Fund predicts that the UK is set to be the worst-performing economy in the G20.

The Tories want transparency. Maybe they can respond to the following questions. Do they agree with the £8.7 billion wasted on unused or unusable personal protective equipment, storing it and prematurely cancelling PPE contracts? Do they agree with the Commons Public Accounts Committee report that found “no clear evidence” that the £29.5 billion spent on test and trace had any impact on reducing Covid infections? Do they agree that a firm owned by an ex-Conservative councillor and Conservative donor was awarded contracts worth £275 million for the supply of masks and gowns?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to conclude, Mr McMillan.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I could go on, but I am conscious of the time. The public know, and they will not be fooled by today’s debate.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Believe it or not, buried under the hypocrisy and the double standards in the motion, there are a few points that are actually issues for which the Scottish Government has responsibility. Believe it or not, I even agree with one of the points that the motion makes. The First Minister’s salary is an entirely reasonable level at which to set a threshold for proactive publication of the list of posts in the public sector whose holders are in receipt of high levels of pay.

However, I would go further than what the Conservatives propose. Significant services are delivered by the private sector on the public sector’s behalf, and high levels of pay inequality are certainly far more prevalent in the private sector. Therefore, if the aim is to reduce pay inequality and ensure best value for money for the public purse, I would not only support regular publication of those public sector posts the salaries for which are at or above that of the First Minister, as the Conservative motion proposes; I would want grants and procurement contracts that are awarded to the private and third sectors to be conditional on the receiving organisations opting in to that transparency mechanism. Regardless of who receives it, it is public money, and we should set high standards.

Given that the initial proposal is included in the Conservative motion, I would appreciate hearing the thoughts of Conservative members on expanding it in that manner. It is a timely suggestion, given that the Scottish Greens’ suggestion about a review of chief executives’ pay was accepted by the Scottish Government earlier this year. I hope that all parties engage with that review and with wider public sector pay policy at budget time.

One policy that I would like to put on the record now is that the salaries of college principals be brought into the pay framework for chief executives. They are the heads of large public bodies in Scotland, and some principals are—completely unjustifiably, in my view—on salaries larger than that of the First Minister. Indeed, the growth in principals’ pay over the past 30 years has massively outstripped that in the pay of college teaching and support staff. If the new-found enthusiasm in some quarters for good governance could extend to greater scrutiny of the governance of our colleges, that would have far more positive outcomes for the public than the partisan opportunism that motivated the choice of this afternoon’s debate.

If the Conservatives are interested in good party governance, they need to look much closer to home. According to the Good Law Project, since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a year ago, the Tory party has accepted at least £243,000 from donors associated with Russia. Much of that—£175,000—came from Lubov Chernukhin. Her husband is a former deputy finance minister under Putin and a former chairman of the state corporation VEB.RF, which is rightly subject to sanctions in the UK.

If that name is familiar here, that is because the same Lubov Chernukhin also paid £20,000 for a meal with Ruth Davidson. That meal did not go ahead, but the cheque was certainly cashed. The Tory party is awash with dodgy Kremlin-linked cash, and it has been for years, so I suppose that we should be grateful to the Tories for giving us the opportunity to put that on the parliamentary record.

There is a clear conflict of interests in political parties nominating their donors for awards and privileges, but it is particularly outrageous for donors to be nominated for lifetime appointments to Parliament via the House of Lords. As the Minister for Parliamentary Business mentioned, the Tories took that one step further when they appointed the party donor Malcolm Offord not just to the House of Lords, but to the Government, as a minister in the Scotland Office. This is a man who has never been elected to any office, who is not accountable to voters and who will have the power to influence the laws of the UK for the rest of his life. Why is he in that position? He donated £150,000 to the Tory party in the years leading up to his appointment.

Even other Tory party members have described the support that Mr Offord has received from their party leadership as cronyism. Talking about the endorsement that he received ahead of candidate selection for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election—this comment was made anonymously, so it might even have been made by someone who is in the room today—one Tory said:

“It seems all you need to get an endorsement is to have deep pockets.”

That is a pretty damning indictment from a member of Mr Offord’s own party.

There are, of course, only two parties in the Scottish Parliament that will not nominate to the House of Lords: the Scottish Greens and the SNP. I challenge those Opposition members who extol the virtues of transparency and accountability in government to reconcile that with their parties’ role in maintaining the undemocratic outrage of the House of Lords and the arcane mechanisms that, for example, allow the royal family to amend draft legislation in secret.

The Conservatives demand transparency and accountability from everyone but themselves. Today’s debate is not motivated by a principled belief in good governance; it is pure opportunism. However, it has spectacularly backfired for a party that has so much baggage of its own that we have barely scratched the surface this afternoon. Therefore, I finish by asking Douglas Ross if he would not mind bringing back a similar motion in the future. There is so much more rot at the heart of the Tory party, which we could do with putting on the parliamentary record.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to provide some balance for the benefit of Conservative colleagues. I can hear Douglas Ross muttering away. I welcome the motion in the same way that the Hibs fans welcomed Douglas Ross at McDiarmid park two weeks ago, although I will not use the same language that they used.

The motion talks about “the governing party” but, as the Tories never tire of saying—often tiresomely—as Stuart McMillan mentioned, Scotland has two Governments, and their party is also a governing party.

