Scottish Parliament, 7 June 2023

367 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very rarely make a point of order, but I feel that it is important to make one on this occasion to ensure that the answers that are provided by ministers to the Parliament are accurate and reflect reality. During yesterday’s topical question time, in response to my supplementary question, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity stated:

“I also remind the member that barcodes are not part of the regulations passed by the Scottish Parliament and are therefore not part of the legislation that we can consider here.”—[

Official Report

, 6 June 2023, c 8.]

However, the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Regulations 2020, which were passed by the Parliament, require European article numbers or barcodes to be included in any application for producer registration, as set out in schedule 1 of the regulations. I would be grateful if the Presiding Officer would confirm whether there has been any attempt by the minister to correct the

Official Report

on that point.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As members have been reminded on numerous occasions, there are appropriate mechanisms for amending the record, and it is up to members whether they choose to avail themselves of those mechanisms.

We will proceed with the first item of business, which is portfolio question time.

Apologies—the Minister for Cabinet and Parliamentary Business has to move a business motion first. I ask George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motion S6M-09390.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought that I had come down to the chamber for no reason.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I think that you will find that constitution portfolio questions are well worth the trip down from the ministerial office. [

Laughter

.]

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Wednesday 7 June 2023—

after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture;

Justice and Home Affairs

insert

followed by

Ministerial Statement: Deposit Return Scheme

delete

5.10 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.40 pm Decision Time—[

George Adam

]

Motion agreed to.

Constitution, External Affairs and Culture

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We can now move on to the long-anticipated portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture.

Pakistan (Flooding)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to Pakistan, following the severe flooding that the country experienced in 2022. (S6O-02324)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The Scottish Government has provided £1.5 million in support to the people of Pakistan following the devastating floods in 2022. We have awarded £1 million in humanitarian support to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal and members of our humanitarian emergency fund—HEF—panel, which is helping to deliver relief on the ground in Pakistan.

We have provided an additional £500,000 for our existing British Council Pakistan women and girls scholarships programme to double the number of school and university scholarships that are available to women and girls in the worst affected areas, ensuring that they can continue their education with minimal disruption.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I put on record my support for all those who are still involved in the aftermath and who are supporting communities to recover, such as the Disasters Emergency Committee.

The minister mentioned direct funding to Pakistan, and the Government is also committed to increasing its international development fund to £15 million each year, but stakeholders have told me that they are unsure how the money will actually be used by the Scottish Government. Will the minister outline what work the Scottish Government is doing with the international development sector in Scotland to ensure that the increase in the fund will be used in country and in community? Will she also outline how the increase will help communities in Pakistan to recover from the extreme weather disruption and what it will do for other countries that are affected, the number of which will only increase due to the climate emergency? How will it help not just to get them back to where they were but to build in resilience against future climate disasters?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I make the usual reminder that questions must be brief and ministerial responses must be as brief as possible, to allow everybody to get their question in.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Those are really important questions. We have seen the impact of flooding across Malawi and the impact of climate change. During the past few weeks, I have been discussing with officials the work that we need to undertake. I met members of the HEF and others during the past few weeks. I am keen to come back to Sarah Boyack with an update on what we are doing with the fund and the criteria for using it and to answer the questions about how it will be used.

Culture and Heritage (Community Facilities)

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting community-based facilities in the West Scotland region to preserve Scottish culture and heritage. (S6O-02325)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The

Scottish Government supports a range of organisations that help to preserve our culture and heritage in communities across Scotland.

We provide targeted support for culture and heritage facilities through our funding to local authorities, organisations and public bodies, including Creative Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland. In 2022-23, Creative Scotland invested £85.4 million in the West Scotland region.

Our Culture Collective programme brings together creative practitioners, organisations and—importantly—communities across Scotland to work together to shape the future cultural life of their communities. In West Scotland, Culture Collective supports programmes including Inverclyde Culture Collective, Evolve and Ayr Gaiety.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

As gateways to knowledge and culture, libraries play a vital role in our society. However, under the Scottish National Party Government, they are—sadly—declining. In 2009-10, 65 full-time staff were employed in libraries in East Dunbartonshire. However, in 2022-23, there were just 38 full-time staff. Local councils are having to plug budget gaps that have been created by the SNP Government cuts.

What more will the Scottish Government do to keep our libraries open and to ensure that knowledge and cultural heritage are preserved?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Pam Gosal makes an excellent point about how important libraries are. They are so important that the responsibility for them is devolved to local authorities, and it is the responsibility of local authorities to take that work forward.

Of course, we know about the wellbeing, health and education impact of local libraries, and we have been working closely with the sector to ensure that we can maintain libraries, too.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister will be well aware of many community organisations that are trying to save Scotland’s built heritage that is at risk. A good example is an organisation called the Springburn Winter Gardens Trust, of which I am the chair. The trust is trying to save Scotland’s largest Victorian glasshouse, which is in an increasingly perilous state of dereliction and has been abandoned since 1983.

We have been really struggling to try to achieve the necessary capital funds to initiate works to save the building. Would the minister be willing to meet me and the trustees to see whether we can find a viable way to save this historic building, which is in one of Scotland’s poorest communities?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I know the winter gardens well, having spent a lot of time in that park with my cousins when I was growing up, so I am well aware of the building.

Historic Environment Scotland’s heritage and place programme is an area-based funding programme that aims to contribute to the development of vibrant, sustainable places in Scotland through community-led regeneration—exactly what Paul Sweeney is speaking about. I would be happy to meet Paul Sweeney and the organisation, because we have a number of ways in which we can support communities to ensure that they maintain and sustain heritage and keep it for the future.

Scottish Opera (Orchestra)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported comments by Scottish Opera, regarding the disbanding of an orchestra due to the lack of young people in the industry. (S6O-02326)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

We know that participating in cultural activity from a young age boosts our wellbeing and helps us to develop valuable life skills.

The Scottish Government provides significant funding to support access to music and the arts for young people across Scotland. That includes the provision of £9.5 million in this financial year for the youth music initiative, which was announced just recently by my colleague Angus Robertson.

I understand that the orchestra that formed part of the Scottish Opera young company was disbanded about five years ago. However, the Scottish Opera young company is still going strong and is supported by Scottish Opera’s main orchestra.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Despite the Scottish National Party’s commitment in 2021-22 to remove fees for all pupils learning a musical instrument, data now shows that 92 per cent of pupils are missing out. Specifically in my constituency and in Dumfries and Galloway, the number of pupils learning a musical instrument has declined by almost 500; in at least one school in the constituency, music is no longer being offered as an in-school subject, despite pupil demand.

Will the minister explain how the SNP intends to keep its manifesto promise to remove barriers to music education and to ensure that all Scottish pupils have access to it?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I am happy to work across the board with any organisations, including our local authorities, to look at more ways in which we can ensure that our young people get access to music tuition and all that comes with it. That is why investment in the youth music initiative is incredibly important.

That investment is delivering on our commitment to expand our support to other art forms—it covers art forms other than music—and it ensures that the youth music initiative is used well by local authorities.

We need to ensure that the investment is targeted in a way that supports children and young people’s health, wellbeing and personal development through the arts and their creative activity. I am happy to work with any local authority or organisation that is working on that. Recently, I met the chair of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities’ wellbeing board to reinstate the work of the culture chairs committee. We will be meeting soon, so I will raise the matter there.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Instrumental music tuition has been drastically reduced by some councils so that they can keep up with budget cuts, which means that thousands of children in Scotland might not have the opportunity to learn how to play a musical instrument at school. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of that on the ability of the industry to continue to recruit young musicians?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The organisations that recruit young musicians into all the different aspects of the industry are working hard to keep doing that, which is why the investment in the youth music initiative is so important.

I would be happy to work with any member from across the chamber. This does not need to be a political issue; rather, it should be about how we ensure that our children get the best out of their education. The investment in the initiative is important, and it would be great if the Opposition would welcome it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Local Theatres

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting local theatres. (S6O-02328)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The Scottish Government values the importance of the arts and local theatres for the many benefits that they can bring, such as nurturing creativity and improving health and wellbeing. The Scottish Government provides support to local theatres through funding to Creative Scotland for its regularly funded organisations, which include world-class theatres. Independent local theatres in Scotland are also eligible to apply to Creative Scotland’s open fund for specific projects or productions. I would urge them to do so.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

This year, the Beacon Arts Centre in Greenock celebrates its 10th birthday, which is a significant achievement that reflects its status as a much loved cultural institution. It is a continuation of the arts guild in Greenock, which was founded in 1946, and is much loved by people in Inverclyde and across my West Scotland region. Unfortunately, the centre is often seen as the exception rather than the rule, with too many community theatres struggling for survival due to inadequate financial support. The former finance secretary’s decision to reverse a proposed £6.6 million cut to the culture sector in February was a welcome step, but Creative Scotland should not have been threatened with such a significant financial cut in the first instance. Does the minister agree that cultural institutions such as the Beacon Arts Centre in Greenock are invaluable local assets? Will she agree to meet with me to discuss funding for various theatres in West Scotland that are in real peril?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

My answer will be quick: yes and yes.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The minister might be aware of West Lothian Leisure’s proposal to close the Howden Park Centre and theatre in Livingston, West Lothian, after Labour-led and Conservative-supported West Lothian Council’s proposal to withdraw all management fee funding from the trust in future years. What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that local authorities are meeting their statutory responsibility under the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 to provide cultural facilities? Surely, simply owning buildings is not enough. Communities need a local cultural strategy and at least some financial contribution to the running of cultural services.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I understand the concerns that have been raised about the future of the Howden Park Centre, although local authority provision is entirely a matter for each local authority.

