Scottish Parliament, 28 January 2026

678 contributions from 73 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20599, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. I invite Graeme Dey to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Wednesday 28 January 2026—

after

followed by Scottish Labour Party Debate: The Role of Political Decision Making in NHS Scandals

insert

followed by First Minister’s Statement: Update on the MV Bella-1

delete

9.30 pm Decision Time

and insert

10.00 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Russell Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

We strongly oppose the Scottish National Party’s attempt to change today’s business motion. This Parliament has a wide range of powers and responsibilities, covering hospitals and general practitioners, schools and universities, police and prisons, roads and public transport. That is what Holyrood should be talking about, and it is what MSPs are paid to do. Those are the issues that people care about. However, John Swinney has spotted an opportunity for grievance and grandstanding—two of his favourite things—and a chance to cosplay as a world statesman while meddling in matters that are not his domain.

I welcome the United Kingdom-US military operation to stop a sanction-busting oil tanker. Such vessels flout sanctions that have been imposed against evil regimes. Oil that is transported by that global ghost fleet literally fuels Putin’s slaughter of innocent Ukrainians. Their illicit cargo bankrolls the Ayatollahs, who are murdering brave Iranians in the streets.

I do not know the exact details of the court action in question. I do not need to. Let due process play out. If the sanction-busting Russian skipper of a ghost fleet ship has some kind of legal grievance, that is his business. We should be focused on what we are paid to do—not least addressing the vast backlog of legislation that is being rushed through Parliament, with weeks until dissolution. Just last night, some MSPs said that they were unable to speak fully to certain amendments due to a lack of time. That is a recipe for yet more bad legislation from the Government.

Parliament’s time is precious and finite. The SNP Government frequently resists attempts to speak about serious issues for which it is responsible. We saw that recently with the scandal of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs misrepresenting an expert on grooming gangs. We are seeing it again right now with the SNP’s bizarre court case in which it is fighting to keep men in women’s prisons.

The SNP has failed Scotland. Our public services are getting worse and taxes are going up, but John Swinney wants to waste Parliament’s time to score political points on behalf of a seized Russian oil tanker. We say, “No, John Swinney—get on with the bloody day job.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Findlay, I ask you to reflect on the use of the adjective that you just used. It is not really what we would expect from such an august person as yourself. You might wish to reflect on that.

I call Graeme Dey to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

It is clear that self-awareness is not a gift that has been bestowed on Russell Findlay when he accuses anyone of grandstanding.

The purpose of the amended business motion is to provide time for a statement by the First Minister to update the Scottish Parliament on the Bella 1. There has been, and there continues to be, significant public interest in the MV Bella 1, which is currently in the Moray Firth, in the wellbeing of the crew and in communications and information sharing between the Scottish and UK Governments.

Over the past few days, there has been considerable activity in relation to the Bella 1, and it is therefore right that time is taken to update Parliament and to set out the timeline of that engagement. The First Minister intends to update Parliament on the position of the crew, on communications with the UK Government and on the legal proceedings that have been heard in the Scottish courts this week—and, of course, to answer questions from members. I anticipate that those questions would engage subjects such as how the Scottish legal system was involved, the fact that the vessel was sitting in Scottish waters and the fact that 26 of the crew were taken ashore in Scotland.

An element of those legal proceedings is still live, which will limit a part of what the First Minister is able to say. However, given the rapid pace of developments, our view is that the Parliament should be updated today. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members, let us hear the minister. [ Interruption. ] Mr Ross, let us hear the minister. We have a lot—[ Interruption. ] We have an awful lot of business to conduct this afternoon, including portfolio questions. The more time that we spend on this bit, the less time we will have on selecting supplementary questions.

I call the minister.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I had concluded, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that motion S6M-20599, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division.

There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We come to the vote on motion S6M-20599, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

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

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Your vote will be recorded.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

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

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 78, Against 25, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Wednesday 28 January 2026—

after

followed by Scottish Labour Party Debate: The Role of Political Decision Making in NHS Scandals

insert

followed by First Minister’s Statement: Update on the MV Bella-1

delete

9.30 pm Decision Time

and insert

10.00 pm Decision Time

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is portfolio questions. The first portfolio this afternoon is constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business.

I ask those members who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to the outdoor arts, circus and spectacle sector. (S6O-05419)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Creative Scotland supports nine organisations with an outdoor arts, circus and spectacle background through its multiyear funding programme, with funding that will total almost £4 million over the three-year period of the awards. Six of those organisations had not received core funding from Creative Scotland previously. That result has been made possible by record levels of funding being provided by the Scottish Government for multiyear funding. The Scottish Government support increased the multiyear funding budget by £20 million in 2025-26, and a further £20 million increase is planned in the draft budget for 2026-27, taking the total to £74 million.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Earlier this month, I sponsored an event at the Parliament alongside Articulation to mark the publication of “Beyond the Stage: Understanding the Benefits of Outdoor Arts, Circus and Spectacle in Scotland”, which is Scotland’s first-ever report on outdoor arts, circus and spectacle. Among other things, the report notes that, as Creative Scotland does not recognise outdoor arts, circus and spectacle as distinct art forms, artists are often forced to apply under generic categories, resulting in misaligned support and making it difficult to track or understand investment in the sector.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that formal recognition of outdoor arts, circus and spectacle in Scotland would greatly support artists and cultural events, as well as helping to deliver on the culture and international culture strategies for 2024 to 2030?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the contributions that outdoor arts, circus and spectacle make to Scotland’s culture sector and I recognise the challenges and opportunities that those distinct art forms face. Our culture strategy celebrates the diversity and excellence of cultures in Scotland, and the Scottish Government will continue to work with Creative Scotland and stakeholders to ensure that we can best support our mutual goals for the culture sector. If Fulton MacGregor would like to follow up after this question session on the specifics that he raised in his supplementary question, I would be happy to enter correspondence with him.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures value for money when allocating funding within the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture portfolio. (S6O-05420)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The constitution, external affairs and culture portfolio received £415.8 million in the Scottish Government draft budget for 2026-27. That represents a £36.1 million increase in funding compared with the current financial year. Funding is allocated based on principles of best value and is allocated to existing, recurring and new projects. Decisions on draft budget allocations are made by the Scottish ministers, based on advice provided by policy officials and in discussion with special advisers.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Government’s tax and spending plans show that funding for international and European relations will rise by 29.3 per cent. Two years ago, it rose by 12 per cent. During that time, in the north-east, Angus has lost its award-winning Gateway to the Glens museum, Dundee Rep has been reeling after the council cut its funding and Gardyne Theatre recently made its staff redundant. Aberdeen has closed six libraries with, doubtless, more to come. Why is the culture secretary wasting so much money on his jet-set Walter Mitty lifestyle when the core of his job—the one that is expected by taxpayers—is being eroded after years of Scottish National Party cuts?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am genuinely surprised that Tess White is not aware that the increase in the external affairs advice and policy budget reflects the inward transfer of budgets from areas outwith the portfolio for teams working on population and migration and international climate change.

Scotland’s international network does a lot of work to promote Scotland’s culture internationally. I am sorry that there is an ever-growing number of voices among Tess White’s party that seek to reduce that work. Her predecessor on the front bench used to call for an increase in Scotland’s international network. It is a sad day when the Conservative Party, which set up Scotland’s first international office, chooses to downgrade that network.