Yes, the Tories are transparent—so transparent that it is crystal clear to everyone that the motion is nothing more than an attempt to grab some headlines and deflect from the failures of their own Government at Westminster. Last week, for example, the Tories did not seem to think that debating the UK Government’s abhorrent anti-immigration bill was a good use of their time. So transparent was their discomfort that we could see only one or two of the back benchers—the others were completely transparent.

However, this week, the Tories are here aplenty for a debate about party-political matters. Let us play their game and do a wee test of transparency here. I am happy to give way to any Tory member who can and will tell us how many members the Tories have in Scotland. Anyone?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Before I take the intervention, will the member say whether he is going to answer the question? [

Interruption

.] No, I will not take the intervention. He is not going to answer the question. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please resume your seat, Mr Brown. As members know, it is up to each individual member whether they take an intervention.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I could not hear much of that exchange. I have obviously touched a raw nerve with the Conservatives. It was a simple question, but Douglas Ross has failed to answer it so many times. [

Interruption

.] I am struggling to hear myself speak, Deputy Presiding Officer. Is it possible to get some quiet, as Conservative members were given when they made their speeches?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There has been quite a lot of sedentary chitchat throughout the debate, and all speakers have probably had to put up with a bit of that. However, I invite members to listen to Mr Brown, please.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

According to the Conservatives’ chairman, Craig Hoy,

“there is a number, but”

they

“don’t disclose it”.

Demanding that the SNP does something that we have already done while refusing to do it themselves seems to be the Tory way.

I would also be happy to give way to any Tory who can tell us, to the nearest £1 billion—to make this as easy as possible—how much the Truss-Kwarteng economic experiment cost the people of Scotland.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

If Douglas Ross will answer the question.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that Keith Brown is giving way, Douglas Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful, because I want to go back to the last time that he said he would give way to any member. [

Interruption

.] Sorry, we cannot have—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members, members. I think that Mr Brown said that he would give way to Douglas Ross. Am I wrong in that, Mr Brown?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Will he answer the question now? [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am not in charge—[

Interruption

.] Mr Brown, please resume your seat.

As members well know, I am not in charge of the answers that are given. Could Mr Brown please clarify whether he is giving way to Mr Ross?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No. I was happy to give way to any Tory—[

Interruption

.] I was happy to give way to any Tory who could actually tell us—[

Interruption

.] I cannot hear what is being said. I was happy to give way to any Tory who could tell us not just how many members the Tory party has, but whether they actually know how many members they have, because that seems to be a moot point as well.

How can we expect—[

Interruption

.] As Russell Findlay had, I have only four minutes, most of which have been wasted already, so I am not giving way.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

When can we expect the publication of the Russia report? No answer there. The motion talks about transparency in Government—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose

—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have said three times that I am not giving way, Deputy Presiding Officer. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Members! Mr Ross, I think that Mr Brown is indicating that he is not giving way.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The motion talks about transparency in Government. We have no transparency whatsoever—

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I wonder whether Keith Brown, the SNP’s deputy leader, might like to clarify whether his questions are rhetorical or genuine.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is a debating point and not a point of order for the chair, Mr Halcro Johnston.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As ever, that was not a point of order.

Should we really expect that Scotland’s other Government—the Conservative Government—will release the polling evidence that it collected, at taxpayers’ expense, on support for Scottish independence? How about an arithmetical question? How much more is high speed 2 costing compared with its original estimate of around £30 billion? It is now over £100 billion.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way on that point?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that Mr Brown has indicated that he is not giving way. Mr Brown, your time is coming to a close fairly soon.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

How much is the £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the Prince of Wales worth now that it has been stripped for parts for its sister ship? How much of the European Union structural funds that used to come to Scotland and other parts of the UK have been cut from Scotland?

Let us have no more pious lectures from the Tories on transparency. After all, in 2021, during the current Prime Minister’s tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was revealed that the Treasury refused to comply with more freedom of information requests than any other department in Whitehall.

Members on our side have repeatedly called for a full public inquiry into the revelation that the UK Government used funds for Covid contracts to conduct research into constitutional issues—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Brown, you will need to conclude.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Brown.

We move to closing speeches. I call Michael Marra to wind up on behalf of Scottish Labour.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am happy to support the amendment in Jackie Baillie’s name on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party.

The SNP’s descent into chaos in recent months has certainly brought the dark underbelly of the party management into the light of day, but the culture of secrecy, spin and cover-up has been far reaching and—as Jackie Baillie rightly pointed out—has stretched the gap between party and Government. That requires remedy and scrutiny, and the implementation of the measures that are outlined in Labour’s amendment.

The debate has been of a rather dubious standard. The issues are incredibly serious, but there has been, I am afraid, no shortage of audacity from Tory members, in particular from Russell Findlay in citing Orwell. I am reminded that George Orwell also said:

“I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me. It resembles my own except that you happen to be insane.”

We heard Willie Rennie and Ross Greer recounting the VIP lane stuffed with Kremlin money. I think that it is right that those points are made in riposte to where the Tory motion is coming from today.

