South of Scotland Enterprise Bill

The Convener

We move on to our first evidence session on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, in which we will take evidence from the Scottish Government bill team. I welcome from the Scottish Government Karen Jackson, team leader with the south of Scotland economic development team; Sandra Reid, the bill team leader; Felicity Cullen from the legal directorate; and Fraser Gough, the parliamentary counsel to the Scottish Government.

We have a series of questions for you. I am sure that you are well versed in how this works. The microphones will be switched on for you and, if you catch my eye, I will try to bring you in at the relevant time. In this committee, if you look the other way when a question is raised, there is a danger that I will just point to the person who does not look away fast enough.

The first question is from John Finnie.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Good morning, panel. Will you outline for the committee the extent of the Government consultation on the bill, particularly with regard to businesses, communities, individuals, councils, trade unions and third sector organisations? What were the key messages raised during the consultation process? I am particularly interested in whether the social development element was picked up, because that is what would differentiate the new agency from the existing arrangements.

Karen Jackson (Scottish Government)

It is fair to say that engagement, both formal and informal, has been a key part of our work in developing the proposals. The Scottish Government’s pre-legislative written consultation ran for 12 weeks between March and June, and we received a really good response, with 268 respondents. There was a good mixture of responses. We got 115 responses from organisations and the rest were from individuals. There was a really good spread of organisational coverage and people who were interested.

We complemented the written consultation with events across the south of Scotland—we ran 26 events in the same period. Also, the national economic forum took place in Dumfries at the end of May, which brought in businesses. The consultation built on previous consultations that we had during the enterprise and skills review. Engagement with stakeholders has been an important part of our work.

I think that you asked about the themes that came out of the consultation.

John Finnie

Yes. It was about the key messages, and particularly whether social development was picked up on.

Karen Jackson

Obviously, we have published the summary of responses, so I will not go through it in too much detail, but people were focused on ensuring that the south is an attractive place to visit and to live and work in, and on how we create better employment opportunities and better-paid jobs. There was a recognition that the south of Scotland has a very different economy and that the business base is different, so the new agency needs to respond to those needs and opportunities.

There was a focus on young people. Many people move away from the south of Scotland, so there were lots of comments about what we need to do to help young people and to create new opportunities.

There was a theme about recognising the strength of communities in the south of Scotland. They are resilient and strong and the new agency can do something to help. We have picked that up in the social element of the new agency’s remit—that absolutely is a key point.

The other themes were about the important sectors in the south of Scotland. There is a recognition that the economy in the area is different. There are certain sectors such as forestry, tourism and the creative industries—that is not an exhaustive list—that the agency can pick up on. As you will imagine, there were issues about connectivity, both physical and digital.

John Finnie

I want to push you on the issue of social development. I represent the Highlands and Islands, as does the convener. Historically, the social development element was seen as a hugely important part of the work of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. However, the emphasis seems to have changed. The new organisation is not just about the economics; it is about the social. To what extent will that feature in the agency’s work?

Karen Jackson

The overarching aims of the new agency will be to promote the social development as well as the economic development of the south. We see those as integrated. We are looking at places, and businesses and communities are equally important in places. The new agency will bring those together.

John Finnie

Looking ahead to the anticipated timetable should the legislation proceed, when will the chair and board be appointed, when will the action plan be published and where will the headquarters be?

Karen Jackson

Gosh, there is a lot in that.

John Finnie

When will that be decided, then?

Karen Jackson

As you said, this is assuming that Parliament approves the legislation but, on the timetable for the chair, we hope to start the appointment process as soon as the Parliament has approved the principle of the bill, which means when we reach the end of stage 1. That should let the public appointments process run so that, ideally, we have a chair in place towards the end of the summer.

You also asked about decisions on the location.

John Finnie

Yes, and when the plan will be published.

Karen Jackson

The plan will be for the new agency to publish. We would expect that to happen after the new agency comes into being. If Parliament approves the legislation, we expect the new agency to be established on 1 April 2020, so the action plan would be developed and approved after that.

On location, the consultation was clear that people want the agency to be everywhere and to be accessible to all. They thought that having a single headquarters was the wrong way to go. Therefore, we are considering how we deliver that in practice through co-location with other public agencies. Again, we have not set a timetable for that, but that work is progressing.

John Finnie

Were it to proceed, what would be the timeframe within which the board would be appointed? I presume that you will appoint the chair first.

Karen Jackson

We will appoint the chair first and we assume that the chair will have a role in the appointments process after that. Ideally, we would have the members in place before 1 April 2020, ready to start when the agency is established.

The Convener

That is a tight timescale to get everyone in and all the locations sorted.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con)

Good morning. Continuing on that theme, why is primary legislation required and what are the benefits of that approach compared to other available options?

The Convener

Who would like to have a go at answering that? This is the dangerous part where you all look away. Sandra Reid, do you want to lead off?

Karen Jackson

I will take it, if that is okay. Sorry—I am just looking for my bit of paper that tells me about legislation.

The bill will implement decisions that came from the enterprise and skills review. Through that review, we looked at various options to establish the structure of a body, including legislation. We looked at whether the body should be a partnership, which would not require primary legislation, but would be supported by a memorandum of understanding. We looked at whether it should be a joint committee under the local government legislation. We looked at whether it should be a company owned by the public sector, or whether one of the existing public agencies in the south of Scotland could deliver it as a separate branch. However, the conclusion was that a new public body was the right way to go. During the enterprise and skills review, a real consensus developed that it was right to do it through primary legislation.

We assessed all those options against different principles, and the agency and legislation option scored best against them all. We decided that that was the most ambitious way to go. It would deliver the transformational change that everybody wanted to see; it would be independent and able to employ its own staff; there would be a clarity around its budget; and, with that wider remit, it could support businesses and communities. The legislation would define a clear remit, and people would be able to engage with it. It would also have the benefit of making the agency part of the national structure of other enterprise agencies. For all those reasons, we thought that legislation was the right way to go.

John Scott

Thank you; that was very clear.

What historic, social, economic or cultural reasons are there for treating the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway differently from other areas south of the central belt, such as parts of South Lanarkshire and Ayrshire? I declare an interest as a resident of South Ayrshire.

For example, the area south of Girvan—which is not in my constituency—is a natural fit with that south of Scotland area. It was disadvantaged under schemes in the 1990s, when Struan Stevenson tried to get it included for special treatment in that part of the south of Scotland.

Why did you choose to include some areas and perhaps disadvantage other areas?

The Convener

Karen Jackson, everyone else is still looking at you, so it looks as though it is still for you to answer.

Karen Jackson

I am happy to take that question.

We have been exploring the boundary issue for a long time. As part of the enterprise and skills review, we looked at how we might define the south of Scotland, and there were various options. We looked at whether it should mirror the south of Scotland parliamentary region, which would bring in a range of local authorities, or whether it should pick up on the southern Scotland NUTS 2 area—I am happy to write to you with the definition of that—which would bring in different local authorities. There was also a focus on the two council areas.

During that period, a consensus emerged that using the two local authorities—Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council—to define the area was the right way to go. That reflected the economic challenges faced by those two areas and the opportunities that they have. The agency could offer a real focus on tackling those challenges.

It emerged that defining the area that way would be much clearer for businesses and communities, as they would know exactly which agency to go to. The other definitions would have been much more confusing for the service user. Choosing that definition recognised the work in the local area: the south of Scotland alliance was already a partnership of those two local authorities, so it would build on that local stakeholder engagement. In addition, those two local authorities have come together in the borderlands growth deal to build that partnership. We thought that the focus on those two areas built on the work that was going on locally.

Ayrshire and other parts of Scotland have been interested, but, during the consultation, they supported the boundary that we were developing. Both Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire look to other structures. The Ayrshires are looking at their growth deal structure, and South Lanarkshire is part of the Glasgow city region deal area.

We are not creating an island. The legislation is very clear that the new agency can look across its boundaries to work with other local authority areas here and in England, so that it benefits the people of the south of Scotland and gets that alignment of purpose.

John Scott

Are you saying that the loose definition of the area is the two local authority areas?

Karen Jackson

No. The definition of the geographical area is the two local authority areas: Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council. The agency will be able to align and co-operate with organisations outside that boundary to benefit the people of the south of Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I am familiar with those boundary issues, because my constituency straddles the areas of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise; in other words, I am partly in Moray and partly in Aberdeenshire.

Will Scottish Enterprise, which will retain responsibility for South Ayrshire and other adjacent local authorities, take particular actions to collaborate with the new body for the south of Scotland, to ensure that the neighbouring areas are not disadvantaged? Is it possible to make sure that areas of difficulty that exist at the boundary areas do not become greater?

Sandra Reid (Scottish Government)

As Karen Jackson said, the new agency’s remit covers the south of Scotland, but we expect it to collaborate with other agencies, including Scottish Enterprise. The new agency will focus on regional economic activity in the south of Scotland. We expect that Scottish Enterprise will remain a national agency, but both agencies will work together to ensure that we achieve our aims.

Stewart Stevenson

Forgive me, but that is what I would expect you to say. However, I want to draw out the specifics. Will Scottish Enterprise take any particular action to support areas that are adjacent to the new agency’s area? Differential policies and administrative decisions affecting areas that are within a few hundred meters of each other can create difficulties that come from administrative decisions. Is there going to be a particular focus on making sure that that does not happen in North, South and East Ayrshire and other bordering authorities, given that there are disadvantaged areas north of the new proposed area?

Karen Jackson

Scottish Enterprise has been engaged in the work that we have been doing around rural economic partnerships. I know that in two or three weeks’ time you will be hearing from Scottish Enterprise, which will be able to give you more detail on its work on aligning with regional organisations. With its new chief executive, it is looking at its regional approach and how it tailors its responses to other parts of Scotland.

The Convener

That neatly leads on to the next question, which is from Maureen Watt.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

What is Scottish Enterprise currently unable to do in the south of Scotland that the new agency will be able to do?

Sandra Reid

The new agency will have the flexibility to respond to the needs of the south of Scotland and, more specifically, to focus its resources on the circumstances of the area and on what is needed to help to achieve its aims of supporting businesses, sustaining communities and harnessing the potential of the people in the area. The new agency will have the ability to put a renewed focus on the south of Scotland.

Maureen Watt

Cross-border issues have been talked about a lot recently, including the idea of having the equivalent of a city deal in the area. Can you explain where we are at with that? Will this new agency be able to access funds from the deal and perhaps use them better than might otherwise be the case?

The Convener

Does Karen Jackson want to start and then let Sandra Reid come in?

Karen Jackson

I will start and then Sandra Reid can pick up on the difficult detail. Maureen Watt is right that we are looking at the borderlands growth deal. The borderlands area takes in Dumfries and Galloway Council, Scottish Borders Council and three English local authorities: Carlisle, Cumbria and Northumberland. Those local authorities are coming together to put proposals to both Governments about a growth deal.

You asked where we are. The authorities have submitted proposals to both Governments and we are looking at the detail of the propositions. I think that there are 10 different outline business cases, which focus on various themes that the authorities see as key to driving growth across the area.

As the detail develops, we will look at how those propositions and proposals can be delivered. The new agency absolutely will have a role in delivering some of the projects. For example, if there is a focus on energy, tourism or place, we see the agency getting involved in delivery in that regard. We are working hard to ensure that the projects in the borderlands and the agency’s priorities are closely aligned; you would expect the new agency to be absolutely integrated with the borderlands proposition.

Maureen Watt

Are the three council areas south of the border working separately, or do they all come together in some sort of grouping?

Karen Jackson

They come together in the borderlands partnership. The proposals that have been submitted to both Governments have come from the borderlands partnership, so they have come from all five local authorities together.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Board members will be appointed by the Scottish ministers, as will the chair and first chief executive. Ministers will also decide the location of the new agency, and I see that the agency will be able to change its action plan only with ministers’ permission. That gives rise to concerns about local accountability. How will we ensure that decisions on membership, in particular, are in line with local opinion?

Sandra Reid

South of Scotland enterprise will be a non-departmental public body, as you are aware, so appointments will be made via an open and fair process, which will be regulated by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland and the “Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies in Scotland”.

The policy memorandum, which you might have seen, says that the aim is that

“Members will be chosen to provide a balanced mix of relevant skills and expertise which reflect the business and communities of the south of Scotland”.

We intend to advertise appointments in such a way as to attract a strong and diverse field of suitable candidates, with a particular focus on people in the south of Scotland.

That is standard practice for the existing enterprise agencies—Scottish Enterprise and HIE—the members of which are also appointed through the public appointments process.

As part of that process, we intend to set out a clear description of the skills, knowledge and expertise that are required. In drawing that together, we will reflect on responses to the consultation. The consultation asked about board members, and respondees submitted views on whom they would like to see on the board. Their suggestions included people from the local area, young people and individuals from the private sector. Respondees reinforced the need for the board to be representative of people in the south of Scotland, and we will work hard to ensure that that is the case.

Colin Smyth

The bill does not specify the skills and expertise that are required. You will do that. Will you ensure that there is a mix, so that, for example, young people, trade unions and small business owners are represented?

The local authority is represented in the current south of scotland economic partnership—the interim partnership. Why will it not be represented in the new agency?

Sandra Reid

We will take account of all the factors that you mentioned in the public appointments process, but the bill does not specify the detail, as you said. Of course, councillors may apply to be members of the board. I am aware that Councillor Stephen Hagan is a member of the VisitScotland board, for example. There is access through that means.

Colin Smyth

But the final decision on membership will be made by ministers.

Sandra Reid

Yes. That is what the bill says.

Colin Smyth

On ministerial direction, I notice in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise legislation that ministers can issue direction only following consultation with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, but the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill does not include such a requirement. Why is that? Will ministers effectively be able to veto the agency’s decisions?

Sandra Reid

You are right to say that the bill does not include that requirement. However, I expect that those powers of direction will be used only in exceptional circumstances, and in consultation with, or following engagement with, the new agency.

Colin Smyth

I am just intrigued about why that requirement is specified in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise legislation but not in this bill.

Sandra Reid

That is something that could be considered, if you think that it should be contained in the bill.

The Convener

For clarity, is it the case that that is not a conscious omission and that it simply has not transferred across? Are you saying that it could be considered at a later date?

Sandra Reid

That is correct. No particular decision has been made in that regard, and I would expect some consultation or engagement to happen before a direction was issued.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

When you create a new organisation, surely you specify who is doing what, who will be responsible and who will be involved in it. Given the importance of the strategic board to the Government’s enterprise and skills reform agenda, why is there no mention of it in either the bill or the policy memorandum?

The Convener

Who would like to answer that? Karen Jackson is wavering.

Karen Jackson

I am looking forward to answering the question.

The strategic board is not defined in legislation; it is a different sort of construct. That is why it is not included in the bill. We would absolutely expect the chair of the new agency to be part of the strategic board process, as are the chairs of other agencies.

Richard Lyle

The fact is, sometimes you create an agency and find that everybody is doing the same thing. That brings me to my second question. The bill specifies a role for the new south of Scotland agency in

“enhancing skills and capacities relevant to employment”.

That is also a core function of Skills Development Scotland. How will the two agencies work together? Will that duplication not cause confusion and ensure that it is a disaster right from the start? How are you going to sort that?

The Convener

I think that everyone is taken aback at the suggestion that this is going to be a disaster. Karen Jackson is going to convince us that it will not be.

Richard Lyle

We are here to probe.

Karen Jackson

We will avoid disasters.

You are right to suggest that the agency will not be the only agency operating in the south of Scotland after 1 April 2020. Other agencies already operate there, including Skills Development Scotland, VisitScotland and local authorities, and Scottish Enterprise will still have a presence. We would argue that that is absolutely right, because the south of Scotland will benefit from the input of lots of different agencies. However, we want to avoid duplication and ensure that the agencies are complementary rather than duplicatory. That involves the new agency acting as the voice of the south of Scotland. It can have an informed conversation with Skills Development Scotland and identify issues such as the fact that, in the south, sectors such as forestry need different skills. That will ensure that SDS can respond appropriately to the needs of the south of Scotland. I think that that will strengthen the position of people in the south rather than creating any confusion.

Richard Lyle

In case people take my previous comment out of context, I should say that I do not want it to be a disaster; I want to ensure that the organisation can work with other people to deliver a level footing for the future.

Karen Jackson

Absolutely. You started your question with a reference to the strategic board—the alignment happens from the national level down.

Colin Smyth

On that point, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise legislation makes it clear that that agency has the responsibility for many functions that are carried out by Scottish Enterprise elsewhere. However, the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill states that the property and liabilities of Scottish Enterprise will be transferred to the new agency, but it does not clarify which functions, if any, Scottish Enterprise will retain. It is therefore not entirely clear what functions Scottish Enterprise will retain and what specific functions the new agency will have. Does that need to be clarified in the bill or will you set it out elsewhere?

Sandra Reid

The bill is drafted in a way that is high level and enabling in order to provide the new agency with the flexibility to determine what activities would be most appropriate to meet the needs and circumstances of the south of Scotland.

As we said, we expect the new body to assume responsibility for regionally specific enterprise activity. As Colin Smyth said, that might involve building on work that has already been done. We expect Scottish Enterprise to remain the national agency; it will continue to have a presence in the south of Scotland through national products such as the Scottish manufacturing advisory service or regional selective assistance. The new body’s activities will be developed and determined through our project delivery as we work towards its establishment.

Colin Smyth

You are right that the bill is very high level. It is fair to say that its aims are quite general. The aims of the Highlands and Islands Enterprise legislation, however, are very specific; the list of functions in that act is a lot more detailed. Why is it different in this legislation? I have heard the argument that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been prevented from doing things because its aims and functions, as set out in legislation, are too specific and detailed. Are there any examples of things that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been unable to do because of the way in which the legislation that governs it is written?

Karen Jackson

I will start by talking about the aims and then perhaps Fraser Gough can come in on the drafting construct.

The aim of the bill is high level—it is to further the economic and social development and improve the amenity and environment of the south of Scotland. It then illustrates how those aims might be achieved. It is fair to say that that reflects modern drafting practice. That high-level aim and those illustrations mean that the new agency can do what it needs to do to respond to opportunities and needs in the south of Scotland.

Fraser Gough

As Karen Jackson said, the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 is very much a product of its time in the way in which it is drafted and structured.

I cannot speak to exactly what problems or restrictions Scottish Enterprise or HIE might have encountered. These days we tend to avoid long exhaustive lists of things, which, in each case in the 1990 act, are given as specific examples under the general power to do anything in pursuance of the bodies’ aims. The difficulty with elaborate lists is that they begin to look as though they are constraining. The more words you have on the legislative page, the more opportunities you give lawyers to create arguments—you can infer constraints that were not intended. We therefore tend to eschew that style of drafting these days.

I will give you a simple example. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are empowered to reclaim land from the sea, but the bill says that south of Scotland enterprise can acquire land and enter into contracts, and those contracts could be with people who are involved in reclaiming land from the sea. We are therefore dealing with the same propositions but at a higher level of abstraction. We do not need to get down to the specifics in the same way.

Colin Smyth

The Highlands and Islands Enterprise legislation specifically mentions compulsory purchase. Are you saying that the south of Scotland enterprise agency will have the power of compulsory purchase as well?

Fraser Gough

No. It is fair to say that a lot of the complexity in the 1990 act surrounds powers that—as a matter of policy—the Government is not proposing to give to south of Scotland enterprise. Those powers include compulsory purchase powers, powers to enter on to land without permission, and powers to require people to give information under penalty of criminal sanction for not providing it. As a matter of policy, those powers are not being pursued for the south of Scotland agency.

Colin Smyth

Let me probe that point further. The Highlands and Islands Enterprise legislation talks in depth about safeguarding the environment, natural beauty and the geography of the region, and it includes provisions on developing the environment and derelict land, whereas the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill refers only to the “amenity and environment” of the region and does not mention natural assets. Are you saying that the bill makes south of Scotland enterprise’s responsibilities in that regard no weaker than those of Highlands and Islands Enterprise? Can you give the committee an absolute guarantee that no power has been given to the Highlands and Islands agency that is not being given to the south of Scotland one?

Fraser Gough

Yes. Your question began from the premise that, because the bill contains less detail on those things, the new agency will be more constrained than the existing agencies. However, aside from the policy exceptions on compulsory purchase and obtaining information, which I have mentioned, we are quite comfortable that, if anything, the bill having less detail and constraint built into it is in broad pursuance of its aims, which are every bit as broad as, if not broader than, those of the 1990 act.

Colin Smyth

I want to be clear on the point about there being no additional powers. You mentioned compulsory purchase. Additional powers appear to have been given to Highlands and Islands Enterprise that are not being given to south of Scotland enterprise. Is that the case?

Fraser Gough

Yes. Those are the specific ones that I have mentioned: the powers for compulsory purchase, for obtaining information from people and for entering on to land without permission.

The Convener

Those are important points, Colin. When representatives from HIE come in, you will get a chance to see how relevant those powers are and whether they have used them. I do not want to cut you off, but I am going to bring in John Finnie. I will be happy to come back to you if you want to develop that point.

John Finnie

I am going to sound like a stuck record and ask about social development again. In layperson’s terms, that was what marked out HIE as being different from Scottish Enterprise. I want to understand whether the somewhat romantic notion that people had about the role of the old Highlands and Islands Development Board, and then its successor organisation, will be a feature of the new agency. That is to say that it would not just be involved—as it appears to be now—in a lot of the high-level strategy stuff about increasing exports for businesses within its portfolio, but there would be meaningful engagement with communities at a very local level. Can you give examples of the social development that you envisage the south of Scotland enterprise agency will undertake? My concern is that that work will drop off and it will concern itself not with communities but solely with the balance sheets of large companies.

Karen Jackson

I will start on that question. The bill gives the agency responsibility for social development. The consultation gave a range of examples of the activities that the agency might be expected to pursue as part of that community element. The focus on developing community capacity—

John Finnie

I am sorry to interrupt, Karen, but, for the record, could you detail some of those activities, please?

Karen Jackson

Absolutely. We explored helping communities to acquire specific assets, looking at how they could use them to generate income.

John Finnie

But without compulsory purchase.

Karen Jackson

I will not be able to answer properly to that level of detail, so perhaps we could come back to it in writing. The community empowerment stuff includes helping communities to develop specific assets, generate income and deliver services. We recognise that social enterprises are very important in the south of Scotland, so the new agency will have a focus on what it can do to grow them. Similarly, community-based businesses are very important in resilient communities and play an important part in the economy of the south, so we would expect the agency to look at those. There will be a place-based focus, so an agency that focuses on the south of Scotland will be able to understand what makes the place tick. Its focus should be on pursuing both the business and community elements of that. It should ask what the important thing is in a place that makes it vibrant and resilient. That is not necessarily a business; it could be a community facility.

On the question of how the agency can help communities to respond to opportunities that are presented to them, because Highlands and Islands Enterprise works closely with us we understand about best practice there. However, we are working with other agencies, such as the Development Trusts Association Scotland and the Southern Uplands Partnership, to bring in different perspectives.

In the consultation, we got lots of responses from community councils and other community organisations, so there is a wealth of information about practical things that the agency could help to tackle.

Fraser Gough

I want to add something on the point about the absence of compulsory purchase powers and the agency helping communities to acquire assets. You must bear in mind the fact that, since the 1990 act came into force, the Scottish Parliament has conferred the community right to buy and there are compulsory purchase powers in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that did not exist in 1990. When comparing the two acts to see what is missing, we must bear in mind that the legislative landscape has moved on, in large measure through the Scottish Parliament’s efforts.

Richard Lyle

My question follows on from Colin Smyth’s and John Finnie’s questions. Will the agency have the same powers as other agencies—yes or no?

The Convener

Who would like to dodge that question? Does Karen Jackson want to try that one?

Richard Lyle

It is a simple question.

Karen Jackson

The overarching aim of the agency is absolutely what you would expect Highlands and Islands Enterprise to do, so it is equivalent in that sense. As Fraser Gough has been explaining, certain elements of the detail are different in order to reflect the different legislative processes and the acts that have subsequently been introduced.

Richard Lyle

I am sorry to press you, but you are saying that the agency will not have the same powers as Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Karen Jackson

I am saying that the agency will have a clear power to drive forward the economy of the south of Scotland, supporting communities and businesses across the south of Scotland.

The Convener

Richard, I am not going to cut you off, but the cabinet secretary will be in and I am sure that he will look forward to your robust line of questioning.

Richard Lyle

It is a point that we have to clarify. Colin Smyth asked the question, but it has not been answered.

The Convener

I am sure that the cabinet secretary is listening to this meeting and taking cognisance of the fact that you are going to ask him that question.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

I will follow Richard Lyle’s other line of questioning on the duplication of services. The bill specifies a role for the agency in encouraging business start-ups and entrepreneurship. Is it intended to replace the business gateway or to work alongside the business gateway? How will the agency work with local authorities to encourage new businesses and the growth of existing ones?

