Scottish Parliament, 19 June 2024

240 contributions from 51 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I remind members that questions 4 and 6 are grouped together, and that I will take any supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to mitigate against crop damage over the coming months. (S6O-03589)

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

I am very aware of the diverse range of challenges that farmers are currently facing. The Scottish Government places a very high priority on supporting farmers to mitigate against crop damage from a wide range of threats, notably from plant pests and disease, and in adapting to climate change.

The Plant Health Centre and the Farm Advisory Service are key elements of that support. We invest almost £50 million a year in-portfolio on strategic research in order to support advances in sustainable crop production, natural resources and the environment, including research that is aimed at improving crop resilience.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for his answer, but last year, Scotland’s farmers had to endure extreme drought, wildfires and a deluge of rain. The delayed start to planting this year has already alarmed farmers about the coming months. Considering the Scottish Government’s poor response last year, can farmers and local residents expect anything different this year?

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

Clearly, I disagree with what the member says—I think that the Scottish Government’s response was very good. I have already informed members that I hosted a flood resilience and water management round-table event with the sector earlier this year. The Government has already put in £1.8 million of flood support, which is available for flood bank repairs. There is on-going support and work with the industry, and this Government has a very good working relationship with the farming sector.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action to support businesses in the rural economy to expand. (S6O-03590)

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands is committed to building a prosperous and inclusive rural community, and she meets—as I do—with ministerial colleagues to represent the interests of both rural businesses and communities.

For example, alongside the Deputy First Minister, the cabinet secretary co-chairs the rural delivery plan ministerial working group. That group was established to ensure that Government delivers for rural areas in a cohesive way, making best use of our collective resources to deliver sustainable outcomes for rural islands and rural coastal communities, including on economic development.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will know that a recent survey from the Country Land and Business Association found that 73 per cent of businesses are losing thousands of pounds of investment, thanks to projects being held up by the planning process. I suggest that that is an issue not only in the rural sector, but elsewhere.

What is the Scottish Government doing to address that concern about the planning process?

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

The member raises a very good point, and planning is a matter that has been raised by members on all sides of the chamber. However, I go back to my point that we have a joint ministerial working group and we talk about these issues regularly. There are specific issues in the member’s region and in my constituency, of which we are very cognisant, and we are definitely working towards finding proper solutions for them.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We have a supplementary from Emma Roddick, who joins us online.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that the Tories—just this once, before they are booted out the door—should be honest with rural businesses and communities, acknowledge the damage that they have caused and apologise for the barriers that they have created for businesses and the havoc that their policies have caused for Scotland’s rural economy?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Minister, if you can extract from that anything that falls within your jurisdiction and responsibility, please do so. Otherwise, please just do not bother.

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

The member is absolutely correct to say that we have a range of problems that have arisen for the rural community as a result of things that have happened via Westminster, Brexit being the obvious example, but I will leave the politics there for the moment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential link between agricultural support and rural depopulation. (S6O-03591)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

In our vision for agriculture, rural communities can thrive and more people, not fewer, can live and work sustainably on our land. That is regularly discussed with ministerial colleagues. Through a phased approach, as outlined in our agricultural reform route map, future agricultural support will improve the resilience, efficiency and profitability of the sector.

I oversee the rural component of our addressing depopulation action plan, which strategically supports communities facing population decline. We will continue engagement with rural partners to deliver the right support, ensuring sustainable communities now and into the future.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Recent research by Scotland’s Rural College looked at the risks and opportunities for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles as a result of changes in agricultural policy and support. Although differences exist between each island group, all three boast high levels of environmental designations and priority habitats and species. In all three, agriculture accounts for a higher share of business activity and employment compared with Scotland as a whole, with a larger multiplier effect across the economy from any investment that is made. Given that and the challenges that are faced in sustaining populations and building community resilience, what commitment can the cabinet secretary give that future policy and support will reflect the findings of that research? Does she accept that what happens to farming and crofting matters to our islands economically, environmentally and socially?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member raises a number of important points. I will first touch on the research element. The Scottish Crofting Federation raised that report with me, and I believe that it is due to be published shortly. As with anything, the more data, information and research that we have to help inform our policy decisions can only be a good thing.

I give the member the assurance that we will consider the report as we continue on our agricultural reform journey and continue developing policy. We will, of course, look to work closely with rural communities on the other elements that the member discusses. I absolutely recognise how important agriculture is to our rural communities, particularly our island communities, including the member’s constituency of Orkney.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

In some parts of Scotland, people are farming and crofting in the most marginal and challenging of circumstances. Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that any undermining of Scotland’s ability to tailor agricultural payments to the specific needs of our sector could potentially render certain types of farming and crofting unviable and be a catalyst for people leaving agriculture and their communities? That is why it is vital that the devolved nature of agriculture is not undermined.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The member raises a critical point. Our ability to design support that works for our farmers, crofters and land managers in Scotland is critical. We have very particular types of support that do not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom that recognise the type of land mass that we have in Scotland. An example that illustrates that is our less favoured area support scheme payments, which are critical for the people who work on our most marginal land. We had concerns throughout the passage of legislation such as the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 because of the threat of their potential to undermine our ability to develop policy that works for Scotland. That is why we will continue to develop policy here, by working with our farmers and crofters to deliver a future framework of support that will work for them.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has undertaken to consider the impact that Brexit has had on Scottish food and drink exports. (S6O-03592)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The food and drink growth sector is a major contributor to Scotland’s economy and is Scotland’s biggest non-energy export. The sector continues to be impacted by a range of issues, including Brexit, with many parts of it suffering from lower exports to the European Union post-Brexit, including a 45 per cent fall in fruit and vegetable exports between 2019 and 2023.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Meat producers, seed potato growers and many other food manufacturers have been severely impacted by Brexit. Salmon Scotland revealed that Scotland lost up to £100 million a year in salmon exports to the EU because of Brexit. Unsurprisingly, the Westminster parties are too feart to talk about the damage caused by Brexit, so can the cabinet secretary assure me that the Scottish National Party Government will always highlight Brexit chaos, stand up for our food and drink industry and do everything possible to get Scotland back at the heart of Europe?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I assure the member on all those fronts. He raised some important points and identified critical industries for Scotland, not least seed potatoes, which are important for the north-east of Scotland.

Scotland is paying a high price for Brexit, which it did not vote for. The food and drink sector has undoubtedly been impacted, and the figures and costs that have been set out lay that situation bare. We have highlighted repeatedly to the United Kingdom Government the chaos that it has inflicted through its hard Brexit. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to stand up for our food and drink industry.

It is astonishing that neither the Tories, Labour nor the Liberal Democrats are arguing to reverse Brexit. I agree with the member that the only way that we can escape this economic disaster is for Scotland to become an independent country and an equal member of the European Union.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the United Kingdom Government to discuss the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s food and drink exports. (S6O-03594)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government has taken every opportunity to engage with the UK Government to press it on the impact of Brexit on Scotland’s food and drink sector. The formal mechanism for that is the interministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs, which last met on 13 September 2023. Unfortunately, the group has not met since, as United Kingdom Government ministers have pulled out of subsequent meetings. There are also regular meetings at official level that cover a range of post-Brexit issues that have an impact on Scotland’s food and drink sector.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The outgoing UK Government imposed a deeply damaging and costly Brexit on my constituents and on the economy. Given that the academic think tank, UK in a Changing Europe, said that Labour’s EU plan will have a “minimal” impact on the cost of Brexit, I am glad that the cabinet secretary agrees that only real change from the disaster of Brexit will come when Scotland becomes an independent country with full membership of the EU.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

There is overwhelming evidence that the UK Government’s irrational hard Brexit continues to cause significant economic damage to Scotland and, indeed, to the whole UK. For example, in May this year, the Institute of Directors said that 46 per cent of its members were finding EU trade challenging, and that 57 per cent of its members who import or export were identifying new customs regulations as the key problem. Therefore, I completely agree with Marie McNair that the only way forward is for Scotland to become an independent country with full membership of the EU.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my declaration of interests as part of a family farming partnership that grows crops and produces beef.

Exports to the European Union of British beef are banned because of bluetongue, which only came into the country through Europe. Does the minister think that the EU—where bluetongue is rife—is right to ban imports from UK countries?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Edward Mountain has raised an important point. It is vital that we take action on all fronts to try to prevent the importation of such diseases, which is why the engagement that we have had with the UK Government on the border target operating model has been frustrating. We originally agreed to endorse that model because we need to take whatever action we can to prevent importation of diseases such as the one that Edward Mountain mentioned. However, there has been a severe lack of engagement from the UK Government in relation to that and in relation to our west coast and qualifying Northern Ireland goods. The member might wish to raise that issue with his colleagues in the UK Government and ask them to engage with us constructively on those matters, so that we can try to address them.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of how the small producers pilot fund has supported microbusinesses in Scotland. (S6O-03593)

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

We are utterly committed to small producers, and the pilot is only the first step towards that commitment, limited, as it is, by our present powers and capabilities. The fund was developed in partnership with the industry that Emma Roddick referred to. She will be aware that, earlier this year, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands confirmed £1 million resource funding.

So far, we have supported two small-scale abattoir projects and development of the small producer information hub website, and we are currently in the process of procuring a practical training fund, all of which support small producers.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am aware of the £180,000 that was awarded last year through the fund. As the minister mentioned, among the project awards was support for two mobile abattoirs. Many people in my region are keen that those become normal sites for agricultural workers, who often struggle to travel to Dingwall or Mull—journeys that often include multiple ferries and/or lengthy road trips for farmers and their animals. Is the Scottish Government considering further support for such schemes?

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

Emma Roddick has raised a very important point. The cabinet secretary publicly directed that the pilot steering group explore solutions to challenges regarding accessibility to abattoirs and regarding sufficient throughput. An abattoir survey was conducted and has been published. I am happy to share that with the member.

Continued support for abattoirs will be considered for this financial year, following the review of the funding to date, and we will continue to work with smaller producers to ensure that the right support for their needs is developed with them. The pilot is a step towards ensuring that the essential role of that cohort is recognised and rewarded appropriately.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Distribution of support funding is disproportionately targeted at large farms. The £1 million funding pot actually equates to £143 per year for the small producers that are registered. Large farms receive £223 per hectare per animal, which shows the discrepancy in the funding. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure fair distribution of support?

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

As I said in my answer to the previous question, it is a pilot fund and the Scottish Government has absolutely committed—as we have just been through the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill—to working with small producers to make sure that they get the absolute maximum possible support through development of the programme.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Association for Marine Science regarding its research into reducing the deaths of cetaceans from fishing line entanglements. (S6O-03595)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government is aware of the research into entanglement in creel lines of sensitive marine species and we are currently considering the findings of the research. We welcome the support from fishers to trial solutions to reduce such entanglement events, and we welcome the role of SAMS in the work. We are fully committed to tackling the issue and will, through the future catching policy, be working with stakeholders to deliver action to reduce—and, where possible, eliminate—bycatch and entanglement of sensitive marine species, as part of a wider effort to ensure the sustainability of our fisheries.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Creeling is a low-impact form of fishing. However, rope that is used to connect the creels is causing an ever-greater number of cetaceans, including porpoises, humpback whales and minke whales, as well as basking sharks, to drown after being entangled. A trial of sinking ground line, which is only slightly heavier than standard rope, with creel boats that are operated around the north-west Highlands, has proved to be a simple and effective method of reducing the risk of entanglement in static gear. Therefore, will the Scottish Government explore facilitating wider roll-out of sinking ground line across the static-gear fleet to ensure that Scotland retains its position as a European leader in marine mammal conservation?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

First, I thank Kenneth Gibson for mentioning the research, because we are always interested when it comes to such research reports and their findings and will be giving it our full consideration.

I have just mentioned our future catching policy. As part of our discussions on it, we will arrange a stakeholder workshop on sensitive species bycatch, this summer. We will use that meeting as an opportunity to discuss the findings of the report with the industry.

Our vision for fisheries in Scotland has sustainable management at its heart, and we support good practice by the fishing industry. We are really pleased to see the level of support from fishers to trial solutions that will reduce marine animal entanglements as part of the project.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Kenneth Gibson is right to highlight the work on trialling solutions to prevent cetacean deaths. Entanglement also poses risks to seabirds such as gannets and is a danger to shipping. Damage from ghost fishing gear to the propeller of the NorthLink freight vessel MV Helliar recently took her out of the lifeline service for weeks. What efforts are being made by the Scottish Government to prevent ghost fishing gear and thereby reduce entanglements, which are a danger to sea life, fishing and shipping?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Beatrice Wishart has made some really important points. In relation to seabirds, we have the seabird conservation strategy: work is on-going in that regard. In relation to discarded fishing gear, we are currently supporting the development of a European standard for recyclability and circularity for fishing and aquaculture gear. The standard will provide guidance and encourage designers, makers and users to adopt best practice and available technologies in order to ensure that fishing gear stays in use for as long as possible. That includes its retrieval in the event that gear is lost.