However, it is fair to say that the SNP back benchers, and the minister in his opening speech, have been rather remiss in their lack of recognition of the lack of transparency from the Government over many years. There was the surprisingly thin paper trail on the decision to award ferry contracts to Ferguson’s shipyard. There were reports from Audit Scotland—by now almost too numerous to mention—calling on the Scottish Government to improve transparency, in particular with regard to how it spends taxpayers’ money. There was a paucity of data on how nearly £5 billion of Covid-19 funding to support businesses was actually spent. There was also—again, as my colleague Jackie Baillie highlighted—the SNP Government’s dissembling, dishonest and duplicitous approach to the provision of documentation in the Salmond inquiry, with that committee facing obstruction at every turn.

I turn to the exploitation of lobbying register loopholes. In 2020 alone, hundreds of meetings between Scottish Government ministers and lobbyists were not registered. There is also a fully contemptuous approach to freedom of information requests—

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Not at this moment, thank you.

There is a contemptuous approach to FOI requests, culminating most shamefully in the Government’s failure to disclose Covid-19 data modelling. That cover-up was then challenged by the Scottish Information Commissioner, who said that there was a lack of compliance and found that there was a “strong public interest” in publishing that data.

Turning to warnings about patient safety from staff and patients at Queen Elizabeth university hospital that were covered up in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, it is absolutely clear that the board was aided and abetted by the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Humza Yousaf. He failed to remove those who were responsible, backing that culture of secrecy, cover-up and incompetence. Although, to most, that behaviour showed Mr Yousaf to be unworthy of his position, in the eyes of the SNP high command, it proved that he was the ideal candidate—the continuity candidate—who was capable of ascending to the highest office in the land.

However, the people of Scotland are not fooled by any of that. The SNP is led by that continuity candidate, and it is infected by the same culture of secrecy, spin and cover-up that has festered at the heart of the party for too long. Again, as Orwell said,

“The end was contained in the beginning.”

Labour’s amendment calls for serious measures and actions that can improve transparency on behalf of the people of Scotland. The good governance of our country and of the public services on which we all rely needs to see the restoration of integrity and transparency to the heart of Government. Scottish Labour’s “Stronger Holyrood” paper sets out how we would do that, as is contained in our amendment. I hope that members are able to back it in that spirit.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Tom Arthur to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank members on all sides of the chamber for their contributions. It is important that we, as a Parliament, consider how we can enhance scrutiny and transparency of not only the work of the Government more generally but the activities of Parliament, which have also been touched on.

It is important to recognise that we operate in a devolved context, so the way in which this Parliament and this Government interact with the UK Government, and the way in which processes are conducted by the UK Government and the UK Parliament impact on the processes that we undertake. That is quite clear when it comes to the matter of public finances and budgeting.

Of course, we operate under a fiscal framework that is, as I think we all recognise, one of the most complex sets of arrangements between a state level Government and a sub-state level Government to be found anywhere in the world. If I recall correctly, an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report a few years ago highlighted that point.

That can create genuine challenges in presenting information transparently and clearly; indeed, it can also present challenges for the Government, particularly when we consider—members who have served in the House of Commons will be aware of this—the rather esoteric approach to finance that Westminster has, through votes on confidence, main estimates and supplementary estimates. That approach can mean that we discover changes to our budget only late on in the financial year.

We have, in the Scottish Parliament, a well-established process in relation to public finances. We have the annual budget statement, followed by the three-stage budget bill process and, routinely, two budget-revision processes in the financial year. During the Covid pandemic, we took the extraordinary step of having an additional budget-revision process.

Along with all that, we have statements on provisional outturn, a rates resolution, as is required under statute, and the local government finance order, which provides multiple parliamentary opportunities for engagement.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I

am grateful to the minister for laying out the budget process, but will he, in the interests of transparency, encourage cessation of use of SNP emails and WhatsApp messages to avoid scrutiny of ministerial discussions and decision making?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Everything that we undertake in the Government, and all decisions that we take around the budget process, are taken through Scottish Government systems. The information exists, and I certainly assure members that I and my colleagues undertake that process.

I want to come back to—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister give way?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I have

already given way, and I barely have a minute remaining.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Baillie, are you making a point of order?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am happy to make a point of order.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I was not inviting you to do so: I was just asking you whether you are.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I wonder whether the minister heard my question, because he certainly did not answer it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ms Baillie, as you know, that is not a point of order.

Minister—over to you.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

In relation to the processes that I was setting out,

I made reference to the on-going work around the budget process, but I recognise that there is a desire to do more. I have certainly seen that through engagement with the Finance and Public Administration Committee. There has been constructive engagement with Liz Smith and with Daniel Johnson, in his former role, and I look forward to constructive engagement with Mr Marra about ways in which we can provide additional information, particularly around the budget-revision processes, which can be quite fluid and dynamic, especially in relation to the challenges that we face around supplementary estimates.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

With his making this calm and intelligent contribution, I do not think that the minister was here earlier in the debate. Nevertheless, would he be in favour of freedom of information reform along lines that Katy Clark proposes, which would allow us to scrutinise the public finances in public bodies?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I know that the Government will be consulting on matters pertaining to FOI. I do not have lead responsibility on FOI, but Willie Rennie has made his point, and the Minister for Cabinet and Parliamentary Business will have heard it.

The point that I want to come to is that our consolidated accounts have had unqualified clean audits for the past 17 years. However, I recognise nonetheless that there will always be challenges around ensuring that information is accessible and as transparent as possible. It is also absolutely vital that the work that we undertake in the Scottish Parliament is as accessible and transparent as possible to the people who vote for us. That will always be challenging for any state.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I fear that the minister is probably bringing his remarks to a close.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

That will be challenging

with regard to the devolved context in which we operate.