Karen Jackson

In advance of the creation of the new agency, we have created the south of Scotland economic partnership, which brings together the seven key public sector agencies that support economic development in the south of Scotland. As Mr Smyth suggested, Scottish Borders Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council are members of that partnership, which is helping to develop alignment across agencies. We are discussing what makes sense to businesses in terms of who delivers what and how we ensure that there is one clear place for businesses to go and get the services that they need, which might be delivered not by the agency but by other organisations, local authorities, the private sector or the third sector. You can therefore see a role for the agency in creating that alignment and in helping businesses to navigate what they sometimes think is quite a complicated landscape.

Gail Ross

Will the business gateway still exist?

Karen Jackson

That decision has not been made. We are talking with local authorities about how those services are best delivered. The business gateway might be the best way in which to do that, but those discussions are still evolving.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

We have strayed into a fair bit of my question, but I will ask it anyway. How will the new agency work with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, given that Scottish Enterprise will continue to have a presence in the area and that HIE is the model organisation for the new agency in the south of Scotland?

Karen Jackson

I think that we have covered quite a lot of that ground. It is about alignment, complementarity and finding a way for the agency to bring together what businesses and communities need.

Peter Chapman

Scottish Enterprise’s role will obviously diminish when the new agency is up and running, but it will still have a role in the region—is that assumption correct?

Karen Jackson

Absolutely. Scottish Enterprise will still operate as the national economic development agency across Scotland. As Sandra Reid mentioned, Scottish Enterprise delivers various national products such as regional selective assistance grants, the Scottish manufacturing advisory service and some of the Skills Development International services. Those services are all delivered nationally, and we would expect Scottish Enterprise to do that following the creation of the new agency.

There is also expertise in Scottish Enterprise that we would not want the south of Scotland to be cut off from. Energy is a good example. Scottish Enterprise has a depth of information about energy, and we would not want to cut off the south from benefiting from that expertise in the national body. Similarly, the new agency could develop expertise in areas that reflect its economy—in forestry, for example—which would help other agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and HIE. Such alignment and complementarity go all the way through the system.

Peter Chapman

I understand that. Both Scottish Enterprise and HIE publish annual business plans, which include useful budget information, organisational targets and priorities. Is there anything in the bill that requires the new south of Scotland agency to do likewise?

Sandra Reid

The most direct comparison in the bill is the requirement for the new body to produce an action plan that is to be agreed with ministers. That would set out how the agency should look to achieve its aims. The business plan and corporate plans will be used as the blueprint for how the agency will take forward its activities.

Peter Chapman

I assume that the new board will have a big input into that planning process.

Sandra Reid

Yes, we would expect that.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I am looking at some of the figures in the financial memorandum, a lot of which makes sense—the three parts on set-up costs, running costs and the on-going budget. I was particularly struck by the estates figure, under the setting-up costs on page 4. I agree with the approach of taking a low and a high figure, but it seems quite extreme that the low figure could be £542,000 and the high figure could be £2.6 million. Can you explain why there is such a big range?

Karen Jackson

Absolutely. In bringing those estimates together, we were looking at all sorts of different possibilities for what the estates and the geographic footprint of the new agency might look like. At the higher end, the costs assume that we would need to fit out a building from scratch; at the lower end, it is much more about co-location.

It was clear from the consultation that people wanted the agency to be accessible everywhere, and we are exploring how we could deliver that through co-locating with other bits of the public sector estate and with bits of private or third sector agencies that offer accommodation. That explains the range. It is obviously more expensive to fit out a new building and less expensive to share premises with others. We hope that co-location will be the way in which the agency operates.

John Mason

So, the figures include all the possibilities—whether there is one main headquarters and a lot of smaller offices or two big headquarters, or whatever the option might be.

Karen Jackson

The policy memorandum explores all those possibilities and gives us the financial estimates for all sorts of different models. One of the options that was consulted on was a hub-and-spoke model, which would have two or three key hubs for the agency and would spread out across the area. The estimates cover the range of options.

John Mason

My other point concerns part 3, on the total budget allocation. On page 10, in paragraph 53, the policy memorandum says:

“It is intended that the allocation given to the new body will be equivalent on a per-capita basis to the allocation for HIE”.

I accept that the figure needs to be higher than what Scottish Enterprise gets, because the south of Scotland is a more urban area, but the HIE area is much more spread out, has a whole lot of islands and faces many more challenges than the south of Scotland. Can you explain why the allocation would be a matching per capita amount?

The Convener

Who would like to answer that question? I am trying to control the committee, because there are a few Highlands and Islands MSPs who might want to jump in on the back of that question.

Karen Jackson

We looked to the Highlands and Islands and saw very similar challenges around geographic spread and rurality. We listened carefully to what consultees were saying, and they made the case that the new body needs to be funded in a way that is equivalent to how HIE is funded. I am sure that you will want to pick up with the cabinet secretary the issue of how different funding amounts are justified. I can explain where we have got to in the financial memorandum, but I suspect that the committee has got the bigger point.

John Mason

The regions are similarly rural, but there are no islands that I am aware of in the region. That would be an immediate cost. I will take the issue up with the cabinet secretary, so I will not press you on it too far. However, surely the needs are not as great as those in the Highlands and Islands? If you do not want to answer that question, I will let it go.

The Convener

John, you seem to be taking some committee members with you, but some are against you. Let us keep that question for the cabinet secretary.

Colin Smyth

As one of the members that he certainly is not taking with him, I very much welcome the financial memorandum—

The Convener

Now, Colin, we said that we would not do that.

Colin Smyth

I welcome the financial memorandum’s commitment, given that the region is the lowest paid in Scotland.

Given that per capita commitment, the budget would be £42 million a year, based on the current HIE budget. However, the financial memorandum proposes only £32 million in the first year and the amount rises gradually until we get to that £42 million. The figure is therefore not per capita in the first two years. Why is that? I can think of many projects in the south of Scotland that would spend that per capita funding very quickly. Why are we not getting that per capita funding until, in effect, year 3?

Karen Jackson

We have been working on the transition planning. Our assumption is that we will build up to the full allocation. In the first year, the agency will not have its full staff or its full capital programme in place. The members of the agency will want to plot out that capital programme and where those resources can be used most effectively. We took the view that the agency would need two or three years to get to that point, but the committee may want to discuss that point more broadly.

The Convener

Maureen Watt has a question.

Maureen Watt

It is not related to the financial memorandum.

When the bill was drafted, we were in a different political situation from the one that we are in now. There will probably be a border down the middle of the Irish Sea, and Dumfries and Galloway will become another kind of borderland. Should anything be put in the bill to strengthen the area and the powers in relation to various issues that had not been foreseen when the bill was drafted? Has that idea been considered?

Sandra Reid

As we have said, the bill has been drafted in a high-level way that makes it an enabling bill that will enable the new agency to be flexible and responsive in its approach. The agency will be able to change what it does, and, as circumstances change over time, it will be able to adapt and respond to those changes. That flexibility is necessary to reflect future situations. We cannot future proof everything, but we can ensure that the agency will be able to respond.

Richard Lyle

In the jobs that I used to do, I was not based in an office—I used to go out on the road a lot. The south of Scotland is wide and varied, so the new board will need time to work out where it wants to have its main hub or hubs and where it wants its staff to be. Is that correct?

Karen Jackson

I think that the answer to that question is yes.

Richard Lyle

I thought that it would be.

Karen Jackson

However, I suspect that I should qualify my answer by saying that some decisions will have to be made for purely practical reasons.

Richard Lyle

So, you are not going to say that the headquarters will be at X and the hubs will be at Y and Z. Are you saying that the board will come in and make those decisions, in consultation, for the benefit of the people of the south of Scotland?

Karen Jackson

There will be flexibility to change, but we expect that decisions on some hubs will need to have been made before 1 April 2020, so the decisions will not all be for the agency to make. We will need to have hubs in place so that there are places from which people can start operating on 1 April.

Richard Lyle

Thank you for clarifying that.

John Scott

I want clarification on the Ayrshire question. Why is it not part of the enterprise region? Did you say that the Ayrshire local authorities did not want to be part of the south of Scotland enterprise region? Is that being driven by there being two separate future funding streams—the borderlands growth deal and the Ayrshire growth deal?

Karen Jackson

The three Ayrshire local authorities have self-identified the Ayrshires as a growth deal area and have focused on that structure, rather than looking towards the south of Scotland. We recognise that there are real economic links across the council boundaries—economics does not always respect council boundaries. The approach was driven by the Ayrshire councils, which were absolutely focused on getting their own growth deal and considering their own structures across the three councils. The responses from the three Ayrshire councils to the Scottish Government consultation said that they were looking at the structure of their growth deal area, rather than at the south of Scotland, although they made the point that establishing an effective working relationship is key.

Colin Smyth

Why is there no specific reference to equalities in the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill? The act that regulates HIE includes provisions on responsibility for improving opportunities for disabled people, women and ethnic minorities, and for enforcing current legislation. It also states that, within reason, HIE and Scottish Enterprise are required to give preference to disabled former servicemen and servicewomen when they select disabled people for training. However, there is no explicit reference to equalities in the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. What are the reasons for that?

Felicity Cullen (Scottish Government)

There is no such specific reference in the bill, but there is the intention to amend the relevant statutory instruments that will apply the public sector equality duty, and the suite of other equality legislation, to the new body. That will be done as part of preparation for commencement of the body on 1 April 2020. If those amendments are not in place by 1 April 2020, they will be in place very shortly afterwards, and the body will operate as if it were affected by the duties anyway.

The Convener

That completes our questions. Thank you, panel. Karen Jackson answered the majority of the questions, for which I thank her.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is a stage 1 debate on motion S5M-16542, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. I invite all members who wish to contribute to the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible.

The Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy (Fergus Ewing)

I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill on a significant day for the south of Scotland. Members will recall that, in May 2016, the First Minister announced an end-to-end review of the enterprise and skills system, as we wanted to ensure that it was delivering effectively for the people of Scotland. One of the review’s key recommendations was to establish a new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland. This bill establishes that new body: an organisation that will focus on inclusive growth and supporting a diverse and resilient economy, that is able to respond to the different and distinct rural economy of the south of Scotland, and that is welcomed by the south.

I am proud to be the minister who is leading the bill through Parliament. I wish to thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its careful and thorough stage 1 scrutiny, and I thank the other committees that contributed. The REC Committee’s report

“fully supports the creation of a new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland”

and

“supports the general principles of the Bill and recommends to the Parliament that they be agreed to.”

The report goes on to make a number of helpful recommendations and observations about the detail of the bill, on which I have offered the committee a written response. I look forward to further consideration of its recommendations and points that might be made today.

We could not have got here without the support of people in the south of Scotland. Our work has been informed by the people of the south of Scotland—we listened to what they said and have responded. Many people offered their views and I am particularly grateful to the 268 folk who took the time to respond to our pre-legislative consultation, almost 90 per cent of whom agreed with our vision. More than 500 people attended public meetings last year, and the committee benefited from the 120 responses that were submitted in response to its call for views. Continuing engagement remains key as the bill progresses and we take forward work to establish the agency. I want to make sure that the agency is rooted in the south and driven by the south. Last week, my officials were in Galashiels and Kirkcudbright to hear from more than 50 community representatives. I welcome the future events that the south of Scotland economic partnership will run later in spring and early summer, which will provide an opportunity for individuals and businesses to continue to shape our work.

Let me say a little about the south of Scotland economic partnership. We established it as an interim measure while we are taking through legislation to establish the agency. The partnership brings together the public, private, third and education sectors to support activity across the area. In its first year, it is bringing a fresh approach to economic development, delivering strong stakeholder engagement and paving the way for the south of Scotland enterprise agency. I look forward to that continuing over the next year as we move to the agency.

I thank the partnership’s chair, Professor Russel Griggs, for his energy and personal commitment. I should also like to thank his board. I welcome its members’ deep understanding of the region’s needs and their commitment to working with us to make a difference. I met them and attended a board meeting, and I was thoroughly impressed by the diligence, imagination and energy that they have brought to their task. Finally, I recognise the contribution of the public sector partners and the support that they have brought. The partnership’s activities have been shaped around local needs and priorities, responding to consultation with businesses and communities from across the region.

We are supporting the work of the partnership with additional investment of £10 million in this financial year and £12.7 million in the next financial year. At this point, I should express my gratitude to the gentleman on my right—the finance secretary—for making that possible. That investment is supporting activity that would not otherwise have been possible, responding to the needs of the south of Scotland. We are investing in skills, with more than £6 million supporting the development of a learning network to make it easier for people to access opportunities. There are also projects across communities in the south, helping to build their economic capacity and future success.

We are all aware of the issues that are impacting on the economy of the south of Scotland. Its population is ageing, meaning that there are fewer people of working age. Its young people are, in some cases, leaving the region and are not seeing opportunities to return. Wages are low, with the council areas ranking 30 and 32 for median weekly earnings. However, it is an area with many natural advantages, which makes it attractive for residents, businesses and visitors. It is strategically well placed. It has significant land assets and energy resources. It has active further and higher education sectors and innovative businesses operating across the sectors. It has vibrant communities with a rich history and culture.

The creation of the new agency builds on our commitment to the south, including our investments of £353 million in the Borders railway; over £32 million since 2017 in the development of school campuses; £275 million in the state-of-the-art Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary, which was completed in December 2017; and £133 million by the end of 2021 to improve internet connectivity in the south, which is the biggest public investment ever made in a United Kingdom broadband project. It also builds on our commitment of £85 million to deliver the Borderlands inclusive growth deal.

The new agency will bring additional investment to the region. We have committed to funding it on the same per capita basis on which we fund Highlands and Islands Enterprise, recognising the similarity of both remits and challenges.

Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

I would be very grateful to the minister if he was able to set out what the budget would have been this year on that basis, in order to give businesses in the south of Scotland an idea of the type of investment that will come once the agency is with us.

Fergus Ewing

It might be my fault, but I am not quite sure that I understood the question. I mentioned the current budget of £10 million and the budget of £12.7 million for next year.

Oliver Mundell

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I want to move on. I will come back the matter in closing, perhaps, if the member wishes. The financial memorandum sets out more detail. I do not have time to go into it now, but the financial memorandum sets out the facts as to the process. As I recall—we will hear shortly from the convener of the committee—there was agreement in the committee on the principle that governs our process, which is that, pro rata, the funding should move over time to be at the same level as HIE’s, but that a new body needs to learn to walk before it can run, and it will take some time for that to be implemented. I say to Mr Mundell that that is all set out clearly in both the memorandum and, I think, the evidence to the committee, and I think that it is broadly the right approach. However, it is a fair point, and no doubt we will come back to it during the afternoon.

The bill will establish a new enterprise body for the south of Scotland. Our vision is for a body that will drive inclusive growth, increase competitiveness and tackle inequality in the south of Scotland through maximising the area’s contribution to Scotland’s inclusive growth; supporting a diverse and resilient economy; sustaining, growing, building and strengthening communities with joined-up economic and community support; harnessing the potential of people and resources; developing skills; promoting assets and resources; and maximising the impact of investment in the area.

The bill is deliberately high level and enabling. It sets out the body’s overarching strategic aim, which is to

“further the economic and social development ... and ... improve the amenity and environment of the South of Scotland.”

It gives a few examples of the sorts of activities that the body could undertake, but it does not suggest an exhaustive list. That approach ensures maximum flexibility for the new body to shape the activities that it takes forward and respond to the circumstances of the south.

As well as setting out the aims of the new body, the bill makes provision for its structure and legal framework to ensure that it can operate effectively.

I will touch on some of the committee’s recommendations. First, it recommended that we develop

“appropriate mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and coordination”

between agencies. The new agency will be part of the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board, ensuring national alignment, and we will ensure that it works collaboratively with other organisations.

The committee also recommended

“that the new agency carries out to work obtain feedback on its performance and effectiveness from communities and other stakeholders”.

It is crucial that the new body is accountable to local people, and we are working with stakeholders to put in place arrangements to deliver that when the body is operational. It is important that we build on existing successful regional structures, such as the south of Scotland alliance.

Of course, as well as establishing the legislative framework for the new agency, we need to take forward work to deliver the new body. If the Parliament agrees to the principles of the bill today, that activity will increase. Our work here will ensure that we have a credible agency that is ready to assume its legislative functions on 1 April next year.

The practical arrangements that are put in place for the new agency will enable it to begin to develop and deliver its vision, building its capacity and capability from its establishment. If Parliament approves the principles of the bill, we will begin the appointments process for the new chair, which will ensure that the future leaders of the agency are involved in the decisions to establish the body.

We will also ensure that the new agency is able to operate everywhere across the south of Scotland. Those who contributed to the consultation expressed the strong view that that accessibility was needed.

Establishing a new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland is a great opportunity to do things differently in the south. I will continue to work with members from across the chamber to ensure that the legislation establishes a body that is as successful as it can be, helping to drive transformational inclusive growth, increase competitiveness, promote fair work and tackle inequality for all in the south of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I am pleased to contribute to the debate in my capacity as the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

The committee’s stage 1 report was published on 4 March, and the report makes it clear that the committee fully supports the creation of a new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his letter of 21 March, in which he responds to the various recommendations in the report.

When the committee started its stage 1 scrutiny, it became very clear that there was a high level of interest in the proposals among all sectors in the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway. The committee is extremely grateful to all the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to inform our deliberations.

As part of the evidence gathering, the committee held a formal external meeting and an informal workshop in Dumfries, as well as a discussion event in Galashiels. Those sessions were particularly well attended by a wide range of representatives of stakeholder groups and members of the public. More than 140 people attended the discussion events, and the committee is grateful to all those who participated, providing valuable input to the consideration of the bill. The committee’s formal meeting in Dumfries was held in the evening, to allow more local people to come along. Given that it was attended by more than 60 people, the committee felt that it was extremely worth while.

Overall, the committee heard strong support for the creation of the new enterprise agency. More than 80 per cent of respondents to the committee’s online survey also agreed with the idea of a new agency being established. That sentiment was mirrored by a significant majority of those who provided oral and written evidence and by those who attended the informal public meetings.

After taking evidence, the committee was in no doubt that the creation of a new enterprise agency in the south of Scotland is required. It is clear that the area faces a significant number of economic, social and geographic challenges, which have not been—and are not being—addressed through the current economic support mechanisms. The overwhelming view of most of those who gave evidence to or engaged with the committee was that the new agency will help to support the enterprise and skills needs of the area and will provide a vehicle by which to encourage economic growth.

The committee commends the south of Scotland economic partnership for the significant consultation and preparation work that it has carried out. It is clear to us that it provides a solid foundation on which to develop the new body.

On the issue of the area, the committee is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence that it received, with the proposal that the new enterprise agency should cover the Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council areas only. However, the committee also heard views expressed that it should perhaps be extended to cover adjoining local authority areas, where communities may face challenges that are similar to those that are faced in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders.

Although the committee did not believe that the area to be covered by the agency should be altered, it called on the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to ensure that those other areas continue to have access to economic development opportunities that are appropriate to their needs. We welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to supporting all regional economies, which he set out in his letter.

The committee also heard that it is important that the new agency has sufficient flexibility to operate outwith its geographical boundaries and to collaborate with other enterprise agencies in order to fulfil its role. I welcome the confirmation in the cabinet secretary’s letter that the bill, as drafted, provides for that flexibility.

The committee also called on the Scottish Government to ensure the development of appropriate mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and co-ordination between the new agency and all the existing agencies that are operating in the region, building on the positive work that is already being carried out by the south of Scotland economic partnership. We are encouraged that the cabinet secretary has asked his officials to explore that matter with stakeholders and that he will respond to the committee formally in advance of stage 2.

The committee acknowledges that the broad aims for the new agency, which are set out in section 5 of the bill, have been drafted with the express purpose of avoiding a prescriptive approach and thus providing the agency with flexibility. However, in evidence and at its discussion events, the committee heard that it would be beneficial to have those aims supplemented to cover several key areas. In response to that, the committee called on the Scottish Government to amend at stage 2 the aim of improving the amenity and environment of the area that is covered by the new agency to make specific provision in relation to the sustainable use of the environment. The committee further called on the Scottish Government to amend the aim that involves furthering the economic and social development of the south of Scotland to make specific provision in relation to encouraging the development of a sustainable economy, supporting the enhancement of transport networks and digital connectivity, supporting community land ownership and assets ownership, furthering fair work and encouraging the creation of a more balanced demographic. We note that the cabinet secretary is to consider those recommendations further.

The location of the new agency was a recurring discussion point. It is clear, however, that there is strong support for co-locating it with other agencies where that is practical. The committee is of the view that that will bring significant benefits in terms of the agency’s presence across the area and the ability of people across the area to access it. That will aid the provision of a one-stop-shop approach as well as being more cost effective.

The committee received the clear message that getting the board membership of the new agency right was of huge importance. The committee agrees whole-heartedly with that and considers that it is essential that the board is made up of individuals with as wide a range as possible of interests, skills, expertise and experience that is relevant to the south of Scotland. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s indication that he will ensure that applications are encouraged from as wide a range of interests as possible.

In considering the bill, the committee reached the view that a mechanism was required to ensure that there was genuine local accountability for the new agency’s performance and effectiveness. It has, therefore, called on the Scottish Government to lodge an appropriate amendment requiring the new agency to obtain feedback on those issues to inform the action plan development process. I note, however, that the cabinet secretary has stopped short of saying that he will do so and that he has instead said that he has asked his officials to consider how that accountability will be delivered by the new agency once it is operational.

On funding, the committee considers that the Scottish Government’s intention to ensure that, initially, there is an equivalence between the budget that is provided for the new agency and that which is provided to HIE is an appropriate and proportionate approach. The committee also noted that the £42 million of funding for the new agency in 2022-23 will provide an overall increase in funding for the area. However, it asked the Scottish Government for an estimate of how much of an increase in funding that would represent. I note, from his written response, that the cabinet secretary will respond further to the committee on that issue.

The committee looks forward to considering at stage 2 amendments that will further enhance a bill that has a high level of support among stakeholders and communities in the south of Scotland. As it stated in its stage 1 report, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee supports the general principles of the bill and recommends to the Parliament that they be agreed to.

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

I am pleased to open this afternoon’s debate for the Scottish Conservatives.

I am the constituency MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries, and it is fair to say that the constituency that I serve is vast—it is 75 miles from Stranraer to Dumfries. A dedicated agency that recognises the unique needs of the south of Scotland is long overdue. For local people and businesses, today’s stage 1 debate is a hugely positive step in the right direction.

In our 2016 election manifesto, the Scottish Conservatives highlighted the urgent need to replicate the success of Highlands and Islands Enterprise by creating a south of Scotland enterprise agency. Such an agency, coupled with the Borderlands growth deal that was recently announced—another Conservative manifesto commitment for the south of Scotland—is now being delivered. The region stands on the cusp of a huge economic boost, which it badly needs.

I am delighted that, in light of increased Conservative representation in the region, the Scottish National Party Government has started to listen to the calls from members on the Conservative benches and has pressed ahead with plans to create the agency.

The Borderlands growth deal shows the strength of the UK Government and Scottish Government working together, with a total funding package of £345 million for the cross-border region. The communities that I represent in Galloway and West Dumfries link closely, on a daily basis, with the Scottish Borders and our friends and neighbours in Carlisle and Northumberland, and the approach can only strengthen those as-yet-not-fully-exploited economic and social ties. Indeed, the Borderlands partnership has described the plans as a “game changer” for the region.

The new agency will also be a game changer. It is important that members are aware of the stark facts of the economic situation in the south of Scotland. The business start-up rate in Dumfries and Galloway is significantly lower than it is in Scotland as a whole, with only 31 businesses per 10,000 people, compared with an average of 50 per 10,000 in Scotland as a whole. Even more concerning, gross value added is a whopping 24 per cent lower than the Scottish average, with median weekly earnings 10 per cent lower than the Scottish average.

The lack of sustained growth in the south of Scotland has sharpened the focus on my region and demonstrated the need for a dedicated agency to support businesses to fulfil their potential.

It is regrettable that my constituents are right when they say that the region is the forgotten corner of Scotland, given the lack of action from this Government, whether we are talking about digital infrastructure, road infrastructure, rail infrastructure or health and education provision, compared with the action that the Government has taken for our central belt neighbours.

The need to boost the infrastructure and provide a fertile environment for training and jobs in my region has never been greater. We must do that in tandem with a taxation policy that will encourage people to live and work in the region.

Fergus Ewing

On the member’s claim that we do not invest in the south of Scotland, is he aware that in the financial year 2017-18 the Scottish Government spent more than £1.2 billion in the south of Scotland? I gave examples of our spending in my opening speech.

Does the member agree that the recent success of Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International’s work with the Scottish Government and the local authority to find a new investor to take over the Pinneys of Scotland plant—in the shape of Atlantis-Pak—illustrates quite the opposite of his argument that we are not involved in active promotion of the economy of the south of Scotland?

Finlay Carson

If the cabinet secretary had been listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that it is only now that the Scottish Government is stepping up to the plate and starting to deliver, and that we are only getting parity with the rest of Scotland, action having sadly fallen short in the past.