I understand that Creative Scotland is initiating discussions with West Lothian Council about the potential closure of the centre in view of the redevelopment grant that was previously given to it. The additional Covid-related funding that was provided by the Scottish Government to West Lothian Council included £4.2 million in recognition of the loss of income during the pandemic by leisure centres such as the Howden Park Centre.

More broadly, we continue to work in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the culture conveners group—a forum that was instigated by Fiona Hyslop—at both local and national levels in order to identify ways to strengthen services around the principle of cultural recovery and renewal.

Creative Scotland Funding (Highlands and Islands)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of Creative Scotland’s total awards funding was allocated to the Highlands and Islands in the last financial year. (S6O-02329)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Creative Scotland provides a range of support for cultural activities and organisations across all regions of Scotland through its network of regularly funded organisations, the open fund and its various other funding streams. In the financial year 2022-23, 8.7 per cent of Creative Scotland’s total funding awards were allocated to projects in the Highlands and Islands.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, although, given the size of the area involved, I would have hoped for more.

Eden Court theatre is a valuable asset to the community of the Highlands. Through its participation in the Warm Welcome Campaign and the introduction of low-income tickets, the venue has supported residents through the global cost of living crisis. However, like many other Scottish theatre venues, Eden Court continues to face significant funding challenges. Will the cabinet secretary agree to look at what further funds could be made available to the theatre in these difficult times?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Eden Court theatre in Inverness is the largest arts venue in the Highlands. It includes two theatres, two multi-purpose studios, two cinemas and three art galleries. That underscores its importance, which Edward Mountain rightly raises in the chamber. Eden Court receives regular funding from Creative Scotland of £500,000 a year. It also received support as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, including £242,000 in recovery funding.

It is also worth mentioning that the Eden Court youth theatre provides dance and theatre classes to young children aged five to eight years and invites schools across Scotland to theatre workshops. It is well known for its work right across the Highlands and Islands, not just in Inverness.

I totally agree with Edward Mountain about the importance of the Eden Court theatre and of the support that the Scottish Government and Creative Scotland give it, and I hope that that continues long into the future.

Peace Institute

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its progress in establishing a peace institute by the end of 2022, as set out in its 2021-22 programme for government. (S6O-02330)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Last year, the Scottish Government commissioned an independent report to advise on the establishment of a peace institute. Scottish ministers have endorsed the report’s proposed path to establishing a fully fledged peace institute, and the Scottish Government remains committed to that ambition.

However, since the report’s release, in June 2022, the financial situation that Scotland and the Scottish Government face has deteriorated and is the most challenging since devolution. In difficult economic times, difficult decisions require to be made, and ministers have reluctantly agreed to delay further work on the peace institute until later in this parliamentary term.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government’s commitment to establishing the peace institute was that it would have a focus on human rights, yet Scotland’s police force, Police Scotland, signed a training agreement with Colombia in 2020. Colombian police subsequently killed more than 40 people during protests in 2021 and detained hundreds of young people on spurious charges—many of them remain in prison.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm what discussions he has had with Scottish Government ministers to ensure that the peace institute’s focus on human rights is not undermined by Police Scotland’s international development unit working with police forces that have a record of human rights abuses?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I think that I am right in saying that this is not the first time that the member has raised this issue in the chamber. It is absolutely right and proper that we look at the maintenance of the highest possible standards of human rights where any Scottish public institution is involved. It is also right to say that it is important, when practicable, that efforts are made to help and support the changing of cultures in other parts of the world that do not maintain the high standards of human rights that we enjoy in this country. However, I will reflect on what the member says and undertake to write back to her.

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

Can the cabinet secretary reflect on the success of the Scottish Council on Global Affairs, which has fulfilled the programme for government pledge to co-ordinate Scottish expertise and research on global issues and their impact on Scotland?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Since its launch, last year, the Scottish Council on Global Affairs has made excellent progress in establishing itself as a crucial and impartial Scotland-based research institute providing a hub for informed, non-partisan debate on a wide range of global issues. The three founding universities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews have made significant progress in harnessing the breadth of expertise that Scotland-based researchers have to offer. I am glad to see that the institute benefits from support not only from the Scottish Government but from the United Kingdom Government and across the political spectrum. Through its research programme and suite of regular events, it has begun to foster vital public discussion around key global issues of relevance to Scotland, and I am excited to see the plans that it has for the future.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I have previously, on three separate occasions, asked about the location, cost and treatment of the proposed peace institute, but no answers have been provided regarding those specific points. Will the cabinet secretary use this opportunity to share how much money has been spent so far, the projected cost and the number of civil servants who are involved?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Yes, I will be happy to do so.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am surprised that that manifesto commitment has been dispensed with. We have the war in Ukraine and conflicts in Sudan and Yemen. If Scotland is going to make a big impact on the world in resolving conflicts, why does the Government not prioritise that?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

It is a priority for the Government during this parliamentary term, but I am happy to extend to Willie Rennie the commitment that I have given to write to Sharon Dowey on that subject. I think that he understands the financial constraints that the Scottish Government is working under and knows the commitment that the Government has to supporting peace and reconciliation efforts around the world. I am confident that we will make progress on that during this parliamentary session, and I look forward to the support of all parties for that initiative, which there has been for the Scottish Council on Global Affairs.

Historic Environment Scotland (Reopening of Sites)

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to accelerate the reopening of any sites that are currently closed due to inspections by Historic Environment Scotland. (S6O-02331)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

We are providing Historic Environment Scotland with £72.7 million this year—a record high level of funding—to help maintain Scotland’s heritage and historic environment. That is an 82.6 per cent increase on pre-pandemic funding. With its commercial income, Historic Environment Scotland’s operating budget this financial year is £114.5 million, which is 22.4 per cent higher than it was pre-pandemic.

Historic Environment Scotland has completed on schedule the first group of inspections in its prioritised inspection programme, and it is making progress on the inspection of the next group of prioritised sites, which will be completed by the end of this year. By reopening sites only when it is safe to do so, the organisation continues to put the health and safety of individuals first.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In 2022, Elcho castle closed due to Historic Environment Scotland inspections, with no known date for reopening. It is considered one of Scotland’s best-preserved tower houses from the 1500s and is a favourite spot for family day trips. Can the minister assure me that the reopening of Elcho castle will be a priority, so that families can enjoy it during the summer months and the local economy is no longer adversely affected?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I assure Roz McCall that I will have Historic Environment Scotland look into the particular site that she mentioned, and I will get back to her with the most up-to-date position on that. Those inspections and repairs, along with all the other work that is being done, are moving on at pace, and that changes almost on a daily basis. Getting Roz McCall the most up-to-date position from Historic Environment Scotland is probably the best answer at this time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture.

There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio, to allow front-bench teams to change position.

Justice and Home Affairs

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next portfolio is justice and home affairs. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. There is quite a lot of interest in supplementaries in this portfolio, so I invite members to be as brief as possible in their questions and ministers to be as brief as possible in their answers.

Sentencing Young People Guideline (Review)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when the next regular review of the sentencing young people guideline is due to take place. (S6O-02332)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The timing and form of reviews of sentencing guidelines are matters for the independent Scottish Sentencing Council. Its review process for offence and offender-specific guidelines is that, after one year, it will consider data on relevant cases and engage with sentencers to assess whether the guideline has had the intended effect and identify any unintended consequences or emergent trends as a result of the guideline.

After three years, the council will review data on relevant cases over that period and engage with sentencers on their experience of using the guideline and publish a review of the guideline’s operation, detailing the impact of the guideline over the medium term.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

In January last year, the Scottish National Party’s sentencing quango introduced the sentencing of young people guideline, which applies to all criminals under the age of 25 and allows them to get off with lighter sentences.

That is despite widespread opposition from the public, 71 per cent of whom say that the guideline should not apply to such a high age limit. We have now seen the guideline used so that rapists avoid jail and murderers get much-reduced sentences.

Why did the First Minister, who was the justice secretary at the time, support these guidelines, and when will they be developed?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

If the member does not mind, I will correct him—these are not the SNP’s sentencing guidelines; they are the Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines. During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, in which the form and function, and the role and responsibilities, of the Scottish Sentencing Council were set out and agreed, the Parliament as a whole had a voice.

I have set out to the member the processes through which the Sentencing Council keeps under review its guidelines. It takes very seriously its responsibilities to engage with the public and inform the public about the role and purpose of sentencing, which includes rehabilitation as well as punishment.

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

I understand that sentencing guidelines make it clear that a prison sentence remains an option for the court when it comes to heinous crimes such as rape and murder. Will the cabinet secretary provide figures for the number of rape convictions that have resulted in a custodial penalty since 2018?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The

latest published statistics, covering the period between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2021, show that 327 people were convicted of rape. Of those, 322—98 per cent—received a custodial sentence. Of course, rape trials are dealt with in the High Court, which has unlimited sentencing powers, up to life sentencing. Members might be interested to know that the average sentence for rape is six years and eight months and that prison sentences have, on average across all offences, increased by 14 per cent.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

There have now been a number of cases in relation to which there been huge public concern about the sentences given to offenders convicted of rape and in which the judge has said that the sentence was significantly reduced due to the young persons sentencing guideline. Given that the guideline was introduced and has created a significant change without the involvement of Parliament, will the cabinet secretary do what she can to ensure that there is a debate on the impact of the guideline in Government time?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

A

s I stated to Mr Balfour, Parliament did have a voice when it passed legislation on the powers of the Scottish Sentencing Council. I was certainly in Parliament at that time—I sat on the justice committee—and I assure members that there was a full debate on these matters, although there was not necessarily consensus on all the detail.