As I have said previously, I make an open offer; I want to ensure that everyone we are so privileged and honoured to serve has as much information as possible, and that that information is presented in a way that is transparent, inherently discernible and easy to grasp.

I very much want to have those discussions and conversations with any members who have a desire, beyond the theatrics of today, to engage constructively on something that is of such vital importance. I look forward to conversations with Opposition finance spokespeople and, as I said, I extend the offer to all members, because we have a shared interest and a shared responsibility.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank all the participants in this afternoon’s debate. There are many issues that we would prefer to have been debating this afternoon. Indeed, we will shortly be moving on to the vital subject of highly protected marine areas. However, the debate was, sadly, necessary, because the whole issue of SNP party finances—the scandal, and perhaps even criminality—has become a distraction from the business of Government.

We called for the First Minister to come clean and make a statement to Parliament on his party’s finances so that we can all move on, but he refused to do so and sent George Adam to do his dirty work for him.

At least Mr Adam has a sense of humour. He read out with a straight face the line in the amendment that says

“good governance and transparency are matters of the utmost importance”.

I commend him for that. At this rate, he will be making a bid to fill the vacancy that has appeared at the Stand Comedy Club following the removal of Joanna Cherry, who has been cancelled by it. Incidentally, nobody in her party seems to be prepared to speak up for Joanna Cherry—not the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, nor Shirley-Anne Somerville when she was on the radio this morning, and not even the First Minister. The SNP has left Conservative members to defend free speech and Joanna Cherry.

During the debate, we have learned that there only seems to be one line of defence from the SNP. Its members have kept on repeating, parrot-like, “How many members do you have?” One would think that an entire army of special advisers, advisers, spin doctors and press officers could have dreamed up one other attack line. Even poor Keith Brown was exhausted by the end of the debate.

There are legitimate questions that need to be answered, and it is simply not enough to say that answers cannot be provided because there is a police inquiry. What has happened to the £600,000 of ring-fenced funds that were raised for another independence referendum? What is the real position of the SNP party’s finances? Is the party on the brink of financial collapse, as some people have suggested

? Why did its auditors resign? Why did the former chief executive grant a substantial personal loan that has been only partly repaid? Why on earth did it purchase, as a campaign vehicle, a camper van—one that seems not to have moved for the past two years? None of that makes sense.

We learned today that the SNP has now appointed new auditors—AMS Accountants Group Ltd of Manchester. Perhaps it is not the greatest start to learn that that business is already late in filing necessary paperwork with Companies House. I hope that it will attend to the SNP’s documentation better than it seems to be handling its own.

What we see in the SNP’s finances is all too typical of the way that the Government conducts its business—as a number of members from around the chamber have made clear.

Last week, during the finance debate, I identified concerns that have been raised about lack of transparency across a range of Government decisions, including investment in private companies such as Burntisland Fabrications Ltd, or BiFab, Glasgow Prestwick Airport Ltd and GFG Alliance. Those issues have been identified by the former Auditor General, the current Auditor General and even by the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee.

We learned this week, from evidence sessions at the finance committee, that former ministers, senior civil servants and special advisors have denounced Scottish Government decision making as “rushed ... unclear and unstructured”. Even those who have been at the heart of the Government know that it is getting this badly wrong.

Liz Smith reminded us of the need for transparency in Government.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Do Murdo Fraser and his party have any self-awareness, at all? I have been sitting listening to the debate. His party took us all for mugs during the pandemic with contracts for its cronies—as the UK Labour Party has pointed out—and they partied the whole time. This is absolutely shameful.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What a bizarre intervention, which has nothing to do with the debate. I say to Fulton MacGregor that when we shine a light on the Scottish Government’s track record on procurement of PPE and other matters we will find that the choices that it made were not dissimilar to those that were made by the UK Government at the time, so he needs to be very careful about what he says.

Like Jackie Baillie, I recall sitting two years ago on the committee of this Parliament that looked at the handling of harassment complaints against the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, and I recall the deplorable attempts at a cover-up that we saw from the SNP Government, the refusal to release vital documentation that that committee needed and the unwillingness to co-operate with a cross-party inquiry.

It took the threat of a vote of no confidence in John Swinney, the then Deputy First Minister, to get the documentation that that parliamentary committee required. Nothing, it seems, has got any better in the interim.

Today, we have a motion that notes the lack of transparency in the Government and gives a range of positive proposals on how to make matters better. It also calls for a statement to Parliament on the governance of the Scottish National Party—the party of government here.

Those are all matters of legitimate public interest. We know that there are SNP members in this Parliament who share our concerns; they agree with us that something has gone far wrong with SNP finances. They are as appalled as we are at what has been going on and they, as we do, want answers.

We have already seen within the SNP a willingness among some back benchers to stand up to their leadership. We have seen that in respect of issues such as the A9 and the deposit return scheme. We might also be about to see it in relation to marine protected areas. We saw it in relation to the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, on which there was an unprecedented rebellion. I call on SNP back benchers to show the same resilience today.

