Scottish Parliament, 24 September 2025

627 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. I advise the chamber that there is a lot of interest in supplementaries. As members will know, we are under considerable time pressure across the afternoon and into the evening. Therefore, I require brevity in questions and responses if we are to get through them all.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason Scotland will see the slowest GVA growth of the devolved nations over the next three years, according to the EY “UK Regional Economic Forecast 2025”. (S6O-04962)

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

Economic forecasts continue to underline the economic headwinds that we face, which are particularly difficult for an open, trade-focused economy such as Scotland. We have prioritised driving growth through investment and innovation and addressing economic inactivity with the limited powers that are at our disposal. However, if I could choose one issue that directly answers the member’s question, it would be that we face distinct demographic challenges. There is a strong need to boost our working-age population and seize the significant economic opportunities that are available to us which, in turn, would drive GVA growth.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but interrogating the data shows that, following 18 years of Scottish National Party rule, Aberdeen is projected to be the slowest-growing city in the United Kingdom, with falling household incomes between 2025 and 2028. Having hammered Aberdeen through a naive and ignorant presumption against oil and gas, an unevidenced low-emission zone, Scotland’s highest tourist tax and a business rates regime that is killing Union Street, what exactly is the Government going to do to reverse Aberdeen’s suffering under the SNP?

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

Let us be very clear on a point of agreement, which is that there are significant economic challenges across our regions. The member will know, particularly in the oil and gas industry, that companies that have unfortunately made part of their workforce redundant have nearly always cited the adverse impact of the energy profits levy. If memory serves me right, it was Mr Kerr’s party that introduced that.

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

The Scottish economy is currently part of a UK economic model that is less productive, with lower national income per head and greater inequality than independent countries that are comparable to Scotland. The UK’s relatively poor economic performance was evident before Brexit, which has made our economic prospects even worse. Can the Deputy First Minister outline how making decisions in Scotland, combined with our economic strengths, will lead to better outcomes?

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

The member is absolutely right to highlight those points. As I mentioned in my opening answer, there are particular challenges around the working-age population. Time and again, when I speak to businesses about their growth aspirations, they talk about the importance of securing the right skills. That comes from investing in training and skilling our population. However, without expanding the working-age population, it becomes a case of one employer taking skills from another employer in a circular way. The point is that, without devolution, which would allow a more progressive approach to visas and immigration, those issues will remain.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the business minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the impact of the visitor levy on the hotel and tourism sectors. (S6O-04963)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of the visitor economy and ministers regularly discuss how to grow the sector further. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 gives councils broad powers to shape a levy that suits local needs and benefits communities, councils and businesses, while supporting tourism. Some areas want greater flexibility, so, as the chamber heard yesterday, we are exploring options to extend powers and allow single or tiered flat-rate models in addition to the current percentage-based approach. Tourism stakeholders are involved, and the Minister for Public Finance will keep colleagues updated as that work progresses.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister should be ashamed about the chaos into which the Scottish National Party’s tourist tax has descended. Across Scotland, councils are consulting on the visitor levy, and some are on the point of introducing it, but huge uncertainty now hangs over them. Dumfries and Galloway Council is consulting on its plans, and local hotelier Matthew Wallace, who runs the Cairndale hotel and spa in Dumfries, says that there is no overtourism problem in the region. He adds that the levy is just a further increase in taxation and makes the region needlessly more expensive.

Will the minister join me in urging the Scottish Government to pause the implementation of the levy until it listens to the very real concerns of businesses in Dumfriesshire and fixes the problem that the Government has created?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am surprised that, given his experience, Mr Hoy appears not to appreciate the fundamental point of the legislation, which is to enable local authorities to introduce the levy, should they so wish, after consultation with their local tourism sectors and wider communities. The Scottish Government does not impose the levy on any part of Scotland; we enable local authorities to take advantage of the legislation, should they so wish, and to do so in a way that is tailored to local circumstances. I know how valuable the visitor economy is to the south of Scotland.

I have visited Dumfriesshire many times. It is undergoing a revolution in tourism at the moment, and has a very positive story to tell. The member should make those representations to his local authority, and it should take those concerns on board.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 gives businesses the opportunity to work with local councils to generate funding for enhanced facilities, heritage events and the promotion of local culture. Does the minister share my view that, in many cases, the visitor levy can enhance the visitor experience by making destinations more attractive and competitive?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I absolutely agree with the member’s points. We should remember that 21 out of 27 European countries have some type of occupancy tax that is broadly equivalent to the visitor levy, and they do so for the very reasons that the member outlines.

Many people whom I have spoken to in the tourism and hospitality sectors of Scotland are relaxed about the levy. We want to ensure that it is implemented where appropriate and in an appropriate manner locally. That is, of course, a discussion for local authorities.

Our communities face many issues, and they want them to be addressed through the improvement of infrastructure to enable them to cope with the number of tourists and visitors in their areas. Money being put back into the community to grow local facilities and infrastructure is a positive story that people want to tell. It is only a good thing for visitors and local communities.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Does the minister agree that the Scottish Government has sought, by way of an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, to bring in the power for local authorities to change the levy to a flat tax or to provide that as an option? Will he confirm that that request was made but was rejected by the Presiding Officer? If it was made, does that not prove that the Government has accepted that the law is flawed? If it is flawed, will the Government now pause it and correct the flaw by bringing forward primary legislation, or is tourism not important enough?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As I explained to the chamber yesterday, having listened to the sector, the Minister for Public Finance has been exploring how to find a legislative vehicle to introduce further flexibility. Of course, if we had not listened to the sector, members would right now be protesting that we were not listening to it, but we are listening to it and are looking for opportunities to introduce further flexibility. Clearly, there was consultation on the original legislation, and there have been further comments from industries since then. We are responding to the feedback that we have been hearing, and we are listening closely to the concerns of the sector.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to redevelop town centres across Scotland. (S6O-04964)

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

We want our town centres to be revitalised. That is backed up by policies such as our leading town centre first principle, the delivery of the town centre action plan and provision of support through the national planning framework 4.

We also provide direct financial support for town centres through the regeneration capital investment programme, the place-based investment programme and the regeneration capital grant fund. That includes investment of more than £62 million this year alone to help transform vacant properties, bring them back into productive use and unlock opportunities for housing, business and enterprise activity in town centres.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I am sure that many colleagues across the chamber, including the Deputy First Minister, will now be familiar with my constituency, which mirrors many towns throughout Scotland that have been starved of funds and neglected over the past 18 years when the Scottish National Party has been running Scotland.

Members will also know that, although there remains a distinct Hamiltonian identity, the town centre is in much need of regeneration—the issue was in the top 3 during my election campaign. However, thanks to budding potential from renewables, digital, cybersecurity and infrastructure projects, Hamilton is primed for growth—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

—from new industries. As a result, the town centre must be fit for purpose and able to embrace the growth. At the same time—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I need a question, Mr Russell.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

South Lanarkshire Council has undertaken a comprehensive consultation and allocated £8 million to kick start the redevelopment. However, it needs Scottish Government—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I need a question, Mr Russell.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Can the Scottish Government match the £8 million that South Lanarkshire Council has put in?

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

It is for South Lanarkshire Council to develop plans for Hamilton town centre, and it sounds as though it is doing so. I am aware that the council published details of that 15-year master plan for Hamilton town centre and that there was strong support when the plans were consulted on.

South Lanarkshire Council has received more than £27 million of regeneration capital investment since 2014, which includes £3.4 million through the town centre fund.

We will continue to work with local authorities such as South Lanarkshire Council on their priorities.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have a number of supplementaries. I will try to get in as many as I can.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There are many town and city centres, such as in Perth in my region, where there are a large number of former commercial premises that will never come back into use for retail. They could potentially be converted to residential properties, but the current process for doing that is cumbersome, bureaucratic, expensive and time consuming. Can the Scottish Government look at some way of streamlining the planning process to make it easier for the owners of those properties to transfer them from commercial use to residential use?

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

There are a number of points that I agree with, not least because of the potential to revitalise Perth town centre, of which I have great memories.

There are a number of non-domestic rates incentives for bringing vacant properties back into use. We have also gone through a consultation process on compulsory purchase of property that has remained empty and derelict for some time.

If there are particular suggestions on how to streamline the process to enable residential development to take place, I am certainly open to them, and I imagine that the planning minister is as well.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The retail sector is vital to Scotland’s economy and supports our local communities with services, amenities and employment opportunities.

Can the Deputy First Minister say any more about what the Scottish Government is doing to support Scottish businesses and regenerate our local areas, in particular through the investing in communities fund, which has provided £336,000 for New Start Highland in my constituency?

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

I am a big fan of New Start Highland—I saw some of its representatives at an event on Monday.

The member is absolutely right to talk about how critical the retail sector is. It is right at the heart of our agenda for economic growth. We have provided funding for the Scotland Loves Local campaign, the regeneration funding that I mentioned and, of course, the competitive non-domestic rates regime.

The investing in communities fund targets the most disadvantaged communities to deliver projects, services and activities that address poverty and disadvantage. We are providing more than £9 million in funding this year, which makes an enormously valuable contribution to organisations such as New Start Highland.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I hope that the Deputy First Minister will be as appalled as I was to learn that Port Glasgow was awarded the dreaded carbuncle award for the most dismal town in Scotland. Thankfully, sense has been seen. There has been a huge U-turn, and the award has been ditched in favour of the heart on your sleeve award. However, there is a serious point behind all this. Many small towns and high streets feel unloved and forgotten, and their Government in Edinburgh feels distant to them.

What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that the so-called carbuncles of Scotland’s retail deserts can be turned into busy, buoyant and bustling town centres instead?

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

I put on record how much I love Port Glasgow—I am a huge fan of Port Glasgow. I have probably spent more time than many travelling to Port Glasgow in the years that I have been a minister, for very obvious reasons.