On the Scottish Sentencing Council’s functions in relation to reviewing, as I have outlined, it will carry out an interim review to look at initial decisions that have been made in cases in which the guidance has been applied, but also at decisions in cases in which the guidance has not been applied. Of course, it is down to judicial discretion whether sentencers choose to apply the guidance, but they would have to provide written reasons for that decision. Over the three-year period, once court processes and appeal court processes have perhaps been fulfilled in relevant cases, much more robust and thorough data will be published by the Scottish Sentencing Council.

Child Victims (Rights in Legislation)

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how forthcoming legislation will advance the rights of child victims of crime. (S6O-02333)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government is committed to advancing the rights of child victims through legislative and non-legislative measures. Both the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill contain provisions to increase protection for the privacy and dignity of child victims. We recognise that children find aspects of the system particularly traumatising, so they will benefit from the trauma-informed and person-centred approaches that underpin the legislation.

We have also published our vision for the bairns’ hoose, which is a transformational, whole-system approach to delivering child protection, justice and health support and services to child victims.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I welcome the measures that the minister outlined. Does she agree that advancing and balancing the rights of all children who come into contact with our justice system, whether they are child victims of criminal harm, witnesses or children who cause harm to others, is of the utmost importance, and that any legislation made in this place must get it right for every child?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Yes, I do agree.

It is a finely balanced area. Care must be taken to ensure that the Kilbrandon ethos of the children’s hearings system is followed, which has the needs and the welfare of the child subject to the referral at its centre, and that that is not compromised. The rights of a child victim must be carefully balanced against the rights of the referred child whose privacy and welfare needs are being considered at a children’s hearing. Crucially, children’s hearings are not a criminal justice setting. The system is welfare based rather than being punitive.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

One in four cases sent to a children’s reporter are for alleged crimes—which are often serious—yet Victim Support Scotland describes an “information vacuum” with victims not being entitled to details of their case. Will the minister ensure that victims are no longer kept in the dark and that their rights are central to the new bill?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

If a child is placed in secure care via the children’s hearings system, the provisions that govern information sharing in that system allow for information about whether a compulsory supervision order has been made or how the hearing was otherwise changed. There is no provision in the bill to share information beyond that, because it is not an offence or behaviour alone that determines where a child is placed or for how long.

The system takes a holistic approach and considers how the child’s welfare needs as well as offence and behaviour engage with the secure care criteria.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

“The Independent Strategic Review of Funding and Commissioning of Violence Against Women and Girls Services” was published yesterday. It recommended that children and young people experiencing domestic abuse are identified as victims in their own right in law. How does the Scottish Government intend to respond to that recommendation?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The review report was published yesterday and we are considering its recommendations.

The bill is part of a wider strategic programme of work including the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill and work on the bairns’ hoose. On-going engagement is taking place with officials who are leading on this area to ensure that there is a joined-up approach across Government.

Whole-life Sentences

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the introduction of whole-life sentences as an option for judges in relation to the most serious offences. (S6O-02334)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Judges in Scotland set the punishment part of life sentences. The punishment part of a life sentence is the period that must be served in custody. Under that long-standing law, judges have the power to set a punishment part that exceeds

“the remainder of the prisoner's natural life.”

That can result in a whole-life sentence in individual cases.

The Scottish Government supports the courts having those powers available for the most serious offences.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Jill Barclay’s case is horrific. According to the judge who presided over it, she was murdered in a “medieval” way. Under Scots law, the judge was required to impose a punishment that resulted in the sentence being 24 years, which was reduced from 29 years, due to the murderer being under the age of 25. The sentence means that it is feasible in this vile case that the murderer could be released while in his 40s. Does the cabinet secretary not agree that judges should, at the very least, have the opportunity to impose whole-life sentences for such barbaric cases?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Our thoughts and prayers are with all those impacted by the brutal murder of Ms Barclay.

With respect, I say to Mr Stewart that I have just made very clear to this Parliament what the law currently is: punishment parts can exceed a prisoner’s natural life. He will also be aware that there is no automatic release for prisoners with whole-life sentences.

The member might be interested to look at the information that the Parole Board for Scotland has provided. If he does, he will get a sense of the seriousness with which it takes its duties. For example, in 2021, it released only a small proportion of people who came up for parole or release on parole licence.

I believe that we should be leaving this in the hands of the judges and the experts. They will, of course, through their own sentencing statements, make clear what guidance they have and have not taken into consideration.

I repeat that, since the early 2000s, the punishment part of a prisoner’s sentence can exceed their natural life when a judge decides that that is appropriate. I would contend that that is an appropriate decision for a judge, not a politician.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that prisoners can already be kept in prison by an order for lifelong restriction when there is a concern for public safety? Can she also confirm that it was the Scottish National Party Government that ended the previous system of early release for serious offenders that had been introduced by the Conservatives?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I can, of course, confirm that prisoners who are serving orders for lifelong restriction remain in custody if there is a concern about public safety. In 2021-2022, the Parole Board for Scotland considered for parole 90 prisoners who were serving such sentences. Not one was released. That shows how seriously the Parole Board takes its responsibilities.

Also, yes, it is a matter of record that it was this Government that ended early release for the most dangerous offenders, in 2015.

Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 has assisted the police in responding to reports of assault, threat or abuse of retail workers. (S6O-02335)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Information provided by Police Scotland indicates that in the period since the 2021 act came into force, between August 2021 and February 2023, more than 5,000 reports of assaults or of threatening or abusive behaviour against retail workers have been received. Clearly, that number of reported incidents is very concerning and is unacceptable, but I hope that it also shows that retail employees are aware of the legislation and are using it. Last November, Police Scotland launched the national assault pledge and #NotPartOfTheJob campaign. It has also established a retailers forum where retailers can discuss issues and concerns and share best practice.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I have recently been contacted by representatives of the GMB trade union, who informed me that the

Asda Blantyre store in my constituency has been the target of antisocial behaviour. Staff have been threatened and left feeling intimidated. Clearly, no one should have to put up with violence, threats or abuse in their workplace. Can the minister outline the work that the Scottish Government and the police are doing to promote awareness of the law, to ensure that retail staff know their rights and, most importantly, to deter such behaviour from occurring in the first place?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, please move your microphone slightly towards you.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Thank you.

I very much agree that no one should have to put up with violence or threats in their workplace. We fully support law enforcement agencies having extensive powers to deal with such incidents.

When the law came into force, in 2021, the Scottish Government worked with Crimestoppers, Fearless and the Scottish Grocers Federation to run an awareness-raising campaign. I agree that it is important that workers and retailers know that the new law can help to protect them.

In addition, the member might be interested to know that a business crime prevention team within Police Scotland carries out business engagement days throughout Scotland to support the retail sector. It has also implemented the your safety matters external partners group, which consists of 14 members, including representatives of the retail sector.

I assure the member that the Scottish Government takes the matter very seriously. Coincidentally, I am meeting Dr Pete Cheema, from the Scottish Grocers Federation, this afternoon about this issue.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

On the 5,000 reports of abuse that the minister mentioned, what was lacking in her answer was how many people were prosecuted as a result.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I do not have those figures at hand, but I am happy to write to Jamie Greene with them.

Police Officers (Resourcing)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that police officers are fully resourced. (S6O-02336)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We are fully committed to using the resources that are available to us to support the vital work of the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland. We are investing £1.45 billion in policing this year.

Policing is, and will continue to be, a priority for this Government. We have more police officers per capita in Scotland than there are in England and Wales, and they are also better paid, having been supported by more than £11.6 billion of funding since 2013. That investment is delivering benefits. Police-recorded crime has fallen by 42 per cent since 2006-07, and it is currently at one of the lowest levels seen since 1974.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In a recent meeting with a Police Scotland chief superintendent, he informed me that, of the 15,000 call-outs that the police had in April, only 19 per cent were for criminal activity, with the majority of the remaining call-outs being mental health related. That is against a backdrop of reducing police numbers—there has been a drop of 600 since 2017—the hollowing-out of backroom staff, and an increase in mental health issues. That is the reality.

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the pressures on the police force are increasing and that the role that they are there to perform is coming under threat?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I very much recognise that Police Scotland is under pressure as a result of the amount of time that is being taken to deal with calls requesting help and support for vulnerable people, who are quite often people with mental health problems. I have of course discussed the matter with the chief constable, the Scottish Police Authority and the staff associations and given them my commitment that we need to find better ways of working.

The chief constable is absolutely right to say that we will not follow practice in the Metropolitan Police, for example, and that policing in Scotland has a responsibility for broader safety and wellbeing. However, it is not beyond our wit to find ways to ensure that the justice system and the health system work better together to provide a better service to some of our most vulnerable citizens. That is in everybody’s interests, not least those of police officers.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Can the cabinet secretary provide any details about the starting salaries for police officers in Scotland compared to those of their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

A

s we know, police officers play a vital role in keeping Scotland safe, and I am pleased that our officers are the best paid in the UK. That recognises the hard work and dedication of Police Scotland. Officers in Scotland who are at the maximum pay for each and every rank will earn more than their counterparts in England and Wales, and the basic starting salary for a constable in Scotland is around £5,000 more than in England and Wales.

Women Leaving Coercive and Abusive Relationships (Support)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it will put in place to support women in the immediate days and weeks after they leave a coercive and abusive relationship. (S6O-02337)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Domestic abuse is abhorrent, and I encourage anyone experiencing it to seek help and to report incidents to the police. Our victim surcharge fund and Victim Support Scotland’s emergency assistance fund are already in place and provide immediate expenses for women who are fleeing abusive relationships.