I am not a supporter of independence, but if I was trying to make the case for independence, I would want to demonstrate that the Scottish Government is as effective and transparent as possible. Immense damage is being done to the body politic in Scotland by the culture of secrecy and cover-up. I hope that all members from all parties will be prepared to join us in voting for the motion, and I hope in particular that SNP members with conscience and a backbone will be prepared to join us, because that is the least that Scotland will expect.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate on the transparency of Scotland’s governing party. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change positions, should they wish to do so.

Highly Protected Marine Areas

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-08766, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, on reconsidering highly protected marine areas. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Today’s debate on highly protected marine areas is a rare opportunity for the Parliament to agree on something. We should all agree on standing up for coastal and fishing communities.

Last month, the First Minister outlined his priorities for Scotland. He spoke for almost half an hour. He failed to mention fishing or farming once. However, it is never too late to start listening, admit your mistakes and go back to the drawing board. In opening this debate, I appeal directly to Scottish National Party members of the Scottish Parliament representing coastal communities and to other colleagues who want Scottish fishing to thrive in the future.

Anyone who rigidly follows the party line when they know the damage that these plans could do will owe their constituents, Scotland’s fishing industry and coastal and rural communities an explanation. This is not about siding with me and my colleagues on the Conservative benches; it is about siding with the Scottish fishing industry. We should be proud of that industry, which contributes over £0.5 billion to our economy each year.

On top of the challenges that those in the industry are already facing with spatial squeeze, they are contending with a fishing ban that threatens to destroy their livelihoods for good. It is clear to them, as it is to us, that the proposed fishing ban goes too far with too little evidence. We know how that came about: on a dark day, in a dishonourable agreement that was signed in August 2021.

Màiri McAllan’s amendment shows that the Government is not only failing to listen to the concerns of our fishermen and our coastal communities but that it has turned its back on science and certainty. It makes a mockery of the consultation process by taking for granted the fact that highly protected marine areas will be designated. Popeye Ewing must have fisherman’s forearms to have ripped the document apart last night—believe me, I have tried.

The SNP amendment potentially misleads the Parliament in suggesting that the plans are in line with the European Union’s, when, in fact, Scotland has already gone over and above its marine protected area targets. It cites evidence from one area and entirely ignores contradictory evidence from another. The Bute house agreement has much to answer for. It rides roughshod over the livelihoods of hard-working fishermen, with a blatant disregard for the communities that they support and the science around the matter that we are discussing.

The arbitrary figure of 10 per cent of Scottish waters being designated as highly protected marine areas has been plucked from the sky with no scientific backing or ecological justification to underpin it. The First Minister insisted that the Government would not impose those policies on communities that do not want them. Now, the line in the SNP’s amendment has changed to refer to vehement opposition. Even if it could be defined or measured, it is evident that the Government is moving the goalposts. There has been no explanation of the problem that those proposals are trying to address or the goal that they are trying to achieve. We do not even know how effective the existing marine protected area network is in supporting and maintaining biodiversity in our waters. There has been no impact assessment of how those plans would affect our coastal communities and no feasibility study into how they could be implemented and enforced.

My colleague Murdo Fraser has just discussed a recent inquiry in which we learnt that former ministers, senior civil servants and special advisers believe that Scottish Government decision making is rushed, unclear and unstructured, as we saw with the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. We are here again. To describe the policy as rushed, unclear and unstructured would be far too generous. On the other side of the conversation, the fishing sector has taken its time to construct clear, coherent arguments against the proposals.

Nonetheless, it is important to say that I absolutely understand the need to protect our marine environment. I am certain that that is another point on which we can all agree.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In March, Rachael Hamilton’s colleague Thérèse Coffey, the Conservative Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, called HPMAs a vital way forward, and she subsequently introduced them in England. How does the member reconcile that with her remarks?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The difference with the Scottish Government’s approach is that it is not bringing the coastal communities with it. The document is a paper exercise and an online process that has had no consultation with any coastal communities at all. The difference between that and the United Kingdom Government’s approach is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted coastal communities. The fishermen even agreed on the sites that were proposed.

No one gets this more than fishermen, because without good fish stocks, their businesses would struggle. As the former finance secretary said, if we

“sever the lifeline with fishing, we will undermine the wider economy”—

[Official Report

, 2 May 2023; c 92.]

of coastal communities. She is right. That is a clear sign of the need to work with fishermen on those issues instead of imposing arbitrary, unevidenced restrictions on their activities. With sustainable fishing practices, our fleet has seen fish stocks rebound over the past 20 years. Plaice, hake and haddock have all seen their populations grow considerably during that time because of sustainable practices, which is down to the hard work of the fishermen who know our seas best, not the result of top-down desktop policies, as we heard during Beatrice Wishart’s members’ business debate on highly protected marine areas.

Our coastal communities have asked the Scottish Government to reconsider these plans. The fishermen in those vulnerable, fragile, rural, coastal communities need to be heard.

Today, the motion presents the Scottish Parliament with a clear choice: we can stand behind these communities, go back to the drawing board and work with them, rather than against them, to protect our seas; or we can press ahead with these unevidenced, unwanted and hugely damaging plans.