We are part of a number of important initiatives to help to tackle the problem, including the Global Ghost Gear Initiative and KIMO International’s Fishing for Litter initiative, to promote behaviour change. I hope that we are, by supporting such projects and by undertaking advances in other areas, as I have set out, taking a rounded approach to trying to get to grips with the problems.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to deliver on its commitment to produce a national register of ancient woodland. (S6O-03596)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

A new national register of ancient woodland is an important element of the Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan, which we consulted on last year. We have been discussing with NatureScot and Scottish Forestry the best approach to developing a new register of ancient woodland, which will build on the existing Scottish ancient woodland inventory.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer, but she did not say when the Government plans to deliver that register. I accept that there have been talks and consultations, but if we are to be able to protect and restore our ancient woodland, we need to know where it is, how much of it there is and what condition it is in. I urge the cabinet secretary to have another go at the original question and to tell me when we will see a national register.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Graham Simpson has raised some important points. I completely understand and agree with him about the importance of the work. I recognise and admit that it has not progressed as quickly as any of us would have liked it to progress, which I fully appreciate, because the work that we have been taking forward has been focused on the biodiversity strategy and its delivery plan. That work has been very complex, because it involves a range of organisations that have interests in delivery of the strategy.

I am completely aware of the importance of providing a national register of ancient woodland and I offer the assurance, now that we are through the first stage of the strategy and are moving into the delivery phase, that that work will be prioritised in order to help us to ensure that our important ancient woodlands are protected. I would be more than happy to keep Graham Simpson informed, as we progress that work.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and Islands. I was unable to take questions from a few members, but they were not here for the start of the question session. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is portfolio questions on national health service recovery, health and social care. I make the usual plea for those who want to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government, in the light of reports that capital expenditure work has now been stopped at Raigmore hospital, when it will publish its plan for the Moray maternity services redesign. (S6O-03597)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

On 3 March 2023, the Scottish Government approved the plan that NHS Grampian and NHS Highland submitted for the reintroduction of obstetric maternity services at Dr Gray’s hospital, which was backed by up to £6.6 million of Scottish Government investment. We remain committed to that plan. NHS Grampian has a dedicated Moray maternity web page, where it publishes its regular newsletter, which it shares with the public and local elected members. The March edition of the newsletter included a summary of the plan and a working timeline.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister well knows, all capital works have stopped, and maternity provision across the Highlands, especially for Caithness mothers, is shocking. Given that NHS Highland has already spent £2.7 million on the project, and it has potentially overspent by £70 million, surely the Government must accept that the handling of the Moray maternity services redesign has been shambolic and nothing short of wicked.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

With regard to Moray maternity services at Dr Gray’s, I am pleased to say that NHS Grampian and NHS Highland have moved forward with delivery of the plan. In addition to the delivery of the first three milestones, three obstetricians and one paediatrician have recently been appointed, recruitment of specialist midwives, anaesthetists and speciality midwives is on-going, expansion of the day-case assessment provision is continuing and operating models for neonatal care and intrapartum obstetric care are being finalised. Work is absolutely continuing, and I regularly meet my officials, who regularly meet NHS Grampian, to discuss progress.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Regarding capital works, the United Kingdom Government’s decision to cut the Scottish Government’s capital budget for the next five years by nearly 9 per cent in real terms has had a severe impact on healthcare projects. Can the minister advise of any conversations that have been held with the UK Government on that matter? Will she join me in calling on the UK Government to reverse those harsh cuts, to ensure that Scotland’s health service infrastructure can be significantly improved?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree that it is incredibly disappointing that the Scottish Government’s capital budget was reduced. As Ms Harper said, our block grant for capital is expected to reduce by around 9 per cent in real terms by 2027. That represents a cumulative loss of more than £1.3 billion.

Ahead of the UK autumn statement in November and the UK spring budget in March, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government called on the UK Government to reverse the cuts and to provide clarity on the future of our financial transactions funding. Sadly, no clarity and no additional capital or financial transactions funding for Scotland was forthcoming.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will proceed with its reported plans to downgrade the neonatal intensive care unit at University hospital Wishaw. (S6O-03599)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The decision to move to three neonatal intensive care units has been made on the basis of clinical evidence that tells us that that change will improve outcomes for the very smallest and sickest babies. As I agreed to do when I met Monica Lennon and Wishaw constituents in November, I have considered again the data and evidence in relation to the proposals and have taken additional advice from clinical advisers who were not part of the best start process for identifying the location of the units, and I am reassured about the validity of the evidence base, the process and the conclusions that were reached.

The Scottish Government-commissioned independent modelling report was published on 29 May. Following consideration of that report, we have asked the regional chief executives to progress with the development of implementation plans.

The Scottish Government is now consulting families on implementation of the proposals, so that we can take account of their concerns when the pathways and processes for the new model of care are designed. An online survey is being developed, and that will be followed by the use of targeted focus groups, to help us to listen to the concerns of parents in Scotland and to inform implementation plans.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The minister will know that almost 23,000 people have signed a petition that urges the Scottish Government to stop the downgrading of Lanarkshire’s neonatal intensive care unit. It is important that my constituents believe that their voices are being heard.

The Scottish Government says that parents are key partners in the care of their babies and that we should do everything possible to keep mothers and babies together. That said, how can the Scottish Government continue with the devastating downgrading plans, when ignoring the pleas to save the Wishaw neonatal intensive care unit would force families to be apart at a vulnerable and critical time?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The new model of care is firmly based on clinical evidence, as recommended by a group of neonatal experts. To ensure that babies and parents remain close, we have the young patients family fund, which will support people. The hospitals that will host the intensive neonatal care units will have suitable accommodation alongside the units, to ensure that that important bonding happens. That is all part of the plans that we are asking the national health service health boards to work through to ensure that we achieve the best results.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is welcome that the local neonatal units will continue to offer care for the vast majority of babies, including a level of neonatal intensive care. For clarity, will the minister reaffirm that the plans are about ensuring that, with pre-emptive planning, the smallest babies are born where they can readily access the specialist care and services that they might need, including neonatal surgery, which is not currently available at Wishaw, and that that is in line with expert clinicians’ advice?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I reaffirm that the new model of care is recommended by a group of neonatal experts and is firmly based on clinical advice, which shows that the most preterm and sickest babies do best when they are cared for in larger, specialist neonatal units, which look after a lot of those babies and have specialist staff and services available on site to give them the very best care. We are doing that to give babies who are born at the extremes of prematurity the best chance of survival. I believe that that is what every parent wants for their baby.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Martin Whitfield has a brief supplementary question.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the minister confirm whether the clinical analysis and advice that she was given is about what is right for the baby, the baby and the mother, or the family?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The advice that I have received is from experts on looking after babies in a neonatal care situation. That advice has always looked at the baby in the round, and that is why we continue to ensure that I get the right advice from the right groups of people to move the work forward.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of inflation on health and social care services in Scotland. (S6O-03600)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Spiralling United Kingdom inflation has had a devastating impact on all public services, including health and social care. In spite of that, we have provided more than £19.5 billion for the health and social care budget, which gives our national health service a real-terms uplift.

Despite that investment, the system is under extreme pressure as a result of the on-going impacts of Covid, Brexit, inflation and the UK Government’s spending decisions. Therefore, hard choices, greater efficiencies and savings will need to be made. We regularly assess inflation and the impact on health and social care services, and that features in the development of the Scottish public sector pay policy.

Later this summer, we will publish our health and social care portfolio medium-term financial framework, which sets out expected inflation levels, linked to the gross domestic product deflator rates, and that will be updated annually as new information becomes available.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Not just inflation but years of UK Government spending cuts have continued to have a detrimental impact on the Scottish Government’s ability to provide the level of funding that our health and social care services deserve. The cabinet secretary highlighted the impact of the UK Government cuts to our budget. Does he envisage that we can protect our public services, such as the NHS, from increased privatisation and future cuts?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Gordon MacDonald is right—a decade and a half of Tory austerity has had a clear impact, and it is becoming harder and harder for us to continue to mitigate that. The UK Government has ignored the calls from this Government to prioritise investment in public services and infrastructure. Although I welcome the additional resource funding that was received at the spring budget, the £237 million that was provided is only around half of the £470 million of consequentials from 2023-24, which have not been baselined in full into 2024-25.

That is clearly a disappointing situation, which sets a challenging fiscal context. It also serves to illustrate the continued short change that the Labour Party has offered, of just £134 million in additional health funding for the Scottish Government.

The UK Government’s figures show that Department of Health and Social Care funding for 2024-25 is 0.2 per cent less in real terms than it was in 2023-24, while we have provided a real-terms increase of 3 per cent. That is just one example from a resource perspective. I could also point to the capital side and show why Wes Streeting was absolutely right when he said that the pressures in Wales are because

“all roads ... lead ... to Westminster”.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 5 is from Bob Doris, who joins us remotely.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the levels of uptake for baby and child immunisation programmes, including any emerging trends. (S6O-03601)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Quarterly and annual childhood immunisation rates across Scotland remain high, which reflects the hard work and commitment of our colleagues in the national health service and the recognition of the benefits of vaccination. However, there have been decreases in uptake compared with previous years—a trend that has been observed globally.

We are working with Public Health Scotland and health boards to improve vaccination uptake, address health inequalities and support those who are eligible for vaccination. We urge parents and guardians of young children, when invited, to bring them for vaccination in order to give them the best protection against serious disease.

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

The sharp increase in whooping cough cases, with 3,650 cases confirmed in the first half of 2024 in Scotland and, sadly, deaths in England, highlights the vital importance of childhood vaccinations, as well as—in this case—vaccinations for pregnant mums. More generally, vaccinations offer protection from a variety of dangerous conditions. Although immunisation rates remain high, as pointed out by the minister, they are dipping. Will the Scottish Government outline how it seeks to ensure that we maintain high levels of uptake across society, including, for instance, in lower-income areas in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn and among groups with a history of vaccine hesitancy?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

This morning, I met representatives of the Scottish vaccination improvement programme, which is a partnership between Public Health Scotland, health boards and the Scottish Government. We were talking about exactly that—the importance of vaccination as one of the most effective public health interventions that we can make throughout our population.

As Mr Doris highlighted, an increase in cases of pertussis illustrates the importance of health boards continuing to promote the benefits of vaccines and ensuring that access to vaccines is straightforward, timely and equitable. Public Health Scotland has developed a range of social media toolkits and has translated advice into a number of languages to support that work, and it is working with health boards and the available data to target efforts where they are most needed—for example, in areas of deprivation, where uptake might be lower.

As I have said, parents and guardians also have a vital role by bringing children forward for immunisation when they are called, to ensure that they get the best protection. We as elected members can also promote that.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a couple of supplementary questions. I will try to get them both in, but they will need to be brief, as will the responses.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

It is known that immunisation rates are lower among those living in more deprived areas and in black and minority ethnic communities because of various factors, including a lack of trust and a lack of information. What measures is the Scottish Government taking to increase uptake of vaccines by those groups?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Mr Choudhury raises a very important point. Although not specifically with regard to vaccinations, I have met BME communities with regard to organ donation and such like. I shared that at the meeting that I was at this morning.

It is incredibly important that we reach all groups. As I said in response to Mr Doris’s question, our social media content has been translated into a number of languages.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

My question is in a similar vein to my colleague Foysol Choudhury’s question on the more likely lower vaccination rate in more deprived areas. I am interested in knowing whether the minister thinks that we could do more cross portfolio to ensure that uptake in those areas reaches the level that exists across the rest of Scotland.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree with Carol Mochan that there is work to be done, and we are working cross portfolio to improve healthcare in areas that face inequalities. I would be happy to work not only cross portfolio but cross chamber and to meet Ms Mochan and Mr Choudhury to discuss the matter further.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that scheduled care transport provided by the Scottish Ambulance Service is accessible to all patients who need it. (S6O-03602)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government recognises that transport plays a key role in supporting patients’ health journeys, and it prepared the transport to health delivery plan in summer 2023. The plan outlines 16 commitments across health and social care and for Transport Scotland.

The Scottish Ambulance Service plays a key role in supporting patients to access healthcare appointments. It carries out a needs-based assessment for each patient to determine eligibility for clinical support during transfer to appointments. The assessment helps to ensure that the transport service is available to all those patients who need it.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I raise that question because, in recent months, quite a number of constituents have told me about their difficulty in accessing transport services. For example, one lady from Fife who had to attend Edinburgh for radiotherapy was told that she did not meet the eligibility criteria. The woman, who was in her 80s, was told to use public transport. Each leg of the journey would have meant taking three buses. She physically was not able to do that. Will the minister look at such issues? Has the eligibility criteria been changed? The woman being told that she was not eligible because the criteria had changed came as a shock to her cancer nurse. Is that simply a case of cuts by the back door?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Alex Rowley for raising that incredibly serious issue, especially as we represent rural communities, where people need to be able to access healthcare services in an equitable fashion. We must ensure that our patient transport system works effectively.

To directly address his last question: no, it is not. It is obvious that the Scottish Ambulance Service continually reviews patient eligibility. It is right that it does so, as patients’ eligibility will change based on their fluctuating circumstances. However, it is also right that the Scottish Ambulance Service takes into account the patient’s condition and bases its decision on that.