Through the delivering equally safe fund, we will provide approximately £12.5 million in 2023-24 to domestic abuse support services, including women’s aid organisations that provide specialist support and access to temporary accommodation. Additionally, our victim-centred approach fund is providing £18.5 million from 2022 to 2025 for specialist advocacy support, and we support the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, which offers free legal advice to women who are experiencing gender-based violence.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Last week, a woman came to my surgery to highlight the financial vulnerabilities and insecurity of many women leaving domestic violence situations. As we have heard, many in such situations are left financially insecure and, because of the coercion experienced, are isolated with few opportunities to build connections and get work. Therefore, what support is available to women in the immediate days after leaving a relationship and specifically to help women to reaccess employment and training when the time is right? Would the Government consider putting in place a mentorship or peer support scheme to help women to rebuild the connections that they need?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I will not

repeat the various funds that I outlined in my original answer, but Ms Duncan-Glancy makes an important point. In addition to the work that I outlined, we are working with Scottish Women’s Aid and other organisations to understand what more can be done to establish a fund for survivors, particularly those who have children and who are at risk of homelessness. Important work is also being led by colleagues who are working on homelessness, bearing in mind that domestic abuse is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women.

The member’s point about mentorship and enabling women to get back into the workplace or training is well made. Of course, the Scottish Government funds various employability programmes, but I give the member an undertaking that I will ensure that we have joined all the dots in that regard.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have a couple of requests for supplementary questions.

They will need to be brief, as will the responses.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

A

ccording to research that was published earlier this year, Scotland’s domestic abuse legislation better reflects victims’ experiences. Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government is building on that work to ensure that victims are at the heart of Scotland’s justice system?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please answer as briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The new domestic abuse offence has, of course, given more powers to police and courts to punish perpetrators of abuse and protect people who are at risk. However, as the report that Ms Harper mentioned highlights, more still needs to be to be done. I for one acknowledge the very clear message that improvements could be made, for example, to how domestic abuse cases are handled to provide victims with a greater voice in proceedings and to support them through the process.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

The United Kingdom Government is providing lifeline payments to help victims to leave abusive relationships and rebuild their lives. Although I welcome the fact that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 allows domestic abusers to be removed from the homes of their victims, more than two years has passed since the legislation was passed and its provisions have still not been enforced. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the parts of the 2021 act that are not being enforced? Will she also match the life-saving fund here, in Scotland, so that we can change, and potentially save, the lives of hundreds of women?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I share Ms Gosal’s concern; she makes a fair point. Let me reassure her that the implementation board was established to work with all partners in that regard. An operational working group comprising vital partners has also been established.

We have done some detailed walk-through work to understand the practical issues that stand in the way of implementation. In short, the issues relate to the higher than anticipated volume of cases, the challenging tight timescales for operational justice partners and challenges in how children’s views can be gathered in a way that does not cause them additional harm.

I share Ms Gosal’s frustration. We are absolutely on this.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will get through the final two questions, but there is no time for any supplementary questions.

Image-based Sexual Abuse (Gaps in Law)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether there are any gaps in Scots law in relation to tackling image-based sexual abuse. (S6O-02338)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

A wide range of criminal laws relate to image-based sexual abuse, including legislation concerning indecent images of children and the offence of coercing a person to view a sexual image. Since 2016, it has been an offence for a person to share an intimate image of another person when they either intend to cause that person to suffer fear, alarm or distress, or are reckless as to whether the sharing of the image would be likely to cause fear, alarm or distress. However, we keep the criminal law under review and will always consider whether further legislation is needed.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Research shows that the swapping, collating and posting of nude images of women without their consent is on the rise. However, unlike revenge porn, that is not a crime. As the cabinet secretary outlined, under current Scots law, there must be proof that the perpetrator intended to cause, or was reckless in causing, fear, alarm or distress. However, the offence is limited in that proof of specific motivation is required, which means that many cases of cyberflashing are excluded. There is international best practice on the matter—such as that in New South Wales and many US states—which criminalises the non-consensual distribution of intimate images without the requirement to prove specific motivation. That is where there might be a gap in the law.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I need a question, please.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary take a view on whether adopting a consent-based cyberflashing law might be beneficial here? At the very least, would she be prepared to discuss the matter with me?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In short, I am aware of the concerns that Ms McNeill expressed at the Criminal Justice Committee. I have seen a read-out of her comments. At face value, I am not convinced that there is a gap, but we will look at the experience of New South Wales, and I am more than happy to discuss the detail with Ms McNeill if she wishes.

Methil Fire Station

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the second appliance at Methil fire station will be withdrawn from service by 4 September 2023. (S6O-02339)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

It is right that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, in common with all public bodies in Scotland, reviews its operations in order to modernise and ensure that it is meeting needs and delivering value for money. As part of the review, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plans to temporarily withdraw 10 fire appliances from service from September 2023, but I have been assured by the fire service that those removals will not compromise community safety.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

There is utter astonishment in the Levenmouth area that the fire appliance will be withdrawn. There has been a spate of fires in nightclubs, shops and hotels—in fact, just this week, there was a fire in the little village of Springfield. Is the Government sure that this is the right time to cut the fire service budget and to allow the cut at Methil fire station to go ahead?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government has provided the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service with an additional budget of £4.4 million on top of the £10 million uplift that was set out in the 2023-24 budget announcement. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has advised me that locations have been identified through risk modelling using historical incident data and have been assessed as being the least impactful in relation to response times for the first and second appliances attending incidents.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service currently has in the region of 635 operational fire appliances across Scotland and this modest reduction will allow it to ensure that more of the remaining 625 operational appliances are always available for deployment. The service has extended an invitation to any member who wishes to raise concerns with the local service officers to discuss that issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.

Deposit Return Scheme

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Lorna Slater on the deposit return scheme. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

In 2020, the Scottish Parliament voted for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers in which the onus for dealing with the disposal and reuse of those containers is placed on the companies that produce them—the polluter-pays principle. The Parliament did so because it looked around the world and saw that deposit return schemes worked, with more than 50 schemes worldwide. It did so because it recognised the benefits of dramatically reduced litter, a step change in recycling rates and having yet another tool in the fight against climate change, as well as that those benefits increase the larger the scope of the scheme is. It did so because the case is strongest, both economically and environmentally, where schemes are all-inclusive. It did so because it took in good faith a United Kingdom-wide agreement on the introduction of deposit return schemes that include glass. After all, only a few months before, the UK Government had been elected on just such a promise. Rishi Sunak, Alister Jack and Douglas Ross were all elected on the promise of a full deposit return scheme.

The Scottish Parliament voted for that all-inclusive deposit return scheme because it was the latest in a long list of ways in which it has used its powers to deliver distinctive and progressive policies for Scotland, such as the Scottish child payment, free bus travel for under-22s, better rights for tenants, free tuition for students and the indoor smoking ban.

That is the context in which I am updating Parliament today.

Last week, I told Parliament of the communication from the UK Government that, at the 11th hour, imposed a number of highly significant conditions on our scheme, including the removal of glass. It did so by refusing to agree a full exclusion from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 after almost two years of discussion.

The UK Government has offered no justification for removing one of the most significant aspects of the scheme, which the Scottish Parliament voted for—namely, the inclusion of glass. The decision letter says:

“The UK Government notes the strong representations made by relevant businesses”.

The environmental and economic case for including glass in our DRS is clear, and the scheme follows the majority of schemes operating successfully around the world. Glass is one of the three main materials used to make single-use drinks containers, and it accounts for more than a quarter of all the containers to be included in our deposit return scheme as planned. It is one of the most common items to pollute our beaches, and broken glass poses a hazard to children, pets and wildlife. Local authority, private sector and voluntary clean-up crews are left to deal with littered glass.

Indeed, the UK Government’s own analysis quantified those benefits and acknowledged that the social and economic benefits of DRS are increased by 64 per cent when glass is included. That is why the Scottish Government proceeded in good faith to include glass in our DRS, backed by the Scottish Parliament, and that is why businesses have invested millions of pounds in the infrastructure to handle glass.

Up until March 2022, the UK Government itself had planned to include glass in the English scheme. As recently as January this year, it also confirmed that Wales would include glass in its DRS and that it was for each of the devolved nations to decide on the scope of its DRS.

However, this is not just about glass. An even bigger act of sabotage comes from the UK Government’s imposing a number of other conditions, including a maximum cap on deposit levels agreed across all nations, one administration fee to cover all schemes across the UK, one barcode for use across all parts of the UK, and one logo for all schemes. Those aspects are all absolutely legitimate areas of discussion in relation to the alignment and interoperability of schemes. However, the critical point right now is that the UK Government cannot tell us what those are or when they will be finalised. Indeed, it cannot tell us whether they will even appear in regulations or whether, as appears likely, they will be delegated to a scheme delivery body that is at least two and a half years away from being established—a body that will not be empowered to deliver a DRS in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has said from day 1 that we recognise the need for alignment and for schemes across the UK to work in tandem. However, let us be clear: Scotland has proceeded as planned. Wales, too, has worked on the basis of the common UK position—[

Interruption

.] It is England that has chosen to step out of line. In matters of alignment—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Minister, please allow me a moment. It is really important that the statement is heard without intervention or interruption. I would be grateful if we could proceed on that basis.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

In matters of alignment, whose line is it? Is it just the line of the biggest player on the field?

We are being invited to go ahead with a scheme in Scotland in which rules that we set now can be changed unilaterally by the UK Government at any time. I sought a further meeting with my ministerial counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to seek assurances that we could have a stable basis on which to go forward, but it is clear that the UK Government has simply not yet done the work and is not in a position to give the assurances that Scottish businesses need.

Earlier today, the First Minister and I met a wide range of businesses to discuss where the UK Government’s 11th hour intervention leaves us. I am grateful for the constructive and focused feedback that we received today. The single biggest message from business is the need for certainty—for planning and investment. The UK Government’s conditions blow a massive hole in any certainty.