We should be under no illusion: these communities are clear that a fishing ban is an existential threat not only to their jobs but to their way of life. We have an opportunity to send them a message that we have listened and we will support them. We have a plan to do that and we want to work with this Government and all parties to ensure that we can protect them and our oceans. I believe that our motion does that, and that the amendments from Labour and the Liberal Democrats show their willingness to do that. I welcome their support and that they are standing up for fishermen, and I am sure that there are others on the back benches who will also stand up for their constituents.

I move,

That the Parliament values the £560 million that fishing contributes to Scotland’s economy and the communities that rely on that industry; recognises fish and shellfish as Scotland’s climate-smart food; further recognises that the fishing industry has worked constructively with the Scottish Government for many years on the network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) covering 37% of Scotland’s seas; notes that the Scottish Government’s plans to arbitrarily designate 10% of Scotland’s waters as Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs) with no scientific basis, or proper analysis of any ecological justification; further notes the significant concerns of the fishing sector as a whole and the coastal communities that rely on it, in relation to the Scottish Government’s HPMA proposals and that those proposals have failed to gain the support of coastal communities and that many local authorities also oppose them; notes the lack of any baseline, reliable methodology or modelling and a lack of suitable indicators for assessing their impact; believes that the HPMA policy is at odds with the Scottish Government’s own established cycle of reviewing the MPA network that has been carefully and rigorously developed, and calls upon the Scottish Government to fundamentally reconsider its HPMA proposals and the timeframe for their introduction.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As I do not have a great deal of speaking time, I will restrict my opening remarks on behalf of the Government to what I think are the key issues.

First, it is an unavoidable truth that we are in the midst of a climate and nature emergency. This Parliament recognised that when every party proceeded to pass some of the world’s most ambitious climate targets into law.

Our oceans are a vital part of the emergency response that is needed. Scotland’s marine environment stores at least 5.6 billion tonnes of CO2

, but recent research shows that the oceans are reaching their capacity to help us. That is because of a number of issues, including human impact on them. If we do not protect our seas, they will not be able to protect us for much longer. Despite the considerable progress that has been made to improve the state of our oceans, the Scottish marine assessment of 2020 shows that a number of species are in decline. The most recent assessment under the UK marine strategy showed that, across the UK, 11 out of 15 indicators of good environmental status are being missed.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Could the cabinet secretary set out exactly how banning fishing will reduce greenhouse gases?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Finlay Carson may wish to use language such as “banning fishing”, but the point is that we are in the midst of a consultation process that asks about the principles of HPMAs, including how they are constituted and what features we might wish to protect. The consultation includes the issue of blue carbon, which directly responds to Finlay Carson’s point. However, the issue is not just about carbon; it is about ecosystems and species abundance, issues that are critically important to the equilibrium of our natural world. All of those issues are connected to the climate emergency, and I would expect Finlay Carson to understand that.

That matters to me, and it matters most of all to the people who are economically, socially and culturally connected to our seas.

That brings me to my second point, which is that it is an unavoidable truth that, as we take the action that we have to take to respond to the climate emergency, we have to do it in a way that is fair, just and leaves no one and no community behind. That is the task that I and the Scottish Government are committed to, and it is one that we take very seriously indeed. That is why we have approached this really complex and emotive topic with as much democracy as possible. It is why, at this early stage in the process, the Scottish Government has held no fewer than 40 stakeholder meetings during the development of the consultation and since then, to assist stakeholders in completing—

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am sorry, but I do not have any more time to take interventions from the Conservatives.

The meetings that we held included ones with regional inshore fisheries groups, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Communities Inshore Fisheries Alliance and the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation. As I said, we must respond to the climate emergency in a way that is fair, just and leaves no one and no community behind. That is why we met yesterday with MSPs, it is why I have committed to meet with communities across the summer and it is why I reiterate my commitment to look very closely at the thousands of consultation responses that we have received. I commit myself to that without politicking and without positioning, which I regret that some are very much engaging with.

Let us be clear: every party in this Parliament was elected on a manifesto commitment to marine protection.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

No—I am afraid that I do not have time.

The Conservatives stood on a manifesto commitment to HPMA pilots, and the Labour Party stood on a manifesto to include 20 per cent of Scotland’s waters in highly protected marine areas—double what the Scottish Government consultation proposed. Therefore, I assume that we agree that action is needed.

I realise that I am very short of time, so in the time that I have left—

The Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, I am afraid that you are over your time, so I ask you to conclude at this point.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am short of time, so let me just—

The Presiding Officer

I regret that I cannot let you continue, because we are very tight for time this afternoon.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

That is a shame, Presiding Officer.

I move amendment S6M-08766.3, to leave out from “the Scottish Government’s plans” to end and insert:

“Scotland is in the midst of a climate and nature crisis and that decision-makers must be prepared to take action commensurate with the scale of that challenge, including enhanced marine protection, through a fair and just transition; believes that Scotland’s seas must remain a source of economic prosperity for the nation, especially in remote, coastal and island communities; recognises the considerable strength of feeling on Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs); highlights that no sites have been selected, and welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to work with island and coastal communities, including the fishing sector, throughout the site selection process to ensure that their views are listened to and understood; notes the Scottish Government’s commitment that it will not impose HMPAs on communities that are vehemently opposed to them; understands that comparable levels of high protection are found internationally, and that Scotland’s proposals are similar to the EU’s commitment; notes the clear evidence base that shows the positive impact that enhanced marine protection makes, once in place, on recovering ecosystems and supporting a sustainable fishery sector; believes that the experience of the Lamlash Bay no-take zone has shown the benefits for both the marine environment and the people who rely on it; remains committed to supporting Scotland’s fishing sector, which plays such a key role in contributing to the country’s economic prosperity, especially in remote, rural and island communities, and believes that the real threat to the Scottish fishing industry is the continuing adverse impacts of Brexit and the UK Government’s immigration policies.”