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

It is grimly amusing to hear a Tory use the words “value for money”, “funding” and “external affairs” in the same sentence. Scotland still awaits from the Tories some contrition for the travesty of Brexit. Will the Scottish Government say what funding Scotland has lost out on since Brexit was forced on us?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Brexit has been an unmitigated economic and social disaster. Its red tape has increased costs to businesses and hit Scotland’s trade with our largest international export market, which is the European Union. Recent research estimates that, in 2023, the United Kingdom suffered a 2.5 per cent hit to gross domestic product as a result of Brexit, which is forecast to increase to 5.7 per cent by 2035. In Scotland, it equates to a cut in public revenues of around £2.3 billion in 2023 alone. I will take no lessons from the Tories on external affairs.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how to ensure that Scotland maximises the cultural legacy benefits of the 2026 summer of sport. (S6O-05421)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government is drawing on the successful cultural legacy of the 2014 Commonwealth games to inform its approach to Glasgow 2026. In 2014, culture was embedded as a core part of the games, helping to widen participation, showcase Scotland internationally and strengthen the cultural sector.

For 2026, the Government will seek to ensure that that governance and planning are in place from an early stage in order to maximise long-term public benefit. I have already had meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss maximising the impact of, and the legacy from, the Commonwealth games, and I look forward to those discussions continuing over the coming months.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I think that the cabinet secretary agrees with me that sport is culture. In 2014, the Commonwealth games showed Scotland and Glasgow in the very best light, but when that caravan packed up and left, the 2014 legacy—contrary to what the cabinet secretary seems to think—left a lot to be desired. For example, this time round, the Scotstoun stadium venue is the jewel in the crown, but right next door to it, the hockey centre that was developed for 2014 is crumbling and is no longer being used properly. Hockey around Scotland is now becoming simply islands of hockey.

How will we learn from that? How will we ensure that the same mistakes are not made again and that the cultural legacy of the 2026 games is a success?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

First, I acknowledge Brian Whittle’s expertise and commitment to sport and culture in this context.

I assure him that a lot of effort was put into making sure that the legacy benefits, not only from 2014 but from events such as the UCI cycling world championships, endure into the years ahead. He said that the legacy has been less than what was desired. I make a genuine offer to him that, leading up to the forthcoming Commonwealth games in Glasgow, he might share with me and my colleagues, in discussions in the months ahead, some areas on which he thinks that we should focus in order to ensure that we have the best possible games. I make that offer to members of all parties, because we want to ensure that we do it right.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s £40 million investment in the summer of sport, which will provide thousands of young people with the opportunity to get involved in sports and learn to swim this summer. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the Scottish Government’s work to commemorate this year of national events?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Sport and physical activity are among the most powerful ways to support physical, mental and social wellbeing. Our summer of sport programme in 2026 will provide opportunities for every child and young person in Scotland to take part in free, accessible sporting activity. The programme aims to inspire lifelong participation and help Scotland to become a healthier, more connected nation.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the five national performing companies are essential infrastructure investment and whether the funding that it provides to them is sufficient. (S6O-05422)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I recognise the important role that the national performing companies play in the cultural infrastructure of Scotland. We will continue to fund the internationally acclaimed work of our national performing companies in 2026-27, with a view to providing them with additional funding in future financial years as part of the commitment towards an additional £100 million. That funding builds on the uplift of £1 million in funding across our five national performing companies in 2025-26, and an additional £700,000 of funding in 2024-25. That investment takes their core funding to the highest level since 2011-12.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful for that answer, but independent analysis shows that, for every £1 that the Scottish Government invests in the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, it returns more than £4 to the economy and nearly £3 in wellbeing benefits. An additional £3 million would provide almost £14 million of economic impact. However, the RSNO has a salary bill of more than £5 million, which is more than the Government provides, and it was forced to make redundancies last year. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the proposed cut to the RSNO’s budget does not make economic sense and risks severe damage to one of Scotland’s leading cultural institutions?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I do not accept Mr Kerr’s characterisation. I am a great supporter of the RSNO and I acknowledge the benefit of the investment and the return on it for Scotland’s cultural sector and the economy more generally.

Mr Kerr would be standing on firmer ground in his support for cultural organisations in Scotland if he had voted for the biggest single increase in culture funding since devolution and Covid. I recall that Mr Kerr voted against that, so he is not on very strong ground now calling—[ Interruption .] I invite Mr Kerr to vote for this year’s budget, which sees a further increase for culture funding.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the cabinet secretary advise why, at a time of steady, above-inflation growth in Scotland’s cultural budget, the five national performing companies are still expected to operate on more or less a flat cash settlement that is similar to that of 15 years ago? What impact does he believe that that has on the staff of those companies, who are expected to survive and perform to an excellent standard, often peripatetically, on modest salaries?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The budget that is before the Parliament sets out that there will be further increases to our national performing companies over the period of the spending review. Last year, they shared an uplift of £1 million, which followed an uplift of £700,000 in the previous year. That is a 9.4 per cent uplift since 2023-24. That takes their funding to almost £25 million, which is shared across the five national performing companies. Scottish Opera will receive £8.65 million in this year’s budget, Scottish Ballet will receive £4.7 million, and the National Theatre of Scotland will receive £4.5 million.

For context, Creative Scotland’s multiyear funding for 2026-27 is £74 million, which is shared among 263 organisations. The largest amount of the funding that goes to performing arts companies through that route is allocated to Dundee Rep and Scottish Dance Theatre, which receive £2.86 million, while the Royal Lyceum Theatre receives £1.7 million and the Citizens Theatre receives £1.6 million.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The national performing companies are one of our most important cultural exports, performing in the other United Kingdom nations and internationally in some of the world’s most renowned concert halls. The real-terms cuts to four of the five organisations in the draft budget will limit their ability to do that. Surely it is the cabinet secretary’s role to help to promote Scotland’s culture abroad. Is it that he does not realise the immense value of the companies to Scotland’s international reputation, or is he happy to blame Shona Robison for jeopardising our status as a major player on the world stage?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

We are 70 per cent of the way towards delivering our record uplift in post-Covid funding for the arts, which was opposed and voted against by the Conservatives and on which Neil Bibby abstained. I look forward to delivering the £100 million increase in Scotland’s culture budget, and the national performing companies are at the forefront of my mind in that. I would have thought that Neil Bibby would understand that the increase in this year’s budget is contributing to the delivery of multiyear funding, which the Government is proud to deliver.

I look forward to continuing to support the national performing companies and I have them at the forefront of my thoughts for the remainder of the uplift for the culture and arts budget. I invite Neil Bibby to vote for that, rather than abstaining.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It is not just that the companies are expected to operate on budgets that are equivalent to what they received 15 years ago; it is also the fact that they are not being given clarity by the Scottish Government. It is simply too vague to say that they might expect something in future years. Does the cabinet secretary understand that the vagueness will force those companies to make urgent decisions that will see Scotland lose some of its cultural infrastructure? Will he please offer them some concrete clarity about the funding trajectory that they can rely on in the immediate term?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I can give Mr Harvie that assurance. Those conversations have already been had with the national performing companies. We are in the process of delivering the biggest uplift in culture and arts funding in the history of devolution, outwith the Covid period. I am trying to do that as quickly as possible, and we are 70 per cent of the way there. The national performing companies understand that my thinking in terms of the last 30 per cent is very much focused on them in the years ahead. I agree that they would wish to have as much clarity about that as possible, and that is what I want to give them.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Rachael Hamilton for question 5.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government—

Is my microphone on?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It is now. Could you start again from the beginning of the question?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Presiding Officer, I would just draw your attention to the fact that the microphones have been working inconsistently at the start of every question.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We will look into that. Please ask your question.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will propose the scheduling of time for a ministerial statement on the written case for the Scottish ministers and Lord Advocate in the judicial review of the Scottish Prison Service policy for the management of transgender people in custody, including how many times women’s rights are mentioned. (S6O-05423)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

It is the Scottish Government’s long-held position that it is inappropriate for Scottish ministers to comment or engage in comments in respect of live litigation. That is the case in the chamber and in the media. The Scottish Government has an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary. We do not ever want the Government to be seen as interfering in the work of our independent courts. The court is the appropriate forum for such discussions, which ensures that proper respect is afforded to the judiciary and to litigants.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The public deserve answers, not the Scottish National Party’s defensive drivel yet again. We have already had an answer from the Supreme Court on the definition of biological sex. Does the minister not know that the Scottish ministers set the policy for the Scottish Prison Service, which delivers it?