I do not have the full details of the case that Mr Rowley raises, but I am concerned about it. I ask for more detail to allow me to interrogate the matter further, so as to ensure that people can equitably access the healthcare services that we want to be delivered to them.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I want to ask the cabinet secretary about the access to and the availability of the patient transport online booking service. The service has been and continues to be well used, but, as we have already heard, there are logjams in the system and the service is experiencing difficulty in fulfilling all bookings in some parts of the country. Will the cabinet secretary comment on that?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

That is not a situation that I have had communicated to me as yet. If Mr Stewart has particular examples with which he would wish to furnish me so that I can investigate further, I would be happy to do so and reply in writing on the basis of the findings.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to tackle long ambulance turnaround times. (S6O-03603)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Ambulance Service continually engages with health boards, while optimising services including flow navigation centres and the integrated clinical hubs, which provide care for patients at or near home, reducing pressure on accident and emergency departments.

The call before you convey protocol is being used and cohorting areas have been established at sites that are facing challenges, ensuring that ambulance crews are freed up during high-demand periods.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

People in the north-east were shocked to read reports of a 96-year-old woman waiting outside Aberdeen royal infirmary for nine hours due to ambulance stacking. By the time that she was admitted, she had not eaten for 14 hours. We must be clear that everyone from the ambulance crew to the hospital staff did their jobs well, but the turnaround times that they are expected to work with, which are already unacceptable, are becoming unbelievable.

After 17 years of the Scottish National Party being in charge of our national health service, what is the cabinet secretary doing specifically at the ARI to prevent stacking? Does he think that it is acceptable to have elderly patients starving and in agony for hours with help just out of reach?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Clearly, the example that Liam Kerr cites is unacceptable. There is no defending that, and I apologise to the patient and their family for the situation that they have endured.

On the direct action that we are taking with NHS Grampian on the pressures in the ARI, I have asked for an improvement plan that will address the pressures in the accident and emergency department and throughout the hospital. There are pressures not just for our ambulance service in accessing the hospital but for the flow through the hospital.

We are also taking direct action with a joint mission with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on reducing delayed discharge, because our hospital occupancy across Scotland is too high, and that is stopping the flow through the hospital.

It is also fair to say that ambulance stacking is not a unique phenomenon, either to the ARI or to Scotland. Further, the situation is faced elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is not to say that it is okay to experience that in Scotland; it is just reflective of the fact that there are significant pressures on our health and social care services across the UK—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I want to get in a supplementary question.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, despite fiscal constraints as a result of Westminster Tory cuts, the Scottish Government provided £349.2 million to the Scottish Ambulance Service this year, which is an increase of £15 million on the previous year? Will he provide details of how that funding will be used to recruit additional staff to increase capacity and improve the service?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government recognises the extreme pressure that the system is under, as a result of the on-going impacts of Covid, Brexit and inflation, as well as the UK Government’s spending decisions. We have therefore provided almost £550 million of additional investment to front-line NHS boards as part of the 2024-25 Scottish budget.

The Scottish Ambulance Service received £15 million of that increased investment, taking its funding to nearly £350 million to support the delivery of its services, and we continue to invest in the Scottish Ambulance Service workforce. We have provided funding of £45 million on a recurring basis in 2023-24 to support increases in the board’s capacity. That includes funding for the recruitment of 1,388 additional staff since 2020, 230 of whom were recruited in 2023-24.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce waiting times for CAMHS in NHS Fife. (S6O-03604)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We continually monitor CAMHS waiting times performance, engage with all boards—including NHS Fife—and direct tailored support to the boards with the longest waits, providing access to professional advice.

In recent months, NHS Fife has made improvements in its waiting list for CAMHS. Between June 2023 and the end of March 2024, when the latest statistics were published, there was a 25 per cent decrease in the waiting list and a 41 per cent decrease in the number of patients who wait more than 18 weeks. That is to the credit of the staff in Fife, who should be commended for their hard work in achieving that.

Boards were allocated £55.5 million in 2023-24 via the mental health outcomes framework to improve the quality and delivery of mental health services, including CAMHS, in addition to the core funding that health boards receive.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, and I know that he is highlighting improvements, but there is a mental health crisis among our young people. The Scottish Government has repeatedly pledged action, but, when we look at the other stats, we see that nothing has changed.

NHS Fife’s latest data, from March 2024, shows that there are still 41 young people waiting up to 35 weeks for a follow-up appointment following a referral; that figure has barely moved from the 47 young people who were waiting for more than 35 weeks in March last year. Even more worrying is the fact that, during the same period, 31 per cent of referrals were rejected altogether, leaving many to seek help from charities, and that is almost identical to the 33 per cent that was recorded in the previous year.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

What is the question?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is another year gone by. When will the Scottish Government stop promising and actually do something?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Roz McCall for her question and for the attention that she is putting on the importance of the investment that we are making in child and adolescent mental health services. We have increased investment and we have increased support through the workforce.

On the figures that Roz McCall quoted of those who are waiting 19 to 35 weeks, that number was 70 in June 2023, and it was 41 in March this year. Clearly, for the people who are waiting that length of time, that is not acceptable, but we are seeing an improvement in those services. It is not fair to say that the decisions that we have taken have had no impact. They are having an impact.

It is also not fair to say that having their referral rejected means that there is no help or support for those children. As a specialist service, CAMHS will be the right support for only a small proportion of children and young people. The national CAMHS specification includes a clear expectation that children and young people whose referral is not accepted are sensitively and appropriately signposted to more suitable services.

We are investing and we are making improvements. I want to see those improvements happen faster, which is why—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take a very brief supplementary question. It will need to be brief, as will the response.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The Psychotherapy and Counselling Union met me today and raised the point that there are often no other routes of referral apart from CAMHS. Loading pressure on to CAMHS is part of a vicious cycle, which includes cuts to mental health spending across the board in community settings, primary care settings and educational settings. Is that not compounding the pressure that we are seeing, not just in CAMHS but across our mental health services and the NHS?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

There has been no cut to mental health services—I do not know where Paul Sweeney is getting that from. There has been a substantial increase—a near doubling—in the funding that is available for mental health, and a clear investment has been made in CAMHS. That is why there is an increase in the workforce supporting CAMHS referrals and why there is better referral-to-treatment performance. It is not where we want it to be, but it is the best performance that we have had in a decade.

I am very grateful to the front-line staff who are working so hard and performing so well to ensure that we are providing those services to the children and young people who need them.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13696, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 25 June 2024

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

9.00 pm Decision Time

Wednesday 26 June 2024

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs; Education and Skills

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Scottish Government Priorities: Tackling the Climate Emergency

followed by Stage 3 Debate: Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

6.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 27 June 2024

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

followed by Financial Resolution: Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Bill

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.15 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

followed by Members’ Business

(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 24 June 2024, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Alexander Burnett]

Motion agreed to.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Statistics 2022

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Màiri McAllan on 2022 greenhouse gas emissions. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The First Minister has made tackling the climate crisis one of his top priorities. The reasons are well rehearsed, but we must always remind ourselves why that is so critical. The twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss are among the greatest global challenges of our time. Action to address the scale and pace of the emergency is an environmental imperative, a moral necessity, an economic opportunity and a top priority for the Government. It is against that background that I update Parliament on the latest progress on Scotland’s statutory climate targets.

Official statistics that were published yesterday show that Scottish emissions in 2022 have reduced by 50.0 per cent since 1990. That is a reduction of 0.1 per cent on our position in 2021 and means that we are exactly halfway to net zero. Using comparable metrics, we can see that Scotland has made the largest emissions reduction in the United Kingdom between the 1990 baseline and 2022, with a reduction of 50.1 per cent, while emissions in England fell by 49 per cent, followed by Wales at 36.5 per cent and Northern Ireland at 25.9 per cent. Scotland has also decarbonised much faster than the European Union 27 average, using comparable EU statistics.

Despite that, today’s statistics mean that we have not met the 2022 target of a 53.8 per cent reduction from baseline. Some sectors saw significant reductions in 2022, including buildings, and there were more modest reductions in agriculture and industry. However, there was a rise in transport emissions, particularly from international aviation and shipping, resulting from a rebound following Covid-19. The 2022 data from the UK reflects a similar picture. Once UK data is adjusted to include international travel, which is routinely included in Scottish but not UK data, the UK also showed a 0.1 per cent decrease in 2022, and Scotland still outperforms the UK.

Certain sectors have led that decarbonisation in Scotland. Electricity supply emissions have fallen by 88.1 per cent on baseline, with industrial emissions falling by 56.8 per cent and waste emissions falling by 75.4 per cent. We were among the first to take early bold action, and we are continuing to lead in responding to the climate crisis. Indeed, 63 per cent of new woodland in the UK was created here in Scotland between 2022 and 2023—more than the other UK nations combined—and Scotland is becoming a renewables powerhouse, with more of our electricity generation coming from zero-carbon sources than ever in 2022.

We are now in the second half of our journey to net zero. It is more challenging, and we are abundantly clear on the need to empower individuals, communities and businesses in that journey. Indeed, in Scotland, we have enshrined in law both the need to achieve net zero by 2045 and the need to do so in a way that is fair.

Reaching net zero is mission critical—there is no doubt of that—but we must guard against underplaying the magnitude of what is required to achieve it. Regrettably, in political discourse, some voices underplay the necessity of tackling climate change, while others underplay the complexity of doing so. Neither of those serves us well. For me, Scotland will always have a whole-hearted commitment to delivering what we need to do to address the emergencies, and a determination that the transition will be planned and well managed and that our people will benefit.

I must make it clear that, in Scotland, our task is more difficult because we lack the full powers. For example, we know that, although our economy will ultimately benefit from decarbonisation, the up-front cost of net zero is significant. Independent analysis by the Scottish Fiscal Commission tells us that the cost is particularly high in Scotland. Despite that, the UK Government has instituted a real-terms cut to our capital funding of almost 9 per cent over five years. That is utterly wrong headed and it must be reversed. Similarly, there are critical areas where the UK Government holds the power over Scotland and where only it can act but where, at this critical moment, it is failing to do so—in relation to technologies such as carbon capture and storage and in decarbonising buildings or transport—at the pace that is required.

I hope that the new Government at Westminster will show greater commitment to climate change. I will work with ministerial counterparts to achieve progress, but we will not settle on hope alone. That is why, despite the exceptional budgetary pressures on Scotland, in this financial year alone, we are committing £4.7 billion for activities that will positively impact delivery of our climate goals. It is why legislation that is completing its parliamentary passage this week will drive forward climate progress. That includes, of course, the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which passed at stage 3 yesterday. Scotland’s farmers, crofters and land managers already play a critical role in cutting emissions, and the bill will allow them to increase their contribution while continuing to produce world-renowned food sustainably.

Likewise, the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 3, will provide the legislative framework to develop a circular economy alongside powers to set local recycling targets and a new code of practice for waste and recycling service. That builds on Scotland’s strong record in reducing waste emissions, where the total amount of waste going to landfill has nearly halved over the past decade and the overall recycling rate is at its highest level since records began in 2011.

Those bills, which are passing now, demonstrate that the Government is acting now to make the change necessary. However, we know that continual challenge and progress is what the climate emergency demands of us. Therefore, we are always looking forward, including to the complex matter of heat in buildings. Our new-build heat standard currently means that no buildings constructed under a building warrant from 1 April 2024 will have polluting heating systems. We recently consulted on bold proposals to end the use of polluting heating systems after 2045 and to introduce a minimum energy efficiency standard for all homes. Responses to our plans for a heat in buildings bill, which the Climate Change Committee said could be a template for the rest of the UK, are currently being analysed ahead of confirming next steps.

Climate change requiring

“everything, everywhere, all at once”,

as Antonio Guterres put it, is why, on top of all that work, on 18 April I also announced a new package of climate policies. That includes that we will publish a new route map for delivery of approximately 24,000 additional electric vehicle charge points by 2030, with support for rural areas and low-income groups, and plan an integrated ticketing system for all modes of public transport. In agriculture, we will take forward a pilot on methane-suppressing feed products and additives and, this autumn, we will publish our route map to a 20 per cent reduction in car use, supporting local authorities to take appropriate action in their area.

That is just some of what the Government is doing, and it is not to mention our biodiversity delivery plan, marine protected areas, Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, onshore wind sector deal and hydrogen action plan and the strategic investment in offshore wind that we are currently making, which is worth up to £500 million over five years.

As I have previously said in the chamber, the Scottish Government recognises the Climate Change Committee’s analysis this year and in 2019 that the interim 2030 target, set by Parliament on a cross-party basis, is beyond what can be achieved. I was not in Parliament at the time, but I share the view, expressed by all parties then, that setting an interim target beyond what was believed to be achievable has emphasised the importance of the journey and has helped to accelerate action in the meantime. It has certainly done that.

Since 2019, we have launched the world’s largest floating offshore wind leasing round and moved to ban some of the most problematic single-use plastics. We have restored around 75,000 hectares of degraded peatland, created four low-emission zones, deployed the most comprehensive network of public EV charging infrastructure in the UK outside of London, designated 37 per cent of our waters as marine protected areas and, internationally, helped to break a 30-year impasse on funding for loss and damage.

However, just as any good climber will not be fixed on one route to a summit, we must be prepared to try new paths if experience demands it. The summit remains our goal; I will not allow it to be jeopardised by committing to a pathway that is not feasible. That is why I confirmed on 18 April that the Government would bring forward legislation as soon as practicable to ensure that our emissions pathway takes us to 2045 on the basis of the latest advice from the committee.