The policies that this Government is pursuing, backed up by the Greens, are hitting workers close to the border with higher tax rates than people who live just a few miles away in Carlisle face. We run the risk of people who work here not wanting to pay the higher rate of tax and boosting the economy of not Dumfries but Carlisle. We have a great opportunity ahead of us with the agency and the Borderlands growth deal, so it will be very disappointing if we miss out on the very best talented individuals and businesses due to a misguided tax policy.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Will the member give way?

Finlay Carson

No—I want to make some progress.

At present, we have cross-border organisations and individuals who live in Scotland and work in Carlisle. It is hardly fair that people who do the same job and earn the same salary have quite different take-home pay.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Will the member give way?

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green) rose—

Finlay Carson

I will give way now.

Maureen Watt

Why do so many people want to come from south of the border to north of the border to live here? Older people, especially, find it a great area to retire to.

Finlay Carson

The point about coming here to retire is very interesting. I knew that the Scottish Government would counter by talking about free higher education and free prescriptions on this side of the border. However, that is hardly relevant to the skilled workforce in the 25 to 45-year-old band, which is exactly the demography that we want to attract to fill the new jobs that are created in that area.

In one case, a relatively high earner is paying thousands of pounds more in tax than an equivalent partner on the same income. Should he live south of the border, and commute the short distance to Dumfries? How many other high earners across south or central Scotland might think the same thing?

I have already raised a couple of examples with the SNP Government in the Parliament. In June 2017, I stressed that the agency would have to have an autonomous board, similar to that of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. For far too long, we have had an SNP Government that is obsessed with centralisation, that takes away local accountability and that has heralded an attitude that central Government knows best. Government does not have a monopoly on good ideas and one size does not fit all; we need a local board with local accountability. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary shares that view.

This time last year, when the finance secretary announced £10 million of support for the south of Scotland economic partnership, I raised concerns and surprise that vital sectors including tourism and energy had not been included in the headline priorities at the time—covering such a vast region, we cannot afford for any sectors to miss out. Transparency and accountability will be key to the agency. I recognise the invaluable work in the consultations that the south of Scotland economic partnership has undertaken under its chair, Russel Griggs. However, I have spoken to many local businesses during the time that the interim partnership has been in operation and there is a clear sense of frustration at some of the process. Businesses have been unaware of where or to whom they can apply for funding, or of the reasons behind decisions that have been made about their applications. Lessons need to be learned. It is vital that business has a voice in shaping policy and giving the respective agencies a steer on where the investment may be best directed.

It has always been a concern of mine and others that the Borderlands growth deal has been council led, and I have to question whether enough people within the leadership there have had genuine experience of business and life at the coalface. I have concerns about the danger of there being too much public sector and council involvement. Businesses locally have no desire to see the public sector and councils control all their plans. They want an agency and the projects that it supports to be autonomous from council decision makers. Businesses do not want to run the risk of the agency being undermined in its striving for economic growth and investment. As the committee highlighted, the south of Scotland enterprise board must be made up of individuals much like some of the individuals on the south of Scotland enterprise partnership, who bring as much interest, skills, expertise and experience as possible. We must encourage interest from individuals who will ensure that the agency will deliver on its full potential.

Another note of caution concerns the vote in this Parliament two years ago, after a Conservative-led debate, which defeated plans to take away the Highlands and Islands Enterprise board and replace it with an overarching management committee. With a sense of relief, those plans were defeated, which allowed Highlands and Islands Enterprise to retain its local identity. As my colleague Edward Mountain said in the debate:

“HIE is not broken. It works. Stop trying to break it.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2017; c 41.]

All that said, the consultation process has given us a great starting point as we progress the bill through Parliament. Almost 90 per cent of responses to the consultation agreed with ambitious plans for the south of Scotland and outlined things that are already successful in the region that the agency can build on, including tourism, land management, heritage, natural capital and our history, as well as quality of life.

The Scottish Conservatives fully support the bill at stage 1, in line with the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report. The region needs a dedicated vehicle that will help to transform growth and provide more opportunities for people who live and work here, from Stranraer in the west to Eyemouth in the east.

We must have a clear communication strategy, so that businesses, colleges and universities and the third sector, including social enterprises, can be fully aware of the services that the agency will provide and how they will benefit from those services. That was highlighted in the conclusions of the committee’s report. When the committee was in Galashiels, it was highlighted that the agency must have a clear statement of ambition and resources, rather than simply being created with the hope that it will work.

We look forward to strengthening the bill further to meet the needs of local people, with amendments at stage 2 and stage 3. After far too long a waiting period, we owe it to the south of Scotland to ensure that this piece of legislation can truly meet its demands.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

It is a privilege to open the debate on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill on behalf of Scottish Labour, and to welcome the bill. It is a decade since the Government abolished Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise and Scottish Borders Enterprise. I believe that, with hindsight, that decision will be seen as a mistake. Yes, it allowed more democratic accountability for the economic development functions that were subsequently transferred to local councils, but, when other powers were centralised to Scottish Enterprise, the remit and direction that were given to Scottish Enterprise from Government ministers meant that the south of Scotland lost out.

That is why since then I have, along with many others, campaigned vigorously for better support for the south of Scotland’s economy. In my first speech in the chamber in May 2016, I called for

“a radical change in the remit of Government agencies”

in order to deliver that better support. I made this point in that first speech:

“It is simply unfair that a business in the Highlands and Islands can receive support, but—because the remit of Highlands and Islands Enterprise is different from that of Scottish Enterprise—the same business would not receive the same support if it was based in the south of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 31 May 2016; c 40.]

I have campaigned against that fundamental inequality for a decade, including as chair of Dumfries and Galloway Council’s economy committee and as the chair of the south of Scotland alliance. It was clear to me in those roles that the south of Scotland was a forgotten region and that the substantial economic challenges that we faced were simply not being addressed.

One challenge is the chronic level of low pay. It is a scandal that average earnings in Dumfries and Galloway are £11.52 per hour, compared with a national average of £14.30, which makes the region the lowest paid in Scotland. There is also a real skills shortage in the area. Just over a quarter of the population of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders are graduates, but the national figure is more than a third. There are also low levels of productivity and growth. Gross value added per person in Dumfries and Galloway is 21 per cent lower than the national average and is 26 per cent lower in the Borders.

As a result of those and many other economic weaknesses, many of our young people simply leave the area because of the lack of high-pay and high-skill employment opportunities. That has given the region a real demographic challenge. The percentage of the population that is of working age in Dumfries and Galloway is 59 per cent, compared with a national average of 64 per cent.

It is not just that those challenges are not being tackled: the opportunities, strengths and potential of the area are also currently not being realised. I am privileged to live in the south of Scotland. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and it has historical and cultural heritage to rival that of anywhere in the country. However, tourism—important though it is to the region—is still in many ways untapped.

There are sectors that have a reputation for excellence—forestry, energy, arts and culture and more—that offer real opportunities for the future, but need better support in order to develop. We have a strong small-business base, although that has a negative as well as a positive effect. When the area is hit by an economic tsunami, such as the closure of Pinneys of Scotland, it is difficult for small businesses alone to absorb the number of people who are looking for employment. The number of small businesses means that there is potential for many of those businesses to grow, with the right level of support.

Our strategic location also means that parts of the region are just two hours’ travel from 14 million people—14 million potential customers in the central belt and the north of England.

Crucially, among the people who live there, there is a real community spirit, with desire and determination to make the south of Scotland better. That determination is one of the reasons why there is such strong support in the area for the bill to establish the south of Scotland enterprise agency.

Crucially, the agency will have a social element and will allow businesses and enterprises to receive support that they simply do not receive from the existing Scottish Enterprise model. Therefore, Labour very much supports the bill, and we will support its principles when we vote later today.

However, we would like it to be amended to make a number of significant improvements, as it makes its way through the parliamentary process. We believe that the aims of the agency should be strengthened. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has said that the aims have been drafted to provide a high level of flexibility, but we believe that more direction is needed and that that should include a focus on inclusive growth and recognition of the demographic challenges that the area faces.

We support Community Land Scotland’s call for the bill to include specific reference to community ownership. In its submission, it rightly highlighted the huge discrepancy across Scotland in respect of the 560,000 acres of land in community ownership, almost 530,000 acres of which are in the Highlands and Islands, compared with just 800 acres in the south of Scotland. Supporting community ownership should be a key aim of the new agency.

We believe that supporting the enhancement of transport networks and supporting digital connectivity should also be key aims. I know that the cabinet secretary did not share that view when he gave evidence to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee; he pointed out that other agencies have that role. However, the same could be said about the proposed aim to enhance skills: it could be argued that Skills Development Scotland has that role. I believe that that approach ignores the leadership role that the new agency should have. I want the agency to take the lead—to bring people together and to drive the change that we need in order to grow the economy of the south of Scotland. Improvement of transport and digital infrastructure should always be at the heart of that change.

In creating the new agency, we have an opportunity to embed values and aspirations from the very start, including the principle of fair work. In its submission to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, the Scottish Trades Union Congress rightly called for the bill to be amended so that the agency’s aims include specific commitments on promoting collective bargaining and advancing fair work, as defined by the fair work convention. It also called for proper workforce recognition on the board of the new agency. Labour fully endorses those suggested changes to the bill.

If the new agency is to work effectively, it needs to be driven by, and be accountable to, the communities that it serves. That was the overwhelming message from the people of the south of Scotland in submissions to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. When the committee visited Dumfries and Galashiels, attendance levels at and engagement in the events highlighted the real support for the new agency.

In giving evidence to the committee in Dumfries, the leader of Dumfries and Galloway Council, Elaine Murray, noted:

“The new agency will be accountable to ministers, but it does not say anywhere in the bill that it will be accountable to the people of the south of Scotland.”

In the same session, the chair of the south of Scotland economic partnership, Professor Russel Griggs, stated:

“In the end, it is the people of the south of Scotland who should manage the new agency while a governing body runs it from day to day.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 14 January 2019; c 19-20, 21.]

In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government said that it supports the principle of local accountability, but with ministers making decisions on the location of the headquarters, on the first chief executive, on the chair and members of the board, on signing off the action plan and on issuing of direction, that principle is not very obvious in the bill as drafted.

I hope that, as the bill progresses, it will be amended to include a clear legal requirement for the new agency to consult and report on performance to the most important people—that is, the people of the south of Scotland, who have the biggest stake in it. The new agency must be rooted in the south of Scotland: it needs to have the local membership, the budget and the powers that are required to deliver the real change that the south of Scotland needs. It must be an agency that is very much for the south and from the south.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Parliament is at its best when its members are doing scrutiny work in committees; that is where we see the best collaborative work. Not everyone will agree with every word of the report that the committee produced, but that is the nature of the process. We must try to find consensus: there was unanimity about the bill being very worth while. That is certainly the view of the Scottish Green Party, which will support its general principles at decision time tonight.

A couple of members have said that the south of Scotland has felt forgotten. If that was previously a perception or reality for people, it is certainly not the case now.

I was a bit confused by Finlay Carson, who I thought had inadvertently turned up at the wrong debate. However, after he had completed a lengthy list of demands of the public sector, but also referred to, I think, “too much public sector”, I realised that his speech was just the usual Tory contribution.

One issue that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard about, and which a couple of members have referred to, is where the south of Scotland is. That is written at the top of my notes. There was a lot of debate about the bill’s scope. The Highlands and Islands Development Board—Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s predecessor—had an advantage in that there was, very much, a binding together of the crofting communities. We heard representations about the needs of communities in South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire. Another point is that we can have communities of interest, as well as geographic communities.

However, as we have heard from some members, the borders counties have a history of working together; they also have a close association and long-standing links with communities on the other side of the border, which are being strengthened. That suggests that the agency’s proposed scope is appropriate, and the committee took that on board. We heard that, as happens with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, there would be scope, when a common interest goes beyond the new agency’s geographic boundaries, to support that interest. Indeed, Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been assisting in relation to the bill.

When we were in Dumfries, I spoke to a great number of people and—typically—they spoke about issues in Dumfries, just as people elsewhere speak about their areas, because everything is local. The measure of the bill will be in how locals gauge its effect. The new agency is needed. Finlay Carson mentioned that it was in the Conservative manifesto; it was also in the Scottish Green Party manifesto. The committee’s report said that there is “no doubt” that the agency is required. Creating the agency sends a positive signal. If one signal is that the south of Scotland is not a forgotten part of Scotland, that will be positive.

I was interested to know about the existing arrangements with Scottish Enterprise, so I would be concerned if the bill lets it off the hook in any way. Scottish Enterprise has a role—albeit limited—in the Highlands and Islands, for example, so we will need to look at its role. The committee’s report said that the new

“agency should enhance the current support landscape”,

which includes Scottish Enterprise,

“rather than adversely impact on ... existing provision.”

We heard from the cabinet secretary that the bill was informed by the people of the south of Scotland. The committee’s convener talked about the huge level of support, and Colin Smyth talked about the community spirit in the region. The committee heard about the south of Scotland economic partnership and the solid foundation that it put in place. Credit is due to Professor Griggs and his team, because it was apparent from everything that we heard that they had been out and about and engaging with people.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s strength is very much in its community links and its social responsibility aspect. The new agency will produce an uplift in that in the south of Scotland.

I am a proud highlander and a representative of the Highlands and Islands, but this is not a competition with north versus south or Highlands versus Lowlands. The new agency should complement existing arrangements. We should all be keen to ensure that frailties in our communities are addressed.

There are huge differences between the north and the south, not least in relation to land and the traditional patterns of land ownership. In the short time that is left, I will talk about that. Dr Calum Macleod of Community Land Scotland gave us extremely interesting input. He said:

“One of the south’s interesting assets is land.”

It is interesting to compare the figures—I have them here—for community land ownership. Of the 562,000 acres of land that are in community ownership in Scotland, the vast majority is in the Highlands and Islands; in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, 794 acres of land are in community ownership. Community Land Scotland argues that one of the main barriers to changing that is in the culture and the thinking about where opportunities lie. I recall that Barbara Elborn of Newcastleton & District Community Trust gave evidence that

“Newcastleton has recently taken on and established its own community assets, and that ownership has engendered a feeling in the community to drive things forward.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 14 January 2019; c 27, 28.]

I hope that the bill will do precisely that in respect of community ownership, community transport and the community spirit that has been referred to.

Continuing engagement will be required. The need to collaborate is clear; no one wants duplication, which is why co-location is important. This is not about having a new shiny headquarters; it is about people sitting side by side at desks to work for the benefit of the people of the south of Scotland.

The challenges, which are noted in our report, are demographics, wages and fragile communities. Those will remain, so further action on them will be needed. It was mentioned that the area is losing young people. The reverse is true in the Highlands and Islands, which is to be welcomed.

The Greens will support the general principles of the bill at decision time tonight.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I am very pleased to speak in this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. There is no doubt in my mind of the real need for a south of Scotland enterprise agency—an agency that is based in the south of Scotland, for people who live in the south of Scotland.

As an MSP who represents the north-east of Scotland, I am somewhat jealous—if that is the right word—of the setting up of a new agency for the south of Scotland, given that I believe that having such an agency for the north-east would be of great benefit, too. I have no wish to add to the cabinet secretary’s huge workload, but perhaps that is an idea for a future Scottish Government bill.

The point about the new south of Scotland enterprise agency is that it will not replace Scottish Enterprise but will be complementary to it. However, perhaps we need to look again at how our agencies work together to achieve the aims that are set out in the bill. In particular, we need to look at the financial arrangements for each organisation that is involved in economic, social and environmental issues.

Edward Mountain, the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, of which I am a member, pointed out in his speech that the financial memorandum that accompanies the bill anticipates a budget of about £42 million for the agency. During the committee’s visits to the south of Scotland, there was much discussion in our evidence-taking sessions of whether that £42 million was new money and new investment for the region. I am not making a party-political point—the people who gave us evidence raised that as a genuine point, to which they wanted to know the answer.

When the cabinet secretary gave evidence to the committee, he told us that the £42 million would, indeed, be the agency’s budget in year 3, and that that would be an increase in the overall funding for the area. However, he was unable to say how much of an increase it would be. I find that surprising; I would have thought that if the cabinet secretary was able to say that it would be an increase in funding, logically, he should know the current funding for economic development in the south of Scotland.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Notwithstanding the line of argument that the member is developing, does he agree that there would be some benefit in transferring control of existing funding to an agency that was based in the Borders?

Mike Rumbles

I heartily concur—there is obvious benefit in doing that. I repeat that I am not trying to be party political. The people from whom we took evidence—and the member was there—were interested to know whether there would be a genuine increase in funding. Some of the people who currently receive funding want to know whether their budgets will be cut, so it is a reasonable question to ask.

Fergus Ewing

Mr Rumbles makes a fair point, and I will revert to the committee, as I undertook to do, in due course.

Scottish Enterprise is the existing economic agency that serves the whole of Scotland, other than the HIE area. Not all of Scottish Enterprise’s expenditure is geographically identifiable. Much of its expenditure relates to schemes that apply to the whole country. Therefore, in order to compute the precise amount of money from the Scottish Enterprise budget that is attributable to the south of Scotland, it is necessary to make an apportionment of that part of its expenditure that is nationally based. That is one complexity.

Another complexity is that an awful lot of the expenditure, which totalled £1.2 billion over 2017-18, applies to economic development that was not in the grant of Scottish Enterprise but came from other agencies.

I am just saying that, as with so many things, government is more complicated than perhaps we would like.

Mike Rumbles

I entirely accept what the cabinet secretary has said—I just hope that work is being done to give us an estimate.

I turn to the issue of ensuring broad representation on the enterprise agency’s board, which is also a matter of particular concern to the people who gave us evidence on our visits to Dumfries and Galashiels.

The cabinet secretary will be pleased to hear—this surprised me—that there was little concern over the fact that Scottish ministers would appoint the board members. People seem to be quite happy with that approach. However, there was concern about exactly how the Scottish Government intended to ensure that a broad and representative board would be in place from the start. For instance, we were told that there are 2,300 voluntary organisations of one kind or another in the region—that is a heck of a lot—and that it would be difficult for just one person to represent such a wide variety of organisations.

Others said that they want the new agency to do things differently, and to actually address economic, social, environmental and cultural issues. If it was to do that, they said, it would need grass-roots accountability. We know what the cabinet secretary’s intentions are, but we would like to know exactly how he will ensure that he gets the membership of the board right, and how he envisages the board being accountable to the local people whom it will serve. Such things are not easy to do, and I would appreciate more certainty on how they are to be achieved.

This is a good bill and I congratulate the cabinet secretary on introducing it. The Liberal Democrats whole-heartedly support the bill and we look forward to voting for it at decision time, and to examining in detail some of the issues that I have raised today when it returns to the committee at stage 2.

I have kept just within my six minutes, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

Thank you, Mr Rumbles.

As is very typical, I have some time in hand today. We move to the open debate. I ask for speeches of six minutes, please, although I can allow extra time for interventions.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

I believe that the proposal to create a bespoke south of Scotland enterprise agency was in the manifesto of not only the Scottish National Party’s manifesto at the most recent Scottish Parliament elections, which is probably why, from the outset, committee consideration of the bill has benefited from a large degree of consensus—something that is not afforded to many bills in the Parliament.

I, too, thank the clerks, security, the official report, broadcasting and all who made the official committee meeting in Dumfries such a success. I thank all members of the public who turned up to that meeting and to the evening meeting in Galashiels, and the witnesses who came before the committee, whose input was very valuable in our deliberations. The wide interest in the bill should remind Parliament how important it is for us to get oot and aboot.

We have already heard that the economy of the south of Scotland is unique and requires its own agency, and that the area requires more attention than perhaps it has had. The current agency, Scottish Enterprise, account manages 107 companies in the region—42 in Dumfries and Galloway and 65 in the Borders. In the past two years, Scottish Enterprise has spent between £3 million and £5 million annually in grants and services, and has supported companies that are either headquartered in the area or that are headquartered elsewhere but have operations in the area.

We have heard comparisons with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and what it has been able to achieve. However, in and of itself, the creation of an agency is not a panacea; the issue is what it can do. Not everyone in the Highlands is satisfied with HIE, but it is based in the Highlands, covers the Highlands, is staffed by people who live in the Highlands and is served by board members who have the interests of the Highlands very much at heart. There have been many successes there.

In the evidence that we have taken, there has been a degree of confusion about the role of Scottish Enterprise vis-à-vis the roles of other agencies. Encouraging economic growth is the work of a number of bodies, including Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and local authorities, and I am pleased that those bodies have been working together in the south of Scotland.

In some quarters, there is a notion that all would be well if Scottish Enterprise could attract a few big employers to the south of Scotland. I hope that we have learned from recent history, and indeed the current situation with Brexit, that although inward investment is very welcome—and Scottish Development International works hard on that—in a global world, companies can and will locate anywhere in the world. Those companies carry a degree of risk.

Therefore, I hope that the new south of Scotland enterprise agency will be a catalyst for the growth of indigenous companies, given the wealth of resources in the region. In other debates in Parliament, we increasingly talk about embedding the rural economy in everything that we do. That approach will be vital if we are to recognise the huge contribution that our rural areas make to our country through the provision of food and drink, including water, tackling climate change and protecting our environment. We have a great opportunity to support that work through the bill.

Let me give an example. As a dairy farmer’s daughter, I am puzzled as to why, in an area such as the south-west, with its abundance of grass and increasing concentration of Scotland’s dairy farmers, we do not see the emergence of companies like Mackie’s, which is based in the north-east, and Graham’s, which is based in the heart of Scotland. I know that there is great Galloway ice cream, and I am sure that there are opportunities to develop and grow companies in the area on the back of the success of dairy products.

Oliver Mundell

I thank the member for making the point about the importance of indigenous companies. However, does she acknowledge that we have Roan’s dairy and a number of cheese producers, such as Arla in Lockerbie in my constituency, which, together with the presence of Scotland’s Rural College, are examples of the dairy industry doing very well in the south of Scotland?

Maureen Watt

Yes. We should build on that success, but the fact is that too much of our milk still goes south of the border to be processed and made into other products.

With a little encouragement and support from the new south of Scotland enterprise agency and its partners, I am sure that the growth of similar enterprises is possible. We know from the National Council of Rural Advisers that there is the drive and ambition among our young people in agriculture and other land-based enterprises. We just need a catalyst and focus for that to happen. Similarly, downstream activities from the huge forest areas in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders are ripe for development locally.

Land ownership was mentioned during the committee’s deliberations. There is little doubt that, in the Highlands and Islands, community buy-outs have provided an opportunity for new thinking and new ways of working. Like Colin Smyth, I would like further developments in that area, so that we can provide similar opportunities in the south of Scotland.

The tourism industry is also ripe for growth, as more and more people see Scotland as a great destination. I congratulate my colleague Emma Harper on her promotion of the south-west coastal 300—not to compete with the north coast 500, but to enhance tourism in Scotland. The bill should be a catalyst for improving tourist attractions and accommodation in the south of Scotland, in order to attract more tourists to the region.

Many people see the ageing population as a threat, but I would rather see it as an opportunity, as many older people have significant levels of disposable income. Community enterprises are building on that

Throughout the committee’s evidence taking and deliberations, I was conscious that many businesses in the south of Scotland are in the low-wage economy. It is vital that more businesses pay the living wage and more, and that fair work is at the heart of what they do. That, in itself, will uplift the whole economy, as those who live in the area will have more disposable income.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Draw to a close, please.

Maureen Watt

Like John Finnie, I congratulate Russel Griggs on providing the basis for the new enterprise agency.

Many people in the south of Scotland have a can-do attitude, rather than the woe-is-me attitude that we heard from Finlay Carson. I am sure that we can build on the positive mental attitude and drive that we have seen in the south of Scotland, and I look forward to further consideration of the bill at stage 2 and beyond.

Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

I am pleased to speak in today’s debate and even more pleased that we have arrived at this point. Parliament’s recognition of the unique interests and needs of the south of Scotland has been long overdue, so, in this the 20th year of devolution, it is pleasing that Parliament and Government are finally recognising the ambition of Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders.

It is genuinely great—and it is greatly appreciated—to hear members across the chamber talking up the potential of the south of Scotland. There is no doubt that the creation of the new agency, alongside the recently announced Borderlands growth deal, has the potential to reverse the economic fortunes of our region. In many senses, it recognises for the first time the unique cross-border dynamics in the area and the fact that, for my constituents, what happens in Carlisle is every bit as important as what happens here in Edinburgh or, for that matter, Glasgow. In doing so, it says that a one-size-fits-all approach undervalues and underresources our communities and fails to capture the strength and potential that we have as a diverse nation.

In addition, the creation of the new agency takes on board the feeling of many people in the south of Scotland that our area is distinct from the central belt and that “remote and rural” is not a term that applies only in the Highlands and Islands. It also recognises that devolution was never just about centralising decision making and that, when it comes to important decisions about the future of our economy, local and regional views and perspectives really matter.

Beyond the geographical reason, the other vital reason for the creation of the new agency is to ensure that we have high-skilled opportunities for young people who want to join the workforce. Just as we struggle in other remote and rural parts of Scotland, it is clear that there has been an exodus of young people from the south of Scotland. Without a vibrant economy that creates high-skilled jobs and opportunities and has its eyes firmly set on the future, we stand no chance of reversing that trend. Equally, we need to ensure that the locally available skill set matches—in so far as that is possible—the needs of the businesses that are there already and are looking to grow and expand their operations.