The member mentioned a number of different points that have driven the challenges for town centres, including the move to online shopping, which is a challenge for the retail sector in particular. I am very committed to working with local authorities and local leaders on the ground to deliver master plans or transformation for those areas.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 4 was withdrawn.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Government what targeted support it is providing to small businesses in Coatbridge and Chryston to help them deal with inflation and rising costs. (S6O-04966)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Find Business Support website offers a centralised platform for accessing public sector support across the country. Businesses in Coatbridge and Chryston can explore available grants, funding and advice, as well as events that are tailored to their needs. To help businesses to manage rising operational costs, the cost of doing business section provides guidance and funding opportunities that support greener, more efficient and financially resilient practices.

The Scottish Government also offers a competitive non-domestic rates regime, with a package of reliefs that is worth an estimated £733 million this year. That includes the most generous small business rates relief in the United Kingdom. As of 1 June 2024, 4,110 properties in North Lanarkshire benefited from 100 per cent relief through the small business bonus scheme.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Given the significant pressures that local firms in Coatbridge and Chryston—especially those in our town centres—continue to face with rising energy bills and supply chain costs in particular, will the minister set out how the Scottish Government will ensure that support is targeted at and reaches the small businesses that need it the most? What further steps is the Government considering to help to sustain jobs and protect local economies in communities such as mine?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

In her answer to another member’s question, the Deputy First Minister outlined some of the steps that we are taking as a Government. We will continue to support businesses and communities with our competitive non-domestic rates package. We have also allocated more than £236 million in the current financial year to Scottish Enterprise to support its work to deliver transformational projects across the country. The most recent figures show that, last year, it supported, helped to create or safeguarded more than 15,000 real living wage jobs, which was the second-highest figure on record.

Because the member mentioned the rising cost of energy bills, I urge him to signpost his local businesses to Business Energy Scotland. Although UK energy policy is being mishandled by the UK Government—that has been the case for many years, despite Scotland being an energy-rich country—we are doing what we can to help businesses to bring down their energy bills. A local butcher in my constituency saved a lot of money by contacting Business Energy Scotland after I referred him to it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government what its current priorities are for international trading links. (S6O-04967)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Our export strategy, “A Trading Nation”, sets out the focus of our trading links. That was updated and published on 11 September. Europe and North America remain key markets for Scottish exporters and there are increasing opportunities in the Gulf and east Asia. The creation of a category for special interest markets also enables our enterprise agencies to engage flexibly with fast-growing emerging markets such as Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Singapore and South Korea. The addition of Ukraine also empowers us to bolster trade with that country in its hour of need.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The minister will be aware of the vital role that connectivity plays in international trade. I ask him to clarify where matters stand with regard to getting the proposed Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry over the line, specifically on what I understand is the key outstanding issue. What actions need to be taken by the Scottish Government and what actions are required to be taken by the United Kingdom Government to allow Grangemouth to be designated as a border control post on a temporary basis for the purposes of freight being transported on the new ferry route?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank Annabelle Ewing for raising an important issue in her constituency. I am aware that she has met the Deputy First Minister to discuss this topic and has been in correspondence with her. We continue to communicate with potential operators and Scotland’s main ports to explore opportunities for new commercial ferry services so that our exporters and passengers have more direct routes to and from Europe.

On the obstacles that the member referred to, I know from first-hand experience that a main obstacle is the border control post requirements, which were brought in due to the UK exiting the European Union. There have been some recent announcements by the UK and the EU on potentially relaxing some of those obstacles through the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, as it is known. However, until the effects and conditions of the agreement is known, it is difficult for the Scottish Government to provide certainty about future border control post requirements. As the member will appreciate, our officials are continuing to discuss those matters with the sponsors and with UK colleagues.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister claims to be focused on international trade, yet Scottish exports to the rest of the United Kingdom are worth three times more than exports to the EU and the rest of the world. Why is the Scottish National Party so obsessed with grandstanding abroad, instead of strengthening the most important trading relations, which are right here with the rest of the UK?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I do not know what to say—I feel speechless after hearing that point. Is the member honestly suggesting that Scotland should abandon our international trade links and the tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland that rely on exports to overseas markets, in particular to the US but also to Europe? Of course, if we had stayed within the European Union, we would have obtained many more of the benefits of that relationship.

The member must be the only member in any Parliament in the world—maybe not in the whole world, but certainly in the countries that I can think of—who would argue that we should cut off our international links. Of course trade with the rest of the UK is extremely important to Scotland’s economy, but so is international trade. As a country of 5.5 million people, if we want to grow our economy, we have to look towards the rest of the world as a big market, as well as to the rest of the UK.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how the Glasgow city region deal can support improvements to transport and connectivity across the region. (S6O-04968)

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

We regularly discuss matters of importance with colleagues to ensure that we are securing strong economic growth, including with regard to transport investment. The Glasgow city region deal is supporting a range of projects to strengthen regional transport and connectivity.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome that update. Residents in Lanarkshire are in favour of more action to make public transport more affordable and accessible, but they do not favour proposals by the Scottish National Party Glasgow City Council to introduce a charge for drivers visiting the city. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that would be the wrong policy direction? Will she and the Government accelerate plans to boost transport and connectivity investment to support people in Lanarkshire, not punish them?

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

Without wanting to comment on decisions that are rightly to be taken by local authorities, because I am a strong believer in local decision making, I agree with the importance of integrated transport links, additional and improved transport links and ensuring that all parts of the region benefit, including Monica Lennon’s constituents in Lanarkshire.

A number of commitments through the city region deal emphasise transport. It is always worth remembering that it is a Glasgow city region deal; it is not just about the town centre.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is vital that the Scottish Government continues to work to stimulate economic development, growth and connectivity across all regions of Scotland. Will the Deputy First Minister say more about how the growth deals and strategic targeted investment from the Scottish Government are enhancing economic opportunities and innovation across Scotland?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As briefly as possible, Deputy First Minister.

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

There are a number of examples of how the growth deals have supported the delivery of transport links, connectivity and improved infrastructure. What is important about the deals is that they are done on a tripartite arrangement. In other words, they are directly informed by local priorities, with the support of local authorities and the UK Government.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that major projects funded through city region deals are delivered at pace through administrative hurdles, to avoid any rising costs or communities waiting unnecessarily for planned infrastructure. (S6O-04969)

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

As part of our £1.9 billion commitment to the deals programme, we provide regional partners with the opportunity to lead on the delivery of major long-term infrastructure projects that will unlock transformative economic growth opportunities. That could be the Fife industrial innovation investment programme or the Edinburgh innovation hub, through the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal. In other words, deal-funded projects must adhere to statutory processes, but they are ultimately led and informed by local partners.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

I accept the premise that local decision making is a priority, but we are facing congestion at Sheriffhall that is frustrating for drivers and is holding back the economy of the Lothians and, frankly, all of south-east Scotland by making transport for businesses slower and far less reliable. Why has it taken two years for ministers to even consider the outcome of the public inquiry, which was submitted back in October 2023? When will the decision be made that we will get our Sheriffhall roundabout?

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

We are keen to see progress being made. More than 1,200 items of evidence were lodged for that public local inquiry, which indicates the extent of the interest in it. That also needs rigorous scrutiny from technical and legal advisers, and they need to be separate from those who are involved in the promotion of the project. Consequently, only a small number of people are working on the decision-making advice, and they are also the only people to be sighted on the inquiry report. We await advice on that from those officials.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

With apologies to those whom I was not able to call, that concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio to allow members on the front benches to change.

Point of Order

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have given very brief notice of this—necessarily, because it just arose after an answer from Minister Lochhead, as well as an answer from Minister McKee yesterday. With respect, it is a very important matter. I seek your guidance under rule 9.8.4 of standing orders, which is the part that deals with stage 3 amendments and which states that there may be amendments that are inadmissible.

It has been contended by me twice to the relevant ministers, both today and yesterday—Ministers Lochhead and McKee—that the Scottish Government sought to lodge an amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that would have had the effect of amending the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 in order to empower local authorities to charge a flat tax in addition to, or instead of, a percentage rate. The Government has said not that it was minded to do that, but that it is considering doing that. However, if it is the case that the Government lodged an amendment, it is a matter of fact that it decided that it wished to do that. The Government cannot thereafter say that it is considering doing it.

I do not expect that you will necessarily be able to give a reply now, Presiding Officer, because this is a point of principle and one that I certainly have not heard raised in the chamber before, but my question is this: what is the status of inadmissible amendments? If the Government lodges an amendment that is declared to be inadmissible, are the public ever entitled to hear about it? Is the Government required to publish that amendment? I cannot see any requirement under standing orders that it does so, but where something is a matter of clear public interest, does democracy not require that the public and MSPs have a right to be told the truth? Was there an amendment or not? If we cannot be told the truth, is that not a very serious defect in the powers of this Parliament democratically to hold our Government to account?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Ewing. As you will be aware, the Presiding Officer responded to a similar concern that was raised yesterday. I will ensure that the comments that you have just made are further reflected on. If there is anything further that can be added, I will ensure that the chamber is kept updated.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is finance and local government. Again, we have the same provisions that I set out earlier in terms of the time pressures that we are under over the course of this afternoon and this evening.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has undertaken of the potential impact of the funding allocated in its budget 2025-26 on Aberdeenshire Council’s ability to invest in local infrastructure and support economic development. (S6O-04970)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The 2025-26 budget provides local government in Scotland with record funding of more than £15.1 billion. As a result of the Scottish budget, Aberdeenshire Council received a record funding settlement worth £627.7 million to support day-to-day services. How that funding is deployed to deliver local services, statutory duties and nationally agreed priorities is of course a matter for locally elected members.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

It is clear from conversations with constituents that local services are their biggest priority. Those services are overstretched and underfunded by the Scottish National Party Government, with potholes that will not be fixed, grit bins being removed and bridges closed, breaking communities in two. Park bridge closed in 2019 and Aboyne bridge closed in 2023. Those are just two examples of more than 50 bridges that are at risk in Aberdeenshire.