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I start by expressing our disappointment at the Scottish Government’s amendment. The tone and content do not demonstrate any understanding of the consternation that is felt by our coastal communities. Let me be clear that we are all concerned about our marine environment and protecting it—none more so than those people whose parents fished the seas, who continue to fish themselves and who wish to ensure that their children will be able to fish in the future.

In support of the Government’s proposals, the example of Lamlash Bay is often quoted, but that example makes my point. The Government did not impose the Lamlash Bay no-take zone on the community—the community fought for it.

Local people who know their seas fought hard for those powers, for which the Scottish Government now seeks to take credit. It took the community 13 long years to fight the system and get that protection.

It is also noticeable that Broad Bay is not so often quoted as an example.

The HPMA proposals seek to ban the most sustainable form of fishery that we have: static gear boats, which are small boats that fish in local waters and cannot move to other fishing grounds.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I believe that the only species that is really left at Broad Bay is starfish.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That is correct. Untold damage has been caused to the fishery there.

The other thing that cannot help but leave us gasping is that, under those proposals, paddle boarding and swimming can also be banned, which makes no sense at all.

We are concerned that more and more fisheries will be funnelled into smaller areas that will end up overfished. It is really concerning that these are top-down proposals. The First Minister gave a commitment that they would not be imposed on coastal communities, but the Scottish Government motion now says that they will not be imposed

“on communities that are vehemently opposed to them”.

Does the Government really want those communities to demonstrate vehement opposition? What would that look like?

That is not a just transition. I am already hearing about boats going on sale and families preparing to move away as a direct result of the policy. That is deeply damaging, given that the areas concerned are also subject to depopulation right now. The uncertainty that surrounds the proposals is damaging local economies; people cannot invest and banks will not support them, because their businesses might not have any future.

It is not just fisheries but fish farming, seaweed cultivation and harvesting that are involved. The list is long and includes the many businesses that depend on marine tourism. However, ScotWind areas are exempt. The waters that were sold on the cheap, with no community benefit, will be exempt in order to protect foreign investors. Exempting them and their profits shows the priorities of the Government—it does not care about small businesses, including the one-person or two-people businesses that are being put out of work and forced to leave. Those small businesses are not being given any exclusions.

I have never seen such a backlash. Everyone who I have spoken to in coastal communities is furious. It takes a lot to drive people to write songs, and it takes even more to make Donald Francis MacNeil sing them. The Government should not underestimate the vehement opposition to the proposals.

I move amendment S6M-08766.1, to insert at end:

“, and urges the Scottish Government to work with fishing communities and economies that have safeguarded the seas for generations to support and empower them to protect these fishing grounds for future generations, and to ensure that appropriate exclusions are put in place to benefit local communities and economies without being to the detriment of the marine environment.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It appears that, if we wait ages for a debate on HPMAs, two will come along in quick succession.

I thank again all those who took part in last night’s debate, which was led by my colleague Beatrice Wishart. I think that it sent the most unambiguous message about the strength of cross-party opposition to the Government’s proposed approach on HPMAs. Of course, that is merely a reflection of the anger—and, in some cases, fury—that is felt in island and coastal communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Therefore, it is right that we return to the subject again today, and I thank Rachael Hamilton for allowing us to do so.

Sadly, the Government’s amendment is a rather predictable and vintage example of whatabootery. Brexit continues to cause great damage, and the United Kingdom Tory Government’s policies on skilled worker visas are indefensible. However, as Elspeth Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has made clear,

“whatever issues the industry has with Brexit and labour issues, these pale into insignificance if fishermen are banned from fishing.”

The topic of today’s debate is the same as last night, but the cast list looks a little different. Much like the HPMA designation, members operating arguments that are felt to be potentially damaging to the Bute house agreement are to be arbitrarily excluded. As such, Fergus Ewing, Kate Forbes and Alasdair Allan find themselves tied up in port by the SNP whips office. Yet, appropriately, there is no evidence that this forced tie-up regime will provide any protection for the SNP-Green Government’s policy on HPMAs, particularly when assurances that were previously offered up by the First Minister and the cabinet secretary are already being redefined and diluted.

Humza Yousaf could not have been clearer in stating that he would not

“impose these policies on communities that don’t want them.”

That promise was echoed by the cabinet secretary. Now, we are told that there needs to be “vehement” opposition, whatever that means.

The lack of any prior discussion or consultation with stakeholders in the fishing, aquaculture and other key sectors that are most directly affected is inexcusable. It has seen Government policy, developed—

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not have time, I am afraid, Mr Whittle.

It has seen Government policy, developed and consulted on over years, upended and replaced by closed-door negotiations in Bute house between the SNP and Greens. That is not evidence-based policy making; that is not ministers being inclusive or accessible. It makes a mockery of any commitment that the Government professes to genuine island proofing, which is a point that I make in my amendment.