Today’s statistics reinforce what the CCC has confirmed to us in recent correspondence, namely that annual emissions and targets are highly susceptible to unexpected events. Our route to 2045 needs to be receptive to the non-linear realities of long-term decarbonisation. Consequently, our legislative proposals on a new emissions reduction framework will include establishing five-yearly carbon budgets. As the CCC recently set out to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, annual fluctuations are smoothed within multiyear budgets, which, therefore, provide a more reliable indicator of progress.

We are working with the parliamentary authorities to ensure that the bill is introduced as soon as possible after recess, and we have begun engaging with the convener of the NZET Committee to support its scrutiny of the bill. Thereafter, we will work towards our next climate change plan, founded on the CCC’s advice on a revised pathway to 2045 for Scotland.

We have now reduced our emissions by 50 per cent from the 1990 baseline, and the Government is resolutely focused on the next 50 per cent and achieving net zero.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I ask those members who wish to ask a question to please press their request-to-speak button.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for giving us plenty of advance notice of what she was going to say today, but what an embarrassment this is for this Government. The cabinet secretary has tried to put a positive spin on this, but it is fooling no one. The Government has failed yet again to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets, and SNP ministers have now missed nine of the past 13 annual targets for tackling climate change. That is shocking. You can see why they want to do away with such inconveniences.

The cabinet secretary obviously has a sense of humour. She mentions trying to find new routes to the summit, but she is not even in the foothills. If she thinks that the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is going to make any difference, she has not been following its progress. She has a cheek to mention woodlands when the budget for woodland planting has been cut. Domestic transport is the largest source of greenhouse gas, and emissions have gone up.

Let us have a look at some of the things that she mentions in the statement. First, there is a new route map for EV chargers. The Climate Change Committee has suggested that we need 280,000 of those across the UK by 2030, which would amount to roughly 30,000 in Scotland—not 24,000. When are we going to see that route map?

She has a cheek to mention an integrated ticketing system, which was first promised in 2012.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In 2012!

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In 2012. When exactly are we going to see that? How can we have any confidence at all that this Government will hit the new 2045 target when it has failed so miserably?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Sadly, that was a typically cynical take on an important issue on which Graham Simpson’s party has absolutely zero credibility. I remind him that Scotland is halfway to net zero, ahead of the UK average and ahead of the EU27 average when we use comparable statistics. I am extremely proud of that record. In my statement, I spoke about some of the interventions that the Government has led that have taken us to this point.

I will pick up on one aspect that Graham Simpson highlighted: woodland creation. In the past five years, Scotland has created around 75 per cent of all new forests in the UK. Seventy five per cent of all trees going into the ground across the UK and Scotland have been planted in Scotland. They are sequestering carbon, supporting jobs in rural communities and feeding in to our construction sector.

However, the funds that the Government has been able to invest in woodland creation in this financial year have been curtailed because of the up to 9 per cent cut in our capital budget that Graham Simpson’s party at Westminster oversaw. If he is concerned about the funding that the Government has at its disposal for investment in important projects such as woodland creation, I ask him to have a word with his colleagues in Whitehall. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

When a member is speaking, we do not need a lot of muttering from other members from sedentary positions. I am not looking at anybody in particular.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of her statement.

For years, the UK Climate Change Committee has been warning that the Scottish Government has not been ramping up the action that is urgently needed to tackle our climate emergency. Today’s statement is, as ever, highly selective in greenwashing the SNP’s achievements. It did not mention that the SNP Government failed to deliver the £133 million that it budgeted to retrofit homes, bring down people’s bills and reduce their emissions. Since the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed, the Government has failed to deliver the transformation in bus services that we need, which means that many people are forced to use cars, as there are simply no affordable bus services available. We have been waiting months for the energy strategy, the green industrial strategy and the climate change action plan.

Given that this is the ninth time in 13 years that the Scottish Government has failed to deliver, when will climate activists—who are angry, disappointed and worried that this continual failure leaves Scotland’s credibility in serious jeopardy—see the radical action that we urgently need?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In overseeing the Government’s work to tackle climate change, I have always been proud of what we have managed to deliver. I spoke about a number of the key deliverables in my statement, and I will continue to do so, because those things do not just happen—they require exceptionally hard policy development and the use of scarce resources.

However, I have also always said that I will never say that that is enough, because the twin crises of the climate emergency and biodiversity decline mean that no Government, no organisation, no business and, really, no individual can say that they are doing enough until, as a community of nations, we have reached net zero and turned the tide on the issue.

I commit to Sarah Boyack that the Government is, as I set out in my statement, continuing to work across the piece, using every lever that we have at our disposal, to reduce emissions at the pace that is required. I also said in my statement how keen I am to work with the incoming Westminster Government to ensure that we collaborate across the United Kingdom. I say sincerely that, when Labour forms the next Government in England, as I think it will, I hope that it will think very seriously about the commitment that it made to invest £28 billion in green activities. That commitment appears to have been dropped, but the consequences of such investment would make a big difference to the work that we could do in Scotland.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The UK Government has continually failed to take urgent action on reserved matters, including carbon capture, utilisation and storage; hydrogen; electricity grid infrastructure; and the decarbonisation of gas. We are not only dealing with the continuing constraints of devolution but facing severe budgetary restrictions that are imposed by the UK Government. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland would be better positioned to fight climate change if it had the full powers and financial levers of an independent nation?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely do. That goes back to the point that I made in my statement. Although tackling climate change is critical, we do no one any favours by underplaying the scale of what is required to meet our targets. There needs to be transformation in every aspect of our economy and society, and when we, as a devolved Government, try to deliver that, it is like having one hand tied behind our back, particularly when, in recent years, the UK Government has backtracked on some critical interventions and, as I said, has cut our capital budget by failing to inflation proof it.

Carbon capture and storage is a critical example of that. It is inexplicable that the Scottish cluster was not supported in track 1, and it is unacceptable that, now that it is included in track 2, we are all left wondering what progress is being made. I urge the UK Government to reverse the cut to Scotland’s capital budget and to get a move on with the delivery of CCUS, particularly in relation to the Scottish cluster.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Going back to the Scottish Parliament, the repeated failure to meet emissions targets risks eroding public trust in climate action, as does the mounting list of other failed policies, from recycling to renewable heat to biodiversity, all of which are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Watching ministers trying to blame those failures on others instead of taking responsibility only compounds the problem. To ensure responsible environmental governance and restore public trust in climate action, is it not time that we had an independent environmental court in Scotland?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I refer Maurice Golden to the papers that the Scottish Government recently published on the question of an environmental court. As we are required to do under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, we explored whether environmental governance would be improved or otherwise by the presence of an environmental court, and the Government’s evidence on that is set out in the papers.

I remind the member that what erodes public trust in climate progress—something that is very important to the public at large—is people such as Rishi Sunak, his party leader, failing to deploy onshore wind in England while, at the same time, fighting to open new coal mines and create culture wars. We all remember when the Prime Minister stood outside Downing Street and, while dropping a raft of really important commitments on transport and heating buildings, talked about ludicrous things such as removing recycling bins and protecting people from having six or seven recycling bins. That is just nonsensical. It creates culture wars and does absolutely nothing for the progress that we all have to work hard towards collectively, which I think the public want to see us do.

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

In her statement, the cabinet secretary referred to shipping emissions. Earlier this year, Scottish Enterprise was a key stakeholder in supporting Smart Green Shipping, which is a developer of an innovative retractable wingsail that is estimated to save commercial shipping companies up to 30 per cent fuel per year. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the founder of Smart Green Shipping, Diane Gilpin, who said:

“There are no other countries that support innovative climate technology companies at an early stage like Scotland.”?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Before I come on to the substance of Audrey Nicoll’s question, I should say that it is a really important one for her to have asked, given that the 2022 statistics demonstrate that some of the bounce-back in transport emissions was from shipping in particular. It is worth reminding members that Scotland includes international aviation and shipping in our inventory whereas England does not.

I agree that Smart Green Shipping’s work is typical of the type of economic opportunity that our just transition to net zero affords Scotland as the ideal test bed for new green technology. Investment and such new technology will enable companies that are based here to seize those opportunities and help innovative businesses to grow and thrive here at home and across the world.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Despite the positive spin, the statement is a statement about failure, and it should be acknowledged as such.

In the early days, the Scottish National Party Government went for the low-hanging fruit, as it would be described. Indeed, the decarbonisation of electricity had more to do with Scottish Power shutting down Longannet than any decisions that the Government made.

Is the problem that the Government does not have joined-up policy and joined-up thinking? For example, we will cut car kilometres by 20 per cent while, at the same time, halting the £500 million bus partnership fund. There is that kind of failure. Do we not need to see more joined-up government if we are ever going to have a chance of achieving the targets?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Alex Rowley mentioned the capital funding for the bus partnership fund. I am afraid that, much like other capital funds with which cabinet secretaries had to wrestle in this year’s financial settlement, it has suffered from the up to 9 per cent capital cut that we face in our budgets, thanks to the UK Government.

With all due respect to Alex Rowley, I do not consider the work that the Government and the Scottish Parliament have undertaken in the past number of years since declaring an emergency as “low-hanging fruit”. I do not consider the world’s largest floating offshore wind commercial leasing round to be low-hanging fruit, and nor do I consider the UK’s most generous concessionary bus travel scheme, the new low-emission zones or having the most comprehensive network of EV charging in the UK outside London as low-hanging fruit.

What I do accept is that the climate emergency is such that it requires continual challenge and continual work across the board, and the Government is determined to do that. In particular, some of the actions that we will take forward in the climate bill will allow us to continue to deliver as we have been doing over a number of years.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have a number of members still to call, and I would like to do so, so I ask members to pick up the pace just a little bit.

I also ask members to have the courtesy not to have all this muttering going on when somebody has the floor. Thank you.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The Opposition parties claim that they are interested in climate change, and yet, when we come up with practical examples, as the cabinet secretary mentioned in her statement—around transport, for example—they oppose those. They oppose the workplace parking levy and low-emission zones and, on recycling, they oppose the deposit return scheme. Does the cabinet secretary find the Opposition parties’ attitude hypocritical or helpful?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In the spirit of constructive working across the chamber, I would say that there are a number of examples of where cross-party working has been very successful, but there are other examples of where it has not been, and John Mason is right to highlight them.

When the Parliament, in 2019, set the 75 per cent target for 2030—one which advice told us at the time was beyond any of the five scenarios that the UK CCC could pull together—my predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham, said to members that that would require close cross-party working and a real commitment across the chamber to pull every lever that we would have to use in order to meet those targets. Unfortunately, that has not always happened, and even modest measures that the Scottish Government has sought to bring forward have not been supported—John Mason listed some of them. I hope that the new climate bill can be a point at which to reset.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give the cabinet secretary another practical example. In 2005, the Parliament’s first inquiry into climate change proposed the introduction of road user charging, with a target date of 2015. We are now 10 years on from that, and there is still no fair way to raise revenue to invest in public transport while at the same time managing down demand for private car usage.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the year 2022, to which her statement refers, when we were coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic and private car usage was so low, was a missed opportunity for us to start to break our dependency on car usage? We cannot afford any more missed opportunities. All the ideas and policies are there; what is lacking is action from councils and from the Scottish Government to bring in demand management and drive down emissions while driving up investment in public transport.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Cabinet secretary, I think that there was a question there.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Mark Ruskell raises an important point. Transport remains the highest emitter in Scotland. I mentioned in my statement that we will publish in autumn this year a route map to achieving a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres driven. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who is sitting beside me, is currently taking that forward.

The only point that I would add is that it is very important that, as we seek to reduce car kilometres driven, we do so in a way that is locally appropriate. Suitable solutions for inner-city areas, for example, will be very different from those for our rural areas, where private cars, and EV private cars, will remain an important facet of life.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Despite the spin, the statement confirms that Scotland’s progress to net zero is at a standstill. The cabinet secretary is right in her criticism of some for denying the necessity and others for denying the complexity of achieving net zero. However, given the UK CCC’s repeated warnings of the need for both of Scotland’s Governments to work together, does she believe that our chances of getting back on track are enhanced by her and her SNP colleagues making climate policy yet another constitutional battleground?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

My colleagues and I have not, and will not, make climate policy a constitutional battleground. I am afraid that, from our experience in recent years—as the First Minister reflected on this morning, in particular during the Boris Johnson Government and in the years since then—there is no doubt that relations between the Scottish Government and the UK Government have been poorer. The First Minister described it as a lack of respect—that is coming from a man with long experience of intergovernmental relations across the UK.

Regardless, I have made it very clear that I expect there to be a new UK Government. The Tories’ track record on climate change, among a plethora of issues, will see them removed from Downing Street. My colleagues and I will work with the incoming Government, and climate change will be one of our top priorities.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

We know that restoring damaged peatland is a cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions in Scotland. Earlier this month, we celebrated over 10,000 hectares of damaged peatland restoration. However, although the UK Government continues to benefit from Scotland’s peatland and forestry potential, the weight of that work still falls on Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is only right and fair that the UK Government should contribute towards a fair funding agreement in that area?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am a significant advocate of peatland restoration. That is one of the clearest win-win-wins of our journey to net zero, not only in sequestering significant amounts of carbon but in creating jobs in our rural communities. I am pleased that in, 2023-24, we restored over 10,000 hectares of degraded peatland. That was a 38 per cent increase on what we restored the year before.