Record funding aside, Aberdeenshire Council remains one of the lowest-funded local authorities in the country, because it receives around 10 per cent less funding per head than the Scottish average, despite being the third-largest geographic area. Will the cabinet secretary commit to ensuring that Aberdeenshire Council receives the funding that it needs to maintain its critical infrastructure?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I welcome Alexander Burnett’s acknowledgement in his supplementary question that there was record funding for local government and for Aberdeenshire Council. If memory serves me correctly, the independent Accounts Commission has confirmed that there has been a real-terms increase in funding over the past three years.

It is up to each council to decide which infrastructure priorities to take forward. We help with the capital allocations to local government, which also has the ability to borrow to progress infrastructure investment projects. The funding formula that Alexander Burnett referred to is agreed by the 32 local authorities through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It is not for the Scottish ministers to change the funding formula, so I suggest that he takes up that issue with COSLA.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the empowering communities programme, including the impact of the investing in communities fund. (S6O-04971)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Our empowering communities programme is a much-valued mechanism that provides funding to communities across Scotland to support delivery of regeneration. The programme covers a range of community funds and grants that build capacity in our communities and deliver regeneration, including the investing in communities fund. To understand their impact, the funds and grants are routinely assessed through established grant monitoring and reporting processes.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The programme, particularly the community fund, has been a huge success story across Scotland, and nowhere more so than in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland, where Kingsway Community Connections’ proud, capable and confident programme received more than £280,000 of funding to build social capital in the community, and it has become part of the heart of the community.

Given the programme’s success and impact, can the cabinet secretary give an indication of the future of the fund when the current three-year funding round comes to a close?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I echo those comments on the value of projects such as Kingsway community connections. Decisions concerning future Scottish Government funding programmes will be considered and addressed through the budget and the spending review processes.

All organisations that receive funding from the ICF are aware that it is a three-year fund and have been asked to consider how their projects will be sustained after the ICF funding period ends on 31 March 2026, but those will be active discussions.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about increasing the transparency of senior officer pay and conditions alongside improved democratic oversight and accountability. (S6O-04972)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government respects the independence of local government and it is for individual councils to manage their own budgets and workforce, including their senior officers.

However, I am aware of recent press coverage of senior council officers’ early retirement and redundancy payments. I note the findings of the Accounts Commission’s recent report on the situation. I urge all councils to take action in response to the report’s recommendations in order to uphold the highest levels of integrity in our public services and to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary is absolutely right to mention the Accounts Commission’s report on what happened in Glasgow, where senior council officers saw fit to award themselves eye-watering sums in pay-offs. I have no doubt that we will all be equally appalled the next time that it happens, unless action is taken, so I ask the cabinet secretary to go further in her answer to me.

Today, will she commit to re-establishing proper democratic oversight in our councils by issuing clear guidance that decisions on senior officer pay-offs must rest with elected councillors and not be quietly delegated to officers? Will she further commit to monitoring compliance with that guidance and reporting back to the Parliament?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Let me say a few things about that. The Accounts Commission wrote to every council to ensure that its recommendations were carefully considered. We will work with local government to support elected members and council officers to operate with integrity and transparency.

It is important that every council implements the Accounts Commission’s recommendations. It concluded that there was an absence of independent scrutiny from councillors and of formal documentation detailing how decisions were made and whether they demonstrated value for money. Councillors were not informed about those decisions, and they should have been involved in the decision-making process.

Governance arrangements have to be improved. The new chief executive of Glasgow City Council has rectified many of the issues, with input from councillors. The Accounts Commission report will lead to all local authorities implementing the recommendations to ensure that nothing like what happened in Glasgow can happen anywhere else.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Huge sums of taxpayer money have been used to line the pockets of penny-pinching paper pushers in Glasgow as they sail off into taxpayer-funded early retirement. There is no accountability. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that there is a code of conduct for council chief executives and officers, with proper sanctions, to stop rogue officers exploiting the public purse for personal gain?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I reiterate that the Accounts Commission has investigated and has written to every council to highlight its recommendations and the importance of elected members and officers following the Nolan principles of public life. As I said, the new chief executive of Glasgow City Council has rectified the issues, with input from councillors. The council leader, Susan Aitken, has made clear her absolute outrage at what happened in the authority, and an agreement has been reached with Strathclyde Pension Fund for the former chief executive to repay some money to the council.

These are serious issues, but it is important to be clear that there has been no inference that such practice is widespread across our local government structures. The issue was particular to Glasgow City Council, and the Accounts Commission has responded in a very strong manner.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its budget for the improvement of road safety on the A84 trunk road between Stirling and Lochearnhead. (S6O-04973)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Through the 2025-26 casualty reduction budget, Transport Scotland has programmed £120,000 for road safety work on the A84.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the cabinet secretary explain the budget prioritisation process and how the views of local communities are reflected in it?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Evelyn Tweed will appreciate that responsibility for Transport Scotland and its operations is outwith my portfolio, but I will get the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity to write to her with details of how the prioritisation process works. I am sure that the minister will be happy to meet Evelyn Tweed to discuss those matters in more detail.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what funding it has allocated from its budget 2025-26 to support local authorities to improve waste management services, in line with its plan for a transition to a circular economy. (S6O-04974)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The 2025-26 budget delivered record funding of more than £15.1 billion for local government, which represented a real-terms increase of 5.5 per cent, as confirmed by the Accounts Commission. How that record funding is deployed to deliver local services and statutory duties, such as waste management services, alongside nationally agreed priorities is, of course, a matter for locally elected members.

In addition, we are making one of the biggest investments in a generation to modernise recycling in Scotland through the £70 million recycling improvement fund. In 2025-26, £13.9 million is allocated to local authority projects to improve recycling and reuse services.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Clearly, record funding and the recycling improvement fund are not working, because recycling rates in Scotland have stalled. The 2013 target has still not been met more than a decade on, so there is clearly a need for sustained support to help councils to make the required progress. Does the minister agree that ring fencing extended producer responsibility funds for recycling infrastructure could provide a stable, long-term solution that could also deliver wider investment and new jobs across Scotland?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The fund that Maurice Golden refers to is managed by the United Kingdom Government, which allocates that money directly to local authorities. We are engaging with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the UK Government on how the fund is operating, but, as I said, we are not responsible for its collection or management.

Statistics show a reduction of 61 per cent since 2011 in the amount of Scottish waste that is landfilled. The recycling rate in Scotland was 62.2 per cent in 2023, which represents significant progress. Only around 14 per cent of the waste that we produce is processed elsewhere. Therefore, we are making progress, but we recognise that there is more work to be done in this area.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

The key to delivering a circular economy locally and to creating jobs is to set targets for reuse. Spain, Portugal, France and Belgium are making progress on it, so will the Scottish Government set a reuse target and support local authorities with advice and finance to deliver on it?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I have indicated, our recycling improvement fund has allocated more than £66 million to 48 projects and 27 local authorities in order to deliver more frequent recycling collections and boost Scotland’s capacity to recycle problematic materials such as plastic film. We are also the first Government in the UK to commit to action on single-use vapes—from 1 June 2025, they can no longer be stocked or supplied in Scotland. We are taking measures to make a difference, and the numbers demonstrate that we are making progress.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding different funding models that may be available to finance the building of social housing, in light of the approach adopted by Falkirk Council which awarded Hearthstone Investments £30 million through its local government pension scheme fund to invest in social and affordable housing in 2015. (S6O-04975)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The investment by the Falkirk pension fund was accompanied by significant public subsidy to deliver affordable homes. In recent years, ministers, including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, have focused on models that can leverage more investment to make public subsidy stretch further. A return is needed no matter the source of the capital, whether it is public sector pension funds, capital markets or traditional borrowing.

On housing, recent market testing for our new fund for mid-market rent has shown strong demand and that it will be able to build on the investment that has already been secured, including from public and private pension funds through similar routes.

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

Notwithstanding that it will need some public funding, I put this proposal because it is my understanding that the total of the local government pension scheme fund in Scotland amounts to almost £60 billion, which is 140 per cent of what is required to service the pensions. Does the minister agree that that 40 per cent surplus—which, at the very least, is just under £20 billion—could be invested in building social housing for rent, which would be an ethical investment of local government pension funds and, importantly, would contribute to reducing council waiting lists for housing?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Christine Grahame is absolutely right to raise that issue. She will know that the £60 billion figure for Scottish pension funds is, pro rata, significantly higher than the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole and that Scotland’s 11 local government pension schemes are in a strong position.

I met representatives of local government pension schemes and others last week to press the case for them to invest more of their resources in housing and other infrastructure opportunities in order to support Scotland’s economy.

The Deputy First Minister is leading overall on that work to attract more investment into Scotland’s economy so that our performance and capital investment can match our successful performance in attracting foreign direct investment. That is something that we will continue to do.

I reiterate the point that, in order to build affordable housing, no matter the source of the capital, significant public subsidy is required.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of whether its current above-inflation public sector pay deals have appropriate contingencies in place, in light of the recent rise in the consumer price index and reported concerns regarding inflation. (S6O-04976)

The

Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government ( Shona Robison ): Pay costs are managed in line with the Scottish Government’s wider financial management approach, which reflects the requirement to balance its budget in-year. That means that spending must not exceed income in any financial year. To manage the impact of additional pay costs, cabinet secretaries are responsible for setting and managing their portfolio budgets in-year, including for pay. We remain focused on delivering fair pay while ensuring that the public pay bill remains fiscally sustainable.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that prioritising above-inflation pay rises can fuel further inflation while, at the same time, draining funds from vital areas such as social care and capital expenditure? Consistently going above pay policy makes unions more likely to push for even higher settlements. Is it not time that the Scottish Government was honest about trade-offs instead of pretending that there is a limitless supply of money from the taxpayer?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is interesting that Alexander Stewart mentions social care. We have supported pay in the social care workforce to ensure that we can recruit into that workforce to look after our growing elderly population and those who need that level of support. That was a very interesting example for Alexander Stewart to use.