As Rhoda Grant has said, damage is already being done through heightened uncertainty and a collapse in confidence. Reaching agreement on measures that might actually help to protect our marine environment have been made more difficult to achieve. The Government’s handbrake turn undermines those in the fishing sector who are already leading efforts to manage, protect and enhance stocks and biodiversity.

In my Orkney constituency, fishers recognise that their sector relies on healthy ecosystems and environments. They have been working in partnership with academics and environmental groups on a range of projects, including tagging brown crab; trialling technology in creels to measure environmental variables such as salinity, temperature, light and current; using cameras to understand interactions of creels with the sea bed; recording sightings of cetaceans and seabirds; and carrying out a carbon audit of Orkney’s fleet. That is precisely what we would want to see in the interests of our fishing sector, the marine environment and our island and coastal communities.

I will finish with the words of Hannah Fennell of the Orkney Fisheries Association, who told me earlier this week:

“HPMAs undermine the concept of environmental stewardship. Instead of punishing those who live near and work in the marine environment, the Government should be empowering communities and fishers. The knowledge fishers hold should be seen as an asset, and part of the solution to the twin climate crises.”

I could not agree more.

I move amendment S6M-08766.2, to insert at end:

“; recalls the passing of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which allows for the ‘island proofing’ of legislation, meaning that the needs of island communities must be taken into consideration when creating policy or legislation, and believes that this approach must be followed in relation to Highly Protected Marine Areas.”

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

At the outset, I will say that I was taken aback by the call that I was on yesterday afternoon with many MSPs. On that call, we were asked for our opinions on HPMAs, which is a bit late, and I am not sure that it actually followed the advice that had been given. It was disturbing—and must have been disturbing for the cabinet secretary—to hear from nearly all the MSPs on the call that the level of responses, and the pure venom in some of those responses, had not been experienced by those parliamentarians before.

Presiding Officer, you will know, as I do, that many songs and folk songs that we hear are written about either heroes or villains. In this case, a folk song, “The Clearances Again”, has been written. It is not about heroes; it is about villains. That is the way that the islanders view it.

If we consider all the Highlands and Islands MSPs, there is no doubt that the Conservatives understand the issue. I know that Labour understands it, and I know that the Liberal Democrats get it. I am pretty sure that the Greens do not get it. I am also pretty sure that some SNP members get it. We listened to Fergus Ewing’s members’ business speech last night—he gets it. I will come back to that later. I think that Kate Forbes gets it, too.

However, it is clear that the other two Highlands and Islands MSPs, Maree Todd and Emma Roddick, do not get it. In fact, I do not even see them in the chamber. Perhaps that is because they have taken the Government’s shilling and they do not have to respond or take part in this debate. However, there is no doubt that they will pay for that at the next election.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Edward Mountain will know that the whole of Scotland’s seafood sector is united in its opposition to HPMAs. Does he agree that the proposals are about the survival not only of fishing and aquaculture but of the very communities that rely on them?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Absolutely. I take this opportunity to thank Beatrice Wishart for enabling last night’s members’ business debate, which was really interesting. One thing that we must understand—I will come on to this—is the importance of not destroying the livelihoods of those people who are employed in the local economy and who live in that area.

There is no doubt that, if we start a hare running, it is difficult to stop it. That is exactly what this Government has done with HPMAs. It has no clear idea about how it will achieve its aims, but it has a clear idea that it must get on with it, because the Greens are telling it to do so. Furthermore, it has no clear idea how it will save the jobs of the fishermen. The Greens do not care about that because, to them, those jobs are collateral damage.

The Government will push on with a policy that, to me, is not based on the knowledge of those people who live and work in that environment, who protect that environment, who cherish that environment and who have no wish to destroy it because it forms part of their livelihood.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I agree with Edward Mountain about the importance of those communities. From the beginning, I have been clear that the measures would be developed hand in hand with them by a broad and deep consultation at the start of the process. How does he think that I could have more meaningfully engaged with communities that I have been so clear that I care deeply about?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, I do not know whether I will get back my time for that.

No, that is not what the communities see. They see a centralised Government pushing down from on top without listening to a word that they are saying. If the cabinet secretary is in any doubt about that, all that I would say to her is that she should take the time to come up to my office and have a look at some of the emails that I have received. I will be very happy to share them with her.

Presiding Officer, I know that, because I took some interventions, I will have to end my speech early.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I have had sincere and deep ponderings over this debate today and, in fact, over the past few weeks. I have had cause to really take time to reflect.

My concerns about HPMAs and the impact that they will have on fishers and coastal communities across Scotland are well known to the Scottish Government. First and foremost, however, I hope that they are known to the fishers across my constituency, because representing the coastal communities of Banffshire and Buchan Coast is a great honour and one that I do not take lightly. It is for that reason that I wish to make this promise to them: I promise that I will never support a policy that would be to the detriment of the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities across Scotland. I was elected to be a strong voice for our coastal communities and a steward and an advocate of not just the people but the land and the sea, and I will be just that.

Our rural communities have been through a great deal over the past few years. As a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I have listened to some devastating testimonies about the impact of Brexit on our farmers and fishers. The loss of European Union funding as a result of the reckless Tory Brexit is just one example of the significant damage that has been imposed on our rural economies. We place so much responsibility for delivering net zero on our rural industries. We must remember that our farmers and fishers are also responsible for our food security.