Female prisoners who are already victims of male violence and abuse are being retraumatised, silenced and gaslighted by this Government. Is the Government stalling on bringing forward a statement because the First Minister does not know what a woman is or because the Government is still working out the distinction between a mother taking her young son into a changing room and a violent rapist being housed with vulnerable female prisoners?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I have laid out very clearly what is motivating the position that the Government has taken and I have explained the reasons for it. I do not think that there is anything further to add to that. I am certainly not going to be dragged into an argument as articulated by Rachael Hamilton in those terms. These are serious matters.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister is on another planet. He says that he cannot discuss the issue because of an on-going legal case. The question is about information that the SNP put into the public domain, because the First Minister wanted the public to be better informed. Given that the SNP is going to court to continue to be allowed to house dangerous male prisoners in the female prison estate, I ask the minister this very simple question: did every cabinet secretary and Government minister agree with the written arguments that were presented in court, including the fact that they made absolutely no mention at all of women’s safety?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I have already laid out the Scottish Government’s position on the matter, but, harking back to yesterday, I am struck by the Conservatives’ position—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Just answer the question.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Ross.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am old enough—perhaps depressingly old enough—to remember when the Tories presented themselves as the party of law and order, yet, yesterday, I faced calls from members on those benches to not give due regard to the risk of the Government committing contempt of court, and, today, I am being challenged to disrespect a set of live legal proceedings by facilitating a parliamentary statement on the matter in parallel to those proceedings.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government what information it holds on the diversity and socioeconomic background of audiences attending performances by the national performing companies. (S6O-05424)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scotland’s five national performing companies are required to develop a broad and diverse audience base as part of their grant conditions. The national performing companies published a joint social impact report in 2023. I would be happy to send the member a copy of that report.

One in 10 of all tickets sold to national performing company events were issued to those living in the most deprived areas of Scotland, and 43 per cent of the national performing companies’ audiences live outside large urban areas, including rural communities and those in the Highlands and Islands communities.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I accept that all of the companies go out into communities, but I am more interested in who is coming to the main events. I asked about that at the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Scottish Ballet could not really answer, and Scottish Opera has since sent me a helpful map that shows that, predominantly, its audiences come from the west end of Glasgow and up into Bearsden and from the south side of Glasgow out into East Renfrewshire. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that we are reaching as wide an audience as we should be?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

We should always strive to widen that audience—I am at one with John Mason on that. From the conversations that I have had with the national performing companies, I know that they are committed to that as well.

I am interested in the range of information that Mr Mason has. Perhaps he does not have all the information, but I have given a commitment to share the information that I have. If, as a result of seeing that, he identifies areas where we might be able to pursue a better understanding and get better statistics in order to pursue our shared objective, I would be happy to take the matter forward with him.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with the Arctic Circle assembly. (S6O-05425)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government was represented by officials from the Nordic international office at the Arctic Circle assembly in October 2025, who engaged with international stakeholders on a number of issues, including climate change, science and innovation, and rural economic development. That has enabled the Scottish Government to strengthen existing collaborations and gain valuable new insights into a region that has a rapidly changing geopolitical environment.

The Scottish Government has had ministerial or official representation at every Arctic Circle assembly since 2016.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Given that Scotland is the world’s most northerly non-Arctic nation, what steps is the Scottish Government taking to place Scotland as a link between the Arctic region and the wider world, particularly as a European gateway to the Arctic?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

“Arctic Connections: Scotland’s Arctic Policy Framework”, which was launched in 2019, strengthens our co-operation with Arctic and sub-Arctic nations by promoting knowledge exchange on shared challenges such as climate change, community resilience and sustainable economic development. The framework highlights areas where Scottish expertise aligns with Arctic priorities. It is currently under evaluation, with the recommendations due in February.

To enhance Scotland’s role as a European gateway to the Arctic, the Scottish Government works closely with Arctic, Nordic and Baltic partners and ensures Scottish participation in key Arctic conferences.

We also seek to attract Arctic events to Scotland to broaden civic engagement. That work is supported by the Scottish Arctic Network, which is a network of researchers, and by the Scottish Government offices in Copenhagen, Ottawa and Washington DC, which help to maintain and deepen Scotland’s Arctic relationships.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the United States consul general in Edinburgh to discuss Scotland’s international strategy. (S6O-05426)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish Government ministers and officials have regular meetings with the US consul general and US consulate staff as part of our on-going bilateral engagement with the United States. I most recently spoke with Kathryn Porter at a parliamentary event to mark the US semiquincentennial. We have not had any specific meetings to discuss the Scottish Government’s international strategy, which was published in January 2024; however, ministerial and senior official-level engagements with United States partners often include discussions on Scotland’s approach to international issues.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The siege of Venezuela, the seizure of its President and the recolonisation of its oil fields; the continuing siege of Cuba and the threat to its sovereignty; and the threat to Greenland and the robbery of its mineral wealth—is this not naked aggression? Is this not raw imperialism? Are they not illegal actions of Donald Trump—actions that all democratic Governments should unequivocally and unconditionally condemn?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Mr Leonard knows that the First Minister has put the position of the Scottish Government on a number of those questions on the record.

I add that it is important at the present time to appreciate the sanctions regime that is supported by the international community against Vladimir Putin’s Russia, which is using trade in oil to fuel its conflict against Ukraine. We support the United Kingdom Government’s position and the international position in supporting Ukraine and in supporting sanctions.

On some of Mr Leonard’s other questions, he will be aware that the First Minister is giving a statement later today, and I encourage Mr Leonard to be present in the chamber to hear what the First Minister has to say.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio question time on constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. Of the eight members who sought to ask a supplementary question, I apologise to the two whom I was unable to call as I needed to protect the rest of the afternoon’s business. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is justice and home affairs. I remind members that, due to the amount of business that we need to get through this afternoon and evening, I would appreciate brevity in questions and responses.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how its draft budget 2026-27 will support community justice services. (S6O-05427)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The draft budget for 2026-27 includes a £10 million increase for community justice services. That will take total funding to a record £169 million, building on the £25 million of additional investment that has been made over the past two years. That uplift reflects the Scottish Government’s commitment to strengthening community justice, reinforcing front-line capacity and ensuring that services across Scotland are well supported.

The increased resources will help to expand effective alternatives to custody, including diversion and community sentences, which can help to reduce reoffending. The sustained investment highlights the central role of community justice in rehabilitation, prevention and the delivery of justice in Scotland.

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

I am pleased to note the additional funding that will support those services. Can the cabinet secretary outline how the investment is reducing reoffending, particularly in my constituency?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Community payback orders are robust community sentences that not only make people pay back to the community but take a tailored approach by targeting the needs of individuals and addressing the underlying causes of their offending behaviour. The latest statistics show another increase in the use of CPOs, with a successful completion rate of 71 per cent. The evidence demonstrates that community services are more effective in reducing reoffending than short-term prison sentences. I hope that that reassures Mr Coffey and his constituents.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Although the increase to the community justice budget is welcome, the reoffending rate remains stubbornly high at 27 per cent. What assessment can the cabinet secretary point to that examines where the shortfalls in historical funding were most missed? When are the increased sums projected to show an improvement in the reoffending rate?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am pleased that Mr Kerr recognises the increased investment. This is the third year in a row under my tenure in which there has been increased investment, which totals £35 million. I am pleased that the bulk of the £169 million of funding—£148 million—will be invested in justice social work. There is a plethora of information that speaks to the importance of justice social work in supervising community payback orders, which leads to their success.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Only 2 per cent of the total funding that has been allocated for justice and home affairs has been assigned to community justice. Out of that, only 10 per cent has been allocated to third-sector organisations that deliver front-line services. Local authorities provide a significant proportion of community justice. However, their budgets have been cut by about 50 per cent in real terms since 2010, and they say that they are not able to provide the range of services that are needed. Does the cabinet secretary believe that such levels of funding can deliver the shift to community justice that is needed across Scotland to reduce reoffending and tackle the root causes of crime?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will need quick questions and answers.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Katy Clark makes a good point about the importance of sustained funding in community justice. That is what I have focused on and delivered. She may be interested to know that £95 million was invested in justice social work in 2016-17 and, as I have said, that figure has now increased to £148 million. That is an increase of more than 55 per cent.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of access to justice services in rural areas. (S6O-05428)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring access to justice in rural areas. The Scottish Legal Aid Board has recently undertaken a comprehensive analysis to collect evidence at a geographical level of the degree of civil legal aid activity that is taking place in order to find out where the gaps are. In saying that, we recognise that there are some challenges in relation to certain locations.