I do not want to spend too much of my speech focusing on the negative, because the creation of the new agency is a good news story, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight to the Parliament and other members that, as the committee has concluded, there is a strong feeling in the south of Scotland that Scottish Enterprise has served our region poorly and has, in some senses, failed to meet the perceived needs of the business community and the local economy.

Mike Rumbles

Although that was true in Dumfries, it was not true of what the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee heard when it went to Galashiels, as I am sure that the convener of our committee can confirm, where quite a number of people were positive about Scottish Enterprise.

Oliver Mundell

I appreciate Mike Rumbles’s input. Naturally, as the constituency member for Dumfriesshire, my knowledge is based and my attention is focused on what is happening in my community, where there is a feeling that Scottish Enterprise is predominantly interested in large companies and companies that create a large number of jobs.

Fergus Ewing

By its nature, Scottish Enterprise is interested in larger companies, because the business gateway, which is operated under the auspices of local authorities, serves smaller businesses.

Would Mr Mundell agree that the hard work of Scottish Enterprise and others contributed to the success in Annan, which he welcomed, where a promise of £9 million of investment and 120 jobs has been secured? Is that not an example of success by Scottish Enterprise and the very hard-working individuals who work for the organisation, who I think deserve a bit of credit?

Oliver Mundell

I take Mr Ewing’s point in the spirit in which it is offered. My experience since entering Parliament is that Scottish Enterprise failed to identify that Young’s Seafood was planning to leave the site in Annan and failed to identify in a timely manner that there were problems in Dumfries at Penman Engineering. On a number of other occasions, it failed to get on top of, and it underestimated the importance of, the problems that companies that employ large numbers of people in the region were facing. I think that most people who live in the region recognise that it is our small and medium-sized enterprises that will be the engine room for growth. Those are the companies that are there already and that have kept going and kept working hard when the south of Scotland has been unfashionable for Governments of different political colours in the Parliament over the past 20 years. They are dedicated and care passionately about our economy, and they love our region. They are the people who need to be supported by the Government.

Saying that small and medium-sized enterprises are a matter for council organisations with much smaller budgets than an enterprise agency, and without its resources, expertise and strategic overview across the whole region, does not match the ambition that I feel for my region. That is why I am pleased that, albeit belatedly, the Scottish Government has come to share the view of those who have been campaigning for the agency for the last few decades. Today is about those people, and I pay tribute to them, because this is their prize for all their hard work. We should not lose sight of that.

I want to see something that looks like Highland and Islands Enterprise agency. We in the south of Scotland are coming late to the table, but that does not mean that we cannot get there. I issue a word of caution: Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been around for a long time and we cannot expect the new agency to immediately replicate it. The biggest challenge that the new agency faces is that of expectation management. People are ready to see the step change. I hope that we can allow an organisation to come together that can share our ambition to grow and develop, that will bang the drum for our region and ensure a place-based approach that drives forward growth, as well as ensuring that our region is no longer forgotten.

Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)

I am delighted to speak in the debate and to welcome the new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland. I welcome the committee’s findings. I note that a number of comments have been made about the board of the future agency. I suggest that people look at what is happening at the moment with the south of Scotland enterprise partnership board, because that points to the direction of the future agency. The SOSEP board has been appointed by ministers and it includes some fantastic local entrepreneurs and social enterprise activists such as Tracey Roan from a family dairy business in Galloway, Amanda Burgauer from Scottish Rural Action and Professor Sir Russel Griggs, who is a resident of the south of Scotland.

I regularly speak to members of the SOSEP board, including Professor Sir Russel Griggs. Only this week, I raised an issue on behalf of my constituent, and he got back to me straight away. He also outlined a little bit about the direction of travel for SOSEP, which, if members will bear with me, merits quoting, because it was very encouraging. He pointed out that the consultation work that SOSEP did last year involved speaking to 90 businesses across the south, and he outlined some key themes that emerged, on which the significant amount of extra money that SOSEP has is being spent.

The first theme was

“Supporting our young people to learn new and different skills that they cannot currently access in the south”

which is key to the significant grant given to the colleges for that kind of learning.

The second theme was

“focussed on growing enterprises and ... communities who have the ambition and desire to want to grow and ... create new businesses and help their existing businesses.”

The third theme was:

“An integrated public transport system”

that

“is at the top of businesses list”.

He intends to focus on that, which is particularly important for young people to access work and college. That gives an example of how in touch the current SOSEP board is and it bodes well for the future and the future agency.

Since I was elected to represent the south of Scotland in 2011, I have consistently raised the need to address its unique challenges. In particular, when I sat on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in the 2011 to 2016 parliamentary session, I was repeatedly reminded that many communities and businesses in the south felt that their needs required business support that was more tailored to smaller companies.

Such businesses in rural areas may not grow as fast as those in cities, but they are often the linchpin of the community, sustaining not just jobs but schools, the high street and smaller businesses further down the supply chain. Small and medium-sized enterprises have found it hard to access support. That applies not only to public sector support: there have also been challenges with accessing bank lending post 2008. That issue came up a lot in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in the previous session of Parliament and is another reason why a bespoke solution is needed.

I am therefore absolutely delighted that the Scottish National Party is delivering that bespoke solution and that it is focused on the community development approach that has been pioneered so successfully by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Of course, the new agency will be by and from the south, while taking the best of what we have learned from HIE. I am delighted that we have a commitment from the cabinet secretary that the agency in the south will mirror HIE’s capital spending per head—that is really good news.

As has been said, the south of Scotland has a different and distinct rural economy, with wide-ranging and significant opportunities. It is a really beautiful area that has long played an important part in the history of the Scottish economy. It has nurtured our textile industry, its agriculture and forestry sectors are thriving and it has a growing tourism industry. VisitScotland’s new see south Scotland campaign is another initiative that is happening in the region as a result of action by the SNP Government. I was absolutely delighted to co-host an event about that campaign with my colleague Rachael Hamilton MSP. I think that we can agree that the level of enthusiasm at the event showed that things are happening in the south of Scotland, which has to be good for the young people of the region.

As has been said, support for the agency is echoed by people right across the south of Scotland, where the vast majority of people support it. I particularly welcome the committee’s finding that the new agency should build on the work of Scottish Enterprise in the south. I recognise the point that some small businesses make, which has also been made by members today, that the focus on high-growth companies has not always been appropriate for small family-owned businesses in rural areas. However, we should not take anything away from the fact that large manufacturing companies in the south that I have spoken to are very happy with the support that they receive from Scottish Enterprise.

To give just one example of that, I recently helped with an intervention relating to Jas P Wilson, which is a manufacturer of harvesting equipment for the forestry industry that is based in Dalbeattie. It has been working closely with the Government on developing the young workforce, and it hires a lot of local apprentices and provides high-quality jobs. Coming together with the banks and Scottish Enterprise has helped the company to develop its business so that it can have a proper sales office. The company serves the forestry industry not just in the south of Scotland but all over Europe. It is a good example of an exporter in the south of Scotland that is being helped by Scottish Enterprise. I know from speaking to the family that runs the company that they are keen that the level of expertise in Scottish Enterprise, which they appreciate, is continued in the new agency, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be.

I welcome the new agency, which could not come at a more appropriate time, given the challenges that the south of Scotland faces from Brexit. No new agency can be a panacea for that, but I wish it all the best, and I am delighted to support the bill.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

I welcome the bill, which will create the south of Scotland enterprise agency. I am pleased that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee agreed to the principles of the bill in its recent stage 1 report. I am not a member of that committee, but South Scotland is my region and I have taken the issue seriously for a long time. I am particularly happy that the committee has recommended amending the aim for the agency to

“improve the amenity and environment”,

and supplementing it at stage 2 to make specific mention of

“the sustainable use of the environment”.

It is imperative that that vital recommendation goes through at stage 2. I wish the committee well with that, and with its recommendations on

“encouraging the development of a sustainable economy ... supporting the enhancement of transport networks and digital connectivity”

and

“supporting community land ownership and assets ownership”.

I support those recommendations being taken forward as the bill progresses.

Community Land Scotland recently pointed out the staggering figure, which we have heard from other members today, that more than half a million acres of land in the Highlands and Islands are community owned. In contrast, the Scottish Government estimates that a mere 794 acres of land in the south of Scotland are in community ownership. Given that Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, which are the areas that will be covered by the new enterprise agency, form only part of the south of Scotland, that is a very low figure.

Since the outset of the possibility of a new enterprise agency that is specific to the south of Scotland, I have argued that it must have a social and environmental remit, and I am pleased that the REC Committee has come to the same conclusion at stage 1. However, it is disappointing that that was not initially included in the bill, which perhaps shows a lack of focus on those important issues from the Government.

I and other members have already highlighted that land justice is one of the most important issues with regard to the bill. However, I will go into it a little more detail, as the issue is very important to Scottish Labour. A slightly longer quote from Community Land Scotland highlights the issue very well, so, if people will bear with me, I will read it.

“One of the most important factors in helping to nurture the growth of community land ownership in the Highlands and Islands was the creation of the Community Land Unit in Highlands and Islands Enterprise in 1997.

In the intervening period it has provided invaluable technical, financial and capacity-building support to community groups in terms of purchasing and managing land and other assets.

A comparable service is vital for the south of Scotland to help kick-start an expansion in community ownership there similar to the surge that has occurred in such ownership in the Highlands and Islands over the last 25 years.”

I thank members for bearing with me as I read that out. It makes an important point with regard to community development in the south. That development is happening, but it needs more support.

Last year, I met Professor Russel Griggs in Clydesdale to discuss the good work that the SOSEP was doing through the consultation process that it was carrying out at that point. We also discussed the need for better-connected rural communities—on which I am sure we can agree across the chamber—where good-quality education and jobs can be provided in the community. I was pleased to see the REC Committee’s report address those issues with regard to the purpose of the bill.

Can the cabinet secretary say how the agency will support co-operative development, which is important in my region, and the development of SMEs? I often hear that there is a big challenge regarding not just starting up SMEs, but their development. As my colleague Colin Smyth has often argued, tailored support is needed.

I welcome the assurances that were given to the REC Committee with regard to the remit and boundaries of the new agency, and that it will be flexible in working along its boundaries, as John Finnie highlighted. It will be of no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the less well-connected communities along the outside boundary of the proposed agency—such as Ayrshire and Clydesdale—feel left out. I am aware that the issues are addressed in the REC Committee’s report and I accept the reasons for the boundaries being where they are, in that they are coterminous with local authorities. However, I point out to the cabinet secretary that few people in Clydesdale feel that they are closely connected to Glasgow, and the idea that the Glasgow city region deal is somehow a replacement will not put many of my constituents in Clydesdale at ease.

I therefore call on the Scottish Government to do more to support those areas through Scottish Enterprise, as they are suffering the same real need for investment as the areas in the new agency’s geographical area, but will not get the same level of focused support under a social remit. I hope that the cabinet secretary will answer some of those concerns in his closing remarks. I support the principles of the bill, as does Scottish Labour, and I welcome this important development for part of my region.

Alex Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)

Like everyone else, I welcome the arrival of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. It is an excellent proposal, as we would expect from Mr Ewing, who has a great track record of bringing forward visionary proposals for the economy. However, I would like to make a number of points that might differ from what others have said, because I want to concentrate on what the new agency can do to galvanise the economies of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders.

The first thing to say is that we are not dealing with one homogenous economy in the south of Scotland. In effect, we are dealing with two regional economies—those of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders—and in their external communications they tend to orient themselves towards the north and the south, and sometimes the west in the case of Dumfries and Galloway and its connections to Northern Ireland, rather than to each other. In the future, we need to invest in cross-country roads and infrastructure to improve the connectivity between the east and the west. In Scotland, outside the central belt, the connectivity between the east and the west is much poorer than the connectivity running from north to south and from south to north.

Brian Whittle (South Scotland) (Con)

Will the member take an intervention?

Oliver Mundell

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Neil

I will in a minute.

The economy of the south of Scotland would benefit from investment in cross-country roads and infrastructure.

Brian Whittle is going to ask me whether I agree that the A77 from Ayr to Stranraer should be dualled. My answer is, “Absolutely.” I give way to Mr Whittle.

Brian Whittle

I refer members to the answer that Mr Neil gave a moment ago. [Laughter.]

Alex Neil

I am not saying that the Tories are always predictable, but there we go.

The fundamental, serious point here is that the creation of the south of Scotland enterprise agency with the remit that it will have is essential to the regeneration of the south of Scotland economy in both Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders and will help to make it genuinely a much more homogenous economy. However, it will succeed in the long run only if there is a major—and I mean major—investment in infrastructure in both Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders.

Oliver Mundell

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Neil

I will in a minute.

I will give an example. Cairnryan port is the single biggest port in Scotland, yet the A77 is a disgrace south of Ayr. The idea that we could grow Cairnryan port to its full potential without dualling the A77 is just nonsensical. That is a prerequisite. However, it cannot be done tomorrow morning. I suggest that, to support the work of the new enterprise agency, the local authorities and all the key players, there should be a 15 to 20-year national infrastructure investment plan for the south of Scotland, which should foresee major road improvements, including to the A77, the A75 and the A76 on the Dumfries and Galloway side and the A1 and numerous other roads in the Borders, and east-west connections.

John Finnie

I share the member’s view on east-west connections, but will he acknowledge that, with four of the parties in this Parliament being committed to £6 billion of expenditure on two roads, none of that is realistic?

Alex Neil

When I was the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, I was told by officials that it was not realistic to plan to dual the A9 and the A96. We are going to have the A9 done by 2025 and the A96 dualled between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. It took an SNP Government to actually do that, which had been promised for many years but never delivered.

Finlay Carson

Given that a review of the road and rail infrastructure in the south of Scotland is going to be published very soon, does the member agree that, if any projects are identified that it is important to bring forward quickly, they should be accelerated ahead of the national strategic transport review?

Alex Neil

My view is very simple and straightforward. It is that, to unleash the full potential of the south of Scotland economy in both Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, we need a major—

Oliver Mundell

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Neil

I have taken enough.

We need a major upgrade in infrastructure, and primarily transport infrastructure. I have said that that has to be done over a 15 to 20-year period for the reason that Mr Finnie suggested: that the resources are just not there to do it in the shorter term. If there are shorter-term opportunities, we should seize them as quickly as possible, because economic development relies on modern transport hubs and modern infrastructure. If we cannot get the investment for modern infrastructure, we will not realise the full potential that can be delivered by the new agency and, more widely, by the south of Scotland economy.

My second point relates to the remit of the agency, which Joan McAlpine touched on. One of the major reasons why the HIDB and, subsequently, HIE have been so successful in the past 54 years is that, unlike the Scottish Development Agency or Scottish Enterprise, they have always had a social and community development remit. In order to regenerate our rural communities, particularly remote rural communities, we need that combined remit. I welcome the fact that the Government has given the new agency the same kind of remit as was given to the Highlands and Islands Development Board in 1965.

My final point is in relation to the role of the agency and where it can add real value. It seems that there are two broad areas. One is that there are many indigenous resources—including the people, the land, forestry and tourism—in Dumfries and Galloway and in the Borders whose potential has come nowhere near being realised. Therefore, the broad remit should be to exploit those existing industries and that potential much more fully. The second area is that we also need to grow more new high-tech industries in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. If we are going to raise wages, gross value added and the business start-up rate, we need to be talking about the industries of tomorrow, which means moving into the tech area. Without going into too much detail, as I am just finishing, that is another area in which both Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders have huge potential, which has been grossly underrealised until now.

Michelle Ballantyne (South Scotland) (Con)

I am pleased to represent my party and my constituents in the debate on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill.

As others have mentioned, the bill seeks to set up a new public body with the aim of encouraging economic growth, business development and employment in the Borders. I declare an interest in that, 30 years ago, we came back to the Borders to do just that, and we were greeted then by an arrangement called the SDA, which was basically a couple of men in a small temporary building. I have to say that they were excellent. They were persuasive, very helpful and very active, and we went on to build our business in the Borders, where it continues to thrive.

Over 30 years, we have seen a lot of changes, with Scottish Enterprise coming in and its remit changing. I was a member of the south of Scotland economic partnership during my time as a councillor, and we had a lot of discussions about what we really needed in the south of Scotland. No matter whether someone was there as a business representative or as a political representative, the one thing on which we all agreed was that we needed an agency that was south of Scotland-centric. We needed someone who actually understood what we needed, looked at what was going on, worked closely with small, medium-sized and large enterprises and who did not have a focus that was only about a national strategic interest.

From a cross-party point of view, we are all going to support the bill. I hope that, as it goes through the various stages, the discussions will be very much focused on what is best for the south of Scotland. The Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway face a particular set of economic challenges, which have been highlighted by some members in the debate. Therefore, those areas are particularly well suited to sustaining a local body that is dedicated to inclusive growth.

Nevertheless, I am heartened by the amount of investment that has gone into the south of Scotland recently. That investment has been made by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and I hope that we will not get to the stage where we are arguing about who has done what and who is the most important, because that belittles what has been done. What is happening is very important. The next decade will see the Borderlands growth deal, with £150 million of funding dedicated to the Scottish Borders. I am hopeful that the south of Scotland enterprise agency will be at the forefront of assisting businesses and local groups with the management of that investment, however it is allocated.

Much has been made of the economic challenges that we face in the south of Scotland. I think that the new enterprise agency will be adept at highlighting local issues, but there are several areas on which I want to see a bit of a focus. One of the biggest areas of concern, certainly in the Scottish Borders, is digital connectivity. It is no secret that the Scottish Borders is lagging behind in the roll-out of superfast broadband. In fact, Borderers’ access to superfast broadband is 10 per cent below the national average. At the moment, the bill does not include any powers over digital connectivity. However, if business innovation and competition are to be treated holistically by the agency, it would be somewhat remiss not to mention digital connectivity in that connection. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy does not want the new agency to be lumbered with the expectation that it will solve issues around digital connectivity problems, particularly as it will lack the budget to do so, but I am concerned that the lack of any reference to digital connectivity will leave the agency hamstrung when it is trying to attract or assist new businesses, especially those that seek to break into the new technology industry, which Alex Neil talked about.

Fergus Ewing

I agree that digital connectivity and the physical connectivity that Alex Neil talked about are key to economic development. However, I point out that, under the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme, a sum of £133 million has been earmarked to improve connectivity, and, in particular, access to superfast broadband at the level of, I think, 30 Mbps. That is entirely separate from the work that the Scottish Government is doing in relation to the south of Scotland enterprise agency. I would have thought that everybody, including the Scottish Tories, would welcome that £133 million investment in the south of Scotland, with the aim of providing access to superfast broadband extremely quickly.

Michelle Ballantyne

The point is not about not welcoming what has been done—we welcome what has been done. I am talking about joining up the thinking around it and not putting everything into silos. You cannot have enterprise development without digital connectivity embedded in it. There must be good connections, and there must be a role for the enterprise agency, which is trying to encourage enterprise and attract to the area industries and new businesses that want to go into technology. If the agency has to tell those businesses that another organisation deals with digital connectivity, those businesses will not be impressed. They do not want to have to go from door to door to find out what is happening with each element; they want to be able to work with the local agency, and the local agency must be able to cover all aspects.

That brings me nicely to my other point, which is on the need to ensure that the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway can cultivate and retain a young workforce. Several members have spoken about the difficulties around that, and the Scottish Borders certainly has an ageing population, with over-65s accounting for more than a quarter of the area’s residents. That will simply not be sustainable unless we have young people in the area who are developing businesses and can thereby support the provision of services. Because of high levels of outward migration of young people, we have to work even harder in the south of Scotland to ensure that the young, skilled workforce is retained and that young workers find the idea of moving to the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway an attractive prospect.

For that reason, I am keen to see the new agency work with local employability groups that are already active. If it does not—if it just sets up a new work stream—we will lose the benefits of a lot of the good work that has already been done. That includes the work that has been done in the textile industry—which is developing its own training programmes because it is having difficulty in attracting people—in agriculture, in schools and in Scotland’s Rural College. South of Scotland enterprise needs to become embedded with those bodies rather than come in over the top of them.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to draw to a close, please.

Michelle Ballantyne

We must ensure that there are good connections in that regard, because, as we have heard, we are in danger of creating too many groups and therefore not working effectively.

It is fair to say that all members welcome what has happened and support the general principles of the bill. As always, the devil will be in the detail and the real test will come in determining how south of Scotland enterprise will be organised, where it will be based and how it will be funded.

The bill provides a chance to shape the economic future of the south of Scotland. If we are to make the most of that chance, we need to create an agency with teeth—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must draw to a close.

Michelle Ballantyne

The agency must have the power and the connections that are necessary if it is to support the south of Scotland not just now but in the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Most of the additional time has now been used up. I ask the members who follow to be a bit more careful about timing.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

As the committee proceeded with its scrutiny of the bill, it was an absolute delight to have the opportunity to visit the south of Scotland.

My personal connections with the area are extremely limited. My grandfather was married in Eyemouth on 2 May 1890, but he came from West Lothian and his wife came from Northumberland, so I have no idea how that happened. My first visit was on 20 January 1952; I was five, and my father was preaching at the church in Leitholm. Maureen Watt might be interested to know that, in the late 1960s, I had the first yoghurt of my entire life, on the harbour at Kippford, while participating in the Scottish OK dinghy sailing championships. I did not do too well in the championships but I enjoyed the yoghurt.

A number of issues have come up in the debate. Alex Neil properly identified that the border area that the new agency will cover is not a single, cohesive, homogenous area. When the committee went to Galashiels, we got a different response to what is going on to that which we got when we went to Dumfries.

I say immediately that Gala was substantially easier to get to. We got on the train to Galashiels and then walked and got a taxi to the venue, and we were able to return on the train, on a midweek evening. As for Dumfries, if the committee had not previously realised the important need for infrastructure investment in the area, the journey to Dumfries—for me, at least, coming from the north of Scotland—perfectly illustrated that need. I was not persuaded that I could get back from Dumfries to Linlithgow—where I have a house in which I live during the parliamentary week—in the evening, so I had to drive from the north of Scotland all the way down to Dumfries and then back to Edinburgh.

That was a minor inconvenience for me, on a single occasion, but it perfectly illustrates the need for investment for the people who live and work in the area. Transport is an important issue, and I think that there is a consensus on the need to do something about it. The new agency can take a lead in promoting the issue, working with the regional transport partnership.

We have talked a lot about Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I think that Kenny Gibson and I are the only constituency members in the chamber whose constituencies cross the boundary between the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise areas. Some 15 per cent of my electors are in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. As a constituency MSP who is exposed to both agencies, I see how markedly different the two agencies’ priorities and modes of operation are.

We are right to consider Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s way of operating as the model for the south of Scotland agency. It is clear, for example, that there is an important emphasis on social responsibility and social enterprise. HIE’s documentation talks about its being aim to

“Support social enterprise and community-led development through our Community Account Management programme”.

I am not suggesting that that programme should be lifted, unchanged, to the Borders, but it is worth having a look at, especially given that the new agency is likely to be dealing with similar problems to those that were present at the time of the creation of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and, subsequently, HIE.

The Highlands area now has Inverness, which has been fundamentally transformed in the 50 or so years since my wife left her home territory. It is now a very significant regional conurbation with a strong economy, but that still leaves a lot of the Highlands needing support. Dumfries has no equivalent of Inverness, but we might hope that the intervention of the new body might get us there.

The way in which Highlands and Islands Enterprise works is fundamentally different from Scottish Enterprise. It has a different account management structure whose focus reaches much closer to community bodies and small enterprises in a way that Scottish Enterprise does not.

The fact that incomes are lower in the border areas is a key indicator of the need to do what is proposed. It is important, too, that we look at helping communities to make their own decisions. Highlands and Islands Enterprise allows community account management to help

“communities to ... identify and realise their aspirations”.

In other words, it is not centralised decision making—the Highlands telling them what to do. We do not want that model in the border counties either.

It is very important that the constitution of the board and the way in which it works ensure strong lines of accountability from the board back to its communities and strong channels for input from communities, to allow the board to be demonstrably responsive to them. That is quite different from the idea of a board that is representative. I want people with the greatest skills and people who understand and, preferably, live in the area concerned. I want people to be there not simply as representatives but because of their skills and to sustain accountability and responsiveness.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

Thank you.

Stewart Stevenson

I will be happy to support the motion at decision time.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

We, in the Scottish Labour Party, welcome the bill. It has been a long time coming, but I truly hope that it will bring to the south of Scotland the economic focus that it needs.

I cover the Highlands and Islands and feel that we have a constant battle to be heard. Centralisation devastates our communities and the Government sometimes treats us with a degree of arrogance that we would normally expect from an absentee landowner. I fight against that every day and put forward the case for my region. Imagine then my surprise when I speak to people from the south of Scotland; they look on us, in the Highlands and Islands, with envy and perhaps a small touch of resentment. We have our own enterprise body, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, while they have not had a focus on their economic needs and often feel ignored by Scottish Enterprise, because their needs appear paltry when compared to the large centres of population. Therefore, for people from the south of Scotland, getting their own enterprise company is a step in the right direction.