Jackie Dunbar is absolutely right that the weight of the responsibility for payment for those areas of land use change and forestry falls disproportionately on Scotland. That is why the 9 per cent cut to our capital budget is so damaging and why I once again urge the UK Government to reverse Scotland’s capital budget cut.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Douglas Lumsden, who is joining us remotely.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

CCUS has been mentioned. The devolved Scottish National Party Government announced £80 million for CCUS in its budget over two years ago, but not a single penny has been spent. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the money that was pledged could be being spent now to allow business to get ready to decarbonise, or was that announcement of money another broken promise to the north-east of Scotland by the SNP?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am afraid that that is another example of the Conservatives’ brass neck. Douglas Lumsden has asked me a question about funding CCUS when it is his party in government in the UK that has the powers to deploy CCUS. Every observer, political and neutral alike, would say that the UK Government’s treatment of the Scottish cluster—not including it in track 1 and dragging its feet on track 2—has been utterly inexplicable. We will support the Scottish cluster and CCUS, including financially, once its track status is confirmed. I will probably have to wait for a new Government to take that forward.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Under the SNP, any transition to a climate-conscious Scotland will leave no one behind. Does the cabinet secretary agree that a just transition is of the utmost importance and that it must build on the voices of Scotland’s communities, workers, union representatives and businesses, along with the voices of agriculture, including those in Dumfries and Galloway?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely agree with that. That is why I was keen to highlight in my statement that we have two legal obligations in Scotland: to reach net zero by 2045 and to ensure that we do so via a fair transition. That means that the transition is well managed, that our people benefit, and that the opportunities of the journey to net zero, of which there are many, are shared. My colleagues and I are determinedly pursuing that.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary talked about charting a new path. It is perverse that the biggest capital budget allocated to Glasgow in the next few years will be for rebuilding the M8 motorway while the public transport budget for the city has been cut to zero. Does she share my concern about that?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

There are very careful and balanced considerations to make about how we invest in transport infrastructure. I know that the Scottish Government, particularly in strategic transport projects review 2, has a framework through which decisions are made.

As I have said, the use of cars—I hope that they will be electric vehicles—will continue to be a facet of how we travel. We must balance that with the need for improved public transport. When funding is allocated for our roads, it is very often for safety, which remains of paramount importance to ministers.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes questions on the ministerial statement. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions, should they so wish.

Growing the Economy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-13679, in the name of Kate Forbes, on Scottish Government priorities: growing the economy. I call on the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to speak to and move the motion.

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

When I took up the role of Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic—six weeks ago, I believe, although the election has distracted us all somewhat—I was asked about my plans and priorities. I said, and I reiterate it today, that the plan is simple: it is to get the economy firing on all cylinders and to use the engine of economic growth to power a better future.

Although the plan is simple, the prize is enormous. Scotland is a country where growth is recognised as a key enabler of social, economic and cultural progress, and where economic success enables us to eradicate the scourge of child poverty, achieve net zero and provide our public services with the investment that they require in order to save, empower and transform lives.

Today, we publish our latest progress report on the national strategy for economic transformation. We remain committed to its vision of “a fairer, greener and wealthier” economy that works for all the people of Scotland. It is a plan to transform our economy through a relentless climb to the top rather than a self-defeating race to the bottom, and through looking outwards to what can be achieved rather than inwards at what we must not lose.

Scotland’s growth needs to be fair, green and sustainable. It should be growth that is defined by a spirit of innovation, in which the traditional bedrocks of our economy—tourism, financial services and food and drink—reinvent themselves for a digital and net zero world. The growth should be founded on the industries of tomorrow, including space, financial technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I recently chaired a round table with leaders from the national health service, leading universities and private sector companies that are looking to develop and scale up new products and services in Scotland. They were clear that not only does Scotland have an incredible history of innovation, but it has the people, data, supply chains, enterprise agencies and policy makers that can deliver a future that is every bit as successful as our past.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Kate Forbes is correct to say that, but why did the Scottish Government feel the need to cut the budget for the university and college sector, which is instrumental in providing a lot of research, development and innovation?

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

Liz Smith is right that the college and university sector is critical; I am about to talk about education and skills. She will recall that our public finances are under extreme strain, that inflation has eroded our ability to spend and that both of those are products of UK Government and Conservative policies. Based on the figures for inflation that were published this morning and a change to the austerity agenda, my hope is that we might be able to continue to invest in all the public services that matter for Scotland.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

Why not?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

At the launch of the Scottish National Party manifesto this morning—which, I believe, the Deputy First Minister attended—I was intrigued to see that the SNP made spending commitments of £93.8 billion, with tax rises of £70 billion proposed. That leaves a spending black hole of £24 billion. How is that hole to be filled?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I will take the opportunity, at this early stage in proceedings, to remind members that the debate is about matters for which Parliament has responsibility. We will not be engaging in a blatant electioneering extravaganza this afternoon—hopefully. [ Laughter .]

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

I am sure, having shared multiple platforms with Mr Fraser in various hustings around the country, that I will shortly have the opportunity to answer his question more substantively.

In this Government, our agenda for economic growth is built very much around our skills and education system. It identifies and encourages talent and taps into everybody’s potential, not just that of the privileged few. It tackles the skills gap in computer science by increasing the availability of specialist teaching and encouraging participation in foundational subjects such as maths and physics. It is a system that prepares people to succeed in a world in which artificial intelligence strikes at the certainties of the established labour market.

It will be growth in which everybody has a stake, with regional economic partnerships that define and deliver the priorities of their communities; with vibrant social enterprises and an entrepreneurial third sector; with a continued commitment to community wealth building and with specific programmes that promote enterprise within Gaelic-speaking communities.

It will be growth that respects, protects and celebrates our environment; that recognises our natural resources as an extraordinary competitive advantage; that ensures a just transition; and which sees public and responsible private investors in Scotland’s natural capital working alongside each other to achieve ambitious climate change and biodiversity goals. Realising that potential is not easy. [ Interruption .] Talking of which, Fergus Ewing wants to intervene.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am most grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way.

Does she agree that economic growth is not all about more money and more cash—it is also about process and, in particular, about speeding up processes, whether for salmon farming consents, new forestry plantations, renewables projects or planning developments? Does she agree with me that delay is the hidden destroyer of economic growth in Scotland?

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

I agree that we need to ensure that Scotland is a great place to do business. I will perhaps come on to that in the limited time that I have available.

For the record, I point out that our vision for the economy is ambitious, but achieving it and realising the potential are not inevitable, nor are they easy. The world is uncertain and unpredictable, but armed with the vision that we first described in the national strategy for economic transformation, I believe that we can and will succeed, provided that we are prepared to make difficult choices and to commit to sustained action over time.

Let me describe some of the choices. We choose to focus on becoming one of the leading start-up economies in Europe. I make no apology for the fact that I am inspired by entrepreneurs. I revel in their optimism and I want to put their spirit at the heart of Scotland’s economic future. We choose to do that because the economic impact of new and scaling firms is colossal. They are 40 per cent more productive than the economy as a whole and they attract investment and create high-paying jobs far beyond the walls of their own enterprises. In doing so, they help to address many of the wider challenges that we face, as a country.

Those enterprises include companies such as Blackford Analysis, which is a vibrant software company in Edinburgh that uses the power of AI to improve patient outcomes, and Intelligent Growth Solutions, which is a rapidly scaling firm that is based in Inverkeithing, and whose approach to precision farming is at the frontier of the push to deliver global food security. They are companies that are growing in Scotland and whose very DNA dispels the myth that growth and wellbeing are contradictory economic principles.

We make that choice from a position of strength. Last year, despite the difficult macroeconomic headwinds, our start-up ecosystem attracted record investment of almost £1 billion, which outperformed all UK regions with the exception of the so-called golden triangle between London, Oxford and Cambridge.

We recently announced investment of £5 million in a new enterprise package and we are well on our way to delivering one of Europe’s finest state-funded systems for creating and scaling high-growth businesses. The £42 million Techscaler network puts the inspiring winds of silicon valley in the sails of Scottish innovation by providing world-class incubation facilities as well as founder education from the best providers in the world.

We are expanding our entrepreneurial talent pool by delivering on the recommendations of Ana Stewart’s “Pathways: A New Approach for Women in Entrepreneurship” review. It is simply unacceptable that start-ups that are founded by women receive only 2 per cent of investment capital, so we are going to tackle that head-on by creating new best-in-class environments in which women can create and scale businesses, financial incentives to seed good ideas and structural reforms to the way in which the public sector invests in scaling companies.

We also choose to put science and technology at the heart of our economic future. We are already a European hub for drug discovery and life sciences and we are home to the UK’s second-largest critical-technologies supercluster, which comprises quantum, photonics, semiconductor and wireless capabilities. It is one of a small number of priority clusters in digital technology, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and the energy transition, which will be supported by a dedicated cluster-building programme. It will be shaped by industry, share knowledge and support cross-cluster collaboration.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

Do I have time?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is a bit of time in hand.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way. She raised an important issue about the growth and scaling of firms in Scotland. One of the concerns that has often been raised with me is that firms in Scotland grow to a certain level, after which they struggle to access more capital then have to sell to overseas ownership. Is there a strategy in place for the Government to anchor more firms to Scotland for the longer term, so that we can have more FTSE 250 and FTSE 100 companies with headquarters in this country?

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

Paul Sweeney has put his finger on it when it comes to our ambition for Scottish start-ups. In supporting companies to start up and then scale up, we do not want them to leave. They need a pathway from the moment when they start operating to the moment when they are extremely successful, because we want them to be headquartered in Scotland. That is part of some of the strategies that I have mentioned. I am happy to engage on a cross-party basis to make sure that we get it right.

We want a relentless focus on science and technology, so we have developed plans to recast Scotland’s world-class universities as hotbeds of start-up creation and upscaling through an increased focus on spin-outs and on staff-led and student-led businesses. We are working through our enterprise agencies and the Scottish National Investment Bank with investment of more than £640 million across 34 investments, which has already helped to drive more than £1 billion of third-party co-investment.

Before I come to a conclusion, I want to make it clear that the scale of our ambition cannot be met by Government-backed funds alone. That is why, in line with the recommendations of the First Minister’s investor panel, we have chosen to create a more investment-friendly environment and ecosystem in Scotland by operating at scale, defining clear roles and responsibilities across the public sector, maintaining a professional and systematic approach to investor engagement, and developing a credible and costed pipeline of investment opportunities. The detail of that has already been set out in the terms of the £500 million of investment in offshore renewables, which will leverage private investment in ports and in manufacturing and assembly work.

That work is to go hand-in-hand with our vision for fair work, with the number of accredited real living wage employers increasing from 14 in 2014 to more than 3,700 in 2024, and some 67,000 workers in Scotland having had a pay rise as a result of their employers securing accreditation. Just under 90 per cent of employees who are aged 18 and over in Scotland are now paid at least the real living wage, which is a higher level than in Wales, England and Northern Ireland. Our median gender pay gap for full-time employees has been lower than that in the UK as a whole since 2003. Although there is work to do, our disability employment gap continues to fall, as well.

As I come to a close, I note that our vision is clear, we understand the choices that need to be made and we are absolutely determined to deliver economic growth that transforms lives, transforms communities and transforms this nation. I offer people across the chamber who share that vision and ambition the opportunity to be part of that and to work with me. I hope that we can deliver that shared objective for Scotland’s people.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that Scotland’s abundant natural resources and hugely talented people mean that there is opportunity to build a strong, successful and inclusive economy that realises the new opportunities from the transition to net zero and the digital revolution; acknowledges that Scotland’s economic potential can be realised through actions to support entrepreneurs, promote science and technology and ensure that the track record of innovation is translated into new businesses and improvements in productivity in all sectors of the economy, and agrees that doing so will build Scotland’s global reputation as a great place to do business, grow exports and secure international and domestic investment.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the Deputy First Minister fairly said, she and I, as well as Mr Johnson and others, have been doing the rounds with various debates during the course of the election campaign. Indeed, Mr Arthur, Mr Johnson and I enjoyed bacon rolls this morning at yet another hustings. I feel that this debate might be an extension of those particular engagements. Although I hear the Deputy First Minister’s strictures on not electioneering, perhaps we will return to the question of the black hole that is at the heart of the SNP’s manifesto on a different occasion, if we do not get the chance this afternoon.

I welcome the language that is used in the Government’s motion. Indeed, there was very little in what the Deputy First Minister had to say in her speech that I could disagree with. I find it very encouraging that we now have a Government that is talking positively about growing the economy. Now that the anti-growth Greens have been removed from the Government, it has more liberty to do that than it had previously. That is a welcome change of direction from a Government that now contains Kate Forbes as Deputy First Minister.

Of course, language takes us only so far. What we must see is action that matches the words. It is fair to say that the Government’s track record over the past few years is that, rather than putting a focus on economic growth, it has, I am afraid, put too many barriers in the way of growth.

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

Who would the member say has been responsible for Scotland outperforming the rest of the UK economically in recent times?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Deputy First Minister needs to look at the wider picture, because, since 2014, the Scottish economy has grown, on average, at half the rate at which the UK economy has grown. We have a lot of catching up to do, even compared with the sluggish growth that we have seen in the UK economy, which, in line with all other Western economies, has been hit by headwinds including the fallout from the financial crash, the fallout from Covid and, of course, the impact on the cost of living of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. All economies have faced those pressures. Given that wider view, the Deputy First Minister should not be too optimistic about the performance of the Scottish economy.