Through our on-going reform programme, we are considering targeted interventions, including grant funding and capacity building initiatives, to strengthen access to legal aid where it is most needed. The Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2025 will also remove restrictions that prevent charities, law centres and citizens advice bodies from directly employing solicitors to provide certain legal services.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Even before Covid, Rape Crisis Scotland warned that survivors in Wigtownshire were waiting more than two years for justice. In Stranraer, things are only getting worse, with just one sheriff and no local jury trials. Victims and witnesses are having to travel 75 miles to Dumfries, often alone, just to give evidence.

The latest figures from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service confirm that the average wait for a sheriff summary evidence-led trial is now increasing further. Will the minister, as a matter of urgency, examine whether reinstating jury trials in the town could help survivors in rural areas such as my constituency by speeding up matters and preventing that intolerable wait for justice?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

It would be for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to make that decision.

Funding is provided through the Scottish Legal Aid Board to 16 projects in areas including Dumfries and Galloway to provide assistance and representation.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the minister set out how improvements can be made to access to the legal aid system in rural Scotland through the uplift in funding to the justice portfolio, as proposed in the Scottish Government’s budget?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government is committed to improving the legal aid system across Scotland. The draft budget maintains the substantial increases in legal aid over recent years. I am pleased to advise Parliament that, today, regulations have been laid that will, if approved, provide a 13 per cent fee increase for legal aid solicitors’ fees and fixed payments.

To further secure the future sustainability of the legal aid system, the independent fee review mechanism group that I committed to has been established. It has met, and I will update Parliament once the independent chair has been appointed.

The Scottish budget has also made provision to double the number of places for the legal aid traineeship fund from 20 to 40, to improve the sustainability and capacity of the legal profession.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the current occupancy levels and total operational capacity across the women’s community custody unit estate. (S6O-05429)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As of 22 January, 335 women are in custody, which represents 89 per cent of the total capacity of the Scottish Prison Service women’s estate.

The Bella community custody unit is accommodating 13 women, which is 81 per cent of its design capacity, and the Lilias community custody unit is accommodating 16 women, which is 67 per cent of its design capacity.

The women who live in the community custody units have undergone robust risk and needs assessments and have been approved by a multidisciplinary team as part of the process to ensure their compatibility with such a unique living environment.

The CCUs, which are the first of their kind in the United Kingdom, drew on international best practice to deliver evidence-based and trauma-informed interventions for all women who live there.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, for the majority of women, traditional incarceration is not the answer, and that those units spearhead a vital holistic approach to reintegration while mitigating the damaging and generational effects that prison can have on families and children?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I agree that the success of the community custody units represents a bold and progressive change to how we support women and better prepare them for their return to the community. That success forms part of a holistic approach to caring for women and builds on the positive foundations laid by the bespoke women’s national facility at His Majesty’s Prison and Young Offenders Institution Stirling. Both are underpinned by the SPS strategy for women in custody, which promotes the recognition of the damaging impact of imprisonment of women on their families and children.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs last met with For Women Scotland to discuss the protection of women’s sex-based rights. (S6O-05430)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has responsibility for equality and rights. Ms Somerville and the Minister for Equalities met For Women Scotland on 22 May 2025, following the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment, which the Scottish Government has accepted. Officials have also met For Women Scotland to discuss the impact of the judgment.

I have not met For Women Scotland. As it is engaged in live litigation with the Scottish Government, a meeting at this time would not be appropriate.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I commend listening to all sides of a debate, as that would be the mark of an open and transparent Government, I would have thought.

On 25 June 2025, I asked the cabinet secretary when the UK Supreme Court ruling would be reflected in the protection of women in the prison estate. Some seven months later, that still has not happened, notwithstanding that the April 2025 ruling was, and remains, of immediate legal effect.

Given those further delays to the protection of women in the prison estate and the recent manoeuvrings to kick the can down the road in the case of Ash Regan’s bill on the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, it grieves me to ask this, but why are those women’s rights now so far down the pecking order of this Government?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I consider Ms Ewing a colleague and, indeed, a friend. I hope that she knows that, both personally and professionally, I always take great care to listen to different views with respect and to carry that forward in my working and professional life.

As the member will be aware, the regulations to put biological sex into the hate crime framework were laid this morning. Of course, I dispute vigorously the suggestion that women’s rights have fallen down the agenda for the Government. I accept that there is no monopoly of concern over the safety of women. My duties include the safety and security of all prisoners and of prison staff, and I have had to make a number of decisions to uphold the safety and wellbeing of prisoners and staff.

In terms of other matters—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, cabinet secretary.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, Presiding Officer—I appreciate that.

I cannot go into detail on the live litigation matters but, as the First Minister said, people can take from the fact that we have not changed prison guidance that we have concluded that it does not need to be changed in light of the Supreme Court judgment. The Government has to comply with all our legal requirements, but this is now a matter for the courts to opine on. As always, we follow the rule of law.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I need briefer responses.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the answers this afternoon, I can see why the Scottish National Party does not want to be questioned on this issue.

In testimony, a female prisoner said that she had concerns about being housed with a biological male in the female prison estate. When that was raised, the Government shared it with the police without consulting the individual or the court. That has been described as an attempt to “silence” and “intimidate”. Aidan O’Neill, who represents For Women Scotland, said that the SNP’s actions amounted to an attempt to

“discipline and punish a woman for speaking out”

on gender issues. He is right, isn’t he?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I always think that it is a matter of great regret when one member has spoken of the need for a balanced and fair debate, yet we hear another member, who is entitled to his views and whom I respect, picking one side of an argument. It is of course—[ Interruption .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Resume your seat, cabinet secretary.

I have allowed supplementaries on the issue. I ask Stephen Kerr, in particular, to refrain from shouting from a sedentary position.

Cabinet secretary, please be brief.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important that the courts are enabled to proceed with their deliberations on the matter. The Government respects the opinions of every court decision and, as always, we seek to comply with all our legal duties.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Emma Roddick for question 5. [Interruption.]

We do not have an online connection with Ms Roddick. I will investigate that and advise members appropriately.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what additional resources are being provided to Police Scotland in relation to asylum seekers being housed at Cameron barracks in Inverness. (S6O-05432)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Police Scotland is engaged in a multi-agency planning group that is led by the Home Office. Any additional resources required for the proposed use of Cameron barracks are for the Home Office to determine, in collaboration with Police Scotland and other public service partners, to identify what further support might be needed.