However, the new agency must have the same powers and breadth as Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The committee seemed relaxed at the lack of compulsory purchase powers, but I am not. I believe that the advantage in holding those powers is as powerful as the powers themselves. Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have never used their compulsory purchase powers, but nor have we measured the impact that holding those powers has had. Does the knowledge that those powers exist bring people to the table?

Other powers are also omitted from the bill, and I ask that they be added at stage 2. Examples are the power to enter land and the power to acquire information, which are important to have in order to allow the south of Scotland enterprise agency to regulate those to whom it has provided support.

It is also important for the south of Scotland enterprise agency to have the same social remit as Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to allow it to take a more holistic approach, which is really important for our rural areas. Working with communities is as important as working with big business in those areas, and community ownership needs to be a priority.

I noted with interest the wishes of the community, which were echoed by Community Land Scotland, about the accountability of the board and who should select its members. There has been a tendency for this Government to choose yes-men for its boards. When the very existence of Highlands and Islands Enterprise was challenged, there was not a squeak from the board. I am pretty sure that that would not have happened in Jim Hunter’s day. Therefore, I understand the wish of the community to have its say in who is selected, and I ask the cabinet secretary to look at that to see how the community could be involved.

Evidence to the committee also suggested the involvement of young people, and I believe that to be right, because we are talking about their future. Too many young people from rural areas are forced away from home just to access education and a career. If we are to build the economy of the south of Scotland, young people need to be at the heart of it.

I would like to see a commitment to a 50:50 gender balance on the board from the outset. It is a new board, and we do not have to wait for a transition. I hope that the Scottish Government will start in the way that it means to go on. As other members have said, we must also see a commitment to fair work—those who receive assistance and grants from the south of Scotland enterprise agency must commit to fair work practices.

The new agency is welcome, but the Scottish Government also has tools at its hand to stop the economic decline and depopulation of our rural areas. It must step away from its centralisation agenda, which has done untold damage to our rural areas by removing high-quality jobs and therefore having a disproportionate impact on those economies. When decision makers are removed to urban areas, areas are disempowered and we end up with urban decisions as a result. The Government has introduced the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, but its style of management flies in the face of those aspirations. Until it loosens its grip on power, we will see continued centralisation.

Procurement is at the heart of this. Centralised contracts have no protection for SMEs. The Federation of Small Businesses points out in “Broken Contracts: Smaller Businesses and Scottish Procurement” that, despite the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, small businesses are not winning any more contracts. They are actually receiving far fewer. The number of SMEs supplying goods and services to the Scottish Government has halved under the SNP.

In a letter to Jackie Baillie, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work confirmed that 1,502 SMEs supplied the Scottish Government in 2007-08 but that that figure had fallen to just 716 in 2017-18. Colin Smyth said that the south of Scotland enterprise agency will host a large number of SMEs. It is important that we support them, because they provide us with a far greater return. They have a vested interest in their communities and they are much less likely to leave. They are also likely to spend their money and procure goods in those same areas. Therefore, the decline in their number must be turned around.

Those are things that the Government can address now and which would have a disproportionate impact on the economy of our rural areas. I hope that the Government will act on that now.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I, too, am happy to support the bill. It is clear that HIE is highly thought of in the Highlands and Islands; that was seen in particular when it was suggested that there might be some amalgamation of enterprise bodies covering the whole of Scotland. I agree that there has been a need for a more joined-up approach to the enterprise and skills sector, without going as far as amalgamation. I hope that the strategic board will provide that co-ordination without the regional and other bodies losing their identities.

There seem to be a lot of similarities between the Highlands and Islands and the south of Scotland. Both are largely rural, are at some distance from the central belt, have seen young people drifting off to the cities and not returning, and have had difficulty in attracting new businesses or growing existing ones. I very much agree that there is a strong argument for a new south of Scotland enterprise body. I confess that the south of Scotland can sometimes be overlooked by those of us in the central belt. If we were asked where in Scotland there is a big area with a sparse population, beautiful scenery and opportunities for getting away from it all, I think that many of us would think first of the north, rather than the south. However, all those things are true of the south as well.

The committee made two visits to the south of Scotland—as others have said, we went to Dumfries and to Galashiels. Those visits were very useful, and there were good turnouts in both places. There were very engaged audiences and there was real enthusiasm for the new agency. One or two folk questioned the need for a new agency, with the risk of increased bureaucracy and money being spent on administrative costs rather than front-line services, but my feeling was that they were very much in a minority.

Questions were raised about how much Dumfries and Galloway has in common with the Borders—Alex Neil touched on that. It is true that there are significant differences between Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. At least parts of the Borders have a very strong link with Edinburgh and reasonably good transport. Galloway is considerably more remote. As has been said, members were able to travel to and from our evening meeting in Galashiels by train. That would not have been possible if we had gone to Stranraer.

It is also true that the east-west links across the south of Scotland are not strong and that many people may not think of the south of Scotland as one region. However, overall, there are a lot of common strengths and weaknesses, and it seems wise to have one agency for the two council areas.

Another factor that was discussed was whether the new agency should cover a wider area than just the two council areas. It is clear that there are similar challenges in South Lanarkshire and the south of Ayrshire, but boundaries have to be drawn somewhere, and I am afraid that they are often artificial. Therefore, I am comfortable with the proposal that the new agency’s boundaries match those of the two existing councils.

The people whom we met in Dumfries had little good to say about the existing work and profile of Scottish Enterprise. However, to be fair, the gathering in Galashiels was more positive. A show of hands indicated that a dozen or so businesses had had involvement with Scottish Enterprise, and most of those people were positive.

To be fair to Scottish Enterprise, I do not think that, with its budget, it can give the same level of personal or financial support to a more rural area with smaller enterprises that HIE can give to the Highlands and Islands. Fundamentally, that is why we need the new agency.

The question of the relationship with existing agencies such as Scottish Enterprise came up several times. I think that there is a lack of understanding that SE has a national role for certain specific tasks and it would not get involved on the ground in routine work in the south in the future. Maybe some work needs to be done on clarifying those roles.

The role of the strategic board is linked to that. The board is not set up in statute and, in many ways, it is still settling into its new role, so it is difficult to define too specifically what the relationship between the new agency and the board will be. However, we can make some general assumptions about that. I agree that it is probably not appropriate to refer to the strategic board in the bill, as it does not appear in other legislation.

The comparison with HIE was an underlying theme throughout the committee’s work on the bill. I have said that there are clear similarities between the north and the south, but that raises the question whether the funding per head in the two areas should be the same. The Government proposes that, and the committee agreed with that. I accept that there may be some catching up to do, because HIE has been in existence for five decades, and the south of Scotland has not had that input. However, I am not entirely convinced that funding per head in the south should be the same as that in the Highlands and Islands in the longer term. The distances in the Highlands are much greater, and people live in more remote areas there. As Colin Smyth said, people in the south live within two hours of 14 million people. That is not true of people in the Highlands and Islands.

Oliver Mundell

Will the member take an intervention?

John Mason

If I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Mason is in his final minute.

John Mason

I am sorry; I am not allowed to take an intervention. I would be happy to discuss the matter with Oliver Mundell, and I am sure that it will come up in the future.

HIE covers many islands, which the south does not have. The Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, which the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee also dealt with, requires that we take into account islands when we make any decisions, including decisions about funding. The fact that there are so many islands in the HIE area suggests that it needs higher funding. I find it a bit strange that HIE is to get no extra funding to take account of its islands, but I note that there is equivalence in the budget initially. I presume that there will be a review in the longer term.

In conclusion, I am delighted to support the bill, which will result in a third enterprise body to work alongside SE and HIE. Of all the bills that I have been involved with, I think that the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill has probably had the widest agreement. I hope that that will continue and that we will see a real boost to the economy and wellbeing of that important part of our country.

Brian Whittle (South Scotland) (Con)

I am delighted to speak in the debate about this important bill. As we have heard from across the chamber, the south of Scotland—specifically the south-west—has long been the forgotten part of Scotland in terms of investment by the Scottish Government. The region certainly has its challenges—its GVA is low in comparison with the Scottish average; average earnings are 10 per cent lower than those for Scotland; the business start-up rate is considerably lower than the Scottish average; small businesses account for a greater share of employment and income than is the case in Scotland as a whole; and more people are self-employed.

However, the region has many strengths, not least of which are its natural environment and the quality of life. The region is also steeped in cultural heritage. It is therefore unsurprising that the sectors that are important to the region include tourism, agriculture, forestry and fishing. The proposed south of Scotland enterprise agency offers a fantastic opportunity to give the area a long-awaited shot in the arm.

I will focus on the Scottish Conservatives’ call for the agency to have the flexibility to work outside its geographical boundaries and to collaborate across agencies, so I would welcome a commitment from the cabinet secretary, in summing up, on the Government’s position on that.

The proposed enterprise zone is surrounded by areas that are the subject of three growth deals that are worth about £1.45 billion—the Borderlands growth deal, the Ayrshire growth deal and the Belfast region city deal. I include Belfast because it is directly connected to the area by the port of Cairnryan, through which some £1 billion of goods flow, including about 45 per cent of Northern Ireland exports. That significant investment should be a key element of any strategy that aims to regenerate the region’s economy. If the three growth deals had an element of collaboration with the potential of the proposed south of Scotland enterprise agency, benefit could be realised.

For a start, the investment—coupled with the business confidence that it might bring—would go a long way in encouraging business start-ups. Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Investment Bank have expertise in developing start-ups. The enterprise investment scheme and seed enterprise investment scheme have evolved since I was involved in them, but they can still significantly influence inward investment. The schemes allow Scottish Enterprise to invest and take a shareholding in a company under the same investment protocols as private investors. Not only do private investors get the confidence that a Government agency is backing a new-start business, with all the advice and expertise that it brings to the table, but they receive significant tax breaks if they leave their investment with the new-start company for at least three years.

With its loans and grants scheme, Scottish Enterprise can help to ensure that there is appropriate funding for any new start or developing business, as well as giving businesses access to the best business advice. We need to encourage more would-be entrepreneurs, risk takers and job creators to consider the south of Scotland as a destination, so I encourage them to interact early with Scottish Enterprise to seek the help that it can give. The new enterprise agency can help to drive such interaction.

In the previous parliamentary recess, I travelled across to Belfast to meet politicians of all political persuasions and business leaders, to discuss how Scotland and Northern Ireland can increase trade between the two. After all, as we have heard, the biggest port in Scotland—and the third biggest in the UK—is Cairnryan, and it connects us with Belfast harbour.

Stena Line invested £240 million and P&O Ferries invested £90 million in Cairnryan based on the promise by the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, that the crumbling transport infrastructure in the south-west would be appropriately upgraded. That promise was made in 2010, but it remains unfulfilled.

The horrendous state of the trunk roads—the A75 and the A77, which connect Cairnryan with routes south to England and on into Europe, as well as those into the Scottish central belt—is nothing short of a scandal, and that is not to mention the A76. I agree with what Alex Neil said about infrastructure, but I gently remind him that he was a transport minister in the intervening time, and that he had the opportunity to do something about it.

John Finnie

I understand the concerns about infrastructure. Does Brian Whittle acknowledge that considerable benefit would be derived from putting in place rail as well as road infrastructure?

Brian Whittle

I definitely agree. I will come on to rail infrastructure, which is important.

Northern Ireland politicians and business leaders confirmed to me that the lack of infrastructure in south-west Scotland is having a negative impact on the Northern Ireland economy.

To date, we have had only an outline commitment of £30 million to build the long-awaited Maybole bypass. That has still to be started, despite many assurances from the Scottish Government that it would be. That compares with the £3 billion investment that was proposed for the A9 upgrade—100 times the investment that has been proposed so far for the whole south-west of Scotland.

We cannot look only through the prism of a new agency at developing and sustaining the economic prosperity of the south of Scotland, hence my focus in the debate on the requirement that the new agency have the flexibility to work outside its geography and to interact on a cross-agency basis. Furthermore, there is a big need to work across portfolios.

The Conservatives agree that the establishment of the agency has great potential for the south of Scotland. However, it is just one piece of the jigsaw, so I urge the Scottish Government to consider taking a much more holistic approach in order to address the long-term lack of investment in the south of Scotland, and ensure its sustainable economic health.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this afternoon’s stage 1 proceedings on the important South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. The bill is welcome. It is needed to benefit my South Scotland region—its businesses, people, towns, villages and rural areas—so I am pleased to have been involved in the legislative process.

I attended the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee evidence-taking session in Dumfries at Easterbrook hall. I also attended various events of the interim south of Scotland economic partnership, and met its chair, Russel Griggs, and board members to hear formally and informally about the work that they have been doing.

I have supported the south of Scotland economic partnership by writing to the Scottish Government about its positives and negatives, to ensure that the new agency and the associated legislation are strong.

The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report states:

“The Committee is in no doubt”—

I think that there is no doubt about this across the chamber today—

“that the creation of a new enterprise agency in the south of Scotland is required”

and that the agency is essential for the region.

The report also states:

“The Committee supports the general principles of the Bill and recommends to the Parliament that they be agreed to.”

I know that those comments will be extremely refreshing for people across the south of Scotland, and I certainly hope that members across the chamber will join me in echoing them today.

I will give some context to how the idea of a south of Scotland enterprise agency first came about. In 2016, the First Minister announced a review of the enterprise and skills bodies across Scotland, to allow the Government better to meet its objective to have a vibrant economy. The review’s terms of reference had the objective of enabling a transformational step change in performance across a range of economic outcomes.

The review process identified several challenges facing the economy of the Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders area, about which members have spoken. Those challenges include the area having an older population and out-migration of young people; the relatively low levels of productivity and GDP growth; the transport and digital connectivity challenges, which I will come on to talk about, because the matter is really important; and the higher concentrations of low-paid and lower-skilled sectors. There are also several fragile communities across the region, and relatively low levels of private sector investment, research and development.

I will highlight a few of the challenges that constituencies and businesses across the region have conveyed to me as being the main barriers to the region flourishing.

The region has poor transport infrastructure. In my time here, I and members from across the chamber have lobbied the Scottish Government on, and secured members’ debates to highlight, the need for greater investment in the A75, A76 and A77, which are the main arterial routes connecting the south of Scotland to Northern Ireland, the north of England and wider Scotland. Alex Neil eloquently highlighted that point.

Last summer, I hosted in Stranraer a meeting that was attended by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity. At the meeting, it was made clear by businesses including Stena Line and P&O Ferries, and various local action groups, that in order to attract investment, business and people to the region, the transport infrastructure must be improved. That is imperative. Therefore, I am pleased to see that one of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s asks in its report is a request to examine transport infrastructure. That work will be in addition to the south-west Scotland strategic transport study, the findings of which are to be published soon. I ask that the cabinet secretary give his commitment that improving transport infrastructure across south Scotland is a priority for the Government and will be part of the agency’s remit.

In addition to those challenges, the Scottish Government’s consultation recognised several strengths and assets that are enjoyed by the area. They include a strong community spirit that is characterised by a high degree of cohesion, resilience and commitment to the local area; a natural environment that provides a high quality of life, a good place to raise a family and plenty of opportunities for healthy living; a rich historical and cultural landscape, which is particularly important to the development of the area’s tourism industry; and a good strategic location, being relatively close to the north of England, the central belt of Scotland and Ireland.

I mentioned tourism. It is vital to the region that it attracts tourists. I agree with Oliver Mundell that the south of Scotland has many micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises in many sectors, including the food and drink sector, in which we have, for example, the Galloway Soup Company and Professor Pods chillies, which I visited yesterday. There is tourism and leisure at Laggan Outdoor Ltd’s centre, Cream o’ Galloway and Galloway Activity Centre Ltd at Loch Ken, part of whose remit is to offer activities in which everyone can participate. I would like the new south of Scotland enterprise agency to work to support SMEs and other businesses by helping to attract people to visit them and, ultimately, by improving transport links to them.

I could talk for hours about why the bill is important but, unfortunately, I do not have enough time. I congratulate everyone who worked to get the bill to Parliament and those who have been involved with the interim body—the south of Scotland economic partnership.

I hear what Finlay Carson and others have said about how people in the area feel forgotten. That is what I hear, too, across the whole region. I ask him to help to change that perception. The light is shining on the south of Scotland right now, so let us be positive and objective about promoting our beautiful region, and let us work together for the benefit of the whole area.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sure that Mr Carson hears you.

Colin Smyth

After years of work, this debate brings us one step closer to establishing the south of Scotland enterprise agency that the region badly needs. I hope that the agency will be locally led, embedded in the communities that it covers and responsive to the unique needs and assets of the south of Scotland.

I welcome the tone of most of the debate and the widespread consensus from members across the chamber on the need for and the role of the new agency. That consensus very much reflects the views of the people of the south of Scotland.

Of those who responded to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s consultation on the bill, 87 per cent agreed with the plans for a new agency. It is not surprising that there is such a strong appetite locally for change and a new approach. The new agency is an opportunity not just to improve the economic support that is available in the region but to encourage collaboration and develop a stronger voice to advocate for the south of Scotland at a national level. We need that new approach to respond to the economic challenges facing the south of Scotland and achieve the region’s potential.

As we have heard in the debate, productivity in the area is almost a quarter lower than the national average, and the business start-up rate is also below the Scottish average. Although the region has a flourishing small business sector, with more than 11,300 enterprises, not enough is being done to support and grow those businesses. It is that type of support—tailored to meet our local needs—that is simply not available at present.

Wages in the region are some of the lowest in the country, and the lack of well-paid, high-skill jobs is one of the key reasons for the continued outward migration of young people. We desperately need to retain young people and, perhaps more important, to attract young people to the area. The key to that is ensuring that young people have real career options locally. That means creating more high-quality jobs, but it also means ensuring that the training and education that young people need are available locally.

As several members have highlighted, the region has also suffered due to long-standing underinvestment in our infrastructure. I believe that the new agency should have a key role to play in advocating for and supporting better transport and digital connectivity in the region.

The region has huge potential. There are thousands of businesses and enterprises in the area and a great deal of potential for growth if the support that those businesses receive is genuinely tailored to meet their needs.

A new agency can also take a holistic approach that provides not only economic but social and environmental benefits. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been effective in using that approach. In protecting communities and their natural environment, HIE has shown that the approach does not need to be in conflict with supporting the economy. The bill is a welcome step towards delivering that for the south of Scotland.

The bill sets out a strong framework for the new agency. However, as Labour has argued in the debate, and as the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report sets out, we want improvements to be made to the bill to ensure that we have an agency that really is rooted in the south of Scotland. That means building on the agency’s proposed aims, so that they include tackling the demographic challenges that the region faces, taking a leadership role in improving transport and digital connectivity, supporting community land ownership and furthering the fair work agenda. It also means amending the bill to ensure that there is proper local accountability. The agency needs to be led from the south of Scotland but, as it stands, the board will answer far more to ministers in Edinburgh than it will to local stakeholders.

Mike Rumbles

Will the member outline his thoughts on how local accountability should operate through the bill?

Colin Smyth

I will come to that point in my closing comments. Crucially, local accountability needs to be underpinned by a legal requirement for consultation and reporting back. I will set out exactly how that could work in a second.

In his response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the cabinet secretary committed to lodging an amendment that will ensure that ministers cannot issue directions to the agency without consulting first, which I welcome. However, he did not respond to the calls from the committee and me for a formal mechanism, underpinned by a legal requirement, guaranteeing local input and accountability in the agency’s action plan and strategy.

The Government needs to be clearer about how we guarantee that the voices of local communities will be listened to and reflected. In response to Mike Rumbles’s specific point, I think that that could be done through, for example, a new regional economic partnership or a regular south of Scotland convention, underpinned by a programme of regular consultation by the agency in communities across the south of Scotland. We have already seen such engagement from the south of Scotland economic partnership. There is also the opportunity to take advantage of the local authorities’ committee structures, in order to report some of the performance figures at a local level. That is what Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service do, and there is the opportunity for the new agency to do something similar. Whatever the mechanism is, it is crucial that we make local accountability a legally binding requirement for the new agency.

We need to ensure that the membership of the board is genuinely representative of the south of Scotland and reflects key stakeholders, from young people to proper workforce representation. The board must also be gender balanced, as Rhoda Grant rightly highlighted.

During the debate, members have made a number of other important points, which I will briefly touch on. There was clear support for the boundary of the new agency to cover Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. However, Claudia Beamish made the point that areas on the periphery of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, such as Clydesdale and South Ayrshire, have a role to play. The Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise need to look at the level of support that those areas receive and ensure that the economic development opportunities meet the needs of those areas.

The location of the new agency was touched on. There is a clear view that it should be co-located with other agencies, such as the councils, and that it should have a presence in communities across the two local authorities. In that way, it will provide a one-stop shop for businesses and enterprises that are seeking support.

In many ways, the debate on the bill has focused on the mechanism of having a new agency, but, ultimately, the real test will be what the new agency does from day 1. There is no question but that there will be a lot of expectation. When it does not deliver what we want it to deliver—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am sorry—

Colin Smyth

—I will be the first one to highlight that, but—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Yes, that is your job. I am sorry, but you are finished. [Interruption.] I did not mean to be rude, Mr Smyth; you are holding the Government to account, quite rightly.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

I declare an interest, as I am a business owner in the Scottish Borders.

In closing for the Scottish Conservatives, I thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for its work in gathering evidence from across the south of Scotland. From the speeches that have been made today, it is clear that the bill will enable economic growth and business expansion in the south, and we look forward to the establishment of the enterprise agency.

Some members have described the south of Scotland as a “forgotten” region. We have heard that the south of Scotland desperately needs an injection of skilled workers, infrastructure investment and additional business support. At a recent Borders business breakfast that I held, I spoke to business leaders who are desperate for an agency to help to deliver economic growth for the Borders. Engagement is to be encouraged. As we have heard, we need many businesses to get involved in that process, with parity between businesses, the public sector, educational establishments and the third sector.

Many members, including Joan McAlpine, have paid tribute to the good work of Russel Griggs. In the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report, Professor Griggs is quoted as saying:

“We want to stop talking about businesses and talk instead about growing enterprises. It does not matter whether the enterprise is a community, a social enterprise, a small business or a large one. We want to see a culture of change through the new enterprise agency, with an understanding that we give support to everybody who wants to help to grow the economy.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 14 January 2019; c 6.]

The Scottish Conservatives believe that the new agency could be a fantastic catalyst for entrepreneurialism and driving the local economy. John Finnie mentioned Barbara Elborn of the Newcastleton & District Community Trust, and Barbara and Greg Cuthbert are energetic individuals who recently set up a community fuel station.

When it comes to community involvement, Colin Smyth, Finlay Carson and Mike Rumbles said that the new agency’s board must have members with a wide pool of experience and that it must be transparent, open and accountable to local communities. Stewart Stevenson agreed that there should be strong lines of accountability to the community and that the members of the board should have strong skills. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could reassure us that that will be the case when he closes the debate, as Colin Smyth requested.

Many Conservative members have welcomed the Borderlands growth deal, which was one of our manifesto commitments. The committee recommended that the agency should have the flexibility to operate outwith the geographical boundaries of the Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders council areas, and we support that, as it will allow for greater collaboration with other enterprise agencies and will help to make the new agency a huge success, given the region’s proximity to the border.

In today’s debate, Scottish Enterprise has been a bit like Marmite—some members believe that it has done a good job, while others believe that it has not. Many businesses that I speak to find access to funding complicated, and that needs to be addressed. There should not be barriers to funding. We would like the new agency to make obtaining funding and support much simpler. Although we recognise that that will not solve all our problems, it might go some way in helping to heal them.

As many members have mentioned, low-paying jobs, the gender pay gap and a skills shortage are problems right across the region. Those three issues are not unique to the Borders, but they are definitely exacerbated in a rural area that suffers from not only poor digital connectivity, which Michelle Ballantyne mentioned, but poor physical connectivity, which Alex Neil and Brian Whittle mentioned. They drew attention to the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and, in particular, the A77, the A75, the A1, the A68 and the A7. East-west connectivity is very important, and the extension of the Borders railway line from Tweedbank to Carlisle would be helpful in that regard, as it would link the Borders to the north-west of England.

The new agency should be an enabler, not a disabler. It must be dynamic, and it must suit the needs of the south of Scotland. Although many members have said that the agency will be based on the model of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, it is important that we recognise that the south of Scotland is distinctive and different from the Highlands, even though we share common challenges, such as the lack of adequate infrastructure that I have mentioned.

Michelle Ballantyne and Oliver Mundell spoke about the need to attract young people to the area and the skills gap that exists. Our demographics are extremely challenging and are becoming more so. I highlight the fact that the dependency ratio—which applies to the proportion of the population under 16 and over 65—is 69 per cent, compared with 55 per cent for Scotland as whole. I welcome what Maureen Watt said about attracting retirees to the area, but given the rising number of older people, to maintain the working-age population of today, we need at least 800 working-age people to move to the south of Scotland per annum. That presents a real and growing problem that the agency must address, and it must be considered alongside skills development and business growth. That is especially important in the area of technology, as Alex Neil highlighted.