Since we received the UK’s decision 12 days ago, we have engaged intensively with delivery partners, including Circularity Scotland and industry, to understand how the decision affects their preparations for the launch of Scotland’s DRS. The removal of glass and the imposition of as yet unspecified conditions have been pored over intensively. Although Circularity Scotland has been optimistic that the scheme could go ahead without glass, the feedback from producers, retailers and hospitality is overwhelmingly that they cannot prepare for a March launch based on the changes that are required by the UK Government without any certainty even about what those changes might be. Because the delivery of DRS is an industry-led project, those views are critical.

Today, the First Minister and I heard that industry, in turn, recognises the enormous amount of work carried out by its body, Circularity Scotland, on its behalf and acknowledges the case for sustaining a delivery vehicle for the DRS to come.

The UK Government’s decision excludes glass from Scotland’s DRS at the 11th hour, contrary to the will of the Scottish Parliament and the all-UK basis on which we planned. It changes the playing field for non-glass drinks producers. It creates massive new uncertainty for business by imposing conditions for interoperability with schemes in the rest of the UK that have not even been legislated for and which even then might not be clear.

Yesterday, I told Parliament that our scheme cannot proceed as planned. The refusal of the UK Government to budge on glass alone makes that obvious. As of today, it is clear that we have been left with no option other than to delay the launch of Scotland’s DRS until October 2025 at the earliest, based on the UK Government’s current stated aspirations.

I remain committed to interoperable deposit return schemes across the UK, provided that we can work in the spirit of collaboration, not imposition. I wrote to the UK Government again last night to urge ministers to reset a climate of trust and good faith, and to galvanise and retain the knowledge that has been built in Circularity Scotland and DRS partners in Scotland.

Today, I have written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in Parliament to say that we will be seeking to revisit the regulations that we laid in Parliament in mid-May, which set our launch date of 1 March and made other changes to the scheme. The immediate priority is to bring forward regulations to amend the go-live date. Subsequently, I will also consider how to bring forward revised provisions to deal with the UK Government’s exclusion of glass and how best to reflect the decisions made so far by the Scottish Parliament.

Let me be clear: the Scottish Parliament voted for a deposit return scheme. I am committed to a deposit return scheme. Scotland will have a deposit return scheme. It will come later than need be. It will be more limited than it should be. It will be more limited than what Parliament voted for and more limited than what I want, what other devolved nations wanted, and even what the Tories wanted at the time of the last election.

Those delays and dilutions lie squarely in the hands of a UK Government that, sadly, has so far seemed more intent on sabotaging the Scottish Parliament than on protecting our environment. [

Applause

.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. Continue, minister.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

However,

I will work as hard as I can with the UK Government and other devolved Governments to play the hand that we have been dealt—for a cleaner environment, for less waste, and to meet our climate targets. It is our future.

The Presiding Officer

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

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

Let us be clear: the scheme had already failed long before any intervention by the UK Government. Today’s statement reflects the key concern of businesses about having a scheme that works across the United Kingdom. I believe that we could have saved a great deal of time and energy if the Scottish National Party and the Greens had listened to those businesses in the first place. Nevertheless, this is an attempt to salvage something from the wreckage of a disastrous scheme.

Just days ago, the minister and the First Minister were indulging in reckless scaremongering, threatening to scrap the scheme if glass was not included. They tried the old nationalist trick of picking a fight with the UK Government, but it backfired. [

Interruption

.] They were rumbled, misrepresenting one of Scotland’s leading drinks producers. Then, Circularity Scotland and the logistics partner Biffa both confirmed that the scheme can go ahead without glass.

The fact remains that, just days ago, the SNP and Greens were ready to abandon the deposit return scheme. Humza Yousaf announced that

“the removal of glass fundamentally threatens the viability of Scotland’s DRS”.

Can the minister tell us: was the First Minister using glass as an excuse to ditch the scheme, or did he just not know what he was talking about?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am unclear whether the member understands the situation as I have laid it out. [

Interruption

.] As I have set out, we will look forward to a date of October 2025 for Scotland’s deposit return scheme, which is the earliest possible date by which the UK Government has committed to delivering its scheme.

The main conditions that have been applied to the scheme through the use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 place us in an impossible position. Going ahead of the UK would mean asking businesses to comply with regulations that we have not seen yet. For example, in its letter to us on IMA exclusion, the UK Government stated that it wants to set a maximum cap on deposit levels. This Parliament passed regulations for a deposit return scheme with a 20p deposit. If the UK set the cap at 10p, 15p or 30p, that would be a substantial change for Scottish businesses. How are we to proceed with a scheme on the basis that we have to wait for the UK Government to make that kind of decision before we can give business any certainty?

That is the impossible position that the UK Government has put us in and the basis upon which we are being forced to delay the scheme beyond what we would have liked.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have to say that the late notice of the statement did not assist with parliamentary scrutiny.

On the content of the statement, it is clear that Scotland is paying the price for two bad Governments, both of which seem more interested in a constitutional fight—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear Ms Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I know that members will not all agree with me, but let me say what it is: it is a constitutional fight rather than constructive work with each other and—critically—stakeholders to get a viable deposit return scheme that works for the whole of Scotland.

Yesterday, the minister refused my constructive suggestion that she meet a key stakeholder. That was on the back of the decision that the contract be handed to a US hedge fund instead of the scheme being co-produced with our local authorities and the Government’s refusal to meet key stakeholders or provide clarity or certainty to producers or businesses over the past two years. The UK Government, on the other hand, is acting utterly indefensibly, given its own manifesto pledge, instead of getting round the table to find a scheme that works.

Now that we have another delay, will the minister tell the Parliament how she will act in the next two and a half years to ensure that—finally—we get a scheme that is a success, that will increase recycling and that will reduce waste?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I thank the member for that constructive question, because the question is how we move forward in the next two and a half years with a UK Government that has been a bad-faith actor throughout.

Initially, the UK Government said that it would put glass into the scheme, and it then removed it. As recently as January, it said that devolved nations could do what they liked, and it then changed its mind in May and said, “Oh no, you can’t do what you like.” The UK Government dithered for months and months about giving us the clarity that businesses need on how VAT would be handled by the scheme, and it still has not given us the answers that we need on trading standards for shelf-edge labelling.

We are—absolutely—working in good faith. We went through the stages of the common framework decision, and we have published those stages and the communiques associated with them. At every point, we acted in good faith, working towards the UK Internal Market Act 2020 exclusion. It is the UK Government that has changed its mind.

When the First Minister and I met industry representatives this morning, they highlighted the fact that the list of uncertainty issues includes ones on which the UK Government still has not given certainty. It is now for the UK Government to work through those issues. It needs to pass its regulations, bring us certainty on trading standards and answer the questions that it has taken the power away from this Parliament to answer.

The Presiding Officer

There is much interest in the subject, as members would expect. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The common frameworks that were agreed between the UK Government and the devolved legislatures of the UK were the mechanism by which constructive engagement would facilitate regulatory divergence and respect the devolution process. By invoking the UK Internal Market Act 2020 on the deposit return scheme, has the UK Government irrevocably damaged the frameworks process?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

That is a serious concern that we should all have. The UK Government appears to have torn up the common frameworks—the agreements by which the Governments work together. My Labour colleague asked us to work in a spirit of good co-operation with the UK Government, and those frameworks were how we did that. The UK Government has torn them up and it is not at all clear to me how we move forward if that tool no longer exists for co-operation between the Governments. That should be deeply concerning to all of us.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On 23 May, I asked the minister how much the Scottish Government had budgeted for its DRS. She did not know. On 30 May, I asked again. The minister did not know but said that she would write to me imminently. It is taxpayers’ money and a competent minister ought to know the figure, so I ask the minister again: how much has the Scottish Government budgeted for the scheme and what impact will her decision have on the budget?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am sure that the member has seen the representation in letters from Biffa and Circularity Scotland, which detail the level of investment that industry has made in the scheme. It is an industry-led and industry-funded scheme. Biffa has cited tens of millions of pounds that it has invested. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the minister.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Circularity Scotland has cited the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been invested, collectively, by members of the industry in the scheme. The scheme is to be funded by industry. It is not a Government-funded scheme.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Scotland had its Parliament restored to afford this country a measure of self-government, but Westminster has blocked Scotland at every turn, on equalities issues and now on environmental issues. The UK Government is making a mockery of devolution by trying to hollow out the powers of our Parliament, and the Scottish Tories are happy to be complicit in that.

If we are not to use the powers of devolution to prevent waste and litter to tackle environmental and social issues, what exactly is devolution for?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The member is exactly right. The purpose of devolution is to allow us, in Scotland, to make different rules that might apply to our different situation. We have used the powers of devolution successfully to make progressive changes to improve the lives of people in Scotland, such as free bus travel for under-22s and the implementation, earlier than the UK Government, of a ban on smoking.

At the time of the implementation of the smoking ban, the UK Government did not have the powers under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 that it has now. We can only imagine how the UK Government might have used those powers to delay Scotland implementing a smoking ban. It has now given itself such powers, which it can use to intervene on devolved issues. The UK Government can now interfere with and block many things that we do to protect our environment and deal with social issues. That should concern all of us who believe in Scottish devolution.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The minister has just described the UK Government’s approach as an “act of sabotage”, but it is this Government that is cancelling the scheme after spending £218 million—[

Interruption

.] Yes, the Scottish Government has spent £218 million—it is there in black and white on the Scottish Government’s website—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear Ms Villalba.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

—with no proposed alternative to meet its target of recycling 70 per cent of waste by 2025.

Will the minister be honest with the public and take some responsibility for the fact that the SNP and the First Minister himself sabotaged the scheme by repeatedly talking it down during their bitter leadership contest? [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members! I remind you of the need to conduct business with courtesy and respect.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

As I told the Parliament when we introduced the delay from August this year to 1 March next year, it is the UK Government’s delay in granting us an exclusion from the internal market act that has caused the uncertainty.