We have set out the requirement for multiyear pay deals, which is important, because that allows us to have certainty and to reduce the risk of any industrial action, which brings its own huge costs. Through those multiyear pay deals, we are able to take forward the important reform work that Ivan McKee is leading on through the public service reform strategy.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding the next UK Budget, which will be delivered on 26 November. (S6O-04977)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I met the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, on Monday, when I impressed on him the need to prioritise investment in public services, infrastructure and support for the most vulnerable in society in the UK autumn budget. I will have further conversations with him next month. It is vital that the UK budget delivers the funding that Scotland needs.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I note the slashing of capital spend by the UK Government that was forecast in the Scottish Government’s medium-term financial strategy. Can the finance secretary please advise me what impact that will have on the Scottish Government and on local authorities, which want to invest in public services and public infrastructure in Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The UK spending review means that Scotland’s capital block grant will reduce by 1.1 per cent in real terms between 2025-26 and 2029-30. That is compounded by the historic real-terms cut to our block grant by the previous UK Government and by sustained high levels of inflation.

Work is under way to develop the next multiyear Scottish spending review and infrastructure pipeline. Difficult decisions will need to be taken to reprioritise our capital programme to ensure that it is deliverable and fiscally sustainable and that it drives progress against our priorities.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio questions on finance and local government. I am minded to suspend the meeting briefly, as we are missing a couple of colleagues for the next item of business.

Residential Outdoor Education

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Natalie Don-Innes on improving provision and access to residential outdoor education for children and young people in Scotland. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I welcome the opportunity to address the Parliament to provide an update on the Scottish Government’s on-going support for outdoor learning provision for our children and young people and, in particular, on our formal position on the financial resolution for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced by Liz Smith. As members are aware, for Liz Smith’s bill to proceed to stage 2, a motion for a financial resolution must be lodged within six months of the conclusion of stage 1. I very much welcome the engagement that I have had with members from across the chamber, and I thank the member in charge, Liz Smith, for the constructive discussions that we have held.

I am pleased to confirm that, following very careful and full consideration of the matter, the Scottish Government has today lodged a motion for a financial resolution for the bill, which we will vote to support when ministers move the motion tomorrow. I trust that that will come as welcome news to members from across the chamber.

As I have made clear to members since stage 1, the Scottish Government absolutely recognises the important role that outdoor learning in all its forms, including residential outdoor education, can play in supporting the development of our children and young people. That is reflected in our refreshed learning for sustainability action plan, which was published in 2023. It might be helpful to briefly note some of the Government’s activity in that regard for the Parliament’s awareness more widely. The work includes the new Scottish outdoor learning strategic working group, which will provide recommendations next month on how the Government and partners can continue to strengthen support for outdoor learning. Education Scotland is supporting the Association of Heads of Outdoor Education Centres and the Scottish Advisory Panel for Outdoor Education in the development of a quality residential framework and a training resource for outdoor education centre instructors. Systemic change is being delivered through the curriculum improvement cycle, which is strengthening the place of outdoor learning across the three-to-18 curriculum, and we continue to provide pupil equity funding and the learning estate investment programme, which many schools make use of to support delivery of residential and on-site outdoor learning.

What that package of work demonstrates is that, even in the absence of legislation, the Scottish Government is working with partners across the education sector to improve provision of and access to impactful, safe and varied outdoor learning experiences, including residential outdoor education. Our schools and dedicated school staff are doing their best to ensure that pupils can benefit from such experiences. For example, Cedarbank school, an additional support needs school in West Lothian, is committed to ensuring that all pupils across broad general education receive two hours of outdoor learning a week, and all subject areas across the senior phase are encouraged to integrate regular outdoor learning as part of lesson plans. Pupils at Ulva primary school on the Isle of Mull take part in regular outdoor learning through activities such as weekly shore school, learning key skills and taking ownership of their whole learning environment.

There is an important reason why I mention all that. The Scottish Government acknowledges the significant positive opportunity that Liz Smith’s bill represents, but, as it progresses to stage 2, we must ensure that the legislative approach aligns with and builds on, but does not detract from, all the good practice that is already under way to deliver outdoor learning across the system.

Although the Government accepts it as the Parliament’s will that the bill proceeds to stage 2 and is therefore lodging the necessary financial resolution, the Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the bill, should it become law, is fit for purpose, meaning that it is affordable and, of course, deliverable. I have discussed that at length with Liz Smith, and I am grateful to her for her willingness to work through a range of options. That will include further considering the total potential costs of the bill, equity of provision and workforce implications. All those issues were recognised by the lead Education, Children and Young People Committee in its stage 1 report, and they have formed a central focus of my discussions with Liz Smith to date, as members are aware.

Indeed, the Education, Children and Young People Committee concluded that the bill should only progress if concerns relating to the affordability and deliverability of the provisions were addressed.

As I said, the Government respects the will of Parliament that was clearly demonstrated at stage 1 when it supported the bill’s moving forward. The onus is now on the Parliament to work with the member in charge of the bill—and, indeed, the Government—to address the challenges that have been raised in relation to funding. I assure members that the Government will play its part.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I have discussed with Liz Smith how she, as the member in charge, and the Government may look to continue to work constructively together as the bill progresses. That we have established a shared understanding in that regard is important, as we are now beyond the point—as set out in standing orders—at which the Government would otherwise seek to take on the bill as Government legislation.

Specifically, we have agreed that, as the member in charge of the bill, Liz Smith will work with the Government on stage 2 amendments to address the challenges of affordability and deliverability, which relate to the duty to fund, the targeting of those children who might benefit the most and a change in commencement.

I believe that, across the Opposition parties, there is a wider recognition of the need to, and a willingness to, robustly consider amendments that seek to ensure that the bill will be more affordable. Amendments must also reflect the need for equity of provision and the time that will be required for the outdoor education sector to build sufficient readiness in advance of any new statutory duties coming into effect.

Further close collaboration with a range of stakeholders, including outdoor education centres, teacher trade unions, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland will be critical in informing stage 2 considerations. That is why I am pleased to confirm that Liz Smith has also agreed to develop, with the Government, a work plan that will set out activities to be undertaken, led by the member in charge, in the lead-up to the stage 2 proceedings to help to further address outstanding concerns and to develop draft amendments.

I have offered to undertake certain engagements with Liz Smith on a joint basis. Support from my officials will also be made available, as appropriate, to further the policy development and analysis that will be necessary to shape a suitable way forward that best takes account of the outstanding issues.

As part of our most recent conversation, Liz Smith discussed with ministers potential approaches to addressing the known challenges that the bill as introduced presents for the teacher workforce. We have also shared initial thinking on the potential role of capital investment in supporting improvements across the outdoor education estate. Those issues require more focused deliberation.

I am assured, and I am grateful, that the member in charge is open and willing to explore compromises in her bill to help to mitigate unintended consequences and to strengthen the feasibility of implementation, should the bill become law. Importantly, we discussed the fact that, in working to strengthen the deliverability of the bill, there must continue to be a focus on ensuring equity of provision and equity of access to residential outdoor education so that all pupils have the opportunity to experience the range of benefits that such activities can provide. For example, it is widely accepted that residential outdoor education can deliver improvements in personal development, behaviour, attendance and pupil-teacher relationships. Therefore, that will remain at the heart of the Scottish Government’s interactions with the member in charge and the Parliament more broadly as the bill progresses.

Subject to the Parliament agreeing to the motion for the financial resolution tomorrow, I assure members that I and Liz Smith will swiftly engage again to agree the details of a work plan. Of course, we must make the best use of the time that will be available ahead of the formal stage 2 proceedings to make the progress and improvements that are required.

The Scottish Government recognises the opportunity that the bill presents for children and young people across Scotland, but we must get it right. I look forward to working with the member in charge and members from across the Parliament to ensure that we do so.

I am now happy to take questions.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

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

I call Liz Smith, who joins us remotely.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise profusely for not being in the chamber in person. The reason for that—the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s visit to the Lithuanian Parliament—is a rather different one from those that are normally given.

I thank the minister for the letter that she sent me this morning and for the statement. I am very grateful to her on both counts. I am obviously delighted that the Scottish Government has seen fit to ensure that the will of Parliament is supported and that it will now lodge the necessary financial resolution to allow the bill to proceed to stage 2.

I am also delighted by the commitment, which I received at an extremely positive meeting last week, that the Scottish Government and I, and members across the chamber, can work together to ensure that we lodge the best possible amendments so that we can, I hope, pass the bill at stage 3.

I am very aware that there is still an awful lot of work to be done on the bill, but I have to say that I think that today is a very good day for young people right across Scotland and for the outdoor education sector. It is also a very good day for MSPs right across the political spectrum who have worked so incredibly hard to persuade ministers as to why the bill is so necessary in building the resilience of our young people.

I will ask the minister two questions. First, can she give me a little bit of a guide as to when she thinks that the Scottish Government will be able to start the discussions that have to take place at stage 2? Secondly, how long does she envisage that process taking?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am probably not able to give definitive answers.

On when I want those discussions to start, I am more than happy to contact Ms Smith following the statement to get arrangements in place to have a follow-up meeting about the matters that we discussed at our meeting last week. On the first point, the answer is therefore as soon as possible.

On the second point, which was about how long we think that deliberations at stage 2 will take, again I cannot give a definitive answer. Ms Smith is aware of the concerns that the Government has laid out, and I hope that we can get to the bottom of some of those, or find solutions for some of them, through stage 2 amendments. I cannot necessarily advise how long that will take. However, as I have said, I am very willing to engage with both Ms Smith and the associated groups that will be relevant to those concerns in order to find a way through at stage 2.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for advance sight of the statement.

I welcome the fact that the Government has decided to lay the financial resolution for this important bill, because outdoor education experiences are crucial for young people, and in particular young people with additional support needs. However, evidence to the committee found that a number of young people with ASN were missing out, which is, of course, unjust and unfair.