Finlay Carson talked about the poor business start-up rate in Dumfries and Galloway, and Brian Whittle told us that median weekly earnings are 10 per cent lower than the Scottish average. In addition, GVA per head is 24 per cent below the Scottish average. Therefore, we face a unique set of issues. The agency must create jobs through grants to businesses; in particular, it must create high-quality jobs that will attract young people. Crucially, we want to be able to retain those young people, and to grow a vibrant and dynamic local economy.

Many members have mentioned tourism. When it gave evidence to the committee at stage 1, Scottish Land & Estates emphasised that tourism should be a principal purpose that is written into the agency’s action plan. My colleague Finlay Carson also called for that.

Joan McAlpine talked about the new see south Scotland campaign, which is very important for attracting new tourism businesses and growing existing ones.

On the gender pay gap, although I was outside the chamber, I caught Rhoda Grant talking about the need to encourage more women to live, work and start a family in the area. We must address that. Engender’s evidence highlighted that, with the Scottish Government’s equality impact assessment—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that you have run out of time.

Rachael Hamilton

I will sit down, Presiding Officer, but we look forward to the agency—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You will sit down now—so much for the gender pay gap. You have made your point.

I call Fergus Ewing to close the debate for the Government. You have until decision time, cabinet secretary.

Fergus Ewing

I will endeavour to be on my very best behaviour.

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate, which have been largely positive. I very much welcome the cross-party support for the new agency, and I am indebted to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, and to everyone who contributed to all the hard work that led up to preparation of the bill and the evidence sessions that formed part of the stage 1 process.

Whenever I have visited the south of Scotland, over some years as a minister, I have been struck by the enormous energy, success and vibrancy of the people who take part in life and business there. I have never failed to be impressed by the sheer hard work, energy, good humour and resilience of the people whom I have had the privilege to meet in my various responsibilities over a range of areas including forestry, farming, transport, manufacturing, textiles and tourism. However, that potential has not been fully realised, and that is why we are here today.

I accept that many members across the parties have said that there is a perception that the south of Scotland has not received the attention that it deserves. I bow to those who represent the area in that regard. It is not for me to contradict that. I have heard that that feedback has come from the bill consultation process, and it is right that I have regard to that process, as Mr Finnie and others have suggested.

The level of wages and the gender gap problems that were raised by Rachael Hamilton, Claudia Beamish and many others are two of the most serious issues. Of course, we want to ensure that businesses can be as profitable as possible. In tourism—where Rachael Hamilton has done her life’s work—many businesses are hampered by a shoulder season. If we can extend the tourist season to 12 months, as we do in parts of the Highland, we can increase revenue, profitability and the capacity of businesses to pay the kind of wages that they would like to pay their workforce. Therefore, we should look at things in the round.

Many businesses in the south of Scotland do not require—or even want—help from the Government. They do perfectly well and run their businesses very successfully indeed, because they are providing services and goods that people want. Not all businesses need or want assistance from the public sector, but those that do should be able to access it. That is why, when I was in Annan recently to meet Keshav Bhagat, the owner of the food processing company Bhagat Holdings Ltd, I was delighted to acknowledge and praise the efforts of public servants to provide a bespoke overall package from Scottish Enterprise, Scottish Development International, the local council and the Scottish Government. Those efforts had the result that Mr Bhagat and his family, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, were persuaded to invest not in other locations that they had considered, but in Annan in Scotland. Thanks to the hard work of Scottish Enterprise and a proposed £1.7 million regional selective assistance grant investment, Mr Bhagat’s £9 million investment plan will bring around 120 jobs to Annan, with the potential for more.

Such inward investments are important to Scotland and to the diverse communities in the area. We have engaged widely across the south, with businesses, communities and individuals, as we want to ensure that everyone’s voices are heard. Meaningful engagement with those who are living, working and studying in the south remains a key component of our work. We will continue the engagement with young people and community representatives, which Claudia Beamish fairly emphasised.

As the bill states in describing the body’s aims, it will have regard to improving

“the amenity and environment of the South of Scotland”.

That is already in section 5(1). Regarding accountability, sections 13 and 14 require the preparation of accounts and an annual report, and section 6 requires an action plan. Those are ways in which public bodies are held to account. They are also held to account through the Parliament. All public bodies can be summoned to give evidence by committees of the Parliament. I see that Mr Mountain is nodding, and I know that he has done precisely that. The Parliament is the fulcrum of accountability in Scotland, and it will remain so. However, members rightly want us to explore how we can improve lines of accountability even further.

Alex Neil made the point, which has flitted through my cranium from time to time, that one issue for the south of Scotland is that, although there are connections between the Borders and Edinburgh and from Dumfries to the west and to Northern Ireland, the east-west connections between Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders are perhaps not good. That led to Mr Neil’s claim for rather a lot of expenditure of public money, although admittedly it would be over a period of two decades, which was a bit of a relief to Mr Mackay. That point was followed up by many other members. No doubt, we will consider the issue at stage 2, but I fully expect the new south of Scotland economic agency to give leadership on those matters.

That takes me on to Mr Smyth’s point in that regard. As far as I could gather, he suggested not that the body should have fiscal or budgetary responsibility for those issues but that it should have a say and take an interest in them. It should have an influence and a leadership role. It would be part of the agency’s work to consider connectivity, whether that is virtual, through the internet—which is of course of increasing importance—or through transport, both by road and by rail, as Mr Finnie was at pains to remind us more than once, and rightly so. The success of the Borders railway has been one of the stellar achievements over the past while.

I have been heartened to take part in the debate because, although I would not say that it was characterised by sweetness and light, there was rather less discord than in some of the debates that I have taken part in—I am not looking at anyone in particular. I do not wish to spoil that sweetness and light, but there is a serious job to be done in the remainder of the bill process. I have not had an opportunity to reply to all the points that have been made, particularly by Mr Rumbles, Mr Finnie, Mr Smyth and Mr Whittle, as I wished to do, but we will no doubt come back to the issues before the completion of the passage of the bill.

I pay tribute to Professor Russel Griggs and all those who have played a part in the partnership, which he has chaired. They have done a sterling job. Personally, I cannot recall any example in which there has been more public engagement leading up to the publication of a bill. The members of the partnership bring a wide range of business experience, third sector experience and experience of leadership in further and higher education.

The budget has rightly exercised the minds of members, and we have had a wide range of views on it. Mr Mason indicated that there are arguments with regard to budgetary priorities that we have not heard much about. However, the overwhelming view is that the approach that we are taking is correct, as it recognises that there should in principle be parity of esteem between all citizens in rural Scotland. That should have an influence, and it has had one in determining the approach that we are taking in our policy.

With regard to that approach, I think that I discerned a consensus that we need to walk before we can run. It will take time for the new agency to find its feet and to become established throughout the huge area of Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders, and to deliver and meet the expectations of the people of the south of Scotland.

I am delighted to have presided over such a cheerful debate—perhaps it is something to do with me; I do not know. [Laughter.] I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S5M-15863, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution to the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Derek Mackay]

The Convener

Today, we are undertaking stage 2 consideration of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. The cabinet secretary and his supporting officials have stayed with us for this item.

Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments that was published on Thursday, and the groupings of amendments, which sets out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.

It might be helpful to explain the procedure briefly for anyone who is watching. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.

Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press the amendment, I will put the question.

If the member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment.

If any member does not wish to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is really important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.

I hope that we can complete stage 2 today, but it depends on how we get on. With that, we will move straight to it.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1—Members and staff

The Convener

Amendment 16, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 17.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 16 would require the agency’s board to include representation from workers in the region, which would most likely be in the form of trade union representation. That would help to ensure that the region’s workers have a voice in the new agency. The south of Scotland faces a number of significant challenges relating to areas such as low pay and job insecurity, and the new agency will play a key role in tackling those issues. I believe that representation of that kind is key to ensuring that the issues are viewed consistently as a priority for the new agency. It is important to note that there is precedent for that approach, which is taken in other public organisation boards such as that of Scottish Water.

The amendment would not interfere with the public appointments process. As far as the final selection is concerned, the decision would still be made independently by the public appointments body, as will happen with other members of the board. The amendment simply introduces a requirement for at least one of the selections to be representative of workers in the region.

Amendment 17 would require the agency’s board to have knowledge of the whole region as far as possible and an appropriate spread of skills, interest, experience and expertise. The amendment would clarify in the bill something on which I am sure that everyone agrees in principle and would protect against the possibility of the board at some point inadvertently ending up with representation from, for example, only one particular part of the region or area of expertise. A number of stakeholders raised that point with the committee and highlighted the importance of the board being genuinely representative of the south of Scotland. The amendment is not overly prescriptive in what it entails or how it should be achieved. It would just enshrine in the bill the principle that the agency must be genuinely representative of the whole region.

I move amendment 16.

The Convener

Before I call other members, I note for the record that Finlay Carson has joined the meeting. Welcome, Finlay.

Stewart Stevenson

Broadly, amendment 17 makes a great deal of sense, although I have a minor concern about proposed new sub-subparagraph (b), which refers to

“a broad range of interests, skills, experience and expertise.”

I am slightly doubtful about including “experience”, as that could be used as a way of making it more difficult for younger people to serve on the board. However, that is not to the extent that I want to oppose the amendment. I just make that as an observation for Colin Smyth to think about.

I have a slightly more substantial concern about amendment 16, which will not be a surprise to Colin Smyth. Proposed new subparagraph (1A) uses the phrase “and representative”. I am not greatly in favour of boards of this kind being ones that represent. In other words, the people who are there should be interested in the work of south of Scotland enterprise and in furthering that work, rather than being representative of anything. I am certainly content that members should be “knowledgeable” of the interests of workers and proposed new subparagraph (1B) makes a reasonable point. However, because of the use of the phrase “and representative”, I am disinclined to support amendment 16, at least at this stage and until I have heard what others have to say.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I thank Colin Smyth for his amendments; there is a healthy debate to be had on some of his points.

Like Mr Stevenson, I think that there is merit in amendment 17. I, too, had reservations about the word “experience” and wondered whether putting it in the bill would make it too prescriptive when it comes to ruling out potential candidates, and I hope that that is not an unintended consequence of the amendment.

Nonetheless, on balance, in the context of the whole bill, it would be wise to support amendment 17, because it is important that we take in experience and knowledge from the whole of the south of Scotland and not just from any one area of it. That is the feedback that we got, therefore I urge members to support amendment 17, but I ask Mr Smyth to reflect on the wording of it.

Equally, on amendment 16, I share Mr Stevenson’s concerns and am minded not to support it. I do not think that the board should be made up of representatives or representative groups in such a structured way. It is important that there is freedom and flexibility so that board membership can be as inclusive as possible. At its core, the board’s membership should represent the employees of the agency and the wider public for whom it operates. For that reason, I will not support amendment 16.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I did not quite envisage this line of debate. Like many members round the table, I have been a member of various boards. One of the first things that happens is that you are advised that, regardless of the basis of your being on the board, you represent the interests of the board. I do not see that that conflicts at all with what Colin Smyth is saying. Unless he tells me to the contrary, he is not suggesting otherwise. He is setting the parameters in relation to the person who will fulfil the role, who will represent the interests that have been mentioned, as Colin outlined very well. As he rightly pointed out, the proposed approach is not a first—it has already been taken by Scottish Water.

I ask members not to get hung up on the wording in the bill and to allow the fair work approach—which, in the chamber, all parties say that they want to be adopted in our deliberations—to manifest itself. I support that and I am relaxed about amendment 17.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

On amendment 16, I am not comfortable with reserving a special place on the board for anybody. It is too restrictive. Of course, I would like to see people on the board who have experience as a worker—whatever that actually means—but I am not happy with giving special status to a person on the board. I will not be supporting amendment 16.

In amendment 17, I am not quite clear what is meant by the wording in new sub-subparagraph (a), which says:

“has ... knowledge of the whole of the South of Scotland”.

Will Colin clarify that in his summing up, in order to help me to decide whether to vote for the amendment? It seems nebulous to me and I do not understand it, so why would we put it into law?

Fergus Ewing

I am grateful to Mr Smyth for lodging the amendments, which give us the opportunity to debate these matters. That, in itself, is a good thing to do.

I was listening with care to the contributions of committee members. Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 1 to the bill provides that, in appointing members, we must be satisfied that they have

“knowledge or experience relevant to the discharge of South of Scotland Enterprise’s functions.”

That provision is already in the bill and, given the wide aims and powers of the agency, it ensures that members will bring with them wide-ranging skills and experiences. However, I recognise the need to take every opportunity to ensure that the board is diverse and knowledgeable about the south of Scotland. We are committed to increasing diversity in our board rooms.

I am, on balance, happy to support amendment 17, and we will accept the amendment at this stage—if the committee is minded to support it, of course. However, having heard Stewart Stevenson, Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene probe the precise meaning and significance of the words “experience and knowledge”, we will give further consideration prior to stage 3 as to whether further technical drafting is needed to deal with that issue. I am grateful to Colin Smyth for lodging amendment 17.

On the intention behind amendment 16, understanding workers’ perspectives will be important to the agency, including in its work to promote inclusive growth. After all, it will be operating in an area where there have traditionally been low wages and relatively few well-paid jobs. There should and will be nothing to prevent someone representing workers’ interests being appointed to serve as a member of the new agency—who will, of course, be appointed on the basis of merit and in accordance with the proper selection process.

However, other groups could also lay claim to expect an appointment to represent their interests. I will mention a few: business, farmers, forestry, textiles, young people and, indeed, older people. If one argues that all sectors—very important though they are—should have a voice on the board, where does one start and where does one stop? We need to balance what is desirable in practice with what is appropriate to expect in securing a broad range of interests, skills and experience.

I am mindful that the board quorum is six and that the maximum number of members is 10, plus the chair. I am making the point that it is not a huge board so, unlike other public bodies, it will not have the ability to reflect a very wide balance of interest groups.

It is also questionable whether such appointments should be reserved for representatives of particular groups when they are individual appointments made on the basis of someone’s skills, experience and expertise. However, I undertake that adverts for members’ appointments will set out the desirability of attracting applications from those who may represent workers and, indeed, some of the other groups that I have mentioned, where those individuals also feel that they have the right skills and knowledge for the role. We will also look carefully at how and where we advertise.

I ask Colin Smyth not to press amendment 16. We are minded to recommend the acceptance of amendment 17, subject to further analysis, which, if necessary, we can bring forward for Parliament’s consideration at stage 3.

Colin Smyth

On amendment 16, I believe that it is important that an agency with this remit has appropriate input from workers. That is an important point of principle. Having that input would also help the agency to achieve its broader aims of supporting inclusive growth, safeguarding employment and promoting social development. I think that people in the south of Scotland will be deeply concerned that such an approach is used for one body such as Scottish Water but that it is perceived not to be appropriate for—

Jamie Greene

Can I make an intervention, convener?

Colin Smyth

I am happy to take an intervention, convener.

Jamie Greene

I was just checking whether we can cross-exam at this point.

The Convener

You absolutely can. Do you want to come back in?

Jamie Greene

I want to ask Colin Smyth how he defines a

“representative of the interests of workers”.

Amendment 16 says:

“The Scottish Ministers must ensure that at least one of the persons appointed is knowledgeable and representative of the interests of workers”.

The definition given to “workers” is that in the Employment Rights Act 1996. How do you define who is representative of the interests of workers? Anyone could make that claim, including a trade union, a body of organisations or a chamber of commerce. Would amendment 16 open it up to many people laying claim that they have a right to be on the board?

Colin Smyth

As I made clear in my opening comments, amendment 16 does not interfere with the appointments process, which will be independently run by the public appointments body. It will have to determine that any member that it appoints to the board meets the criteria that are clearly set out in proposed subparagraph (1B), which states:

“Before inviting applications for appointment, the Scottish Ministers must consult bodies representing workers,”—

such as trade unions—

“or the interests of workers, in the South of Scotland about the particular interests, skills, experience and expertise required for a person to fulfil the requirements of sub-paragraph (1A).”

That wording makes it clear that there will have to be a consultation process before the appointment is ultimately made by the public appointments body. As I have already said, that happens in respect of other Scottish public boards, such as Scottish Water’s.

I am slightly concerned by the cabinet secretary’s suggestion that because the board membership will be relatively small—anywhere from six to 10 people—a workers’ representative may not be on the body. That is an issue of concern, given the Government’s commitment to fair work.

John Finnie

Given the member’s knowledge of the trade union movement and representative organisations, does he agree that it is highly unlikely that having a representative role would be the sole criterion for the selection of such people—given that they would have an extensive range of skills—although it is an important factor that should be considered?

Colin Smyth

Mr Finnie makes a valid point. Some members have suggested that there is a concern about the idea of a “representative” of the interests of workers in the south of Scotland, but I am very clear that when members sitting on such a board are making decisions, they are representing that board. That is an important point to bear in mind when considering amendment 16.

Members who support amendment 16 would be sending a clear signal that the Government and the Parliament are committed to the fair work agenda—to reject the amendment would be to undermine that commitment. That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Trades Union Congress, for example, is very supportive of the amendment.

It is important for members to look at the wording of amendment 17. It refers to the board membership being “taken as a whole”. The amendment does not imply that every member should have experience, which would rule out young people, but is about consideration of the board as a whole. There is a specific reason why that wording was included in the amendment and that is to ensure that we are not overly prescriptive and have a view to the range of the membership of the board.

One of the important points that south of Scotland stakeholders have emphasised is the need for the board to have a geographical spread. It would not be possible for every community in every part of the south of Scotland to have membership on the board, but it is important that we have a spread across the region, representing not only the interests, skills and expertise of the region, but also its geography. We cannot have a concentration on the large towns, for example, but must draw on experience from across the region. However, as I have said, that relates to the board as a whole.

I will press amendment 16.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 16 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 16 disagreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 18, in the name of Colin Smyth, is in a group on its own.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 18 clarifies that staff working in the agency must be covered by the principles of fair work as set out in the fair work framework or any similar framework that succeeds it. It is simply stating in the bill a principle that I hope that all members would support: public bodies should be delivering for their staff and the agency should be setting a good example of working conditions, given the role that it will play in promoting those principles among enterprises in the south of Scotland.

I am happy to leave my comments at that. I am sure that other members have views on the matter.

I move amendment 18.

Stewart Stevenson

The fair work framework is very welcome and it spells out a principle that I strongly support. However, there is a technical issue with using that reference in the amendment. As far as I am aware—although I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong—the fair work framework has not been laid before Parliament so, if a court had to look at the legislation in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time and depend on the framework for the decision that it might make, it might not be able to access the framework. If Colin Smyth had extracted from the framework the parts that he thinks are relevant to the bill and had put them in the amendment, that issue might not arise—we would be dealing with a different issue. On that basis, I am unlikely to support the amendment.

In passing, I note that amendment 21—I know that it is in another group—also refers to the fair work framework. The same remarks apply to it; I probably will not repeat them when we get there.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I am not inclined to support amendment 18. The Scottish National Party Government established the fair work convention and has supported the fair work framework. The Government published an action plan to achieve its fair work aims by 2025 and has gone further than any previous Government in putting fair work first.

I have no issue with agencies supporting the concept of fair work through their actions. Maybe the cabinet secretary can advise us on how south of Scotland enterprise will help to achieve fair work for people who live and work in the south of Scotland and what the expectations are of the new enterprise body in that regard.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the commitment of Colin Smyth and the Labour Party to such issues might be more credible if they had previously supported our efforts to have employment law devolved? I say that with the greatest respect to Colin Smyth. Labour members are late converts to the cause, but I welcome them. There are employment law matters that the Parliament and the Government should be able to legislate on—that relates to Mr Stevenson’s comments. I will not support the amendment.

John Finnie

I fear that, not for the first time, we will hear a procession of speakers say that they are keen to support workers, but not supporting principles that would do that. If Mr Stevenson is correct, the committee should ask for the fair work framework to be published, so that we can look at it. If there is a will, there is a way.

Stewart Stevenson

I used the particular word “laid”, rather than “published”—there is a legal difference. The framework has been published.

John Finnie

Thank you. If there is a will to have the principles pursued, the framework should be laid—whatever difference that word makes. The amendment makes a modest ask; if there is a will to deliver the principles, the mechanism should be put in place.

The cabinet secretary was pragmatic about amendment 17—I understand that he has reservations but is adopting the principle and will bring back a refined proposal at stage 3. I would like him to take the same approach to amendment 18. It is not unreasonable to support the amendment, and I will support it.

Jamie Greene

I have questions for the cabinet secretary. I am interested in whether all public bodies and their employees are by default covered by the Government’s fair work framework. Is that a matter of policy or is it a statutory requirement? Does the framework cover the terms and conditions of public body employees or does that need to be specified in a bill? Would referring to the framework in this bill set a precedent for future bills that affect public bodies and mean that other bodies would have to adhere to the framework, which reflects principles of the Government of the day?

I have reservations about specifying terms and conditions for employees of a body that has not yet been set up and about linking them to a publication that has not been laid before Parliament and which might change in the future. That involves a risk.

The Convener

The cabinet secretary will get a chance to answer that when he makes his comments.

Mike Rumbles

I am concerned about amendment 18. If the fair work framework changed in the future because the Government did not like it, for example, we would have to use primary legislation to amend the requirement, because it is set out in primary legislation. Will that cause the Government a problem? It looks as though it might, but I would like to hear from the minister whether that is the case.

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

Although I commend Colin Smyth’s objectives with this amendment, I have a concern that the cabinet secretary might be able to respond to. If the fair work framework changes from what was published in 2016, how would that be addressed to ensure that terms, conditions and suchlike would not become outdated?

Fergus Ewing

I thank members for their contributions. It was this Government that established the fair work convention and this Government not only supports the fair work framework but has published a fair work action plan and is now also committed to our fair work first approach. It is therefore self-evident that we are supportive of the efforts that have been described by Mr Smyth and others to implement the concept of fair work through our actions and our agencies. It is what we do to get it right that matters most and we are intent on getting it right. I want to make it absolutely clear that we expect the new agency to be an exemplar in this area. That is the aim.

I do not think that there is any difference between that aim and what has been set out by Mr Smyth and others; it is a question of how we achieve that fair work aim. I fully endorse the vision of the fair work convention and I expect the agency to give appropriate consideration as an employer to what it will do to achieve the vision that

“by 2025, people in Scotland will have a world-leading working life where fair work drives success, wellbeing and prosperity for individuals, businesses, organisations and society.”

It is important to spell out that that is what we are trying to achieve, so that people following the debate will have a clear understanding of what we are all talking about.

There are mechanisms to achieve that vision and primary legislation does not appear to be the best or indeed the correct way to do it. Mr Stevenson and Mr Rumbles make fair points; if a piece of primary legislation refers to a document that has been published but not laid before Parliament, what happens if that document is changed? Primary legislation might then need to be changed, and it is difficult to change primary legislation. We would need to come back to Parliament and go through this whole process again. That would not be helpful and it could conceivably confound the aims that we are seeking to achieve.

Primary legislation has its role, but the main mechanisms for the new agency to achieve these objectives will be the operating plan and the employment manual for staff. The new agency will also become, like Scottish Enterprise and HIE, an accredited living wage employer.

This is a relatively new area of policy. I think that it was last autumn that the First Minister announced it, and she has driven it forward with her vision. It is one that needs to grow organically to make sure that it is implemented properly, and that will take time. However, we expect the new agency to establish the five dimensions of fair work, that is,

“an effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect.”

I will give further consideration to how we impart those expectations to the agency in its role as an employer.

I have significant concerns about the amendment as it is drafted. It asks ministers and the Parliament to legislate on terms and conditions between employers and employees. We do not believe that we can do that, because such matters are reserved to the UK Government within the Employment Rights Act 1996. As members know, there are dangers and pitfalls in legislating in reserved areas.

I would like to answer Mr Greene’s point. The fair work action plan that was published on 27 February sets out how we will deliver our ambitions on fair work. In short, it uses the Scottish Government’s agreement with the civil service trade unions as a model for getting public bodies and the relevant trade unions to sign up to a joint commitment to embedding fair work within all public bodies.

To conclude, convener, I agree with the aims of amendment 18. To answer Mr Finnie, there is a will and there is a way—it is just a different way from the one that Mr Smyth has proposed.

John Finnie

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

Yes, I am happy to do that.

John Finnie

If there is a will, will the Scottish Government bring forward proposals at stage 3 that encapsulate what Mr Smyth is trying to achieve?

Fergus Ewing

We will reflect on the content of today’s debate very carefully indeed. There is no difference in aims. This is the policy that we set out. We own the policy, if you like, together with those who support it, and we want to develop it in a consensual fashion across the board. However, we believe that it should be implemented through the methods that I have already described, such as the operating plan, the employment manual for staff and the letter of strategic guidance that ministers will issue to the new body. Those are the mechanisms that are deployed and that I understand have already been accepted by the Labour Party in previous legislation when Parliament has debated the matter.

I hope that Mr Smyth welcomes what I have set out and the clear commitments that we have given, and that he will not press amendment 18, which the Government cannot support on legal competence grounds.