Despite repeated Scottish Government requests, there remains a total lack of information from the Home Office. We have yet to be given any timeline for adopting the site, and I understand that the Home Office is still to confirm its final decision on whether Cameron barracks will be used.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

My problem is not only that the Home Office is not talking to the cabinet secretary; it is not talking to Police Scotland. Recently, I went on a visit to Inverness on a Friday evening and I saw at first hand how pushed officers there were. Three mobile patrols comprising six officers were in place to cover a huge area with a population of 82,000 people. Does the cabinet secretary really believe that Police Scotland has sufficient resources, considering that, to take a recent example, the extra time and cost to house asylum seekers in Crowborough is taxing the resources not only of local forces there but of people across the whole of England?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I appreciate the member’s frustration about the lack of communication from the Home Office. Each and every police officer in this country works hard, which is why, in our draft budget, the Government will invest more than £1.7 billion in policing.

It is a matter of regret that, if burdens are put on Police Scotland by Governments elsewhere, those are not accompanied by the necessary resources. It is also a matter of regret that Police Scotland has to deal with other decisions made by the United Kingdom Government, including its failure to pay for the recent visits of American VIPs, which means that we have been short-changed by more than £22 million.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take a brief supplementary question from Bill Kidd, but it must be in relation to Cameron barracks in Inverness.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The answer to my question has just been covered in the cabinet secretary’s response.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the prison estate is segregated by sex. (S6O-05433)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Prison Service is required to comply with relevant legislation and work towards international standards and norms to uphold the rights of all individuals while they are in custody. The prison rules, which are based on international standards, generally provide for the separation of men and women and are applied in such a way as to better support their individual needs while they are in custody.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The legal submission published by the Scottish Government states:

“There is no general requirement in law that the sexes be segregated.”

Does the Scottish Government still support single-sex spaces? If so, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the risk that the legal arguments that it is advancing in court could ultimately result in a breakdown of the established conventions for providing female-only spaces for reasons of safety and dignity, and could require a fundamental reassessment of the Equality Act 2010?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Prison rules in relation to establishments are set out in the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, which are rooted in the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989. The member’s question touches on rule 126, which relates to the separation of male and female prisoners. The interpretation and operation of rule 126 are matters that, in relation to the placement of trans prisoners, are key issues that are being debated and disputed as a result of the live litigation, which I cannot comment on further.

However, the reason that the Scottish Government published its note of argument and answers is that we recognise and appreciate the general public interest in the issue, particularly the circumstances of the case, and the interest in open justice. The documents are there to enable people who have an interest to follow the case. However, the case must be decided in the courts—that is the appropriate place for these debates.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take a couple of supplementaries. They will need to be brief, but the responses will need to be even briefer.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I recently received a letter from Angela Constance, the justice secretary, in which she said two things: that the Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court ruling and that the guidance for prisons

“does not need to be changed.”

I will clarify that. The Scottish Government accepts the Supreme Court ruling on sex, but it also thinks that it is perfectly fine for male prisoners to be housed alongside vulnerable women. How can the Scottish Government justify holding that ludicrous position?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

To be brief, as Ms Dowey is a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, she will be well aware that the policy on which evidence was provided to the committee is, at its heart, all about the assessment of risk and needs of transgender prisoners and, indeed, of all prisoners, because there are particular requirements for the Scottish Prison Service and, therefore, for ministers to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all prisoners.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

A study by the University of Glasgow showed that around a third of women who are serving prison sentences have had head injuries and that the vast majority have been subjected to domestic violence. Will the cabinet secretary outline why the Scottish Government, through its challenge, is subjecting vulnerable women to a very public court case, throwing open the arguments and essentially saying that it will no longer continue supporting the segregation of the prison estate by sex?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Although I acknowledge and respect the research referenced by Ms McNeill, her characterisation of the Scottish Government’s position is not one that I would adhere to.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government how its draft budget 2026-27 supports the prevention of gender-based violence. (S6O-05434)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We remain steadfast in our commitment to preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls and have allocated more than £30 million in 2026-27 to this vital work through the Scottish budget.

The funding will enable the delivering equally safe fund, the victim-centred approach fund and Scotland’s domestic abuse and forced marriages helpline to continue to support vital work to prevent violence and support survivors of gender-based violence.

We will also allocate £2 million from our ending homelessness together fund to the national fund to leave, which supports women and children to leave abusive relationships and remain safe.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Rural gender-based violence services face different challenges. How does the draft budget support services that work in rural areas?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Our equally safe strategy recognises that women in rural and island communities, and the specialist organisations that support them, can face particular challenges, and that abuse can be even more hidden there than in urban areas. We fund vital specialist support services in every local authority area across Scotland, including, and importantly, in our rural and island communities, through our delivering equally safe fund. From the £21.6 million that we have allocated for 2026-27, more than £5.4 million will go to projects that support women and girls in our most rural and island communities.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio question time on justice and home affairs.

Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 59A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes if there is a division. The period of voting for the division will be 30 seconds.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on an amendment should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as an amendment is called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 33D—Gull numbers

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 11 is on gulls. Amendment 60, in the name of the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, is grouped with amendments 60A and 148 to 152.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This has perhaps just been corrected, but the clock was acting erratically. Can you confirm that the timings will be clear? It was clearly not working about five seconds ago.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr Ross. I will certainly ensure that we are aware of anything that needs to be checked.

For information, the clerks are currently putting the clock to the right time. Its appearance is a function of the fact that the debate has been split over two days; it will quickly get to the correct point at which we stopped yesterday and from where we will continue today.

I call the minister to speak to amendment 60 and other amendments in the group.

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

I thought that the clerks were doing our job for us and rushing Mr Ross.

Amendment 60 relates to the requirement for NatureScot to

“prepare and publish a report on the gull population in urban and coastal areas of Scotland.”

We know that there are gaps in the data that is available to us. Surveying urban gulls, for example, presents more challenges. I appreciate that members desire to improve the data. However, I must stress that it is not feasible to deliver a complete survey of breeding gulls every year in Scotland without a significant resource implication, which would divert resources from practical gull management.

My amendment 60 ensures that a report on the gull population is deliverable. Requiring a report every five years is more practical. It allows us to balance the need for good data with the need to deliver meaningful gull management and mitigation action. The reporting period will also complement other existing data that will be obtained from the seabird censuses.

My amendment defines the species of gull that are to be included in the report. A report on the gull population with no definition of species is not workable.

Amendment 60 provides clarity on how the report will be conducted.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister accept that his amendment would delete what was approved by the committee at stage 2? I accept that Scottish National Party members voted against my amendment 261 at stage 2, but that amendment was agreed to after the committee had heard the arguments that the minister is making. That amendment was not the same as what the minister proposes, because his amendment 60 would delete what was agreed to by the committee. Does he accept that amendment 60 seeks information rather than gull numbers, and that there is a big difference between information on gulls and the number of gulls?

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

I take on board that Mr Ross was successful in having his amendment agreed to at stage 2, but there was still some confusion about what was being delivered. We could have tried to knock out the amendment completely and dismiss people’s views, but we did not do that. I said that we needed to find a way to meet Mr Ross’s aspirations and make sure that we had a workable solution, which is why I lodged amendment 60.

We continue to focus on delivering improvements to gull management ahead of the next gull breeding season. That includes making £100,000 immediately available to local authorities following the gull summit that we held in September, to support the mitigation of gull impacts.

NatureScot is running a series of round-table meetings in the areas of Scotland that are worst impacted by gulls. It is working with people in those areas to offer support and advice on licensing options and other mitigation activities ahead of the next nesting season.

That is only a small portion of the work that we are doing on gulls, and we will continue to consider what other actions might be necessary. I therefore ask members to support my amendment 60, which seeks to make reporting on the gull population achievable while still honouring the intent of the original amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which Mr Ross mentioned.

Amendment 60 sets out that a gull report will include information about the gull population in coastal and urban areas. I am not sure why the member has lodged amendment 60A, because I have set out that my focus is on delivering improvements to gull management and not on debating unnecessary amendments for the sake of doing so. We have committed to producing a gull report every five years, and we will use that information, alongside the data from the national seabird census and other counts, to inform decision making. We will provide information about coastal and urban gulls as part of that, so I urge members to vote against amendment 60A.