Will the minister set out what work she has done, in the time that it has taken to make the decision on the financial resolution and come back to the chamber, to establish what is needed to ensure access for pupils with ASN? What can she say to reassure Parliament today that the needs of those pupils will be fully considered as the Government engages and as the bill progresses through Parliament?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

That has been a key consideration for the Government in our deliberations in relation to the financial resolution. I think that I set that out to the member in the committee. We have found similar issues, in that there are pupils and children with additional support needs who are not necessarily getting that experience.

Equally, one of the issues with the bill is that we are not sure that the centres and the capacity are necessarily there to deal with the number of children and the range of very complex needs.

I assure the member that that is a key consideration as we go into stage 2, because we want to ensure equity for all children in relation to residential outdoor experiences.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Among the many issues with the bill as it is currently drafted, which has been mentioned today, is the issue of costings. How did the member in charge improve the cost estimates, and is the financial memorandum still, at best, a guesstimate and, at worst, a complete fiscal fantasy? Will the minister also give me detail as to how the measures that are contained in the bill will be financed?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I have been clear that the Government’s position is that the proposals must be affordable and must support equity, as I have just advised, and that, when it comes to deliverability, due consideration must be given to the expectations that are placed on teachers to organise and take part in the trips. Liz Smith MSP’s proposals to adopt a transitional or phased approach to delivery, alongside the potential targeting of funding to support primary school pupils with additional support needs or in deprived circumstances, are truly welcomed in that regard. We had further discussion on some of those aspects in our meeting last week. However, the total costs that are cited in the financial memorandum are extensive, and they underestimate the total potential costs of the bill as introduced. We need to zone in on those aspects ahead of stage 2, because it is about not just the costs on the face of the bill but unknown costs as well.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I genuinely welcome what I think is a change of attitude from ministers, and I genuinely hope that they will work to help the member to deliver the will of Parliament, to deliver the bill and to deliver other members’ bills that are going through the Parliament. What steps will the Scottish Government take with local authorities and representatives of teachers to look at how the bill can be delivered, especially given that some councils, including my own—the City of Edinburgh Council—are already delivering the policy? The bill presents a huge opportunity to councils.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I thank Miles Briggs for those points. I remind members that it is Liz Smith’s bill, and it is up to Liz Smith to deal with some of the concerns and challenges that are ahead. However, as I set out in my statement, I am more than happy not only to engage with some of those organisations alongside Ms Smith but to continue discussions on those points. On engagement with COSLA and teachers’ unions, I believe that I said that I would meet them jointly with Liz Smith. COSLA has real concerns about affordability, equity of provision and workforce capacity. That was also discussed at length in a meeting that I had with trade union representatives.

I assure Mr Briggs that the Government is very alive to those issues and is willing to work with Liz Smith to find a solution in a way that will bring costs down.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To follow on from the final point that the minister touched on, what engagement has taken place with local authorities up to this point, and does local government support the bill as it is currently framed?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

As I said, I met the COSLA spokespeople on 6 August, and officials have had on-going engagement with COSLA officers and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. COSLA has also written to me and the member in charge, expressing similar concerns to those of the Government and the Education, Children and Young People Committee on the costs, equity and workforce implications, as I laid out to Miles Briggs. It will be important to engage with COSLA again. Equally, we hear some very good examples of how individual local authorities are driving the agenda forward, so it will be important to engage with them as well.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister said that the Government respects the will of the Parliament. That is as it should be, although the progress of this part of the bill has involved a U-turn for the Scottish Government. Surely, good-faith engagement is the absolute minimum that any member of the Parliament should expect from the Government. I am therefore glad that the minister has said that she will commit to engaging in good faith with Liz Smith on the bill. Will she also make that commitment to all the parties and representatives who sit in the chamber, both on this bill and as other bills progress?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I believe that I said that in my closing line. I said that I look forward to working with Liz Smith and engaging with her and the rest of the Parliament.

I take a very open approach on any bill that I am involved in. I always want to hear from members across parties about ways in which they think we could improve provisions. I absolutely assure Martin Whitfield that I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss aspects of this bill.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Do the teaching unions support the bill as it is currently framed? What does it mean for the terms and conditions of teachers in Scotland?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I have touched on that, but I am happy to elaborate, because it is a key concern on the bill. The approach that is proposed by Liz Smith assumes that teachers will continue to engage voluntarily in residentials. That is a successful mode in the current context, and there are many examples of schools offering residential outdoor experiences on that basis. However, assurance has yet to be established that that approach is operable on a national scale to meet the legal duties that the bill will entail. That concern was expressed both at stage 1 by teachers and in my engagement with COSLA and the professional associations. There are ways in which we can work through that, and we will need to work through those issues during stage 2.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The minister referenced the importance of outdoor learning being reflected in the learning for sustainability action plan, which I was proud to work on with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. I am glad to see it being referenced.

The passage of Liz Smith’s bill would result in far more children and young people gaining the kind of knowledge and skills that come from outdoor residential education. That knowledge and those skills should be formally recognised, in line with what the action plan says about developing new qualifications. Does the minister agree with that? Will the Scottish Government look again at Professor Louise Hayward’s proposals on that in her 2023 report?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I would be more than happy to discuss that with Mr Greer ahead of stage 2. As I outlined in my statement, I can see the benefits of residential outdoor education, which I spoke about at the centres that I visited. We know that it has many positive aspects, including the fact that it leads to huge improvements in pupils’ attendance, their behaviour and their relationships with teachers. On the other hand, the non-residential outdoor education that takes place at schools and nurseries daily also has huge benefits, which we need to continue to promote as the bill progresses. I am more than happy to discuss the specific points that Mr Greer raised, in the same vein as I have committed to speaking to members across the chamber.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

What is the cash difference between Liz Smith’s costings and those of the minister? If the gap can be closed, will the Government support the bill?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I do not know whether I can give a specific answer. As I have laid out clearly to the Parliament, we have Liz Smith’s revised costs as well as the costs that the Government has put forward, but there are also a bunch of unknown costs, as I have discussed at length with Mr Rennie. That includes the cost of the workforce and of equity of provision, alongside issues of transport, centre capacity and potential upgrades. A host of work needs to be undertaken in order to consider some of those issues prior to stage 2. Members have been asking me about the bill’s affordability, but we need to understand the unknown costs before we can get to that stage.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As much as the statement is welcome news, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government delayed and obfuscated about the financial resolution. The statement highlights that our schools and dedicated school staff are doing their best to ensure that pupils can benefit from such experiences and that progress should be made, to align with and build on existing practices. Given that, what steps will the Government, local authorities and other partners take to ensure that as many children as possible are in a position to access their right to a week’s residential outdoor education? As Pam Duncan-Glancy noted, that needs to include pupils who have complex additional support needs.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I emphasise again that Liz Smith lodged the bill to introduce a week-long residential trip for children and young people across Scotland. I have given my commitment that I am more than willing to engage with her and members across the Parliament to ensure that we can get the bill to a deliverable and affordable place. [ Interruption .] I am sorry; Roz McCall is saying something to me, but I cannot hear it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members should let the minister respond to the questions that have been asked.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Perhaps we could pick up those conversations after my statement.

I want to be as clear to the Parliament as possible that we have produced the financial resolution today and we will be voting for it tomorrow. I will continue to engage with members and others to get the bill to an appropriate place.

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

Having supported the bill at stage 1, subject to the caveats that I emphasised on both capital and revenue funding, I am pleased that it will now progress to stage 2. We know that those issues will not be easy to resolve.

Will Broomlee outdoor education centre in West Linton, in my constituency, which I have visited often, be a consultee? I have huge regard for the facility and its staff and would hope for an extended future for it, which could perhaps include provision for children with ASN in the Borders, which is much needed.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Although I am not aware of the specifics around Ms Grahame’s contribution, I have been clear to Mr Briggs and other members that it would be helpful to be able to draw on good practice and examples. If Ms Grahame is willing to write to me following the statement with the details of the issue that she raises, I can certainly consider them.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have major reservations about the announcement, and I want to press the minister further. What kind of cost are we committing to? Is this a blank cheque? Is it £40 million? Is it £60 million?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

As I have said, members have details of the finances in front of them, and I am aware of Mr Mason’s concerns, which we have discussed at length. I have been clear today that, although this is the approach that we are taking, the Government is still concerned about some of the specific aspects of affordability.

I assure Mr Mason that we are not issuing a blank cheque. What we will do at stage 2 is try to make the bill more affordable and deliverable. Ultimately, members will have the option to support the bill or not when it comes to the time to vote on the bill.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

It is not normal for a curriculum to prescribe outdoor education in such a way as the bill proposes. Nonetheless, North Lanarkshire has a proud tradition of offering such an opportunity to young people. Unfortunately, the Kilbowie outdoor centre in Oban was closed in 2020 and has since been demolished. I am interested in hearing whether the minister can give us further information about how the capacity to fulfil the commitment in the bill could be provided, and about whether investment in centres will be needed.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Earlier in the year, work was done on capacity and understanding the sector’s needs. I have been clear in my answers today that further work is needed on that, specifically in relation to children with additional support needs. Although I cannot necessarily go into the specifics, because I have yet to engage with Ms Smith on the work plan, I assure Clare Adamson that that will be a key consideration.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Outdoor learning is said to be a core part of curriculum for excellence, but it was reported this week that Scottish primary school children receive only seven minutes a week of outdoor learning other than through their physical education classes, compared with 30 minutes a week about 10 years ago. Is that adequate? If it is not, what is adequate? What is the Scottish Government’s view? We are letting down our children at the moment, are we not?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I want all children to get access to outdoor learning and outdoor play on a daily basis. I saw the report that the member refers to, but I do not know all the details behind it. However, I do not think that looking at an average figure is a fair reflection of the situation, because that discounts some of the fantastic work that is under way. I have spoken at length before about some of the fantastic outdoor experiences that I have witnessed, and I am sure that members across the chamber will have seen the same thing in their local nurseries and schools.