The pot was stirred by the Secretary of State for Scotland in February of this year. In January of this year, the UK Government’s own documentation said that it was for the devolved nations to make decisions on the scope of their schemes. The Secretary of State for Scotland then sowed doubt in all our minds by threatening to use the internal market act to block our scheme. At that point, the friction on delivery of the scheme and the uncertainty that had been created by the words of the secretary of state meant that I had to come to Parliament to announce a delay.

The secretary of state has now made good on his threat and has implemented a version of the IMA exclusion that is only temporary, which puts us in an impossible position. I will share with Mercedes Villalba the example that I shared with her fellow member earlier. The UK Government has said that the maximum cap on deposit levels will have to be agreed before our scheme launches. The UK Government has not set a cap on deposits, set a deposit or passed its regs. What if the UK Government’s deposit is 10p or 30p? We cannot tell Scottish businesses to go ahead with the scheme when we do not even know what the deposit amount is. The UK Government has put the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in the impossible situation of having to ask Scottish businesses to comply with regulations that do not even exist.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Polling that was conducted in 2021 indicated that one in 15 Tory MPs do not believe that climate change is real and that 9 per cent of Tory MPs said that they did not accept that there is a scientific consensus on human activity causing climate change. The Conservative Party reportedly received £3.5 million from individuals and entities linked to climate denial—among other things—last year.

The Presiding Officer

Is there a question, Ms Stewart, and is it related to the statement?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Minister, are those really the people who we want telling us that we cannot pass environmentally conscious legislation?

The Presiding Officer

Please respond on matters for which the Government has general responsibility.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The UK Government has shown no commitment to tackling climate change, and this is another example of the Scottish Parliament voting to take practical action to deal with the climate and nature emergencies and the UK Government interfering to block it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Let us remember that this is the fourth delay to the introduction of the DRS. Is it the case that the DRS is only the latest victim of two Governments that see political advantage in stoking division and indulging in constitutional spats? What does the minister plan to do to provide reassurance to businesses across Scotland?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The First Minister and I met representatives of businesses today, and certainty is exactly what they are asking for. The uncertainty that is being created is being created by the UK Government, which delayed its decision on the internal market act and which is now asking Scottish businesses to comply with regulations that do not even exist. That is absolutely the kind of uncertainty that Scottish businesses cannot tolerate.

The Scottish Government has worked at all times as a good-faith actor by following the common frameworks and agreed processes. We can see that the UK Government has not done so. I wrote to my counterpart at DEFRA yesterday to ask for the opportunity to reset our relationship so that we can work together in good faith from now on. That is very much how I would like to proceed. I have yet to hear back from her.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

As the minister has just said, businesses and producers have invested millions of pounds in the scheme, and the UK Government has now dealt a massive blow to the certainty that they had previously. Can she offer any hope or comment on the uncertainty for businesses?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

As I have said to other members, the First Minister and I met business representatives this morning to discuss what they need, and they said that they need certainty on what the regulations will look like—on basic things, such as what the deposit will be. The Scottish Parliament said that it

would be 20p, but what will the UK Government say? What will the UK Government say about how the scheme administration works? What will the UK Government say about barcodes and labelling? Those things are entirely unknown and uncertain.

I have written to my UK counterpart to ask that we have a constructive dialogue on those matters. I have yet to hear back from her, but I hope that we can work towards that so that we can have a successful launch of Scotland’s deposit return scheme.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister tell me what analysis she has undertaken of, and what estimates she can give about, the cost to businesses—which will now not be recovered, at least in the short term—because of her shambolic attempt at a roll-out? Has the Scottish Government taken legal advice relating to any compensation schemes?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

We have, of course, taken advice from many quarters on how to proceed with the scheme. We know that businesses in Scotland have invested hundreds of millions of pounds ahead of the launch of the scheme based on the regulations that were passed by the Parliament. We thank all the businesses that made that investment in good faith, and we look forward to working towards launching Scotland’s deposit return scheme so that those investments can be put to good use.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

People who have been campaigning for years to get a deposit return scheme will be, justifiably, incredibly angry and worried about the delay, which has been caused by the utter contempt that is shown towards the Parliament by the Westminster Tory Government. What does the minister say to people who are worried about the likely impact on Scotland’s environment and the impact on our democracy in Scotland?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I say to those people that I share their concerns. I share their concerns that the UK Government is not committed to protecting our environment and that it will seek to block any legislation from the Scottish Parliament to prevent damage to our environment and to tackle the climate emergency. Some of the businesses that the First Minister and I spoke with this morning said that they had already worked for six or seven years with the Scottish Government towards getting the scheme launched.

It has been an enormous investment on our part and on the part of Scottish businesses, and to have it torpedoed at the last minute by Alister Jack, who has used the clumsy tool of the 2020 act to prevent the scheme from going forward as this Parliament passed it, is extremely frustrating.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The UK Conservative Government that Scotland did not vote for is, yet again, holding Scotland back and preventing democratically supported policies and laws from being implemented.

Does the minister agree that being held back by the slowest deposit return scheme in the convoy when other international countries already have a scheme does not tackle waste or pollution or help the environment? Also, what state is the partial deposit return scheme for England actually in, and what guarantee is there that it will even be ready for 2025?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

It is not only the slowest scheme but the least ambitious one. The UK has dragged both Scotland and Wales down to the lowest common denominator. Deposit return schemes are normal. There are more than 50 such schemes around the world. It is normal to have a system in which industry pays to collect and recycle the materials that it produces. In the UK and Scotland, that cost has to be borne by the taxpayer—that is not normal and it is not the way forward.

As to the UK scheme, we do not know what state it is in—no regulations have been passed and there are no dates for when the legislation might be passed. The UK Government says that it will happen in October 2025, which is the date that it aspires to. That is the date that we will aspire to because that is the best information that we have at this time. However, as with all these matters, until the UK can give us certainty on that, we will have to treat that date with some degree of scepticism.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes the ministerial statement on the deposit return scheme. My apologies to those members whom I was unable to call, but I am conscious of the need to protect time for the next item of business.

Oil and Gas Industry

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-09339, in the name of Liam Kerr, on a thriving future for Scotland’s oil and gas sector and its workers. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Scotland needs oil and gas. Both currently provide around 75 per cent of the United Kingdom’s energy; domestically, the UK produces about half of that figure, and that is already declining, even with new fields. We have 24 million homes that are heated by gas boilers; in 2020, oil and gas provided over 90 per cent of Scotland’s heat demand; and 32 million vehicles rely on petrol and diesel. Oil and gas produce plastic medical equipment, which our hospitals use to save lives. We use oil and gas to make fertilisers for our farmers to grow the crops that feed us and to make the mobile phones and laptops that people are working on right now. That demand is not going away.

The Climate Change Committee has said that Britain will need 16 billion barrels-worth of oil and gas between now and 2050 to service a demand for electricity that is expected to nearly treble by 2050. By the mid-2030s, oil and gas will still provide 50 per cent of our energy needs, because, whether we like it or not, intermittent renewables such as solar and wind account for only about 4 per cent of our total energy needs. It is demand that is the issue here, because, while it subsists, we have to meet it from somewhere.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Does the member not recognise that those 16 billion barrels are also what is left in terms of extractable reserves? In other words, he might well be right that it might meet future demand, but the fact is that we have gone past peak oil. It is not the future—it is the past. This is about transition, not about continuing to use oil, is it not?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It absolutely is about transition, but the fact is that the member cannot get round the demand point. If there is demand, we have to ensure that the industry remains here—and remains productive and profitable. Why? Because we need it for energy security, to reduce our exposure to places such as Russia and for our economic security.

This year, the industry will add more than £20 billion to the UK’s economy, employing up to 200,000 people—including 90,000 in Scotland, 95 per cent of whom are in my region of North East Scotland. It is telling that, if no new oil and gas licences are granted, it will cost the Scottish economy £6 billion by 2030, in a context where we are, apparently, facing a £1 billion black hole.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will, in a second.

It is imperative to note that ending the industry early will lead to higher energy bills, as the Institute of Economic Affairs has said. That is why, when the Labour Party launched what the GMB’s Gary Smith described as a “stupid” and “catastrophic” policy to ban new North Sea developments, people were stunned. They asked how on earth a prospective party of government could put forward a policy that Smith described as “utterly incoherent” economically. Indeed, GMB Scotland’s secretary called the policy “naive”, “unnecessary” and “self harming”.

Perhaps that can be explained by the UK Labour Party’s ignorance, but it does not explain why Scottish Labour winds in behind that madness. Leaving aside the fact that Anas Sarwar has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge let alone reply to my letter, he was on ITV’s “Representing Border” only yesterday, backing the ban on new developments. If there is any doubt about Scottish Labour’s position, I remind the chamber of the motion that Monica Lennon lodged last November, stating that

“no new oil and gas licences should be approved”,

which was signed by current spokespersons Sarah Boyack, Carol Mochan, Alex Rowley, Paul Sweeney, Mercedes Villalba and Martin Whitfield.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I take the member’s point about demand. It is important that when there is demand for something, we can supply it. What are the UK Government’s plans to decarbonise the gas grid?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The UK Government has been talking about its huge plans to decarbonise, as we have heard in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. It is why we have the innovation and targeted oil and gas—or INTOG—grant and why the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has proposed a new net zero duty. Huge developments are going on, which Gillian Martin, as the Minister for Energy, ought to know.