On the subject of dismantling barriers, Fergus Ewing made an important intervention on planning, which is a very good example of a barrier that needs to be dismantled. I met the Deputy First Minister’s predecessor as the cabinet secretary with responsibility for the economy, Neil Gray, when he took up his post, and we had a conversation in which he asked me what one thing he could do to help to improve the performance of the economy. I said, in line with what Mr Ewing said, that he should sort out planning.

The issue is not particularly planning law or the planning rules; it is the administration of planning and the fact that everything takes too long. That is perhaps because we do not have enough planners—we are not training enough and we are not recruiting enough. That major barrier to progressing economic growth must be addressed.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Would Murdo Fraser agree that, as far as the development of renewables in the UK is concerned, which both Governments and all parties agree is a huge opportunity, there would be merit in considering the idea of setting up a standing committee, which would be chaired by the UK Government but would involve representation from the devolved Administrations, that would have the specific remit of ensuring that all public bodies that have a role to play—of which there are a plethora—do their work on time? Otherwise, we risk losing opportunity and losing projects to our many competitors, who are not hanging around, as we seem to be.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Ewing makes an important point. I do not like making off-the-cuff responses to ideas that I have not heard before, but I think that he identifies correctly that there is an issue. We see that, for example, with the Berwick Bank renewable project, which involves a large wind farm, in relation to which there have been substantial delays in consenting.

However, it is not just in planning that there have been issues with barriers. The Government has introduced a host of new laws, all of which are actively hampering our ability to grow the economy. The introduction of the regulation of short-term lets has already led to a loss of visitor accommodation and to bed and breakfasts closing down across Scotland in large numbers. B and Bs were, it seems, inadvertently caught up in those rules, even though they were never part of the problem.

The introduction of the visitor levy could take millions of pounds from Scottish residents who want to holiday here and could make Scottish tourism even less competitive than tourism elsewhere.

We had the ruinous deposit return scheme that was hated by business and which now seems to be the subject of a £200 million litigation by Biffa.

We also had the rent cap, and we now have the proposed introduction of rent controls, which is a policy that has already meant that we have lost out on hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in the rental sector and has contributed to a shortage of available properties and a spike in homelessness. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am the owner of a property that is let on a long-term basis. However, many other landlords are selling up, which is creating shortages. All of that is contributing to the housing emergency that the Government accepts that we are in.

An issue that is dear to the Deputy First Minister’s heart is the proposed ban on wood-burning stoves in new-build properties. This Government introduced each of those measures that actively hamper economic growth.

Our amendment talks about taxation. Despite this Government’s protests, it has extensive powers over taxation, with complete control over non-domestic rates and control over non-savings, non-dividend income tax and land and buildings transaction tax. We know that the Scottish Government chose not to pass on the 75 per cent rates relief that is available to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses south of the border in the previous year and this year, thereby putting businesses here at a competitive disadvantage.

We also know—there is ample evidence that this is the case—that the differential rates of income tax and LBTT are having an impact on economic growth. Writing in The Herald a couple of weeks ago, the chief executive of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce referred to the fact that businesses here have had to start to pay a Scotland weighting—a higher salary to take account of the fact that everybody who earns more than £28,000 a year pays higher tax in Scotland. I have heard that from many other people in business.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I hear what Murdo Fraser says. However, does he congratulate the Scottish Government on the fact that the majority of people in Scotland pay less in income tax than their UK counterparts—even better, that is the majority drawn from the lowest-paid in society—and that, across Scotland, we pay an average of between £400 and £500 less in council tax every year? Is that not a good thing?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The benefit with regard to income tax is a few pennies a week and it makes no substantial difference to people’s household incomes. Anybody who earns more than £28,000 a year is paying more tax and anybody who is on an income of more than £50,000 is paying substantially more.

I will give Mr Brown a real-life example of where the problem hits. When members of the Parliament’s Economy and Fair Work Committee visited Prestwick airport at the end of April, we were told by Ryanair, which has a substantial repair and maintenance facility at the airport, that it is unable to attract qualified aircraft engineers to come to Scotland because of the tax differential. Those individuals are paid £77,000 a year and they tell Ryanair that they will not move to Scotland because of the income tax differential and the higher LBTT when it comes to purchasing a house. That opportunity is lost to Scotland, where Ryanair wants to expand but cannot, and that is the reason that it is giving.

The recent HMRC figures show a loss of high earners, not necessarily involving people moving out of Scotland, but perhaps involving people deciding that they will work fewer hours because it is no longer worth their while to do more. That applies as much in the public sector as it does in the private sector.

It is no wonder that so many organisations have criticised the widening tax differentials for undermining their ability to recruit and retain skilled staff. The Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the British Dental Association, the Scottish Tourism Alliance, UKHospitality Scotland, the Scottish Beer & Pub Association, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and the British Medical Association all say that that is making it more difficult for them to recruit and retain skilled or experienced professionals in their sectors.

We want to see greater migration into Scotland to help to grow our economy, but that ambition is being held back by the choices that this Government is making.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way on that point?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is bringing his remarks to a close.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise for being unable to take the intervention.

Our ambition, which is set out in our amendment, is to keep taxes in Scotland competitive with those in the rest of the UK so that they create an incentive for individuals to move here, in order to help to address skills shortages and grow our economy. Our policy paper “Grasping the thistle”—which I commend to the Deputy First Minister, if she has not already read it—sets out a range of ideas on competitiveness, skills, regulation, infrastructure, innovation and entrepreneurship.

The Government’s change in rhetoric on the economy is welcome, but it will be meaningful only if it is matched by action. This Government should start by addressing the tax differential. That is the point that we make in our amendment, which I am pleased to move.

I move amendment S6M-13679.2, to insert at end:

“; recognises that the best way to grow Scotland’s economy is to attract people to come and work in Scotland and to ensure that economic and fiscal policy is focused on removing the barriers that have hampered business expansion; acknowledges that many businesses, particularly in rural areas, have been let down by the Scottish Government’s anti-growth agenda and the supposed New Deal for Business; believes that the income tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK is damaging business and is an obstacle to economic growth; notes that this tax differential has become more pronounced due to the recent introduction of the new 'advanced' tax band; agrees that continually raising taxes over the long term ultimately reduces public revenue and creates disincentives in the economy; further agrees that broadening Scotland’s tax base is essential to improve fiscal sustainability, and calls on the Scottish Government to take steps to make income tax competitive with the rest of the UK, to unleash Scotland’s economic potential.”

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I will start by approaching the debate very much in the spirit that the Government is offering—the economy is too important to be discussed only in the narrow frame of partisan jibes, discussion and disagreement. I think that there are broad areas where there probably is disagreement and broad areas that are, frankly, very complicated and require an open approach, a pragmatic discussion and an examination of the different ideas in order to secure the future that we want for everyone.

I very much welcome the Government’s use of the word “growth”. That is where I will begin my remarks, because growth is really important for three key reasons. First, we, on the Labour benches, believe that the best way to eradicate poverty is by increasing access to well-paid, highly productive, high-wage jobs. That is possible only if there is growth. Growth for growth’s sake is not very useful. I know that Ross Greer is not in the chamber, but we were on “Politics Scotland” earlier and he said that gross domestic product is too crude a measure. I agree, but GDP per head is fundamentally important, and it is a measure that I will return to.

The second key reason is demographic change. If we are to organise our economy with a working-age population that is smaller than the post-working-age population, we need growth. We need to get more people doing more productive jobs, and that will not be easy.

Finally, if we are to realise our net zero potential—if we are to have a 21st century energy economy that is based on renewables—we need growth and investment. We need our energy to be produced more efficiently, which will be delivered only if we achieve growth.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I must say that I agree with the principles behind what Mr Johnson has said. Does he agree that, to achieve that growth in renewables, it is essential that we continue to support our oil and gas sector? It has the investment that we need from the private sector and the skills that we must retain if we are to develop the supply chain, achieve success and maintain investor confidence to raise the £1.4 trillion in investment that is required for renewables, only a small fraction of which the Government can afford.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I agree with the broad sentiment. I suspect that there might be some points of disagreement implied, but I will acknowledge two things. First, transition is a necessity. We have 10 per cent of the extractable resource left in the ground, so, whatever we do, we need to transition. Secondly, critically, if we are to realise some of our strategic potential in floating offshore wind and carbon capture and storage, the expertise and engineering that are required will come from the oil and gas sector, because those are the people who know how to do that stuff. I absolutely agree that we cannot have a cliff edge. We need those jobs, skills and assets, so the transition must be a partnership between the Government and the people who have that expertise.

I will make some progress. I have outlined why growth matters, and I go back to the point about eradicating poverty and improving equality. I know that my colleagues Alex Rowley and Foysol Choudhury will continue on how we can expand opportunity and how growth should be used to expand opportunities for all.

In relation to our amendment, if we are to realise those opportunities, we need to understand our headwinds. What are the risks and threats? I fear that, sometimes, when the Government approaches such topics, it wants to circumvent that aspect. We have already had a little bit of that. The Government is very keen to highlight figures or metrics that show where it has succeeded, but it is fairly unwilling to look at either the broader context or the metrics that point in the opposite direction.

That is why I come back to GDP per head. The simple fact is that, in the first decade of this new millennium, the gap in GDP per head between the UK and Scotland shrank from about 10 per cent to about 5 per cent, but, in the subsequent decade, it has increased. Whatever other metrics one wants to use, that is the fundamental one that we must focus on, because that is a loss of opportunity and a loss of earning potential for people. Let us start with that.

We must also recognise that it is a lack of investment that is holding this country back. Again, the headline figures often obscure this, but, up until the previous quarter, we had seven quarters of decline using that same metric across the UK. The reason for that was poor levels of investment. We also need to look at factors such as entrepreneurial activity, because Scotland lacks entrepreneurial activity and company creation.

Most critically, we have unequal growth. The reality is that the vast bulk of growth in Scotland is generated from Scotland’s south-east. The output per hour worked in Edinburgh and the Lothians is 50 per cent higher than it is in other parts of Scotland, such as the west and Tayside. Why is that? I suggest that we look at those issues. What are the structural barriers? Where are the regional economic development strategies that should enable people to link up the opportunities that exist in other parts of Scotland with their potential, skills and talents and the places where they live?

How much more time do I have, Deputy Presiding Officer?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can be relatively generous.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Relatively. I will understand that as—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You have up to seven minutes.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Up to seven minutes—that is very kind, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do not know what I have done to deserve that, but I will take it.

Critically, we need to have much greater focus and clarity. That is why we have set out three key focuses in our document “Building a business case for Scotland” around brand Scotland, net zero, and technology and financial services. I note that the Deputy First Minister might have highlighted the same three focuses in her recent column in, I think, The Herald . I am very grateful and flattered by that compliment.

We also need to focus on the how, because it is not enough just to have those focuses. I share many of the ambitions, but what needs to change? What elements in our enterprise agencies and policy approaches are holding back those things? We need greater clarity across our enterprise agencies. We often talk about there being a cluttered landscape. Tackling that is not just about reducing their number but about ensuring that they have clear focus and functions and that they are working together.

We need much better focus on how wider policies impact on those things. We have already talked about planning, but other points of regulation and points of contact between the private sector and Government are impeding things. We need a greater ability to carry out regional economic delivery. That goes far beyond what regional economic partnerships seek to deliver. We need a genuine regional approach to government.

I think that my seven minutes is up. Critically, this is about how we improve the life chances of people across Scotland. That is why growth matters. It is about tackling poverty and inequality and increasing people’s life chances.

I move amendment S6M-13679.3, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges that the gap in GDP per capita between Scotland and the rest of the UK has widened since 2007 and that EY’s Scottish spring forecast predicts that Scotland’s growth will continue to lag the UK’s in 2025; notes that Scotland’s early-stage entrepreneurial activity rate of 8.8% is lower than the UK’s rate of 11%; believes that businesses must be successful to build a strong economy and create the jobs that the country needs, and calls on the Scottish Government to work in partnership with business, listening to industry and workers, to deliver economic growth and the revenue needed to improve lives across Scotland.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Maggie Chapman to speak to and move amendment S6M-13679.1. You have a similarly generous four minutes.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I am pleased to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens. The title of this afternoon’s debate raises two fundamental questions: what do we mean by the economy, and what is it that we want to grow? Historically, and for many politicians and economists currently, the answer to the first question is extractivism, which is an economy that is based on colonial exploitation of people and resources, especially fossil fuels. The answer to the second question has been GDP. Those answers, taken together with the age-old notion that wealth will inevitably—eventually—trickle down, give us the current economic model.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the member give way?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I want to make some progress, please.

However, those answers never made very much sense and have only perpetuated a status quo that has cushioned those who are more than comfortable already. Now, in a time of climate chaos and obscene inequality, they make no sense at all. If our economy does not address the climate crisis or the inequality emergency, it is, at best, pointless in practice and simply enables and exacerbates them.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The member just said that it would be bonkers not to do a list of things. Surely, it would be bonkers not to ensure that people had jobs so that they could tackle things such as the deficits and the climate emergency. Without the money, they can do nothing.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you back that time, Ms Chapman.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I did not use those words. If Mr Mountain had listened carefully, he would have heard me say that, if our economy does not address the climate crisis or the inequality crisis, what is the point of it? What is it there to do?