Again, I have been clear that we are driving forward our ambitions in relation to outdoor learning, and now, in relation to the bill, residential outdoor learning. However, I know that we still have work to do on ensuring access for all pupils, and that continues to be a focus of the Government.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the statement.

Motion without Notice

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Before we restart proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I advise members that, following consultation between the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the business managers, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, to move decision time to 9 pm.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4 of Standing Orders, Decision Time on Wednesday 24 September be taken at 9 pm.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 45A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments. Before we move to the next group, which is group 9, I will make some further comments. All the matters to be discussed and debated are extremely important, and I understand that all members will wish to do justice to that. Equally, I hope that members will reflect on making succinct contributions while achieving those objectives. I ask that members also make their interventions brief.

After section 23

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to group 9. Amendment 178, in the name of the cabinet secretary, in the only amendment in the group.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Amendment 178 responds to amendments lodged at stage 2, which sought to create a statutory duty to publish a report every five years on the operation and effectiveness of rent controls.

At stage 2, we recognised the overarching aim of those amendments and we agreed to consider them further before now. I have therefore lodged amendment 178. It obliges ministers to conduct a review on the operation and effectiveness of part 1 of the bill and to prepare a report on that review. That will be informed by consultation with local authorities and representatives of landlords and tenants, and it will take place five years from the provisions of part 1 taking effect. That will ensure that the review is carried out after the first cycle of local authority assessments of rent controls and will therefore be informed by part 1 having operated. That is the only way that we can truly review the process and the operation of rent controls in practice. I ask members to support the amendment.

I move amendment 178.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I note that no other members have sought to make a contribution. I ask whether the cabinet secretary has anything to add by way of winding up.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 178 agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. I will suspend for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We will proceed with the division on amendment 6.

The vote is closed.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Your vote will be recorded.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, minister. Your vote will be recorded.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr McMillan. Your vote will be recorded.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Nicoll. Your vote will be recorded.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Slater. Your vote will be recorded.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Boyack. Your vote will be recorded.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Mackay. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 97, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Amendment 179 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 179 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 32, Against 71, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 179 disagreed to.

Amendment 180 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 180 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I tried to vote. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Boyack. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 31, Against 73, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 180 disagreed to.

Amendments 181 to 191 not moved.

Section 24—Private residential tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 10 is on dealing with evictions. Amendment 79, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, is grouped with amendments 80, 192, 283, 81, 193, 82, 194, 83, 84, 195, 85, 86, 196, 8, 198, 198A, 197, 197A, 7, 44, 284, 284A, 394 to 397, 285 to 287, 37, 288, 289, 266, 265, 50, 378 and 25.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The amendments that I have lodged in this group will strengthen the bill to include provisions on terminal illness when we are dealing with evictions. I thank the cabinet secretaries—Shirley-Anne Somerville and Màiri McAllan—and their officials for not only being sympathetic to my proposals at stage 2 but working with me to produce amendments to support families who are living with a terminal illness.

We have a lot of amendments to get through this afternoon, so it is not my intention to go through each and every one of my amendments. They will add provisions to the bill so that, when the courts or the First-tier Tribunal are looking at evictions, they can consider the impact on a tenant or a member of the tenant’s household who has a terminal illness. That is a compassionate way to look at evictions.

I thank Marie Curie for the exceptional work that it has carried out in trying to gain cross-party consensus on the issue. It has been working hard alongside colleagues and speaking to MSPs about how we look at evictions in a compassionate way. I will speak briefly about the evidence that Marie Curie has found and what led to the amendments being lodged. Every year, approximately 27,600 people in Scotland have to move home because of a close bereavement. The amendments will make huge improvements for terminally ill tenants and will provide bereaved families with every opportunity to succeed a property or remain in their own homes.

The “Dying in the Margins” research study by the University of Glasgow and Marie Curie, which documents the direct impact of financial hardship on terminally ill people, has been central to informing the amendments. In particular, there is the story of Stacey and Joost, who faced significant issues in getting an accessible home that met Stacey’s need, followed by a decision to evict Stacey’s widower from their home just 12 days after Stacey died. The amendments will go some way to preventing such instances from happening again and ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity throughout their end-of-life experience.

We need to thank the wonderful team at Marie Curie for raising the issue with me and other MSPs and for its tenacity in continuing to improve conditions for people with a terminal illness.

Given our time considerations, I will briefly speak to a couple of other amendments in the group, but I do not intend to speak to them all, because we are up against it.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 7 and 44 were also lodged at stage 2. Although I understand her argument, I still believe that the amendments are unworkable. I hope that, if they are moved, members will vote against them, because they could create more problems with evictions before the period begins or ends, which could put pressure on other housing options such as social housing.

Amendments 197 and 197A, on protection against eviction in the first 12 months of a tenancy, have prompted stark warnings from industry bodies. I have gone on the record to say that such a provision would be a gift to rogue landlords and would drive more good landlords out of the sector. In turn, that would worsen the housing emergency, so I hope that Maggie Chapman does not move those amendments.

Amendments 284 and 284A would require landlords to pay removal costs to tenants. They would impose unreasonable financial burdens, even in eviction cases that were lawful and accepted as necessary. We cannot afford to risk discouraging property letting, particularly among small-scale landlords, which could further reduce the housing supply. It would also add complexity and potential for dispute, which would strain the tribunal system even further.

There are other amendments in the group, but I will leave my remarks there for timing reasons.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I reiterate the declaration that I made yesterday. I am a landlord who lets houses under private residential tenancies and I have also let or given housing to individuals as part of their job. I have been letting houses for more than 30 years and I am a qualified surveyor. Before I was involved in politics, I let houses for clients. I say that so that there is no accusation that I have ever used weasel words to cover up what I do.

Amendments 192 to 196 would ensure that, when an eviction is to be carried out at the end of a tenancy, it must be done within four months of the end of the tenancy. The rationale behind that is that, in every month that the tenant who stays there is unable to pay the increased rent, the burden on them to pay it at a later stage increases. Amendments at stage 2 suggested a period of three months. I am now probing to see whether the cabinet secretary agrees that four months is a more reasonable period than three months and she is therefore in a position to support that. I do not believe that it would restrict the discretion of tribunals and courts; it would just give them deadlines to work to.

Amendments 394 to 397 are about evictions for antisocial behaviour. They relate to PRTs, secure tenancies, assured tenancies and protected statutory tenancies. They mandate that, for each type of tenancy, the tribunal’s specified period for a person to be evicted for antisocial behaviour should be no more than two months. That provision has been specifically requested by people who are not landlords but are tenants, because they have been told that tenants in the house next door to them have been behaving antisocially. In some cases, they might be drug users or drug sellers who never seem to be moved on, which causes problems for neighbouring people in tenancies. That has happened in various places around Inverness and across the Highlands. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that, once antisocial behaviour has been proven, there should be a finite amount of time before the tenant is moved on.

I support Meghan Gallacher’s amendments on terminal illness, which I am delighted that the cabinet secretary and the Government appear to support. It seems totally appropriate that terminal illness is considered in such cases.

I cannot support Maggie Chapman’s amendment 8, which would extend the eviction period to 12 months in certain circumstances, such as when the landlord intends to sell the property or when the extension is intended to alleviate financial hardship. All that it would do is to create more financial hardship for the landlord and tilt the balance too far in the tenant’s favour.

The provisions in amendments 198 and 198A would be unfair on both parties. There is no justification for the notice period for evictions to be extended beyond 16 weeks.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 77 and 44 propose a five-month ban on evictions every year. I think that the ban would be during the winter period. That would mean that a tenant could not be evicted during the winter, whatever the problems were. I am not sure that I see the logic of that, so I look forward to hearing Maggie Chapman’s arguments. It would be a bit like the transfer window for football teams, with things not being allowed to happen at certain times of the year.

Under amendments 284 and 284A, removal costs would be paid by the landlord. That would be completely unjust, and I see no reason for it. It should be for the tenant to move their equipment out of the house in the same way as they moved it in. If Ms Chapman expects the Conservatives to support amendments 284 and 284A, which would compensate the tenant for moving out, will she give me an assurance that the Greens will support my amendments 206 and 214, which would require tenants to pay for the cleaning costs at the end of their tenancy if they have kept a pet in the home? I might then be in a position to support her.

Katy Clark’s amendment 288 sets out that, if a landlord has been unable to sell a property, they cannot let the property. That means that, just because of the state of the market, they would be burdened with having to pay double council tax on that property for the period in which it was unable to be let.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Mountain, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close, please.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am just doing that.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Perfect. If we all stick roughly to the time limits, we will get through all the business that we need to get through.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The provisions in amendment 288 would be unjust. I will leave it there.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Mountain.

At the beginning of today’s stage 3 proceedings, I said that I would appreciate succinct contributions. The expectation is that members with the right to speak have a maximum of five minutes to do so. I think that that is fair.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To be clear, I will not move amendments 7, 8 and 25 in this group.

A warm and safe home that we can call our own is central to our wellbeing. That being the case, forcing someone out of their home should be done only in the most rare and unavoidable circumstances. At the moment, eviction notice periods work differently depending on how long someone has been in the property, and I struggle to see the justification for that. Someone being forced from their home against their will and being made homeless will have an impact regardless of how long they have been there. That being the case, my amendment 198 would provide a four-month notice period for everyone, so all tenants would be treated equally. It also has the virtue of simplifying the system.