I turn to amendment 148. As I set out at stage 2 in relation to Mr Ross’s amendment 260, I do not agree with the member’s proposals to mandate a review of spending on gull management efforts or the creation of a gull management fund. Following the gull summit in September, £100,000 has been made available to help local authorities to develop their gull management plans. That demonstrates that the objective of Mr Ross’s amendment 148 is being delivered, without the need for mandatory statutory requirements.

A statutory fund would add rigidity and bureaucracy and would require governance and reporting structures that would divert resources from practical gull management, which I think that we are all looking for. Ultimately, ministers do not require legislation to review and create funding schemes relating to the management of gulls, and it is for that reason primarily that I ask the member not to move amendment 148.

On amendments 149 to 151, in the name of Douglas Ross, I note that we are debating amendments that are identical to ones that we discussed at length at stage 2. As I set out then, ministers already have the responsibility to issue licences in respect of wild birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That function has been delegated to NatureScot. Scottish ministers can revoke the delegation to NatureScot at any time without new legislation being needed. Those amendments are, therefore, unnecessary.

Mr Ross has consistently been critical of NatureScot’s licensing approach relating to gull management. I can understand why, in some circumstances, but I do not think that he has considered that, no matter who issues the licensing in relation to the management of gulls, they will always need to consider the health of the gull population and other sensitive conservation factors.

For the sake of members in the chamber, I will reiterate what I set out at stage 2. Gulls are a protected species. It is not a conflict of interest that NatureScot must consider their species status; it is simply a part of the licensing process. I believe that NatureScot is best placed to hold responsibility for that licensing, because it has the data, knowledge and experience to issue and manage those licences. I remain committed to working together to find solutions that recognise the complexities around gull populations. Those solutions must work for the people who are living with the negative effects of gulls every day. Regardless, Mr Ross’s amendments are unnecessary and could undermine the clarity and operational effectiveness of the processes. Therefore, I urge members to oppose amendments 149 to 151.

On amendment 152, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I set out in relation to a similar amendment at stage 2, I appreciate the member’s intention to improve transparency around gull licensing, but I cannot support the amendment. It is not clear in relation to the timeframes, the production of a report or how often a report should be produced.

From the outset, legislation is not required to achieve the objectives of amendment 152. NatureScot already collects and publishes gull licensing data, including data on the number of licences issued, the permitted numbers and the return of data for the lethal control of adults and chicks. That information is already publicly available, albeit that it is currently integrated into the wider annual licensing data set. Furthermore, the definition of a gull, as currently drafted, lacks clarity. It is too broad and does not work for the intended purpose of the amendment. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I ask the member not to move it.

I move amendment 60.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Douglas Ross to move amendment 60A and speak to all amendments in the group.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will speak at length on this group of amendments, because I am glad that we are getting the chamber back to issues that are within the devolved competence of this Parliament.

I will start with amendment 60. Yesterday, in response to a point that I made, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy complained that issues that had been decided at committee were being brought back at stage 3. Well, here we have an issue that was decided at committee in a way that went against the Government. The Government did not gain enough support at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to vote down an amendment on this issue, and the amendment was agreed to. The Government lost the vote.

That happened because there was clearly interest in the issue across the political spectrum, and the only party opposing the amendment was the SNP. We had support for my amendment at stage 2 from the RSPB, which urged members of the committee to support it, because it agreed that we need reliable data and up-to-date information. I am bitterly disappointed that, rather than respecting that decision and working with the amendment that was passed by the committee, the Government is trying to override it in the chamber at stage 3.

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

There are a couple of points there. The first is that the committee was very evenly split and the division was won on the deciding vote of the convener—I could be wrong on that, but I think that that was the case. However, if the position of the member is that he wants to get the kind of reliable data that we need in order to put proper gull licences in place, I would say that having a five-year structure with named species is exactly how to do it. The proposal that was brought forward by Mr Ross is simply unworkable.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will address both those points. First, as the convener of a committee, if I use my casting vote in favour of an amendment, that is still the committee’s view. There might be those on the committee who disagree with it, but regardless of whether it is a Conservative convener, a Labour convener, a Scottish National Party convener or a Green convener, their casting vote in favour of an amendment means that the committee is in favour. I am sorry if SNP members do not like that, but I note that they tend not to dissent when it is their conveners who use their casting votes in that way.

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

Will Mr Ross take an intervention?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will finish replying to the minister’s first intervention before taking a second one from him.

On the second point, which was about wanting up-to-date and reliable information and data, I note that that is what I want—and that is what we had with the amendment that was agreed to at stage 2. What we would have with amendment 60 is a watered-down alternative, because it seeks only to

“provide information about the gull population in coastal and urban areas”.

That is very clear in proposed new subsection (2)(a) in amendment 60, minister. Information is not numbers; it could be just, “The gull population has changed a little” or, “It has changed a lot”, but we would not know what the gull population was. With a survey, we will have raw data that we can use to ensure that we make the best possible decisions with the best possible information.

I will give way to the minister.

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

It does not matter.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Maybe the minister has accepted the argument. We are making progress at last.

I urge members to vote in favour of amendment 60A—I think that that is the amendment that we will come to first—which simply urges, asks and requests the Government to do a survey of the population of urban and coastal gulls, because we know that, at the moment, NatureScot is taking decisions and determining licence applications without the data and information. If amendment 60A is not successful, amendment 60 will not be worth the paper it is written on. I urge members to vote it down so that we can go back to the stage 2 amendment that was passed by the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee.

I turn to my other amendments in the group, starting with amendment 148 on the gull management fund. The minister said that there is no need to assess how much local authorities are spending on gull management, but I think that there is a big need, because taxpayers’ money is being spent on protecting buildings and people from the menace of gulls.

If local councils across Scotland are going to hike up council tax—as is very likely, because of the budget settlement that has been proposed by the SNP; indeed, the SNP representative for finance on the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it is a very bad budget for local government—and if local councils are going to be spending the increased money that they get from local residents on projects to protect buildings, individuals and communities from gulls, we should know how much that is. In my local authority area, Moray Council, it is tens of thousands of pounds. We should know how much is being spent in Perth and Kinross—the minister’s local authority area—and all around Scotland, up to the islands and down to the Borders. We need that important information.

It is not just local authorities that are affected. I have done a lot of work with the business improvement districts in Inverness and Nairn, and Lucy Harding and Lorraine McBride have explained how much money they have to spend week after week, month after month and year after year on tackling the menace of gulls. That money is a BID levy that businesses pay. It should be used to promote the local economy and the businesses in those BID areas, yet a lot of it has be spent on measures to protect properties and people from gulls. Therefore, amendment 148 is important.

The minister mentioned the £100,000 funding that the Scottish Government proposed in October at its gulls summit in Inverness, but that is a drop in the ocean compared with what individuals, businesses, BIDs and councils currently spend on gulls. We need to know how much money is being spent in total and where that money could and should be coming from.

Amendments 149, 150 and 151 are all alternative amendments, by which I mean that I am offering three different alternatives for bodies to consider licences to control gulls. That could either be Scottish Government ministers, local authorities or a totally different body that Scottish ministers come up with. Whichever the Parliament chooses will be better than the status quo.

The minister says that he does not trust NatureScot to make those decisions. I absolutely do not, either. It has been a complete and utter failure. Time after time, NatureScot has come up with ludicrous reasons for refusing licences. I use the word “ludicrous”, in particular, because that is the minister’s assessment—the minister has said on the record that NatureScot’s determination of some licences has been “ludicrous”.

If the Scottish Government, including the minister in charge—who, as he said, has the ability to revoke that power—thinks that NatureScot is coming up with ludicrous decisions, it should be stripped of that power. It is as clear as day that there is a conflict of interest when NatureScot is, on the one hand, in charge of conserving bird numbers and, on the other hand, the authority that determines whether or not someone gets a licence to control the bird numbers.