Really, the Scottish National Party has a similar problem to Labour, with its presumption against new oil and gas in its energy strategy. Last month, it wheeled out the First Minister to give some warm words to the industry. It also wheeled out Gillian Martin, Màiri McAllan and Jackie Dunbar, who were all quoted in similarly ambiguous terms. However, the people of Scotland can see that the presumption is retained in Neil Gray’s amendment. The SNP is the party of Nicola Sturgeon, who was so opposed to Cambo; of Minister Paul McLennan, who also signed Monica Lennon’s motion; and of Màiri McAllan, who has been reported as saying:

“we do not agree with the UK Government issuing new oil and gas licences.” —[

Official Report

, 22 November 2022; c 12.]

Meanwhile, Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, refused in a committee meeting last month to back new oil and gas development in the North Sea and then said that he did

“not have responsibility for the area”.—[

Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee,

9 May 2023; c 21.]

The SNP must think that the north-east is buttoned up the back.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No.

The people of Scotland know that, if the decision on granting licences for new projects was not reserved to Westminster, the SNP would be forced by its coalition with the Greens—the party that sits next to it in Government—to block every application. Patrick Harvie of the Greens claimed that supporting oil and gas makes one hard right.

I do not have time to develop the point that the current North Sea industries will be what drive net zero. Those businesses will, for example, help to develop 13GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, with £30 billion-worth of investment. No doubt other speakers will pick that up. We have a choice between UK-produced oil and gas, and oil and gas imported from countries with weaker regulatory regimes and emissions targets and unstable politics. Taking those imports would export our jobs. Sharon Graham, Unite the Union’s general secretary, has said of Labour’s plans:

“Grabbing the headlines is easy, developing a serious plan for more renewable energy is not.”

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am out of time, Mr Johnson.

Sharon Graham is correct. Neither Labour nor the SNP-Green coalition has that plan. The only party that has a credible plan for working with our oil and gas industry and renewable sectors to get to net zero, while keeping the lights on, our homes warm and the economy moving and without losing the skills and experiences that are needed in order to deliver the energy transition, is the Scottish Conservatives.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the vital role that oil and gas plays in Scotland’s energy mix and in supporting tens of thousands of Scottish jobs, particularly in the north east; condemns Labour Party plans to ban new production from the North Sea, and the Scottish Government’s stated presumption against new exploration for oil and gas in the North Sea, contained in the Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan; acknowledges that there is a climate emergency and that the Scottish Government must deliver on carbon emissions targets and achieve net zero by 2045, but further acknowledges that a just transition for workers to green jobs, so that no communities are left behind, cannot be achieved without the investment, innovation and skills from the oil and gas sector and support for the North Sea industries, and calls, therefore, for the Labour Party to reverse its opposition, and for the Scottish Government to remove its presumption from the Draft Energy Strategy.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to a just transition and ensuring that we take workers with us on our journey to net zero. For the Scottish Government, the transition is both the outcome—a fairer, greener future for all—and the process that must be undertaken in partnership with those impacted by the transition to net zero.

A just transition supports a net zero, climate-resilient economy in a way that delivers fairness and tackles inequality and injustice, and we will not do to the north-east what Margaret Thatcher did to our mining and steel communities, when people and places were callously discarded and jobs that were promised were never delivered. The impact of that thoughtless deindustrialisation is still being felt decades on by communities that I represent in Airdrie and Shotts.

The oil and gas sector, and particularly the skills, talent and experience in the north-east, must play a critical role in supporting the build-out of low-carbon technologies in Scotland. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a climate emergency, which is why we have been clear that unlimited extraction of fossil fuels is not consistent with Scotland’s ambitious climate obligations, and our focus must now be on a planned and fair transition that leaves no one behind. That means that simply stopping all future activity is wrong. That could threaten energy security, while destroying the very skills that we need to transition to the new low-carbon economy.

Neither can we put our heads in the sand, as the Conservative Party seems determined to do, and behave as though the North Sea contains an endless supply of oil and gas that is cheap and easy to produce. Oil and gas workers know how challenging conditions are offshore, and energy companies know how rapidly the area is maturing. It is irresponsible of the Conservatives to suggest otherwise. Their approach risks the economic future of the north-east, would expose us to higher energy prices and compromises our energy security. They do not want a transition.

Instead, we, as a party of Government, are acting responsibly. We are facing squarely up to the challenges and planning a managed transition that supports the workers and communities of the north-east and all of Scotland, instead of putting in place the cliff edge that Gary Smith from the GMB said would result from Labour’s plans for oil and gas.

Scotland has the skills, talent and natural resources with which to become a global renewables powerhouse, and our draft energy strategy and just transition plan, which was published on 10 January, sets out our vision to achieve that. An energy system that delivers affordable, resilient and clean energy supplies not only will enhance our energy security through the use and development of our own resources but means that we will generate enough cheap green electricity to power Scotland’s economy and to export electricity to our neighbour, supporting jobs here in Scotland and assisting the decarbonising ambitions of our partners.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I would like to understand the Government’s current position on the Rosebank licence, which we know sits with the UK Government. Will the Rosebank licence, if approved, help or hinder the just transition that we need? After all, this is not just a transition—it is a just transition for workers and communities. It is a pity that Liam Kerr would not take an intervention, but I would love to get some clarity from the Scottish Government, because I wrote to Humza Yousaf on the subject ahead of his meeting with the Prime Minister and received no response. Communities deserve better than that.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We have said clearly that any future exploration in oil and gas production in the North Sea needs to pass much more stringent climate compatibility tests. I think that that is critically important. We have already said that the unlimited extraction of oil and gas in the North Sea is not compatible with our net zero targets.

We have just finished consulting on the energy strategy and just transition plan, and we are currently considering the responses that we have received. Later this year, we will set out a confirmation of our policy framework in that regard. The plan sets out more than 150 actions, as well as consultation on further actions to help maximise a just transition to net zero for our communities, businesses and workers. We are already doing the hard work of supporting the just transition and ensuring that it is not only just but as swift as possible.

The Scottish Government sees offshore wind as one of the most important economic and net zero opportunities. Our operational, under-construction, consented and in-planning projects, together with the market ambitions expressed in the ScotWind and INTOG leasing rounds, set our potential renewable electricity pipeline at more than 40GW.

That could produce enough electricity annually to power every home in Scotland for 17 years.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am running out of time—I am really sorry that it is such a short debate.

In order to unlock all those potential developments, we must build on a robust offshore wind planning programme to address the challenges going forward. There is a clear need for significant new network investment to ensure that our infrastructure does not become a barrier to net zero. Although we welcome Ofgem’s recent decision to accelerate the approval of strategic transmission infrastructure, the UK Government needs to take action to provide the Scottish Government with the right powers to enable us to modernise the planning and consenting system for grid infrastructure. Unfortunately, in that regard, we have the energy but we do not have the power.

As for the supply chain that is coming through, we expect ScotWind developers to invest an average of £1.4 billion per project into our economy across the 20 offshore wind projects. We need to support our offshore wind developers as they meet their supply chain commitments.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I do not know whether I have time.

The Presiding Officer

The minister must conclude.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am very sorry that the debate is so short and that we have such a small amount of time to debate the issues, because I had much more that I wanted to say, not least in response to what has come through from the Conservative Party.

In conclusion, the rhetoric over recent weeks has demonstrated that the Tories appear not to want a transition and that Keir Starmer’s Labour Party appears not to want a just transition.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. I ask you to conclude on that point.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Tories have no regard for the planet, Labour has no regard for the workers and this SNP Government will continue to plot our path to net zero—and do so with a just transition.

The Presiding Officer

I am asking you to conclude, minister, so please resume your seat.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I move amendment S6M-09339.3, to leave out from “vital” to end and insert:

“role that is played by oil and gas in the energy profile of Scotland, the tens of thousands of jobs in that sector, and the essential contribution that the sector’s skilled workforce must make to Scotland’s present and future energy security; recognises that the draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan sets out a future energy pathway for Scotland and highlights that, to realise its climate change ambitions, Scotland needs to transform the way it generates, transports and uses energy; notes that the Scottish Government has consulted on whether, in order to support the fastest possible and most effective just transition, there should be a presumption against new exploration for oil and gas, with a final decision to be made later in 2023; acknowledges that huge progress has been made in the energy transition in the last 20 years; reiterates its firm commitment to ensuring a just transition and that just transition principles are embedded in legislation; calls, therefore, on the UK Government to support the fastest possible just transition for the oil and gas sector; expresses deep disappointment that the UK Government has repeatedly refused to match the Scottish Government’s £500 million Just Transition Fund for the north east and Moray, despite benefitting to the tune of hundreds of billions of pounds at today’s prices over decades from North Sea oil and gas, and calls on the UK Government to support the deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) for the Scottish Cluster to capitalise on Scotland’s competitive advantage, including its world-leading workforce, who will drive forward the just transition and help industry to decarbonise at pace.”

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Today’s motion from the Tories is the height of hypocrisy.

The Tories have been in power since 2010 and have presided over rising energy bills but, when it comes to the vital infrastructure and the political support that are needed to develop the renewables transformation that we urgently need across the UK, successive energy ministers have dithered and delayed.

It has to be a just transition and it has to be about planning ahead for both the short and long term. We need to bring together our energy industries, by using the skills, leadership and workers that are already in the oil and gas sector and the critical supply chains, and by developing the new manufacturing jobs in innovation, which our universities are currently working on, that will enable us to deliver on our net zero ambitions.

Over the past few days, there has been a lot of inaccurate speculation, so it is important to get the facts right, not to listen to the rumours on which the Conservative motion and Liam Kerr’s desperate speech this afternoon are based. Scottish Labour is absolutely not turning the taps aff now.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is what Keir Starmer said.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

That is not what Keir Starmer has said on any occasion—and nor, indeed, has Anas Sarwar.

We will work with the sector and its workers to ensure that the just transition starts now, by using our existing oil and gas fields and maximising their effectiveness, as we follow the commitments that were made at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow, to play our part in tackling the climate crisis that our world now faces.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No—I might have done if it had been from somebody else.