Colin Smyth

On the cabinet secretary’s final point about the legal basis of amendment 18, the bill team accepted it as a legally competent amendment—or it would not have come before us today.

Amendment 18 would not change employment law; it would simply place a duty on the new body that happens to relate to working conditions. Clarifying the body’s responsibilities in relation to its own staff is very much within the scope of the bill and Parliament.

I believe that amendment 18 is drafted in a flexible way—the wording is such that it would not become outdated. It sets a floor rather than a ceiling when it comes to basic terms and conditions and rights that workers employed by the new agency should have. The amendment includes the words

“as the Scottish Ministers may prescribe”,

so if parts of the fair work convention and fair work framework are changed, the approach will have enough flexibility to incorporate the changes.

If the objections to amendment 18 are purely technical, I urge members to agree to it and get the principle in the bill—

Fergus Ewing

May I intervene on a point of fact?

Colin Smyth

Yes, I am happy with that.

Fergus Ewing

I was reluctant to intervene, but I felt that it is important to say that I have been advised that the legislation team of the Scottish Parliament does not assess questions of legal competence.

Colin Smyth

The point that I made very clearly is that the amendment has been accepted as a valid amendment. It has the full support of the STUC, whose legal advice might be slightly different from that of the cabinet secretary. If the cabinet secretary has legal advice that implies that there is a problem with the amendment, he might want to publish it. The STUC is a partner when it comes to fair work and it fully supports the amendment. I hope that that partnership will continue in the future.

As I said earlier, if the objections to the amendment are purely technical, I urge members to pass it to get the principle on the record, and then we can work on the wording of an amendment at stage 3 to address some of the concerns that have been raised this morning.

I press amendment 18.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Application of public bodies legislation

The Convener

Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6.

Fergus Ewing

The amendments in this group apply various pieces of public bodies legislation to south of Scotland enterprise so that what applies to the existing enterprise agencies also applies to the newest one.

Amendments 1 and 2 are technical amendments in consequence of the others in the group.

Amendment 3 applies sections of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 to south of Scotland enterprise, to ensure that various education bodies, including the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, have the same duties and power in relation to the new agency that they have in relation to Scottish Enterprise and HIE.

Amendment 4 will ensure that ministers can issue directions to the agency about development of Scotland’s water resources in the same way that they can issue directions to existing enterprise agencies.

Amendment 5 will add south of Scotland enterprise to three provisions of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The additions ensure that the new agency will have the same role in relation to community planning and asset transfers as the existing enterprise agencies have.

Finally, amendment 6 will ensure that the new agency is subject to the duties of all public bodies in relation to reporting about climate change duties compliance. Again, that will put it in the same position as existing enterprise agencies.

I move amendment 1.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will be brief. I support all the amendments in the group. They introduce mainly technical changes that improve the reading of the bill and will aid the implementation of its objectives. Some of the changes have been proposed as a result of the committee’s stage 1 report and I welcome that.

The Convener

Do you want to wind up, cabinet secretary?

Fergus Ewing

I have nothing to add. I agree with Mr Chapman’s comments.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2—Application of Public Bodies Legislation

Amendments 3 to 6 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Aims

The Convener

Amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 8, 19 to 25, 14, 9 to 11, 11A, 15, and 26 to 28.

Fergus Ewing

As the committee recognises in its report, the purpose of section 5, which is entitled “Aims”, is to set the direction of travel for the agency and to give it a clear mandate from Parliament without being overly prescriptive about how it will allocate resources and determine its priorities. I know that members understand the need for a careful balance in section 5, which must illustrate a range of activities that the agency can undertake to deliver its aims while enabling it to be both flexible and responsive.

The worst-case scenario would be for south of Scotland enterprise to consider that it could not act on a matter because its legal advice was that its aims were so tightly drawn as to prevent an action or growth opportunity from being taken up and progressed. That is obviously not a legacy that any of us would want to bequeath to the fledgling enterprise agency.

We should be mindful that the enterprise agency will exist primarily to foster and support sustainable economic development, jobs, investments and businesses, so we want to provide clarity for the new agency on how we expect those to be delivered.

Also, we should not forget that other legislation will continue to apply. We should not duplicate things that are already law, so we should be cautious that where statutory functions exist on a matter, we do not overlay them with different wording in the bill that could be interpreted differently from the original legislation on the same matter, which could lead to all sorts of potential difficulties. That is a technical but, I think, important point.

Nonetheless, the agency should be given, in law, a clear set of aims that Parliament wants it to have. I have listened to the calls for the bill to say more on those aims, especially in relation to environmental matters, so I hope that members will welcome my amendments in the group, as I welcome many of theirs. I will speak to my amendments first and then turn to those of members.

Amendment 7 is a technical amendment that will simply pave the way for my other amendments in the group and those of other members.

Amendment 8 emphasises the agency’s role in supporting economic growth that is sustainable as well as inclusive, and responds directly to the committee’s call for the bill to make specific provision on development of a sustainable economy. This Government absolutely supports sustainability, not least in environmental terms.

Amendments 9 to 11 continue the environmental theme, and emphasise particular issues that the agency might look at to improve the environment of the south of Scotland as part of its work to build a sustainable economy there. I acknowledge and welcome Colin Smyth having signed up to amendments 9 and 10, and I am happy to accept his amendment 11A to my amendment 11. However, I would like to ensure that the wording is appropriate to delivery of our aims. I will be happy to liaise with Colin Smyth in advance of stage 3 to agree whether any technical or drafting changes are required.

I am also happy to support Stewart Stevenson’s amendment 23 and Richard Lyle’s amendment 24. They highlight the critical importance of physical and digital infrastructure, which many consultees mentioned in the initial stages of consideration of the bill. The need to tackle the challenges that are faced in that regard by communities and businesses in the south of Scotland was a key theme that emerged from our pre-legislative consultation and engagement, and it continues to feature in the work that we are doing now.

However, we must acknowledge that those things will not be the primary function of south of Scotland enterprise, nor should we take away other bodies’ existing functions—in particular, in transport, from Transport Scotland, where they primarily lie, regional transport partnerships or local authorities. There is no need for section 5 to mention transport and digital infrastructure twice, important though they are. I therefore invite Colin Smyth not to move amendment 25, if the committee is minded to accept amendment 23, in the name of Mr Stevenson, and amendment 24, in the name of Mr Lyle.

I acknowledge that section 5(2)(f) was too tightly drafted, so I welcome amendment 14, in the name of Gail Ross, which seeks to ensure that support for

“communities to help them meet their”

needs will be considered in the widest sense and not limited to community organisations. If the committee is willing to support amendment 14, amendment 15, in the name of John Finnie, will fall, although I fully appreciate why he wants the agency to support such activity. In my view, section 5(2)(f), thus amended, will provide wide enough powers to support projects for community ownership and transfer without creating unnecessary duplication of existing powers and duties on local authorities, particularly under the provisions in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Communities should be able to expect agencies to provide appropriate support to meet their aspirations. I hope that Mr Finnie agrees with that and does not move amendment 15, and that he will accept my undertaking on the record that the agency will have the power and responsibility to support such activity.

Amendment 22, in the name of Colin Smyth, underlines the importance of there being a range of business models that the agency should support, not least of which are social enterprises and co-operatives. The latter are particularly significant in the dairy farming sector. I am therefore happy to support the amendment, although I would like to ensure that the wording properly reflects the intention, and will advise if any technical changes might be needed at stage 3.

I am not entirely sure of the thinking behind amendment 26, in the name of Claudia Beamish. I welcome her to the committee. I will listen carefully to what she has to say, and respond to her in closing.

I turn finally to Colin Smyth’s amendments 21 on fair work, and 27 and 28 on inequality. I will not repeat what I have said already. The Government has progressed fair work: we support it, and our support is clear and unequivocal. We have already indicated our expectation that the new agency be an exemplar, and have suggested the appropriate ways for that to be achieved in practice.

However, I hope that it will be useful to the committee if I add that I recently had the opportunity to have discussions with senior officials in the STUC, and have undertaken to look at the issues very closely, while remaining cognisant of the fact that elements of fair work are reserved, as I have already argued.

At this stage, I offer meetings to members of the committee who wish to discuss the matter further. I have made the offer to the STUC to engage prior to the time when it will be necessary to lodge stage 3 amendments, so that there will be sufficient time for members to decide whether they need to press matters by lodging stage 3 amendments.

I am keen to make it clear to the committee that we are working with the STUC, and that we are happy to continue to work with members on all those matters. In the light of those undertakings, I ask Mr Smyth not to move amendment 21, on the basis that I will look at the issue further, have more discussions with the fair work convention, and speak with him ahead of stage 3, once we have determined what, if anything, might be possible.

We can all agree that low wages and the gender pay gap continue to be among the most serious issues that hold back the economy of the south of Scotland. Although Government research suggests that there has been improvement, they are serious issues and they persist. That should not be the case in 21st century Scotland. It is my firm belief that the new enterprise agency can achieve the aims of sustainable and inclusive growth only by tackling poverty and inequality, and by advancing social and economic policy. Achieving those aims will, by definition, tackle poverty and inequality.

The agency will be a public body, so it will be subject to other legislation in that regard. For that reason, I do not see a need to put the provisions in amendments 27 and 28 into the bill. There is existing statutory provision to achieve those aims in the UK Equality Act 2010, and in Scottish statutory instruments that have been made thereunder. I said at the outset that the matters are already the subject of law that has been passed by the UK Parliament and Scottish statutory instruments. It is important not to duplicate those for the reasons that I gave earlier, including the risk of creating overlap and confusion.

For those reasons, I suggest that Colin Smyth not move amendments 27 and 28, although I will, of course, listen with interest to what he and all other members say on the amendments.

I move amendment 7.

Colin Smyth

I will, in order to make things straightforward, take the amendments in the order in the grouping. I support amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary. It will be a sensible change. The agency’s environmental remit is—as well as its social remit—a key difference between it and the current Scottish Enterprise model, so it is right that the bill will expand on what that will entail.

The committee was very clear in its stage 1 report that, in striking the balance between keeping the agency’s aims general in order to allow flexibility, and giving clear legal direction, the bill does not go far enough in respect of clear legal direction. Amendment of the aims is an important step.

I welcome amendment 8, which will clarify that growth will be sustainable. Amendment 19, which is in my name, would require the agency to encourage

“development of a sustainable economy”

as part of its aim. That is intended to highlight the importance of ensuring sustainability when the agency achieves its other aims. I appreciate that amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, makes a similar point, but amendment 19 is more comprehensive: as opposed to growth, it calls for sustainability across our economy as a whole. The amendment recognises the need to make wider changes to make our economy more environmentally and economically sustainable, and not just focused on growth.

Amendment 20 would require the agency to aim to increase the working-age population. The upward migration of young people and the increasing imbalance in the demographics of the region were raised by many stakeholders and are seen as major challenges facing the south of Scotland. Amendment 20 reflects the importance of the issue and of giving the new agency responsibility to pursue policies that will help to address that. There is precedent in primary legislation for including that. If members think back to the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, they will recall that increasing population levels is the first aim in the section that sets out the remit of the national islands plan, so there is certainly precedent when it comes to tackling the population challenges that face our more rural areas.

Amendment 21 would require the agency to further the principle of fair work as defined in “Fair Work Framework 2016”, and to promote collective bargaining as part of its aims. The agency will have a responsibility to try to drive up wages and improve working conditions in the region. I believe that that should be clearly stated in the bill. Dumfries and Galloway is the lowest-paid part of Scotland. Wages in the Borders are also below the national average. The region needs high-quality, well-paid and secure jobs: that should be clear in the bill. I have heard the cabinet’s secretary’s comments. Perhaps in closing he can clarify whether he is proposing to lodge an alternative amendment at stage 3 to underpin the importance of fair work in the bill.

Amendment 22 would clarify the need for support for social enterprises and co-operatives as well as for more traditional business models. Social enterprises and co-operatives are of huge importance to the south of Scotland. The matter lies at the heart of the new model that is proposed for the agency. It will not be simply about supporting traditional enterprises, but will have a social element, of which social enterprises and co-operatives are a key part. Amendment 22 would add that emphasis to the aims of the agency.

I support amendments 23 and 24 in the names of Stewart Stevenson and Richard Lyle, respectively. Clearly, they were lodged at about the same time as my amendments and are on tackling transport and digital connectivity. Those issues were raised many times in evidence. As a South Scotland MSP, if I were to look in my mailbag, transport and digital connectivity would probably make up the most significant part of the concerns that are raised by constituents.

When we heard evidence from the cabinet secretary during stage 1, he said that he was concerned by the suggestion that transport and digital connectivity should be part of the aims of the new agency, because that might in some way take authority and responsibility away from other agencies, such as Transport Scotland and digital Scotland. That will not happen, and I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary appears to have changed his position on the matter.

It is about the new agency having a very clear leadership role; it is not about the new agency having responsibility for making the A75 a dual carriageway. It is about the agency having leadership in driving the importance of improving the infrastructure in the region—infrastructure that, I have to say, is holding the region back. The leadership role is absolutely crucial to the new agency. I am happy to support amendments 23 and 24. If they are supported by the committee, I will not move my amendment 25, which covers the same areas.

I have no objection to amendment 14, which would change “community organisations” to “communities”. I will listen to what John Finnie has to say when it comes to amendment 15 on community ownership, but it is important to stress that I do not think that amendment 14 goes far enough to enshrine the importance of

“supporting community ownership of land and other assets”,

as set out in amendment 15, which would be an important addition to the bill. The point was highlighted in the evidence that the committee took in Dumfries, in particular from Dr Calum Macleod, who also pointed out that Highlands and Islands Enterprise’s work on community ownership has been one of its huge successes. The new agency should play a similar supportive role in the south of Scotland.

There are about 500,000 acres of community-owned land in the Highlands and Islands, but in the south of Scotland there are only 800 acres of community-owned land. There are significant initiatives around the Mull of Galloway and Lochmaben, but we are far behind the Highlands and Islands on community ownership, so it is important to include community ownership in the bill as a clear aim of the new agency. I do not think that doing so would prescribe how the agency should set up, for example, a community land unit in the way that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has, but it would give clear direction to the new agency that that is one of its aims.

We should also be very clear that the new agency will not take over the Scottish land fund’s responsibility for funding, so that there is no expectation in that regard from stakeholders who have promoted and supported amendment 15. The new agency will drive the issue of community ownership of land and other assets.

The Convener

Colin, I understand that you have a huge number of very important points to make, but I do not want to limit the debating time for members to discuss the points that you and other members have raised. I ask you to bear that in mind as you continue with your comments.

Colin Smyth

Thank you, convener.

There are a number of significant amendments that would have a major influence on how the new agency will work. I support amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which is a welcome amendment, as is amendment 10, which is about

“promoting the sustainable and efficient use and re-use of resources.”

Amendments 9 and 10 are very similar to amendments that I lodged and then withdrew because, although their wording was slightly different, they had the same aim.

I am pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary is supportive of my amendment 11A to his amendment 11, which would change

“supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

to

“supporting the transition to a net zero carbon economy.”

If the amendments are agreed to, I am sure that any technical changes that require to be made to the provision can be made at stage 3.

I am very supportive of amendment 26, in the name of my colleague Claudia Beamish, who I am sure will set out in detail how it will work in practice.

On my amendment 27, it seems strange that we are supporting the aim of promoting and improving transport and digital connectivity in the south of Scotland—which, it has been argued, is not the main responsibility of the new agency—but not the aim of tackling poverty and inequality. As I have said, the broader remit of the new agency, which includes social and environmental responsibilities, is a key difference from the model that we have at the moment. Low wages are a massive issue in Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. That is not to say that they will be the focus solely of the new agency and not other agencies and legislation, but attracting high-skilled, high-paid jobs has to be a focus of the work of the new agency if we are to be serious about tackling poverty and inequality.

Amendment 28—

The Convener

To allow for a debate on the amendments, I ask you to be as concise as possible, please.

Colin Smyth

I will certainly do my best, but the problem is that most of the amendments in the group are in my name, and it will be difficult to have a debate if members are not aware of their aims.

Amendment 28 will make it clear that the agency has a strong social remit, which sits on a level playing field with its economic remit.

Amendment 29 will enshrine best practice in law. Sorry—I have gone too far. I will leave it there. I have covered all the amendments in my name in the group.

Stewart Stevenson

Colin Smyth referred to the evidence that the committee heard on digital connectivity. I, too, heard that evidence and tak tent of it. Having the appropriate speed and availability of connectivity is a crucial way in which more rural parts of Scotland can be placed at an equal distance as urban areas are from services that are delivered digitally.

Notwithstanding the excellent reaching 100 per cent programme, which will make speeds of 30 megabits per second available to all premises in Scotland, it is worth saying that the first digital system that I worked on, in 1969, ran at 110bps, which was adequate for its time. The speed that we are now looking at—30Mbps—is more than 250,000 times as fast as that. The 30Mbps that is being delivered through the R100 programme will undoubtedly be overtaken by faster speeds and different technologies, so improving connectivity will be an important part of the agency’s work. Connectivity is a vital utility for people who live in the south of Scotland and elsewhere in Scotland. In definitional terms, amendment 23 also covers work that the agency is likely to want to do on mobile hot spots, as well as on wired connections for broadband.

The indications are that the committee will support amendment 23. However, if the committee were not to support it, I would be entirely relaxed if it instead supported amendment 25, in the name of Colin Smyth.

I will say a few words on two of the other amendments in the group. In speaking to amendment 18 in a previous grouping, I talked about the use of the fair work framework and the fair work convention. The same difficulties apply in relation to amendment 21, so I will not rehearse those arguments.

In the light of announcements that have been made subsequent to the lodging of amendment 11A, I suspect that the term “net zero carbon” might be substituted at stage 3 for “net zero greenhouse gas emissions”, which is a broader term that would accord with the amendments that have been lodged to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which is before the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, of which I am a member.

Richard Lyle

There are numerous amendments in the group but, to save time, I will speak only to the amendment in my name, which is amendment 24. Through the committee’s work, we know how vital transport connectivity is to the success of communities and businesses across the south of Scotland, and that point has been reinforced by our evidence gathering on the bill. Amendment 24 responds to those concerns by making it clear that the south of Scotland enterprise agency could undertake activity to promote improvements to “transport services and infrastructure” across the south of Scotland.

In our consideration of the bill, the committee recognised the need for clarity on the roles and responsibility of agencies that operate in the south. Amendment 24 will not confer on the south of Scotland enterprise agency any existing statutory functions or duties, such as those that Transport Scotland and regional transport partnerships have. Instead, it will ensure that the new agency can complement the existing activities and advocate transport infrastructure and services that support the inclusive economic growth of the south that we all believe in. That is what the committee called for in our stage 1 report.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

In the interests of brevity, I will also just speak to the amendment in my name, which is amendment 14. The committee recently welcomed the remit for the new south of Scotland agency, which includes social development, and the evidence that we heard at stage 1 showed wide-ranging support for that to be included. It responds to the very clear need for support to help communities in the south of Scotland to further their interests and to meet their needs. We also heard concerns that the current wording in the bill at section 4(2)(c) is too narrowly drafted, because it referred only to community organisations, which might inadvertently restrict the support that can be offered and who can receive it. I agree with those concerns.

As the cabinet secretary has stated, amendment 14 adjusts the wording to make it clear that the support for communities that could be provided by the new enterprise agency is not intended to be restricted solely to community organisations, and ensures that the agency can reflect and respond to the different needs and interests of communities across the area. The broad scope of the section, with the addition of amendment 14—should it pass—would allow almost any matter to be addressed, including community asset transfers and land ownership, which would make John Finnie’s amendment unnecessary. However, I heard Colin Smith’s point, and I will listen closely to John Finnie’s comments on amendment 15. I thank the cabinet secretary for his assurances in the matter and will wait to see whether John Finnie thinks that amendment 14 will suffice.

John Finnie

What we are doing now shows the importance of this building and the role that committees play in scrutinising legislation. I absolutely accept that we all want to make good law that is relevant and not open to challenge. The pressure that we all face as elected representatives is lobbying from individuals who want their particular interest put on the face of the bill because they perceive—rightly on occasions—that, if that interest is not expressly catered for, it is somehow devalued. We all know that that is not necessarily the case.

However, I am somewhat bemused by some of the discussion, in that we have commended the promotion of reserved issues, as Mr Stevenson did, although I have no issue with that. Amendment 14, in the name of Gail Ross, does not cover what is required. We mentioned the issue of community land ownership and, as the committee heard from Dr Calum Macleod of Community Land Scotland, part of the remit of the new agency should be to establish “a community assets team” within the agency, similar to the one that is operated by HIE. We have referenced the similarities with HIE a lot in our discussion about the powers in the bill.

Let me tell you our recommendation:

“The Committee further calls on the Scottish Government to amend the aim of ‘furthering the economic and social development of the South of Scotland’ to make specific provision in relation to ... supporting community land ownership and assets ownership”.

That is specifically what I am doing with amendment 15, and I hope for the committee’s support.

Colin Smyth touched on the huge disparity between the extent of community land ownership in the south of Scotland and in the Highlands and Islands, and that perhaps has a historic basis. We know, for example, from Dr Calum Macleod that

“Community ownership contributes to local economic development in both rural and urban settings by generating business opportunities, employment and income streams for reinvestment by communities for their collective benefit.”

There are opportunities. The creation of the south of Scotland enterprise agency offers an opportunity for a step change to address what has been described as a “glaring discrepancy”.

If the cabinet secretary is saying, as he did previously, that the wording of the amendment has deficiencies—I cannot see that there are—given that this committee has always been a significant platform, and that a commendable approach has been taken by the Scottish Government on the changes on land ownership that are required, I hope that the amendment will be supported by members.

I will talk briefly about one or two of the other amendments. I hear what has been said in the repetition of some of the earlier discussion and I support Colin Smyth’s approach to a lot of those other issues. Given the time restraints, I will not go through them all, but I am also broadly supportive of the other amendments.

The Convener

Before I ask Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 26 and any others in the group, I take this opportunity to welcome her to the committee.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Thank you, convener—that was in the nick of time. I am pleased to be here today and preface my remarks by saying how important and significant I think the bill is for the south of Scotland, which I represent. I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative group of members of the Scottish Parliament.

I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that he will listen to the points that I want to make on amendment 26. It would add to the aims in section 5 a requirement to encourage

“persons and bodies with an interest in the environment to co-operate in achieving environmental objectives.”

It is a probing amendment that would enable and facilitate a whole range of bodies and individuals such as farmers, land managers and communities—urban and rural—to work together.

I will give three quick examples, which are all things that would be difficult for groups to do without support and advice. The amendment would encourage groups to take such environmental projects forward. One would be river catchment-wide work—for example, actions to mitigate flooding such as repairing and planting. Another is agroforestry schemes, which would enable action on a scale that, because of economies of scale, would make tree planting possible across smaller landholdings in a way that it would not be otherwise. The third example is woodland planting, of which there are already good examples by communities near Peebles and in other places in south Scotland. The amendment would support and facilitate communities to work on that with advice from the agency.

In view of the recent UK CCC report, this week’s United Nations report on nature and the shift to net zero emissions by 2045—to which, I am delighted to hear, the Scottish Government has now committed—I am clear that amendment 26 adds to the aims in a way that would facilitate a co-operative approach to positive environmental objectives. I look forward to hearing from the cabinet secretary on that.

I am not a member of the committee, but I want to say that I support amendment 15, in the name of John Finnie. I visited Gigha when I was on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in the previous session of Parliament and I understand the support that HIE has given to communities that are looking to move forward, so I think that it is very important that community ownership is part of the bill.

Peter Chapman

I will be as brief as possible. I have no problem with amendments 7 and 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary, or with amendment 19, in the name of Colin Smyth, which is very similar to amendment 8. I can also support amendment 20, in the name of Colin Smyth. It is obviously commendable that we should try to get more working-age people into the region.

Amendment 21, on the fair work framework, has basically been debated already, so I will not support that one. I have a problem with amendment 22, which seems to be very restrictive in promoting co-operative societies. I would like to promote all kinds of business models and do not agree with picking out one.

I support amendment 23, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, in principle, but I have a concern that we would be committing the enterprise agency to funding some of the work, and I do not believe that it is within its remit to do that. It is certainly within the remit to support and encourage.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

The word that is used in amendment 23 is “promoting”, which I think is much wider than just financing.

Peter Chapman

If that is the case, I am happy to support amendment 23, but we need to be sure that the agency is not expected to fund that work—that is my point. Amendment 24, in the name of Richard Lyle, relates to funding strategic reviews, which we can support.

As I said, I cannot support amendments 21 or 25. However, I heard Colin Smyth’s point that, if the committee supports amendments 23 and 24, he will not move amendment 25.

I support amendment 14, in the name of Gail Ross. The cabinet secretary said that it might mean that amendment 15 will not be moved, although I suspect that John Finnie will press that amendment and, if he does so, I will support it as well.

Mike Rumbles

No one has done so yet, but it is important that we recognise what the cabinet secretary has done. In our stage 1 report, we asked him to lodge amendments on the environmental and other aims, and he has done that. Therefore, I will support the cabinet secretary’s amendments on that in preference to any other approach.