I will not go through all the issues that we have previously articulated in the chamber and at committee, but when an organisation is telling people to hire a cherry picker to go up on a roof in order to take a picture of a nest where seagulls have laid their eggs, and to take a photograph with that day’s newspaper to confirm that that is when the nest and the eggs were there, that is ludicrous. When, at a summit hosted at its headquarters, NatureScot is advising people to walk down the street waving their arms—I will not do the actions; I will keep my hands in—or to draw googly eyes on pizza boxes to deter the gulls, that body no longer deserves trust and respect or to enforce and apply those licences.

I know that time is moving on, but I believe that it is important that NatureScot is finally stripped of its power to issue the licences. It is coming up with ludicrous solutions to an important issue, and it does not deserve that power. If we agree to any of amendments 149 to 151, it will be stripped of that power and others will be encouraged to do a far better job.

I move amendment 60A.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As members will have noted, we have now passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. However, I hope that it will not be necessary to do that again for the remainder of this evening.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am heartened that the minister now admits that there is a gull problem. We took a long time to get to that stage—we had to ask numerous questions and use parliamentary time to highlight the issue to the minister but, through amendment 60, he clearly recognises it. The culmination of the pressure from the Conservatives led to the gull summits, which at least allowed communities to have a say.

Amendment 152 provides that ministers should review the use of licences and the licence conditions in relation to the management of gulls. Specifically, it would require a report on the annual number of licence applications in each of the previous five years. The minister said that there is not a timeframe in the amendment, but I repeat that the amendment says that the report should be done every five years. The report should outline

“the number of applications rejected and approved”,

outline information on the conditions attached to the licences, consider

“problems faced by urban and coastal communities”

and question

“whether the licence conditions address any of those problems.”

I want to take the minister back to the point about how NatureScot was addressing the situation. As Douglas Ross said, it was suggesting ridiculous ways to deal with ground-nesting birds or to manage gulls. I repeat that advising using spaniels on scaffolding and dogs on drones was not meeting the needs of the community.

Before I outline my reasoning behind amendment 152, I acknowledge the recent engagement by the minister and NatureScot on the issue. Following pressure from members on the Conservative benches, regional round tables were hosted by NatureScot. Although I was unable to attend the summit in Eyemouth, I have heard from local businesses and residents that it was a step in the right direction. They noted that it is critical that the actions are discussed and followed up pre-season every year.

Despite acknowledging that aggressive gulls are a health and safety issue—which it also took us a long time to convince the minister of—NatureScot’s licensing process remains bureaucratic and inconsistent. I totally agree with my colleague Douglas Ross that NatureScot should be stripped of its powers, because there is a conflict of interest.

I want to take the minister back to 2024, when NatureScot issued only 505 licences for gull control, compared with more than 2,000 in the previous year. In addition, in 2024, only one licence was issued in the Borders, compared with 10 in the previous year. Communities need practical solutions to the issue. My amendments would provide clarity by reviewing the licensing process to ensure that it is suitable and accessible.

Finally, I want to say how unfair the minister’s comment about my colleague Finlay Carson was. Yes, he is a Scottish Conservative. I am proud of what he does in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. As convener, he has the casting vote; that is how the process works. Just because he is a Scottish Conservative does not mean that that vote is invalid. In any other committee, a similar vote would have been considered to be entirely valid, especially if Jim Fairlie was commenting on one that had been voted on by an SNP convener.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call for brief contributions—first from Edward Mountain and then from Christine Grahame.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I would like to keep this short. I want to point out some of the contradictions in the minister’s amendment 60 and speak to Douglas Ross’s amendments 149 to 151.

The minister will know that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, through section 16(1), gives people the right to apply for licences to carry out activities that would not normally be allowed. The power to issue those licences was conferred on Scottish Natural Heritage, or NatureScot, under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011.

I have first-hand experience of applying for licences. When applying for licences, SNH is clear that, if a licence is being applied to control sawbill ducks, for example, counts must be carried out twice a year, with the information submitted to SNH. That is looked at over the whole catchment to see whether a licence should be issued. That is why amendment 60, which calls for reporting on population numbers, proves that there is an inadequacy. SNH is asking for full detailed counts, but the minister seems to think that it can do whatever it likes by simply producing a report.

Applying for licences is really difficult. I remember an incident in which a lady who cycled down a hill every day to get to work was attacked by a buzzard. First of all, it destroyed her cycling helmet. She was advised to take another route, but there was not one. The final advice from SNH, which refused to give a licence, was for her to cycle down the hill with an umbrella so that she would be protected from the buzzard. I say to the minister that that shows the inadequacy of SNH. If a human had attacked the lady and caused injuries, they would have been removed from that scenario and probably put in prison. However, it seemed fine for a buzzard to do that, because SNH did not want to issue a licence to control it.

I support Douglas Ross’s amendments 149 to 151. I do not really care where the licensing function goes, but all I know is that the licensing authority in NatureScot is dysfunctional.

I will leave it at that.

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

Deputy Presiding Officer, “gull management fund”—I have waited years for those three words to cross my lips.

I want to speak about amendment 148. I know that my colleague Douglas Ross is keen on accuracy in the chamber, so I will ask some simple questions. Perhaps he could respond to them during his summing up.

Subsection (1) of the section that amendment 148 would insert would require

“an analysis of the total annual spend”

to be undertaken. What would be the cost of doing that?

Subsection (3) of that section would require

“a fund (to be known as ‘the Gull Management Fund’)”

to be established. That would need to be sufficient for local authorities to mitigate

“the impact of gulls in the local ... area”

and to respond to

“the consequences of gulls in the local ... area”.

How much would that cost?

Subsection (5) would require

“an annual review of the operation and use of the Gull Management Fund”

to be undertaken, and, under subsection (6), there might require to be

“an increase in funding for the Gull Management Fund.”

I know that a fund of £100,000 would not be enough, because the member has already said so. I will be happy to take an intervention on my comments after I make my point. It is important that the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill suits what would be done under it. That is critical, because we are talking about public money. However, I do not know what impact amendment 148 would have on the financial memorandum.

I will take it a step further. It is too late for him now, but had Mr Ross brought this as a member’s bill—it would have been quite a good idea for such a bill—he would have been required to have a financial memorandum to accompany it.

My problem comes when things are being asked for at stage 3 and there are costings involved. I require the member—not on the face of his amendments, but in his submissions to the chamber—to present the costings that will be required to be provided by the Government.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Are you taking the intervention, Ms Grahame?

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

It is only fair that I do—I have asked for costings.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If I had had more time—I have already tested the patience of the Presiding Officer—I might have gone into those issues. A lot of the work that Christine Grahame is seeking is, in fact, in St Andrew’s house. I only came forward with my idea for a gull management fund when Jim Fairlie put out a press release in October, as he was driving up the A9 to go to NatureScot’s headquarters in Inverness, to say that he was putting forward £100,000. I know that no minister would ever treat £100,000 of taxpayers’ money in such a way without all the knowledge and all the information, without knowing exactly what that money was for and where it was coming from, and without knowing how he came up with £100,000 and not, for example, £200,000 or £500,000.

Perhaps my fault is that I trust SNP ministers more than Christine Grahame does.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Please conclude, Ms Grahame.

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

That was a valiant attempt at deflecting the question that I raised, but it was not clever enough. I know that you are very pernickety, Mr Ross, and that is a good thing—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As pernickety as I may be, I ask you to please speak through the chair.

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

I apologise.

We all know that Mr Ross is very pernickety, and that is a good thing in a legislator. However, as the member is pernickety, he should have been able to come up with approximate figures. I also add that this will be a recurring cost, and not a one-off fund.