We are in a global race to net zero and we are seeing none of the ambition, forward planning or strategic investment with which our global partners, such as the USA, are now moving ahead at pace.

The Tories are in serious danger, as the cabinet secretary said, of doing what they did to the miners and mining communities under Thatcher. Those communities are still suffering, so we need to learn that lesson.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention now?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I will take a minor intervention.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I think that the member needs to address the fact that Gary Smith of the GMB said that the Labour plan lacks “intellectual rigour”. Who is right—Gary Smith or Keir Starmer?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I have to say that it is Keir Starmer, Anas Sarwar and Ed Miliband, working with the trade unions—[

Interruption

.]

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is £28 billion and 50,000 jobs.

The Presiding Officer

Members!

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am going to come back to this, because it is about serious investment in leading in green manufacturing, and the £28 billion every year for a decade that Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves are talking about will bring our trade unions on board, because they will see those jobs from day 1. However, we need that investment now. We have renewables projects in a queue because we do not have grid capacity. That is totally unacceptable.

A grid that was incidentally designed does not address the scale of change and the new renewables that we urgently need now. Thirteen years on from the Tories taking power, they have not delivered on the renewables opportunities that we have seen developed in Scotland.

I am proud of the work that we did in Parliament to set what were then seen as radical targets, but it is bitterly disappointing that we have not seen work from the SNP to ensure that our communities benefit from that renewables investment, whether that is the missed opportunities with ScotWind or the lack of support for our councils to power ahead on delivering municipal heat and power networks, delivering jobs and lowering bills.

Jobs are critical to that but, as the Scottish Trades Union Congress said in response to the vacuous Scottish Government energy strategy and just transition consultation, it falls dramatically short of addressing the crisis that working people face. The trade union-led Just Transition Partnership said:

“It is imperative that we have a strategy that meets our climate demands and ends fuel poverty. Instead we have a re-statement of existing policies. On the most important matters it asks questions rather than takes positions.”

We need action now. It is not good enough from either the Tories or the SNP—we have not had the focus on jobs that we need in our communities. To bring people’s existing gas and electricity costs down means investing in retrofitting our homes and other buildings, and developing heat and power networks that deliver real community benefits.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I will indeed.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Boyack is in her

last 30 seconds.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will

be very brief. On the issues of jobs, does Ms Boyack accept that the £200 million investment that is coming to Scotland from Sumitomo, which will bring 150 jobs, is just the start of the supply chain pipeline that is coming from ScotWind?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It is

nowhere near ambitious enough. That is the difference with Labour’s green prosperity plan—it will deliver the jobs and the investment in Scotland at the scale that we need now. It represents value for money to taxpayers, and it will deliver energy security going forward. It is a partnership between Government, business and workers to develop low-carbon renewables—solar, wind, wave and tidal—using all the resources in our existing oil and gas fields and the skills of our oil and gas workforce in Grangemouth.

The Presiding Officer

You must conclude, Ms Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

We cannot fall behind. The 35 per cent of our households living in fuel poverty need action now. We need to get moving—

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Boyack. I call Liam McArthur.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

L

abour is committed to that action.

I move amendment S6M-09339.2, to leave out from “condemns” to end and insert:

“believes that the only way to break out of 13 years of rising energy bills and energy insecurity is to decisively move to clean, cheap, homegrown power, with a full range of energy sources; agrees that oil and gas production in the North Sea will continue for decades to come and the skills of the oil and gas workforce will be crucial to delivering this energy transformation; understands that it is vital that a phased and responsible transition is delivered and that partnership with government, business and workers will be crucial to achieving this, while managing existing oil fields for the entirety of their lifespan; further understands that the Labour Party announcement of the Green Prosperity Plan would mean an annual £28 billion investment into clean energy and green technology, which would ensure the creation of hundreds of thousands of good jobs, with decent wages, in Scotland and the UK for the decades ahead, and would give people working in energy security for the future, while transforming the UK into a clean energy superpower, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver on carbon emissions targets and achieve net zero by 2045.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Today’s debate mirrors one that we had about 18 months ago. Now, as then, we need to start by acknowledging that maximum extraction is not an option—oil and gas resources will have to be left in the ground. At the same time, the motion is right to point to the current contribution of the oil and gas sector to our energy system, to our economy and to tens of thousands of jobs across the country, notably in regions such as the north-east and the Highlands and Islands.

Therefore, when we talk about a just transition, we must accept that it will look different in different parts of the country. In my Orkney constituency, as the cabinet secretary will well know, the Flotta terminal has been integral to our island economy and community, as well as at a national level, for almost half a century. The terminal has seen many changes over that time as the sector has matured. There is even talk of a potential green hydrogen plant being located on the site, linked to the proposed West of Orkney offshore wind project. That illustrates the sort of transition that we need to see, but it also underscores the complexity, sensitivity and tailored nature of that transition.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the UK Climate Change Committee scenarios anticipate oil and gas accounting for between 47 and 54 per cent of total cumulative energy demand between 2020 and 2050. A marked reduction, no doubt, but significant, and a warning of the need both to bear down on demand and to avoid simply displacing domestic production with imports that are more environmentally damaging and that create their own security of supply issues.

There is ample evidence of the willingness—indeed, appetite—of those working in the sector to be part of the energy transition. Although there are certainly transferable skills between oil and gas, and renewables, that is not always the case. The Government and agencies must do more to raise awareness of options and to make the transfer, including any retraining and skills development, as easy and as smooth as possible. That point was made in my own proposed amendment but also, thankfully, in Sarah Boyack’s and in the WWF briefing for the debate.

It is also self-evident that any just transition will require both of Scotland’s Governments to play their full, active and collaborative part, alongside local government. The UK CCC was unequivocal on that point. Bluntly, this cannot be yet another issue that gets sucked into a self-reinforcing, and ultimately self-defeating, arm wrestle over the constitution.

Neil Gray is right to challenge UK ministers over support for the Scottish cluster and development of carbon capture, usage and storage. At the same time, he needs to acknowledge his Government’s consistent failure to meet its climate targets and its inability to detail the action that it believes will get us on track to meet those targets. That detail would be helpful in relation to the energy transition fund for example. What are the year 1 objectives for the £20 million? How many workers will benefit, and in what ways? What are the predicted investments in future years? We need that detail not only to address the UK Climate Change Committee’s calls but to avoid the impression that that is more smoke and mirrors.

Key to a just transition is the creation of new green jobs. We cannot afford to leave people and communities behind. Achieving that will require plans that are radical and credible and lock in genuine collaboration between the UK and Scottish Governments, local government and the affected sectors.

As I said in the previous debate on the topic in 2021, change is unavoidable, but it is only with detailed plans and proper resourcing that it can be done in a managed and, most important, just way.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. I remind members that speeches should be up to four minutes. We do not have any time in hand. Therefore, although members are absolutely entitled to choose whether to take interventions, any intervention must be absorbed in the member’s allocated speaking time.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate and to remind members that our oil and gas sector, while vital to the north-east, has played—and continues to play—an important role across my Highlands and Islands region.

Yesterday, if I had looked out of the window of my home overlooking Scapa Flow in Orkney, I would have seen the tanker Aretea berthed at the Flotta oil terminal, the Pacific Ineos Grenadier at anchor and the Eagle Balder and Pacific Treasures involved in a ship-to-ship transfer, supported by local tugs Freyja, Thor and Odin. I would also have seen the platform, the Safe Caledonia, which is now a familiar sight in Scapa Flow.

One of my

earliest memories of Orkney, from 1979, is of an oil rig in Scapa Flow. That was at the start of the oil boom, and throughout the past four decades, the oil has flowed through Flotta, and the tankers, including some of the largest in the world, have been regular visitors.

The oil industry is a vital part of Orkney’s economy, providing well-paid and highly skilled jobs and supporting a wider supply chain. It has gross value added of £110 million and supports 167 direct jobs and 279 indirect jobs, with those in turn supporting at least a further 175 local jobs in the islands. The supply chain includes many businesses that also support Orkney’s growing renewables sector. The two highly skilled, highly successful industries work hand in hand, complementing each other, not in competition as some might have us believe.

Across the Highlands and Islands, according to Offshore Energies UK, the sector has GVA of £209 million and supports the jobs of more than 1,500 people. It was in the Highlands, at yards such as Ardersier, Kishorn and Nigg, that the oil boom was facilitated by building the rigs that extracted the oil. Cromarty Firth port has been and will continue to be a vital facility as the opportunities of the green freeport—created by both the UK and Scottish Governments working together—are taken.

The sector is vital to Shetland, where the Sullom Voe terminal and the Shetland gas plant are both still major employers, and where decommissioning at Lerwick Port Authority’s Dales Voe facility is well established. It is a site that I have visited on a number of occasions.

The opportunities for Shetland, and for the wider Highlands and Islands, are not in the past. According to Wood Mackenzie’s 2018 report, the west of Shetland is the “place to be”, with abundant oil and gas reserves. There are opportunities for decades to come not just to support local jobs in Shetland and the wider sector but to help the United Kingdom meet its energy needs.

T

hat is vital, because oil and gas will continue to play a part of our energy mix for years to come. By ending domestic production early, we risk making the United Kingdom more reliant on more polluting foreign imports, and at a cost of £1,100 to every person by 2030. However, that seems to be a price worth paying for some in this chamber, who are desperate to be seen doing something virtuous regardless of the damaging consequences.

We know that the Green tail is now wagging the yellow SNP dog, and that it is now too feart to stand up to its militant Green bedfellows, or to stand up for Scotland’s oil and gas workers. Labour has no such excuse. By talking up the ending of domestic production for good, Scottish Labour appears willing to let down the Scottish workers and the communities who depend on our oil and gas sector.