As the Government’s motion recognises, we are in a different world now, and we urgently need to make a just and sustainable transition to an economy that meets its challenges and to forms of growth that recognise the realities. That means fundamental changes of approach, trajectory and objective, not simply substituting renewables for hydrocarbons, for example. We need to look at different answers—the answers that I and other Green activists have been talking about for years.

Central to this thinking is the concept of a wellbeing economy that meets the real and urgent needs of workers and communities, that respects the natural world and those who protect it, and that continues to flourish safely alongside future generations.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The member made an important point about some of the flaws in GDP calculations. One example that she might agree with me on is that new-build housing construction is factored into new GDP figures but renovations and retrofits are not. Is that not a perverse situation in a climate emergency, with massive amounts of housing that badly needs to be refurbished?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

There are many perverse realities in our current economy, such as the one that the member highlights. My colleague Lorna Slater will speak later in the debate about how the vision that we want to present can be made real and tangible in order to deal with some of those perversities and create the kind of industrial strategy that Scotland so desperately needs.

Our answer to the second question—what is it that we want to grow?—is key. It is not the sterile statistic of GDP, but our capacity to thrive as a nation, as cities, as towns and villages, as families, as communities and as unique and inspiring human beings. Under the current devolution settlement, our resources are limited. Indeed, our agency is significantly challenged. That is why, as Greens, we argue for an independent Scotland that has the powers and capacities to act as radically, as swiftly and as compassionately as the intersecting crises require.

However, we cannot let those resource and agency limitations distract us from the work that we can do today. If we advocate for independence for a very different kind of state, it is more important than ever to pay attention to what we are doing now and to exactly what kind of future we are investing in. Does it plant seeds of care and creativity as well as of science and technology? Does it support co-operatives and social enterprises as well as ambitious entrepreneurs? Does it measure success by equality and wellbeing as well as by productivity and export? The current model does not do those things. The purpose of modern state capitalism is to socialise the costs and risks of society and the economy while privatising the profits. That does not plant those seeds of care and creativity or generate and sustain equality and wellbeing.

That is where this debate crucially connects with one of the debates that I spoke in last week, on our shared priority to eradicate child poverty. It is by looking at our economy through that clear and focused lens, by asking what impact each of our decisions about investment, policy or practice has on the poorest children and the adults that they will become, and by making their rights real and realised that we will find the direction for the economy that we need.

I move amendment S6M-13679.1, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges the important contribution that community and social enterprises, cooperatives and other not-for-profit structures make to local economies, including local resilience and community wealth building; recognises the need to promote science and technology, but also creative and caring work that sustains Scotland’s society and culture, and agrees that proper investment in the green economy is required to deliver the urgent transformations that are needed to develop an economy that has equality and fairness at its heart.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I am pleased to support the motion. Scotland is our business, Scotland is open for business and the SNP is focused on supporting and growing that business.

It is a pity that there is a lack of a realistic plan from either the Tory or Labour benches to enhance our prospects for growth. The Tories have lost the plot, but Labour’s row-back on its green prosperity plan, combined with its adoption of the Tories’ fiscal rules, will be hugely damaging. These are not my words but those of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—here is what it said about Labour’s plans for green investment:

“After paring back the plan substantially ... the proposed additional spending would amount to less than half of the additional investment spending the Office of Budget Responsibility thought would be required”

to be

“consistent with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee in 2021.”

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would Michelle Thomson like to comment on what David Phillips from the IFS said today after the launch of the SNP’s manifesto about the extent of the big black hole?

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Liz Smith knows that we have had many discussions about that. I highlight to her, from the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report, on fiscal sustainability, the fact that 18 per cent of Scotland’s capital budget is required for us to get to net zero. Why, in the light of that, is she not clamouring for increased fiscal powers for the Scottish Government?

Accumulating capital stock and increasing the supply of a well-educated workforce are also of vital importance for growth. However, today I want to focus on the most important factor in long-term growth, which is technological innovation.

There are lessons to be learned from history. In the first industrial revolution, which was in the 18th century, we saw steam power taking off with the innovations of James Watt. In the second industrial revolution, the rate of technological change accelerated again, leading to electricity, which enabled new technologies. The arrival of transistors in the mid-20th century laid the foundations of the third industrial revolution, marking the beginning of the digital era, with opportunities enabled by the internet of things, the cloud and big data.

Who on earth, then, when we consider the growth enabled by technology, thought it a good idea to remove the UK from the European Union digital single market? Prior to Brexit, the UK digital economy growth rate averaged 24.1 per cent annually but, by June 2022, it had fallen to 0.7 per cent, according to research from Professor Alison Harcourt. However, the Tories and the Labour Party are now Brexiteers, with the Lib Dems wringing their hands after rowing back on their previous opposition.

The power of technology to drive change is spurred by its growth and use. In 2020, the United Workplace network argued that there are currently more than 19,000 million devices connected to the internet, more than 5,000 million mobile users and about 2 zettabytes of traffic per year at the global level. This is the era of big data. I was therefore delighted that, last year, the Scottish Government launched its 10-year innovation strategy, calling for Scotland to drive towards ranking alongside Denmark, Norway and Finland in being recognised as one of the most innovative medium-sized countries in the world.

The challenge that we all face is neatly summed up in Martec’s law, which states that, unlike information technologies, which grow exponentially, organisations grow logarithmically. It follows that, if organisations do not adapt to the pace of change, extinction will be inevitable. That process is what some people call digital Darwinism. If we do not get on board and if organisations in the public and private sectors fail to keep up and to be much better attuned to continuous innovation, they will become part of digital Darwinism, where organisational extinction is just as much on the agenda as organisational progress. That is the major challenge that we face as we rightly pursue economic growth. Scotland is up for that challenge, and I look forward to seeing the continued focus on economic growth that is outlined in the motion today.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I advise members that the time that we had in hand has now pretty much been exhausted, so members will have to stick to their speaking time allocations.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Before I go into my speech, I remind members that, as declared in my entry in the register of members’ interests, I run two small businesses.

I want to speak about small businesses and the vital role that they play in the growth of Scotland’s economy. Let us consider a small business in the Highlands that employs six people, each on a salary of £30,000 per year. It is impossible, however hard one tries, to measure how that money is eventually spread but, inevitably, employees will spend their wages in local shops, cafes, restaurants and entertainment facilities and on local services. They will keep the transport going, keep the workers driving the buses—if they can find them—and the trains working, and they will ensure local connectivity. They will contribute to local charities and non-profit organisations, perhaps by giving freely of their time, and they will support myriad other businesses.

As well as that reinvestment in the local economy, some of those six employees may have children in primary or secondary schools, thus helping the communities to employ teachers, childcare providers and support staff, which in turn ensures that local children continue to access good local education—so do not close our schools. Those employees will contribute to the employment of doctors, general practitioners, dentists, nurses and pharmacists—so keep local GP practices, pharmacists and hospitals open.

In essence, a small business with six employees creates many more jobs in the local economy than we could even calculate. A small business functions rather like a cog in a much greater network, which certainly employs dozens, if not hundreds, of people across Scotland. If the Scottish Government overlooks or neglects small businesses and local services, there will be collateral implications for the foreseeable future.

There is nothing small about the impact of small businesses across Scotland. In 2020, a staggering 87 per cent of the 180,000 businesses registered in Scotland were defined as micro-enterprises—companies that employ up to nine people. The Government’s own 2020 “Rural enterprise support: evaluation report” stresses that, compared with those in the rest of Scotland, three times as many people in remote rural areas work for small businesses. That means that, when small businesses are left unsupported or local services are cut—which means that those businesses cannot find employees—the economies of rural and island communities are hit the hardest. Indeed, parts of the Highlands and Islands have local economies that are made up purely of small businesses.

Small businesses function as a close-knit community whose members inevitably look after one another and attempt to self-sustain, but they require help. The chair of the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland recently commented that the First Minister needs to put

“growth and the needs of small businesses at the heart of his agenda.”

The very last thing that employees in those small businesses need are tax increases. That restricts the amount of money that they can spend locally, and they know how to spend it well.

If we do not look after small businesses and their employees, reinvest in local economies and keep local services open during this time, we will perhaps consign Scotland’s rural communities to the further depopulation that we are seeing across the Highlands. That is bad news. We cannot afford to let the Highlands and Islands wither and die by not investing in the very small businesses that keep Scotland going.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for the opportunity to take part today.

I whole-heartedly support growing the economy. We want our society as a whole to become better off so that quality and well-paid jobs are available to all our citizens, and everyone benefits from an improved standard of living. However, we face a number of challenges in growing the economy, including having a fairly static population.

It is incredibly difficult to grow an economy if the population is not growing. That is exacerbated, as is the case for many countries, by having an ageing population, which means fewer people available to work. We need to address that in the longer term by encouraging families to have more children and, in the shorter term, by allowing more people to migrate here to work. The latter, in turn, has been made more difficult because of the UK’s overly harsh immigration policy.

The Conservative amendment is incredibly ironic, as it calls for more people to come and work here while the Conservative UK Government prevents that from happening.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

How can John Mason describe a policy as “harsh” when the levels of net migration into the United Kingdom are now at record levels?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

My point—if Mr Fraser would like to listen to my next paragraph—is that we need targeted immigration.

By contrast, Australia has a regional visa system to promote economic growth outside the major metropolitan areas. People have to live, work and study in a designated regional area. Such a system could hugely benefit the economy in Scotland.

We face barriers to growing the economy, several of which are outwith our control. Some have suggested, even today, that increased income tax might also be a barrier to people coming to Scotland. However, we have heard at the Finance and Public Administration Committee that, in most age groups, people are coming to Scotland from the rest of the UK rather than leaving. That will be a mystery to some Conservatives, because they think that more money is the key to everything and that everyone else makes decisions based purely on self-centred financial motives.

I want to let the Conservatives into a little secret. Not everyone lives a life that is dominated purely by personal financial gain. Some people want to come and live in Scotland because we have such a good environment, with cleaner rivers, lochs and seas; others because the NHS is better here and there are shorter waiting times. Just recently, a constituent told me that she had moved from Kent, where she could not get an NHS dentist at all. She came to Glasgow and immediately got an NHS dentist. Others come for our world-class universities and research sector. Some want to live in a fairer society, even if they pay a bit more tax.

Another factor in all that is where the benefits of economic growth are going to. If growth means foreign-owned multinationals making increased profits, that sounds like bad growth. By contrast, if it is social enterprises, co-operatives or employee-owned businesses that are growing and the jobs and profits are likely to stay in Scotland, that is good.

That brings us to the subject of scaling up and why Scottish businesses are often sold by their founders before they have really grown to a significant size. It is not that we want to be overly protective of Scottish ownership, but it seems that businesses in a number of other countries are not sold off as readily as they are here. Common Weal estimates that, in 2021, £36.5 billion was extracted from Scotland, mainly as profits and dividends, while only £26.4 billion flowed in—a net outward flow of £10.1 billion. I am not saying that I am opposed to foreign direct investment—many of the jobs linked to FDI are good, well-paid jobs—but I just point out that there is a downside to so many of our businesses being foreign owned.

Scottish Financial Enterprise has produced a brief manifesto for the next UK Government. I have already mentioned some of its points, such as looking at the immigration system and student visas to attract—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

—the best talent here, but it emphasises that the UK Government should work more with the Scottish Government. I will finish on the point that, in recent years, the UK Government has seemed to want to give Scotland a kicking, and that has to stop.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Growing the economy must be the number 1 priority of Government in Scotland and Westminster. Over the past 17 years, both Scotland and the United Kingdom have seen sluggish economic growth. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that, since the 2008 financial crisis, the UK economy has grown by an average of 1.2 per cent each year, down from an average of 2.3 per cent in prior decades.

In Scotland, we lag behind the rest of the UK in GDP growth, with 2025 forecasts saying that that will remain the same. Make no mistake—economic growth is stagnating, and the working people of Scotland are paying the price of two weak Governments.

Research from the University of Strathclyde shows that early entrepreneurial activity in Scotland is lower than the UK average. To grow a strong economy and build our reputation as a great place to do business, early entrepreneurs must be better supported. In particular, our technology sector, which is suffering from a lack of capital investment, would benefit. Scottish Government grants need to grow businesses in the long term and reward entrepreneurship. Edinburgh has a growing technology sector, and we cannot afford to miss out. It is imperative that the Government works with our tech and digital industries so that we can be best placed to take advantage of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

Growth is also being stunted by our skills system. The British Chamber of Commerce’s business barometer report found that 71 per cent of organisations in Scotland were facing skills shortages. The Scottish Government has allowed that to happen by not planning for the sector that is key to Scotland’s success and by failing to provide workers with the right skills. Our skills system is rigid and does not adapt to the needs of businesses and people, which slows growth. However, while economic inactivity has risen to 23.2 per cent, the Scottish Government has cut the budget for skills programmes, which support young people into work, by 36 per cent.