The member is coming to the chamber with this at stage 3. I know that he is a clever man and that he would have anticipated this question, and he has had time since stage 2 to come up with estimates of the cost in the financial memorandum, as he would have been required to do had he brought this as a member’s bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite the minister to wind up on amendment 60.

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

I will wind up very quickly, Presiding Officer.

To come back to Rachael Hamilton’s point, she is absolutely correct that the vote at stage 2 was valid. However, it is not unusual for an imprecise amendment that was agreed to at stage 2 to then need revising at stage 3—which is exactly what has been done.

Rachael Hamilton could not attend the Eyemouth summit, but I highlight that it demonstrated that the £100,000 that Mr Ross mentioned is being used for the very thing that we said it would be used for.

Mr Ross is now talking about the fact that he wants to have a gull management fund. I was very interested in the discussion between him and Christine Grahame. We had an estimate done of what it would cost to do Mr Ross’s survey. The result was £2.8 million a year, every year, because the proposal was imprecise and did not discuss the details. That would therefore be £2.8 million, on top of the gull management fund that Mr Ross wants us to create. For those reasons—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Perhaps more than anything to help his colleagues behind him, can the minister outline the detail of that £2.8 million cost for surveying gulls? That is what he is saying, so where does that figure come from? What is the breakdown? If we are using figures in the chamber, they must be robust.

I know that when the SNP is put in charge of things they cost a lot—but £3 million to count the gulls? That is a bit of a stretch.

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

That demonstrates that Douglas Ross does not understand the complexity of what he is trying to deal with. We have a whole range of species, and he probably does not understand what half of them are in the first place.

I ask members to reject Mr Ross’s and Ms Hamilton’s amendments.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Douglas Ross to wind up, and to press or withdraw his amendment 60A.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is easy to wind up Jim Fairlie, but I have to say that I think that someone else has also wound him up by saying, “Minister, use this £2.8 million figure in the chamber.” As Christine Grahame is very right to say, if you are given a figure like that, you are going to get a question about it. I therefore once again ask the minister to update Parliament and tell us about the breakdown of that figure. Where do the costs come from to allow the Government to say to legislators in the Parliament that it would cost almost £3 million per year to count the gulls?

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

It is an estimate that was put together for the Scottish Government by the people who would be charged with carrying out the survey.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

By NatureScot.

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

Therefore, I will take those figures as being correct at this moment in time.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Ross, you cannot take an intervention and then shout over it.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I apologise, Presiding Officer.

We have got to the bottom of it: the figure is an estimate. It is quite brave of the minister’s officials to put that in his box note and see whether he will read it out—it turns out that he will. The minister is trying to convince members not to vote for something because of a £2.8 million cost that he says is only an estimate, and then he gives the game away. Who came up with the estimate? It is NatureScot, the body that is against all the amendments and which we should be stripping of these responsibilities.

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

Will the member give way?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way to Christine Grahame in a moment. NatureScot thought, “Maybe if we put a big price tag on it, the minister will be gullible enough to read it out in the chamber and MSPs will vote accordingly.”

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way to the minister after I give way to Christine Grahame.

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

Please do not get overexcited about gulls, Mr Ross—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair, Ms Grahame.

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

Sorry—I should know better after 27 years. I will start again. Mr Ross should at least have some idea of how to quantify the cost to the public purse on a recurring basis. There are hidden things in the bill about mitigation and so on. There might be claims for damages against the Government. There is a lot of stuff in there. It opens up, if I may use the term in the context of gulls, a can of worms.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If Christine Grahame would like me to come up with a figure, I will say that it is less than £2.8 million. That means that I am closer to the true figure than the minister is.

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

The financial memorandum has been published and it is on the Scottish Parliament website. Douglas Ross should take the time to read it so that he will understand where the figure of £2.8 million came from.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The figure is not in the financial memorandum—the minister said earlier that it is an estimate. The minister who is telling people to read documents is the same minister who lost a vote on part 2 of the bill and had to scrap a whole heap of it. None of us on this side of the chamber will be taking lectures from the Government about the bill, which is a complete boorach. The bill is so bad that members from all parties told the Government to strip parts out of it, and it did not even try to put them back in because it knows how bad they were.

I want to use my summing-up speech to sum up the debate. Rachael Hamilton made extremely valid points about the impact that the issue has had on her constituency. She has been a tireless campaigner on the issue, and that is because it affects people.

I know that there will shortly be a letter going to the minister to remind him about a 10-year-old in Inverness who ended up in hospital. Some of the people who think that this is a trivial issue that does not warrant discussion in our Parliament should say that to the 10-year-old who ended up in hospital with stitches in her head. They should also say that to my constituent in Elgin—who has now sadly passed away—who broke her leg while coming out of her house, spent time at Dr Gray’s hospital and, when she got home again, was too scared to come out of her house. They should say that to people up and down the country.

I also recognise the significant contribution that was made to the debate by Fergus Ewing, who has raised with the minister, both in the chamber and in private meetings, many of the issues that his constituents in Inverness and Nairn face.

We have an opportunity tonight to do something about the issue. Edward Mountain was absolutely right that NatureScot does not deserve the responsibility for issuing licences. It is getting things so badly wrong—with gulls in particular but also with other species, as Edward Mountain said.

It would be nice to see a bit more reflection from the Government. From day 1, the minister said, “There is nothing wrong here” and, in particular, that there is not an issue with NatureScot. He has defended NatureScot to the hilt—he is its strongest champion—whereas it actually needs to be challenged.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

It would be helpful for the minister to lead us to that reference in the financial memorandum. I do not know whether we have missed it or whether there has been an updated memorandum. I hope that Douglas Ross can help us to ensure that the minister will do that.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I assumed that the minister did not understand the question, because the figure would not be in the financial memorandum when the amendment to the bill has not yet been agreed to. If there is a cost to the amendment, that cannot be in the financial memorandum. I thought that the figure was another thing that might have been shoved into the minister’s box to see whether he would read it out—and he did.

We have a minister who is unwilling to accept the challenge on the issue, who thinks that if he repeatedly comes up with spurious counterclaims, people will suddenly go away. The issue is not going away. In April, we are coming up to the breeding season again, and many of the promises made at the gull summit in Inverness—I understand that promises were made there; of course many of us were locked out of the room—have not come to fruition.

We are going to go through another breeding season in which those gulls are going to attack more people. They are going to put more 10-year-olds in hospital and we will see more elderly, frail people fall down, break their bones and end up in hospital as well. I just think that, when we have an opportunity with the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that we have in front of us, we can do something. It will not solve all the problems and, as Christine Grahame said, there are other issues that we can look at as regards mitigation.

However, the biggest things that we can do today are these. First, we can get that survey of gulls—which was supported by RSPB Scotland and was not opposed by any other party except the SNP when it came to committee. Secondly, we can support amendments 148 to 151, the last three of which strip the powers to grant licences from NatureScot, which is a body that seems to be unaccountable to anyone because we have a minister who is unwilling to challenge it. NatureScot does not deserve that important role—it is not carrying it out effectively and it should be passed to others. I urge members to support the amendments in my name, including amendment 60A.

I press amendment 60A.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 60A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division.

Since this is the first division in this item of business, I will suspend proceedings for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We will proceed with the division on amendment 60A. Members should cast their votes now.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 26, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 60A disagreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jim Fairlie to press or withdraw amendment 60.

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

I press amendment 60.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 60 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 81, Against 26, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 60 agreed to.

After section 33D

Amendment 148 moved—[Douglas Ross].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 148 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 24, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 148 disagreed to.

Amendment 149 moved—[Douglas Ross].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 149 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 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 149 disagreed to.

Amendment 150 moved—[Douglas Ross].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 150 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 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 150 disagreed to.

Amendment 151 moved—[Douglas Ross].

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 151 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 24, Against 82, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 151 disagreed to..

Amendment 152 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].