Amendment 197 would provide a 12-month protection from eviction—the same protection that the Renters’ Rights Bill will shortly give to tenants in England. That would ensure that people were guaranteed a minimum of one year of stability in their home and that protections in Scotland did not fall behind those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Both of those amendments have the support of Living Rent, Crisis and Shelter. I welcome that and thank them for their support. They are the experts in supporting renters and they are not troubled by the concerns that the Conservatives have raised. I note that similar provisions were part of the Conservative Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, so I encourage them to consider their position.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It would be interesting if a tenancy was not allowed to be ended within the first 12 months. Should Maggie Chapman’s amendment also refer to the tenant, not just the landlord, not being able to end a tenancy within the first 12 months? That would seem to be equitable and fair. Does Maggie Chapman have a view on that?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Tenants and landlords are not equal in this situation. The landlord owns the asset, whereas the tenant is at risk of losing their home. Those are two very different situations.

The Liberal Democrats also supported the Renters’ Rights Bill at its third reading in the Commons. It contains the same provisions, so I trust that they will be consistent and support amendments 197 and 198. If not, their constituents may well ask why Lib Dem MPs voted to give better protections to English renters but Lib Dem MSPs did not vote for the same protections for those who rent in Scotland. Let us be clear that, if those amendments are not supported today, renters in Scotland will be less strongly protected than those south of the border. If the Government still cannot support those amendments, which have such wide support, I ask it to at least support amendment 33, which would ensure that eviction protections are kept under review compared with those in the rest of the UK.

Amendment 44 would provide a ban on winter evictions, specifically between November and March. Disallowing evictions in the winter period is not at all experimental. We recently had a substantial evictions pause in Scotland, and measures that are almost the same as what I am proposing have been in force in France for 70 years. In a country that can be as cold as ours, I do not think that I need to press the point too strongly that we should not be moving people out of their homes and into temporary accommodation that is often poorly insulated and, where the new arrangements do not work out, on to our freezing streets.

There are, of course, appropriate exemptions and exceptions, but the ban would apply to most of the common grounds for eviction. I understand that the Scottish Government’s approach to flexing evictions prizes that flexibility. That is appropriate when ensuring that evictions do not coincide with things such as exams being taken by a member of the household, which can happen at any time of the year. However, the situation is totally different for winter evictions. As we all know from sliding down the Royal Mile to the Parliament in the ice and snow, Scotland is reliably cold in the last and first few months of the year. The amendment simply asks for inconsistency across the piece. The bill says that tribunals “may” consider delaying an eviction due to a “seasonal factor”, but they may not, and they may also differ on the interpretation of what a “seasonal factor” is.

If the cabinet secretary does not intend to support that proposal, I have a simple question. When the Scottish Government included both my party and that of the cabinet secretary, it brought in an evictions pause through the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. If that was the right thing to do then, why is it not now?

Amendment 284 would give effect to a long-standing ask from Generation Rent. It would empower, but not require, ministers to establish a system whereby those who are evicted on no-fault grounds, such as for the sale of a property, could be compensated. That would recognise the significant costs that tenants incur when being evicted—when, let us be clear, they are being made homeless. Polling on that issue that was carried out by Survation for Generation Rent shows how much money tenants lose. Some 52 per cent of the tenants reported that they took more than four days to pack, clean and move at the end of a tenancy, often requiring time off work, which can be costly for those who do not have leave available.

Due to overlapping tenancies, 40 per cent of the private tenants reported that they paid rent on more than one property at a time when moving home. Of those, more than a third paid rent on two properties for more than two weeks. That is not to mention the costs of cleaning or having the property cleaned, or of hiring vehicles to move renters’ furniture and other items.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Chapman, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I will do so very quickly.

When up-front costs are so high, we need those protections. It is a modest measure.

I support a number of other amendments in the group, but I do not have time to speak to them. I will leave it there.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Amendment 285 seeks to place sensible restrictions on the issuing of eviction orders when a landlord has recently received an ECO4 grant to improve the energy efficiency of a property. For members who are not aware, landlords are selected to receive such grants entirely on the basis of the income and personal circumstances of the tenant in their property.

Amendment 285 seeks to give the tenant protection from eviction for 12 months. It would seem strange for the Government to grant money to a landlord for upgrading a property in order to improve energy efficiency and save a tenant money, based on that tenant’s circumstances, if the landlord removed them after receiving that grant. Members will recall that I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. At that time, the Government discounted the proposal, arguing that it did not allow for extenuating circumstances to be considered for landlords.

Having listened to that feedback, and in response to it, I have amended my proposal at stage 3 to address those concerns. The revised amendment makes it clear that, where a landlord has received an ECO4 grant—under the energy company obligation scheme—in the previous 12 months,

“the Tribunal must not grant an eviction order”

on certain grounds, such as an intention to sell, to carry out destructive works or to move in themselves, unless,

“having considered the landlord’s circumstances, it is reasonable”

to do so. I think that that is a solid compromise position coming from the amendment that I lodged at stage 2, and I ask members to support amendment 285 today.

Amendments 286 and 287 would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the eviction grounds in schedule 3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 and in other tenancy types within 24 months of the bill coming into force.

Over the past few years, evidence from the First-tier Tribunal and the experiences shared by tenant organisations have highlighted that some of the current eviction grounds do not always deliver a fair balance between tenant and landlord rights. Although many of those grounds are technically discretionary, there are still loopholes that can be exploited, leaving tenants at risk of losing their homes unfairly. The changes made to eviction grounds during the pandemic demonstrated that reform is possible and can make a real difference to tenant security, but it is clear that more comprehensive action is needed to address the underlying issues in the system.

Part 2 of the bill takes important steps to tighten the rules around evictions, but amendments 286 and 287 go further by calling for a full review of the framework, to ensure that our tenancy laws are fit for purpose, based on lessons learned since the 2016 act came into force and since the subsequent changes.

We will all have heard of tenants having been told that a property has been listed for sale and having been evicted only for them to see it listed for rent at a higher price a few months down the line. Those are not isolated stories, and they point to a wider problem in the system that needs to be addressed at its root. Ultimately, the proposals are about rebalancing the system and protecting tenants from unfair eviction while ensuring that landlords can still act when there is a genuine need. I ask members to support amendments 286 and 287.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I will speak to amendments 288 and 289, in my name. Amendment 288 relates to eviction orders for occupied properties on grounds of sale when the landlord seemingly abandons plans to sell. Generation Rent found that, in 2022, nearly a third of private landlords who evicted tenants in order to sell their property had failed to sell the property more than a year later. We know of many situations in which tenants have been evicted on grounds of sale and the property has been put back on the rental market at a higher rent. Amendment 288 is intended to address that scenario. The amendment would restrict landlords from letting, or attempting to let, the property in question within six months of an eviction order being granted. That change would bring the law in Scotland into line with the provisions outlined in the UK Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, which has been debated at Westminster over recent months, and it would therefore bring the law in Scotland into line with that of the rest of the UK.

Edward Mountain said that he believed that that would mean that the landlord would pay double council tax, but, of course, that is not the position when there is an attempt to sell a property. No doubt, we can come back to that later if the member does not accept that point.

Amendment 289 seeks to strengthen the criminal law in relation to wrongful termination. That offence criminalises the act of intentionally misleading a tenant into ceasing to occupy a let property and misleading the First-tier Tribunal into issuing an eviction order. Of course, there are already criminal offences relating to such matters, but amendment 289 would increase the maximum penalties for such offences, which would be appropriate in situations involving repeat offenders. There are already offences for unlawful eviction, and the amendment would simply strengthen the law in this area, increasing the penalties.

Both of my amendments are supported by Living Rent and other campaigns.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I will speak to a couple of the amendments in the group. I welcome Megan Gallacher’s amendments on terminal illness, and I put on record that Marie Curie’s work on the issue has achieved cross-party support. It will make a big difference to people’s lives. As a Parliament, we have a good record on helping people who have terminal illness.

I will also speak to Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 283. I remind members that I am a member and an elder of the Church of Scotland. The amendment deals with property, such as a church manse, that is owned by churches or faiths. As many of us are aware, a number of churches have closed or merged with others over the past few years, and, while people are looking for new ministers or pastors, the house remains empty. The churches are looking for a way to allow people to use that house while the church is vacant and then, when a new minister is appointed, for that house to be made available for the church to use for that individual.

We have debated the issue on several occasions, and I am disappointed that the amendment has never been accepted by the Parliament or the Government. We all know that there is a housing shortage, and any house that becomes available for however long a period should be grabbed and used. If this amendment is not passed today, many churches and denominations will simply leave such a property empty, because they know that they will require it in months to come. I hope that the Government and the Parliament will accept amendment 283, and I again thank Meghan Gallacher for lodging it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind everyone that members who are participating remotely should have their cameras on when they are participating.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I will speak briefly to Edward Mountain’s amendment 192, on behalf of a constituent who has been following the bill and has reached out to me for representation on the issue. By way of background, my constituent attempted to evict a tenant who had been antisocial. The First-tier Tribunal delayed hearings, which caused a huge financial strain on my constituent, leading to tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of losses and a huge financial and emotional impact on her and her family. My constituent believes that, had the amendment been in place, it would have given her a set timeframe in which to budget for an eviction. In the end, the process dragged on for so long that the situation was solved outwith the tribunal system—basically, a letting agency stepped in and moved the tenant to a different property. My constituent has been badly affected by the experience and, as you will imagine, is considering her future options in relation to being a landlord.

Although, because of that case, I have some sympathy with the amendment, I cannot support the amendment for a number of reasons, including the risk that it would undermine fairness. Strict deadlines may force tribunals to rush complex cases without properly considering the circumstances of vulnerable tenants, and there could be a risk of unjust outcomes and homelessness. Threatening judicial independence by legislating for rigid timeframes could be seen as political interference in how tribunals operate and manage case loads. Administrative impracticality—tribunals are already underresourced—and imposing deadlines without additional funding or staffing could create procedural chaos and even more appeals. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment although, as I have said, I have great sympathy with it. Will the cabinet secretary outline ways in which the principle of Edward Mountain’s amendment could be achieved in practice while still safeguarding vulnerable people?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Before I set out the detail of the Government’s position on the amendments in this group, I assure members that brevity will be the order of the day for the Government. However, given that we see ourselves as having a responsibility to show members the courtesy of responding to their amendments, I will not necessarily be able to do that in five minutes for every group in which there are many amendments, but I will keep my remarks as short as possible.