Scottish Labour will work in partnership with businesses to create a flexible, modular skills system, underpinned by digital skills passports, which can adapt to the needs of the economy. UK Labour would set up a national wealth fund, unlocking private investment and creating 69,000 green jobs. The Scottish Government’s focus on economic growth now is welcome, but its record does not reflect those warm words. We are lagging in productivity and employment compared with the rest of the UK. Scotland needs a Government that will put growth first and work with businesses to invest and unlock Scotland’s potential. Scottish Labour is ready for a change.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expected to speak a lot about technology today—I am sure that that is no surprise to anyone in the chamber—so I was delighted that Michelle Thomson and the cabinet secretary spoke about how important technology and the fourth industrial revolution are to how we grow Scotland’s economy.

I will make a couple of reflections on oil and gas. Quite rightly, Mr Ewing talked about how we need to use the technology and the advantages of the north-east, and I absolutely agree that moving towards net zero does not mean that we are abandoning the north-east, the oil companies or that technology. Indeed, since 2003, Fervo Energy in Texas has been adapting and converting oil and gas and drilling infrastructure to that which can be used for geothermal energy. That is the way forward and how we can ensure that no one is left behind as we move towards net zero. As Maggie Chapman said, it is imperative that we make such provisions.

I want to talk a little about my technology experience. The fourth industrial revolution is upon us and, in the past year, I have chaired and attended many meetings that have focused on science and tech. There are common threads. Principally, we need sustained investment in, and focus on, innovation in such sectors, and we have to encourage our young people into careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

In my area, I am very lucky to have New College Lanarkshire’s Motherwell campus, which has a smart hub that involves working with local small businesses in particular on the use of fourth and fifth generation robots in food production, manufacturing, warehousing, packaging, welding and repair, including the repair of turbines in the renewables sector. That shows that all work is moving towards the use of robots, AI and other technology, so we have to adapt and embrace those opportunities for Scotland.

Often, we do not recognise the great work that is happening. The cross-party group on science and technology was given a whistle-stop tour of pioneering research in quantum tech and semiconductors. I was delighted that the cabinet secretary mentioned that, because such developments will be transformational and will represent a step change in how we can use AI and the internet of things to look after our environment and healthcare, to communicate and to monitor systems. It is really exciting to see that work being done. We also have expertise in hydrogen, which I do not think has been mentioned so far in the debate.

I want to mention the Scottish games sector, which is part of our cultural economy and is really important to Scotland. We could be doing more in that area. We have talked about economic inward investment, and there is such investment in our games sector in Dundee, but we need more of it. The sector generates more than £2.4 billion for the Finnish economy, and Scotland could be taking more advantage of it, so I would like there to be more work in that area.

Mr Mountain talked about his employees. I am sure that, when they come to work for him in the Highlands, they will be delighted that they can get free prescriptions, a free bus pass, 1,140 hours of funded childcare and advantages from the Scottish child payment and care payments. They will also be included in the Scottish fair work agenda, and their children will get free further and higher education, which will be to their advantage.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In the brief time that I have, I want to talk about education, skills and the failure of joined-up government, which sits at the heart of many of our current problems in Scotland. I have always believed that Scotland’s greatest asset is its people. If we want a successful, growing and productive economy, we need a highly educated and highly skilled population.

In the past few years, I have met many employers up and down Scotland. It is guaranteed that, when we ask them what the issues are, education and skills will always come up. Many of the people I talk to in Rosyth dockyard across in Fife describe the dockyard as the United Nations, because the reality is that it could not survive and deliver the contracts that it has if it was not actively seeking skilled labour from abroad. As with so many employers in Scotland, it is unable to get the skills and the skilled labour in this country. The SNP has been in power for 17 years. Education and skills are devolved, and there is no excuse for not getting it right.

This morning, I looked at the Educational Institute of Scotland manifesto for the general election, “Stand Up for Quality Education”. Its first priority area is:

“Build the resources and school culture to address distressed, violent and aggressive pupil behaviour”.

That is a major issue. Last year, the Government held three emergency summits to discuss how we address those issues. From the amount of emails that I am getting from parents and teachers, it seems to me that we are not much further forward in fixing that specific issue in our schools. The EIS has highlighted three areas, and violent and aggressive pupil behaviour is one of them.

The second priority is:

“Secure an increase in funding and support for pupils with additional support needs”.

Again, that is not rocket science. There is a complete failure to recognise the need to invest in our schools and get additional support teachers into our classrooms.

The third EIS priority is:

“Achieve a significant reduction in teacher workload”.

We need only to meet and talk to teachers to know that there are real issues there.

The fourth area that I would add is the 2007 SNP manifesto commitment, which was to cut class sizes. Again, there has been a total failure to achieve that.

I will move on from the schools, which, as I say, have major issues that are not being tackled by the SNP Government, to colleges. If we are going to have a successful economy, everyone in the chamber would acknowledge that we have to invest in colleges and we need to fix their massive problems. We have a minister who is responsible for colleges who seems to be posted missing when it comes to addressing the issues. Industrial relations are at an all-time low. We are having strike after strike after strike. The students are being let down and morale in our colleges is at rock bottom, yet we have a Government minister who says, “Nowt to do with me, mate. This is for somebody else to deal with.” Over many years, we have seen the SNP make structural changes in colleges but it has continued to fail.

Education and skills are key to a successful economy. The SNP Government must address the issues that we have, otherwise we will not have a successful economy.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I have listened to colleagues during the debate and I agree with many of them—not all of them but, hey, in this new consensual world, let us not look for too many miracles at the one time.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with the premise that the Scottish Government is delivering a strong and resilient economy for Scotland. As others have said, Scotland is outperforming other parts of the United Kingdom. Not only that, but Scotland is currently the top destination for foreign investment outside of London in Europe. In 2023, earnings in Scotland grew faster than in any other part of the UK, including London and the south-east.

However, let us get to the important part of my speech and talk about positive Paisley, because it has been a while since I have had the chance to do that. There have been some key Scottish Government investments in my constituency in recent years. Paisley High Street faces the same challenges that are faced by high streets across the country. I think that it was Edward Mountain who spoke about small businesses and investment and how we can get them to work together.

The challenge that Renfrewshire Council has is that it has two buildings bookending the High Street: one is the historic town hall and the other is Paisley museum and library. The council has managed to get investment of £100 million in the town centre through various routes such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Scottish Government regeneration capital grant fund, as well as a number of other trusts, foundations and private donors.

The museum itself is the biggest cultural project currently in construction in Scotland. It is a £45 million investment, and it is going to generate around 125,000 visitors a year; that is 125,000 people walking up and down the length of Paisley High Street. There are 138 jobs being supported during the construction, and 48 jobs per year will be supported through revenue and visitor spending in the future. In addition, there will be new footfall for the town centre and for the High Street.

As I said, the museum is part of a £100 million investment. That also includes an investment of £7 million in a Paisley learning and cultural hub, which replaces Paisley central library and occupies what was once a retail space in the High Street. The hub is housed in a former high street shop and is spread over four storeys. The new building includes a reception area and a children’s library and storytelling area, with a unique play structure that includes a climbing wall and slide, which has been co-designed with renowned Scottish artist Claire Barclay. The upper floors have an outdoor terrace and community rooms. That is the type of thinking that we need to increase footfall in our high streets and bring increased economic value to our towns.

However, it does not stop there. If that alone was not good enough for the good people of Paisley, it gets even better with the SNP administration in Renfrewshire. There is also the £20 million regeneration of Paisley town hall—a measure that has now transformed the historic town hall into one of the country’s leading entertainment venues. Again, that is about moving into the night-time economy and generating business for the businesses in the local area.

Last year, Paisley town hall was reopened—the Deputy First Minister will be pleased to hear this—in all its glory when it held the Royal National Mòd. That event brought 8,410 visitors to Paisley alone, which was an increase of 12 per cent on the numbers attending the same event in Perth last year.

However, although we can look at the investment that has been made by Renfrewshire Council and the Scottish Government over a few years, we are living in a time when Westminster is cutting those budgets and stopping us from being able to make those investments and help towns like Paisley to move forward. No one will be surprised to hear that I believe—as I always have done—that, if we had the full levers of power, we could pass the economic bills that we need and do what has been done in Paisley in towns and cities across the whole of Scotland. We could ensure that we build the future that we want for our town centres.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to closing speeches. I am disappointed to note that one of the members who participated in the debate is not here for closing speeches. I will expect an explanation, and indeed an apology.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I have listened with interest to the debate, and I hear how heavily members across the chamber are leaning on what Andy Haldane, of the Financial Times, referred to as “the growth fairy” to resolve all our economic problems. As Mr Haldane goes on to say,

“Absent the growth fairy, the other options are considerably more painful.”

There is a conspiracy of silence about what those other options look like. Spoiler: they look like talking honestly about taxation—who pays what and how much?

Again, I am indebted to Mr Haldane for this quote. He said that political parties

“project a fall in public investment as a share of GDP over the next parliament, from a base several percentage points below the UK’s competitors. We can hope private investment fills the gap. But hope is not a growth strategy and private investors might be cautious about rushing in where public investment fears to tread.”

We need our Governments in the UK to recognise that public investment is needed to give confidence to private investment, but what about taking a different approach to our economy? Instead of waiting for the growth fairy to sprinkle us with her bounty, which we can then presumably allow to trickle down to the workers and communities, what about building our new economy for the post-fossil-fuel world from the bottom up? What if we do not treat paying living wages as optional, we do not consider, under any circumstances, removing or restricting benefits that are needed for the basic necessities of life, and we do not consider nature and the environment to be acceptable collateral damage?

We need to ensure that everyone in society benefits when the economy is doing well. That means ensuring that more people have a stake in it. Community ownership, support for social enterprises, co-operatives and other alternative business models give people that stake and ensure that people are at the heart of the economy rather than profit. We must ensure that women participate equally in this new economy. The goal should be women filling 50 per cent of all training, education and employment opportunities, and we should be setting quotas to support that.

Scotland has so much potential for a thriving economy in a post-fossil-fuel world. We have the infrastructure, even if it is a bit crumbly now, and we have a history in heavy engineering. From the port of Dundee to the harbour in Aberdeen and all the way up to Nigg, we are already designing and building the future—wind turbines, tidal turbines, energy storage systems and equipment for green hydrogen generation and distribution. We have the potential for a major reindustrialisation of Scotland, and we can shape a vision for leading the way on designing, building, installing and maintaining the machines that will generate and store the clean energy of the future.

However, that means making a clear change of direction away from oil and gas and committing to and investing in these new industries. Oil and gas production in the North Sea is in decline and must continue to decline. We have this moment of hope to seize the opportunity to focus on the new economy. If we fail to do so, and if we cling to dying industries, other countries will pull ahead, and they will build the wind turbines and the electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles and install the hydrogen infrastructure, the cranes, the ports and the quays, and this moment of opportunity for Scotland will be lost.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

In summing up, I will be deliberately contrarian by both agreeing and disagreeing with people in the same instance. I start with Lorna Slater and Maggie Chapman. I agree with them in one fundamental sense—that growth for growth’s sake is no use at all. If all that we did was grow raw GDP, that would not be delivering anything at all. We need growth for the very reasons that they set out—we need growth because we need to drive investment in green infrastructure, and we need growth because we have an ageing economy.

The only way in which we will deal with that is if we invest in our people and their ability to do the jobs that they seek to do. That requires growth and needs a very hard-nosed approach. That is why GDP per head is the real measure, coupled with a laser-like focus on the Gini coefficient. Those two things go hand in hand. Does that capture everything? No, but they are the best measures that we have of ensuring that we are increasing prosperity and reducing inequality as we do it.

Fundamentally, that is where we agree. We must ensure that we enhance people’s ability to thrive, as Maggie Chapman said. That is the fundamental reason for economic growth. That is why I slightly disagree with John Mason. He is right that it is difficult to grow an economy unless we have migration, but, ultimately, if we are not careful, we mask that fundamental truth about GDP per head.

I agree and disagree with the Deputy First Minister. She is absolutely right about her focus on technology and start-ups, but we need to be careful that that is not the only focus or the only route to supporting entrepreneurial activity. I am very supportive of the scale-up initiatives; indeed, one of the most useful things from the Logan review is the pipeline concept. However, I would like that to be applied more broadly. We absolutely need those start-ups and innovative companies, but we also need the application of that technology and investment in the small businesses that Edward Mountain highlighted. The reality is that such companies are not inherently more productive, but they have access to more investment, and investment drives productivity. The real problem in this country—it is a stubborn problem—is that smaller businesses struggle to find financial investment and therefore do not take up the opportunities of technology or improving the productivity of their people.

I agree with Clare Adamson that there are huge possibilities with AI and robotics. However, unless we focus on investment, we will continue to see large companies and the companies that are engaged in start-up culture benefiting, while we will leave companies of other sizes and scales behind.

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

I completely agree with the member. My first role, back in 2018, was digital-boost focused. He might recall that I was trying to get more traditional businesses to embrace technology. I hope that he will agree that we have a productivity challenge, which will be answered in part by private investment in processes and skills—that means technology and people, hand in hand.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I completely agree. At the event that we attended this morning, which Murdo Fraser alluded to, I made the point that all the changes that we need to see across our economy and our society will be delivered only if they are done in partnership between the state and the private sector. Private sector investment is required, but there is a role for the state in helping to shape it. If that is not through direct investment, we could look at derisking investment, because often small firms struggle to raise investment, and it is a fundamental driver. If we treat productivity like magic fairy dust—as it was described earlier—we will never deliver it. We need investment in plant machinery and equipment—the things that enable people to do their jobs.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will the member take an intervention?