I turn to Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 79 to 86. I thank her, Marie Curie and Mark Griffin, who was also involved in the work on this matter, for their engagement with me. The eviction process is exceptionally difficult for anybody, but it is particularly difficult for those with a terminal illness, so I am pleased to be able to support amendments 79 to 86.

Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 283 seeks to create a further exemption from the duty to consider a delay in the enforcement of evictions specifically for the Church of Scotland. I am afraid that, as we set out at stage 2, I am not persuaded that an exemption in such circumstances is appropriate. The current legal framework ensures that the rights of landlords and tenants are taken into account in any decision to delay the enforcement of eviction. That means that a delay will be ordered only when it is reasonable, in all circumstances, to do so. The type of landlord and the purpose for which the property is used, in and of themselves, do not merit a stand-alone exemption.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The practical effect of the existing provision is that manses are lying empty. I know of manses that have lain empty as a result of that provision. Whatever the law is, the practical effect of it is that we have empty homes that could be used. Can the cabinet secretary not find a way to resolve that problem?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will certainly continue my engagement with the Church of Scotland. I take Willie Rennie’s point; I do not want any houses—manses or otherwise—to lie empty. However, it has already been legislated for in primary legislation that such circumstances can be taken into account. I do not think that such circumstances merit the creation of a stand-alone exemption for the Church of Scotland, not least because the proposed exemption would not include other religious bodies. However, I will stay engaged on those issues.

Edward Mountain’s amendments 192 to 196 would prevent the First-tier Tribunal and the courts from ordering a delay to an eviction of more than four months. I do not think that it is appropriate to restrict the discretion of the courts in that way. They need to be able to make orders that they deem reasonable, taking account of all the circumstances that they have before them. In addition, by linking the start of the period to the day after proceedings are raised by the landlord, we could risk there being no delay at all or minimal delay in some cases, which would undermine the purpose of the measures in the bill. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 192 to 196.

I am also unable to support Mr Mountain’s amendments 394 to 397, which would place a requirement on the courts and the First-tier Tribunal whereby, in cases in which antisocial behaviour grounds have been satisfied, an eviction order must be made no later than two months from the date of application. I listened to what Mr Mountain said about amendments 394 to 397, but I cannot support them, for a number of reasons. The principal reason is that the bill already contains an exemption from the duty to consider delaying an eviction on antisocial behaviour grounds. That means that it is a matter for the court or the tribunal to issue an eviction order as it deems fit. Nothing in the bill should hinder the judicial process in that regard.

I will not speak to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 8, as she indicated that she would not move it.

Amendment 198 seeks to address concerns by providing ministers with regulation-making powers to change the notice period that a landlord must give to a tenant when ending a tenancy, such that the notice period would be 16 weeks in certain circumstances. It would also require that notice period to be applied to evictions in cases in which the ground for eviction relates to the sale of property.

Connected to that, amendment 198A would turn that power to make regulations into a duty to make regulations. The provision to convert the power to a duty is defective, because it would fetter the Parliament’s role and remit. On the substance of the amendment, further work is required to understand the implications of increased notice periods before changes are made. The repossession grounds review that will be conducted provides a mechanism for such detailed work.

Amendment 197 and consequential amendment 265 would give regulation-making powers to ministers relating to protection against eviction within the first 12 months of a tenancy. Again, those are inflexible provisions. As I have said previously, such issues are best considered as part of our review of repossession grounds, which will allow a fulsome and proper assessment to be made of how the current system is operating and how it might operate better. I know that the question of eviction grounds is a concern for many members; I can confirm to the Parliament that that review will begin before the end of this year, and I would welcome members’ involvement in it.

Amendment 197A would turn the power in amendment 197 into a duty—again, removing the Parliament’s role, which the Government could not support.

Amendments 7 and 25 have been debated today. They seek to reintroduce the winter evictions ban that would apply every year from November until April, except in limited circumstances. The same amendments were lodged at stage 2 and were not agreed to. For the same reasons that we set out then, I cannot support them today.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

It has been stated that the amendments in relation to a winter eviction moratorium might constitute a disproportionate control on the use of a landlord’s property. However, we managed to do that during the course of Covid; Ms Chapman said that it was during the cost of living crisis, but it was mainly for Covid.

It has also been said that the existing powers in the bill already allow for consideration of a delay year round, with discretion for the courts and tribunals to apply that as they deem reasonable in the circumstances of each case.

Will the cabinet secretary continue to monitor all of that, so that we get it right for people across the board?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will, of course, keep a close eye on those matters, and particularly on how the courts and tribunals use those existing powers to delay the enforcement of an eviction at any time of the year. It is worth noting that seasonal impact is set out as one of the specific factors that can be considered.

There are two other reasons why I do not think that amendments 7 and 25 are necessarily appropriate. First, there are other times of year when particular strain means that protection could be argued for, such as other religious periods, exam periods and so on. Secondly, with a ban of that type, we would risk creating a flood of cases come April rather than having the ability to deal with matters throughout the year. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments.

Maggie Chapman’s amendments 44 and 50 are alternatives to amendments 7 and 25, so the same issues apply.

I will skip forward as quickly as I can.

Amendment 284 would enable ministers to require payment of removal costs if a tenant was being evicted from a residential property. It is not clear from the amendment who would pay for that, but I think that, by implication, it would be the landlord.

When a similar amendment was lodged at stage 2, we committed to considering the need to assess the impact of payments for removal costs. Although amendment 284 would not compel ministers to make regulations, I am concerned about supporting a provision in relation to which the justification has not been fully understood and if it is not clear.

For the same reason, I have significantly greater concerns about amendment 284A, which would require ministers to make regulations regardless of the need for and the impact of any changes. For those reasons, and some other technical problems with the amendments, I cannot support them.

In relation to amendment 37, I am unconvinced of the need for an unlimited on-going statutory requirement for a five-yearly review of protections. Ministers can already carry out a review of eviction protections in the social and private rented sectors whenever it is considered appropriate to do so.

Mark Griffin’s amendment 285, which he has explained, seeks to address concerns about a small number of landlords acting unreasonably after receiving ECO4 funding. I remain of the view that the amendment is not necessary and I cannot support it. Our current framework already provides protection from unreasonable eviction in those circumstances. That is because, in Scotland, all grounds for eviction are discretionary, and the tribunal can take into account all the circumstances in the case.

However, I agree that there are concerns about ECO4, which is a UK Government scheme. I understand that we asked UK ministers last year to make changes to strengthen those safeguards, but they were not able to do so at the time. I would therefore welcome Mark Griffin’s support in seeking to have those changes made.

Amendment 286 would introduce a requirement on ministers to carry out a review of repossession grounds under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. However, as I have said, I am committed to a review of all eviction grounds, and I welcome members’ engagement in that.

Similarly, amendment 287 would require ministers to carry out a review of repossession grounds across all the main tenancy regimes, including the social sector. I have not heard any calls for a review for the social rented sector, and I do not believe that such a review would be appropriate. The amendment would also require us to carry out reviews on types of tenancies that are scarcely used.

I absolutely understand the intent behind amendment 288 in the name of Katy Clark but, unfortunately, I cannot support it. On a similar amendment at stage 2, we set out that any additional restrictions and measures in relation to wrongful termination need careful consideration, which should be done through our review of repossession grounds to ensure the right balance. I understand that Katy Clark’s intention is to ensure that certain repossession grounds cannot be used spuriously; however, in such a circumstance, it would already be open to a tenant to apply to the tribunal for a wrongful termination order.

Similarly, on amendment 289, which would introduce a new offence, I assure Katy Clark that there is an existing offence through the Scottish Tribunals (Offences in Relation to Proceedings) Regulations 2016, which could result in imprisonment for up to two years, a fine or both.

For all those reasons, I ask members to support Meghan Gallacher’s amendments 79 to 86 and Mark Griffin’s amendment 286 but not to move or support any other amendment in the group.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank members, as I do not believe that anyone has spoken against my amendments in relation to terminal illness. I also thank colleagues who have engaged with Marie Curie and have been fully supportive of what those amendments seek to achieve. As the cabinet secretary laid out, when people who have a terminal illness experience an eviction, that is an added pressure on what not only they but their families are dealing with. It is good that we are working together to add some compassion to the bill. I thank everyone who has worked with Marie Curie to make that possible.

I will be brief and then will close my remarks. On amendment 283, in my name, which relates to religious properties, and on the points that have been raised by colleagues Jeremy Balfour and Willie Rennie, I still believe that the issue is unresolved. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to continue to engage with the Church of Scotland. A representative of that church contacted me and other members across parties to bring about an amendment of that nature. If there are unresolved issues, there are still opportunities, in my view—even if they are not written into the bill—to look at those, to make sure that properties are not sitting empty when they could be used. That goes back to the fact that we have a shortage of homes up and down the country, and we should make use of every possible lever to use the homes that are already in existence.

I will leave my remarks there, and I press amendment 79.

Amendment 79 agreed to.

Amendment 80 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Amendment 192 moved—[Edward Mountain].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 192 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 81, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 192 disagreed to.

Amendment 283 moved—[Meghan Gallacher].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 283 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I vote no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Lochhead. I will make sure that that is recorded.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I will make sure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 44, Against 63, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 283 disagreed to.

Section 25—Scottish secure tenancies etc.: duty to consider delay to eviction

Amendment 81 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Amendment 193 not moved.

Amendment 82 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Amendment 194 not moved.

Section 26—Assured tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction

Amendments 83 and 84 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Amendment 195 not moved.

Section 27—Protected tenancies and statutory tenancies: duty to consider delay to eviction

Amendments 85 and 86 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]—and agreed to.

Amendment 196 not moved.

After section 27

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 198 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

Amendment 198A moved—[Maggie Chapman].