I said to several members privately, when they asked me about their amendments, that I would have an open mind and would listen to the debate, as I am sure we all do. Before I heard John Finnie, I was minded to support amendment 14 but, based on what John Finnie so eloquently said, I will support amendment 15. It would achieve what we asked for in the stage 1 report, so it is appropriate that we support it. I certainly will not support amendment 41, in the name of John Finnie, which we will discuss later, but I will support this one.

Jamie Greene

A lot has been said on this large group of 18 amendments, and my colleague Peter Chapman has eloquently expressed our views on many of them. However, it is worth making a few quick general points for the benefit of members.

There is a choice to be made between amendments 23 and 24, which are on digital and transport infrastructure, and amendment 25, which is also on digital connectivity and transport. It comes down to the nuanced wording. I am minded to go in favour of amendments 23 and 24, because they refer to “promoting improved” digital and transport infrastructure rather than “supporting the enhancement” of those. By default, the term “enhancement” could be read as suggesting a duty to do something or a role in that, but that requires budget, which the agency may or may not have.

It is no surprise that this group of amendments on the aims is the biggest one, because there are so many asks of the committee and the new agency and people want it to be as expansive and comprehensive as possible. We all share that view, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary does, too. However, the problem that we always have with lists is that they are non-exhaustive—we have had debates on that many times in the committee. I am uncomfortable with starting lists that we do not finish, although we have to be cognisant of the feedback that we had in the public meetings. There were specific asks on social enterprise, the environment, digital and so on, so we will support some of the amendments but not all of them.

I was a bit unsure about the rationale behind amendment 14, but I am happy with Gail Ross’s clarification of it. Like Mr Rumbles, I have come round to amendment 15. Our group is minded to support it, because the issue was in the stage 1 report. There is no problem with the phrase “supporting community ownership”. The amendment does not say that there will be huge swathes of budget to give to organisations to buy pieces of land. The term “supporting” is suitably positive and suitably vague in that respect, so I can support amendment 15. It really comes down to the wording. The terms “supporting” and “promoting” are helpful, while putting a direct duty on the agency will inherently lead it down a path that it might not want to go down.

John Finnie

I thought that the presentation that we heard on amendment 26, in the name of Claudia Beamish, was excellent. This is about the challenges that we face collectively, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary’s response. After all, it is all about dialogue. In some of the examples that have been highlighted, it will be about the leadership that is shown as well as about collaborative working. I hope to hear a positive response from the cabinet secretary.

Finlay Carson

I share the concerns that have been expressed by Jamie Greene and John Finnie about the creation of lists. If we have lists that are too long and that do not expressly mention certain interventions, the suggestion might be that they are not so important, so, as a result, the lists might become a bit prescriptive.

Amendment 14 broadens the opportunities without concentrating on any particular intervention. I am not sure why social enterprises and businesses should be emphasised only if they are co-operative societies, and I think that amendment 14 would open things right up.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 22 actually refers to

“social enterprises and ... co-operative societies”,

not just co-operative societies. That is an important point, because it goes wider than co-operative societies to include all social enterprises. As far as the remit of the agency is concerned, that is clearly a change from the remit of, say, Scottish Enterprise.

Finlay Carson

My reading of the phrase

“supporting social enterprises and businesses that are co-operative societies”

is that it could exclude social enterprises and businesses that are not co-operative societies. We just need to be very careful about creating lists.

Amendment 9 refers to

“maintaining, protecting and enhancing the natural heritage”,

but one might argue that the agency should enhance the area’s cultural as well as natural heritage, and we might well lodge further amendments at stage 3 to address that issue.

Fergus Ewing

I am very pleased with the detailed discussion that we have had on the aims of south of Scotland enterprise, and it is right that we give the matter full consideration. As Mr Finnie has said, that is, in a sense, what we are here to do.

Although I do not support all the amendments in the group, I, for the most part, agree with the intention behind them. As Mr Rumbles has said, we listened very carefully to what the committee said in its report and lodged amendments to address the committee’s reflections and recommendations about the environment. I am grateful to Mr Rumbles for his comments in that respect.

Issues such as equalities and fair work will be included in the strategic guidance letters that will be issued to the agency and that will be dealt with in the strategic board’s strategic plan. If it is helpful, convener, I will write to you in a bit more detail about how strategic guidance letters deal with such matters, and I will provide examples of Scottish Enterprise, HIE and, indeed, the strategic board stating and showing how these vital matters are dealt with in practice, not through legislation but through letters of strategic guidance. That might help to inform stage 3 and give all sides a clearer understanding of how these matters can be dealt with in practice and not in primary legislation.

I encourage members to support amendments 7, 8, 23, 24, 14, 9 to 11 and 11A, which more clearly demonstrate how the new agency’s activities will balance a range of economic, social and environmental objectives to deliver inclusive sustainable growth and sustainable development.

Jamie Greene

What is the cabinet secretary’s understanding of the difference between amendment 19 and amendment 8? They are similar. One would add “sustainable” to the list of aims for economic growth, whereas the other would add

“the development of a sustainable economy”

to the list of aims. There is a similarity in the wording, but I am unsure which of those amendments would achieve the best result and whether the two are compatible.

Fergus Ewing

Not surprisingly, and for largely technical reasons, we prefer our amendment. The alternative—amendment 19—does not express the aim in the most felicitous way. However, we will reflect carefully on those matters and return to them before stage 3. Having hitherto looked carefully at the technical detail of all the amendments, that is our recommendation. It is not about good versus bad; it is about effective against slightly less effective and clarity versus potential vagueness. I will go on to illustrate some of the general points in relation to specific amendments.

We should bear in mind the fact that the bill has been drafted to provide flexibility in the activity of the agency. That was recognised by the committee in its report. We want the new agency to be able take a fresh, tailored approach to meeting the needs of the south and not to be constrained by legislation or artificial boundaries. Many members alluded to that as a desirable and necessary aim.

I will turn to some of the specifics. In amendment 15, John Finnie sets out his proposals, and we support his aspirations. However, we prefer Gail Ross’s amendment 14 to amendment 15 because agreeing to amendment 14 would mean that the bill would provide that we support “communities to help them meet their needs”. That is simple and straightforward.

John Mason

Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?

Fergus Ewing

I will develop and complete these arguments, then I will give way to Mr Mason and to Mr Finnie, who also wants to intervene.

Quite rightly, Mr Finnie and others, including Mr Mason, have referred to the good work that HIE has already achieved in community land ownership. The community land unit was alluded to as the operational way in which HIE gave focus to those issues.

The legislation that set out the aims of HIE does not mention any of that. HIE was able to support community land purchase without that being referred to at all in its establishing legislation. It is precisely because the wording of the legislation that established HIE is broad that it is able to act in that way. Therefore, it is not necessary to specifically confer power in the way that Mr Finnie’s amendment seeks to do. In preferring Gail Ross’s amendment, we are simply making a judgment about what is technically preferable.

If members wish to raise further questions on those matters, I will be happy to accept all interventions.

John Finnie

I tried to lay out fairly groups’ aspirations for what would be in the bill, but I readily accept the cabinet secretary’s point and will support Gail Ross’s amendment. The matter was addressed in our initial report on the basis of the evidence that we had received.

At the moment, I do not have intimate knowledge of the legislation that set up HIE, but I am sure that it did not include, for instance, promoting digital connectivity. Legislation evolves, and our position in relation to things evolves. However, I would have thought that the Scottish Government would want to trumpet the issue rather than have it contained in a generality. In relation to the Highlands and Islands, it is good news from the Scottish Government, and I would have thought that the Government would not have any difficulty in expressly catering for it in the bill.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, it might be more appropriate for you to hear all the points that are going to be raised and then to come back on them—or would you like to address them individually?

Fergus Ewing

I will hear them all and then answer, if that is all right.

The Convener

That seems to be the logical way. John Mason will go first, then Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene.

John Mason

My point is similar to John Finnie’s. I am struggling to understand. I accept that the community ownership of land and other assets was not mentioned in HIE’s legislation, but the Government and our party are committed to it and we have put a huge amount of money into buying Ulva, which I wholly support. We heard in evidence that, whereas in the Highlands and Islands there is quite a lot of community land ownership, there is virtually none in the south of Scotland. I am therefore inclined to support amendment 15 because it would underline what we are trying to do.

The Convener

Mike Rumbles feels that his question has been asked.

Jamie Greene

I want to respond to the cabinet secretary’s point. I do not think that amendment 15 would confer any additional powers or even implies that. It simply does not state that. It just talks about

“supporting community ownership of land”.

We all have our political views on that subject, but I think that that is a fair and reasonable statement to make. It does not deviate in any way, from a legislative point of view, on the powers that ministers might or might not have already or those that the agency might seek to have. If the agency can use powers that exist elsewhere to purchase land, it is welcome to do so.

We have used the word “supporting” in other amendments that the committee supports, so it is acceptable. I do not see the direct relationship between supporting community land ownership and the sort of powers that the minister thinks the amendment might confer.

Fergus Ewing

I am grateful to the members for their points, and I will try to respond to each of them.

Amendment 14 covers more than ownership, although it encompasses ownership. If it is agreed to, amendment 14 will mean that SOSEA will be able to do everything that HIE can do. It goes wider than ownership. There might be ways other than community ownership in which communities might wish to be assisted, and the amendment would confer a wider range of powers.

I would have thought that it would be desirable to ensure that there is the widest range of powers for communities that wish to pursue options other than direct ownership of their land. That said, as Mr Mason said, the Government is completely committed—and my party has been so committed for as long as I can remember, which is more than four decades—to community land purchase. There is no question about the aims. We are not saying that amendment 15 is bad and that the other one is good; that is not the issue at all.

If the committee decided to go for amendment 15, we would have to consider what technical amendments would be necessary to avoid restricting the scope of the new agency at stage 3. I would certainly ask my officials to consider whether that would be necessary.

I assure Mr Greene and Mr Mason that the purpose behind our advice that amendment 14 is to be preferred is to ensure that the new agency can do exactly what Mr Finnie and other members have said it should be able to do. The new agency would be able to do more because the wording of amendment 14 would allow it to do more. The objection is entirely technical, but that is in the nature of drafting legislation. We are not in any doubt about political policies and their pursuit; the question is about how best to implement them and enable them to be enacted.

I will park that issue there and turn to amendment 26, if I may. I thank Claudia Beamish for coming to the committee and making her point. It is essential that everyone works together and co-operates, but that is not really about the agency. The bill is not really about telling third parties what to do—that does not really come under the scope of the bill. People need to work together across the whole scope of government—that is expected and desirable—but it is not really within the scope of any bill that establishes a new body to state that third parties should co-operate. That should happen anyway.

Claudia Beamish

The point that I am making is not that they should co-operate. I am saying that this is a permissive, facilitating and supportive amendment for groups that might not have the capacity to do things collectively. It is a question not of what they should do but of what they could do.

Fergus Ewing

Again, although I support the aspiration, the point that I am making is that that is not suitable for inclusion in primary legislation. How can we enforce what third parties do together? Indeed, the phrase

“persons and bodies with an interest in the environment”

is vague. Who is to say whether someone has or does not have an interest in the environment? Arguably, everyone should have an interest in the environment, which means that everyone should co-operate with each other, and that is not really anything to do with setting up the agency.

In suggesting that members should oppose the amendment, I am not opposing the sentiment of it. I agree with the aim, but it is not really one that is habile for inclusion in primary legislation.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Given that things relating to the environment are moving at a rapid pace, will the cabinet secretary agree to take on board the idea of some of the amendments being redrafted before stage 3? That might enable us to take account of the climate emergency that we have now declared we are facing in Scotland.

Fergus Ewing

I am pleased to give the assurance that, before stage 3, we will consider that specific issue as well as amendment 26. Moreover, in various places, the bill imports a duty to consult. That is important, as that duty to consult will bring about what Claudia Beamish wishes to achieve. We will soon debate amendment 39, in the name of Maureen Watt, which proposes just that, in a particular context. Therefore, what Claudia Beamish sets out to achieve is achieved by other means. Given the undertaking that I have happily provided to Maureen Watt about the bigger picture of tackling climate change and ensuring that the new agency can do so effectively, I hope that Claudia Beamish will agree with me on that point and not press amendment 26.

I fully recognise Colin Smyth’s desire to emphasise the importance of the fact that the new body will tackle inequality and poverty in the south, and I addressed that in my opening remarks. However, I do not think that amendments 27 and 28 are the right way in which to achieve that. For the reasons that I set out earlier, which I will not repeat, I urge the committee not to agree to those amendments if they are pressed. I reiterate the undertakings that I have given previously to return to the committee and the STUC in good time before stage 3 to have further discussions on those matters, which we are happy to do.

Aside from the drafting, I think that there is enough in the aims, should the committee support my amendment 8, to allow clear direction to be given on wider Government priorities such as tackling poverty and promoting equality, and I specifically undertake to give that direction in the agency’s first strategic guidance letter.

The last issue that I will talk specifically about is the debate about the options relating to transport, one “promoting” and the other “supporting”. We used the word “promoting” because, after careful internal deliberation with Transport Scotland, lawyers and others, we felt that it was the best word to use in respect of the role that the new agency should have. The option of using the words “supporting the enhancement of” had an element of vagueness, because it could import an obligation financially to contribute to matters that are the actual responsibility of other bodies.

Mr Greene set out the difference between the two options quite well, and I entirely agree that “promoting” should be preferred. It correctly encapsulates the role that stakeholders wish the new body to have—which it should have—without encroaching on the legal and executive responsibilities of other bodies, including Transport Scotland.

Rather than just read out all the stuff that I wrote earlier, I wanted to respond to members’ concerns, which I am grateful to them for raising, and I hope that this collaborative and consensual discussion will lead to improvements to the bill. Whatever the committee decides, we are happy to continue to work with all members to get the best possible bill and to progress work prior to stage 3.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Amendment 19 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

Amendment 20 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 21 disagreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendment 23 moved—[Stewart Stevenson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Richard Lyle]—and agreed to.

Amendment 25 not moved.

Amendment 14 moved—[Gail Ross]—and agreed to.

Amendments 9 and 10 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 11A moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Amendment 11, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 15 moved—[John Finnie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 15 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendment 26 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 8, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 26 disagreed to.

Amendment 27 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 27 disagreed to.

Amendment 28 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 9, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 28 disagreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6—Action plan

The Convener

Amendment 29, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 30 to 39, 45 and 46.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 29 would set a requirement for the new agency to review its action plan annually. There would be no requirement for it to change the plan if it concluded that it still met its requirements. The agency would simply have to carry out an annual review to make sure that the plan was up to date. My amendment would enshrine best practice in law and ensure that the action plan could not be forgotten for years to come.

Amendment 31 would require the agency to consult local authorities while developing its action plan. I believe that that is a sensible provision that would ensure that there was local consultation during the development of the action plan.

Amendment 32 would require the agency to submit its draft action plan to local authorities for comment. John Mason has lodged an amendment that would require that it be submitted to the Parliament, which is perfectly reasonable. However, it is important that the plan also has local input, which is what amendment 32 seeks to achieve. In some ways, that is an alternative to the approach that is set out in amendment 33, to which I will speak in a moment. However, it seeks to ensure that local authorities would have an opportunity to give feedback on the action plan towards the end of the process. Ideally, that would be in addition to the consultation requirement that is set out in amendment 31, and would provide useful insight for local authorities and ensure that the agency works in partnership with the two local authorities.

Amendment 33 would require the agency’s action plan to be agreed by local authorities as well as the Scottish ministers. It is, in effect, a stronger version of amendment 32, and would require local authorities to sign off the action plan. Again, the aim is to guarantee local input and collaboration between the agency and local authorities. It is crucial that we provide a mechanism to give local authorities a chance to respond to the action plan, but I would be happy to take a steer from committee members on whether that should be a statutory right to comment or a specific requirement to support the action plan. It is worth noting that there is precedent in law for such a proposal, in that, at the moment, local plans from the police and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service must be signed off by local authorities.

Amendment 37 follows on from amendment 33. As the Justice Committee highlighted recently, a weakness exists in the current sign-off process for local plans for the police and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, in that although such plans must be signed off by local authorities, no mechanism is in place should an authority say that it does not agree with a plan. Amendment 37 would ensure that a suitable process would exist should there be a dispute between a local authority and the new agency, although I hope that that would not arise if the organisations work together closely.

Amendment 34 would require the agency regularly to engage with local communities to gain feedback on its performance and receive views on what it should do in future. I believe that a requirement for community consultation should be set out in the bill. It is not good enough simply to say that something is best practice and then expect it to happen; it is important that we underpin it with a legal requirement. As I have said a few times today, there is no downside to enshrining best practice in legislation. It provides clarity on what is expected and helps to future proof the principles that have driven the agency’s establishment. Amendment 34 is not prescriptive on what the consultation process should look like. It gives the agency flexibility in its approach and simply clarifies that, as part of its responsibility to keep the action plan under review, it should regularly consult the local community to gain feedback on its performance to date and its future work.

I am aware that amendment 39, in the name of Maureen Watt, proposes something similar. Although that would certainly improve the bill, I believe that amendment 34’s proposed requirement for regular consultation is more appropriate than her proposed requirement to consult only on the development of the action plan.

Amendment 35 expands on amendment 34 by clarifying that local authorities, businesses, third sector bodies, social enterprises, trade unions and so on should be consulted as part of the agency’s community engagement process. I believe that that would provide additional clarity on what is meant in amendment 34. The list of bodies in amendment 35 is by no means exhaustive; rather, it is a starting point to make clear the proposed scope of the consultation, in addition to amendment 34’s requirement to consult people who live and work in the south of Scotland. Each of the bodies on that list has an important and unique perspective that would inform the agency’s work. Amendment 35 would make it clear that they should be included in the consultation process.

Amendment 37 follows on from amendment 33, and I have probably covered it in my earlier comments.

Amendment 38 would require that the action plan be revised at least every five years, if that has not already been done during that time. As is the case with the requirement to review the plan annually, that simply sets a floor for regular revision. Such a timeframe is not unreasonable; indeed, I would hope that the plan would be revised sufficiently often that the requirement in amendment 38 need never be used.

Again, there is precedent for setting a timescale for revising plans. Members will recall that a specific timescale for revision of the forestry strategy was included in the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, which was driven by this committee. It is important to set a timescale so that there is an upper limit for when the plan should be revised.

I think that I have covered all my amendments in the group.

The Convener

I think that you have.

Colin Smyth

I appreciate that there are quite a few of them.

I move amendment 29.

Maureen Watt

When we took evidence on the bill, we heard loudly and clearly that people across the south of Scotland wanted to shape the work of their agency. They are excited by the opportunities for growth that it will bring, but they want to ensure that their voice continues to be heard and that the agency will listen to their views and priorities. We as a committee wanted to enshrine that approach in the bill, and amendments 30, 36 and 39, in my name, would do that.

Amendment 39 would require the new agency to consult on its action plan, including on the development of a new or modified plan. It goes further and would ensure that the agency sets its consultation strategy and makes it clear whom it will consult, and why. That would give local people a formal channel through which to provide feedback on the performance and strategic focus of south of Scotland enterprise. As a result, it would enhance the accountability and transparency of the new enterprise body.

Amendments 30 and 36 are technical amendments to make that work. Amendment 30 flags the consultation duty section, and amendment 36 makes it clear that consultation must take place on modifications to as well as on replacing an action plan.

I agree with Colin Smyth that it is important that local authorities are consulted, but unlike him—I refer to amendments 31 to 33—I do not think that their voice should have primacy or that they should be given any veto over the plans. Moreover, I do not think that the Scottish ministers should prescribe through regulations whom the new agency should consult. That is best left to those in the south of Scotland.

I am reluctant to see timetables for review prescribed in the bill. Public bodies are already required to do that, and we do not need to make additional provision for the new agency.

The amendments in my name strike the right balance. They would strengthen the bill by clearly providing a greater role for the people of the south of Scotland in shaping their new agency, and I ask members to support them.

Stewart Stevenson

Amendment 29 would basically require an annual review of the plan—in other words, the whole shebang would have to be looked at every year. It is worth saying that section 6(1)(c) of the bill creates the power for south of Scotland enterprise to

“modify its action plan at any time”,

subject to the Scottish ministers approving that. That is appropriate. I can see that south of Scotland enterprise may well wish to make amendments in a timeframe of a year or, indeed, less than that but, given the whole wheen of consultations that Colin Smyth proposes in his amendments, the requirement for an annual review would carry the very real danger that south of Scotland enterprise would spend all its time reviewing its plans, whereas its real objective is to support economic development, for example. That is the general point.

I have concerns about the specific wording of amendment 35. Proposed section 6(2)(2D) refers to

“businesses ... operating or otherwise having an interest in the South of Scotland.”

I simply do not know how that would be defined, because the provision is all-encompassing. The amendment appears to create a duty to find all businesses

“operating or otherwise having an interest in the South of Scotland”,

and that would be impractical.

The same observation applies to third sector bodies and trade unions under proposed section 6(2)(2D)(c) and (d).

Amendment 38 proposes a new section 6(5), which would state that

“If it has not previously modified its action plan in the 5-year period”,

the agency must modify the plan. It might be a brilliant plan that does not need modification in five years. If it does not need modification, that is fair enough.

Colin Smyth

I am curious about the member’s approach to the bill and his approach to the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, in which he voted in support of a Government amendment that set a timescale on when the forestry strategy should be reviewed and amended. Somehow, he thinks that that should not apply to the south of Scotland enterprise agency.

Stewart Stevenson

I am simply looking at what is in front of me. I confess that I do not have the words relating to the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill in front of me, so I cannot make that comparison. I am sure that Colin Smyth would not mislead me in that regard.

The bottom line is that, if a plan is the plan that is needed, I am not sure why, statutorily, we would create a requirement to change it, because that change might be artificial. My issue is the wording of the amendment—it is slightly odd. I suspect that, in the real world, very few plans would survive for five years without being changed.

I am happy to support Maureen Watt’s amendments.

Jamie Greene

I will try to rattle through the amendments in the group in a cohesive manner.

I will take amendments 29 and 38 together, because they are topical. I do not have a problem with inserting a requirement for an annual review. I think that the agency would naturally do that anyway, but I do not think that there would be any harm in putting the requirement for an annual review in statute. That does not mean that the agency should spend the whole year doing a review; nor does it necessarily mean that the plan must change every year. Amendment 29 does not say that—it simply says that the agency must cast its eyes on its plan at least once a year. I would like the agency to do that, and I think that it would expect to do that.

Such a review might simply say that the agency is happy with the plan as it is, and that it will keep calm and carry on. In that case, it will have done its review, which will be signed off appropriately. The review need not be a navel-gazing, laborious piece of work. Therefore, I support amendment 29.

I was minded originally to support amendment 38. However, I am concerned about what would happen if the plan were not modified at the end of a five-year period because the board saw no need to modify it. It could very well be that, after the fifth annual report—I repeat that I support there being annual reports—the board wants to continue along the same path, so there would be no need to modify the plan. On a technical level, would amendment 38 require the agency to modify its plan?

I am sympathetic to Colin Smyth’s aims, but I would not want there to be any unintended consequences, with a duty being placed on the board to do something that it does not need to do.

Colin Smyth

Will the member take an intervention?

The Convener

You will get a chance to comment when you wind up, but I will let you ask a brief question.

Colin Smyth

I am keen to know why the member’s approach is slightly different from that which was taken in the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. The wording in that bill is exactly the same as the wording that I have proposed, although the timescale is different.

Jamie Greene

We are not considering the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill—this is an entirely different bill for an entirely different agency with entirely different objectives. Members are perfectly entitled to take different views on the wording in the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. However, I take Colin Smyth’s point, and I appreciate that he has used similar wording.

As I said—perhaps Colin Smyth can think about this as other members speak—I am unsure whether, at the end of a five-year period, the agency would have to modify its plan. Could a continuation of the plan be a modification? In that case, I would be happy to support amendment 38. Perhaps the member could comment on that when he sums up.

On the other amendments in the group, there appears to be a choice between two camps. There are the amendments that were lodged by Maureen Watt and similarly worded amendments that were lodged by Colin Smyth. I am sympathetic to both, but I will outline my position on each of them.

I am minded to support amendments 30, 36 and 39 from Maureen Watt, which will provide for the consultation that people are looking for in the south of Scotland. It is important to include local authorities but the feedback that I have had from people in the south of Scotland is that they do not want local authorities to have a veto over the agency’s decisions. Indeed, some people were adamant that they want no local authority involvement at all. To be sympathetic to the important role of local authorities in the south of Scotland, they should be part of the consultation process. Colin Smyth’s amendments to that effect would perhaps be too prescriptive and binding on the role that local authorities would play.

Finally, although I do not support amendments 35 and 37, if they were to be agreed to, amendments 45 and 46 in later groups are linked to them and we would support those technical tidying-up amendments.

However, I am pleased to be able to tell Mr Smyth that I support amendment 34, which takes a more general and less prescriptive view of who should be considered in terms of the board’s activities.

John Finnie

I like plans. I read a book about the Soviet Union and a dairy farm that used to have monthly production plans. People liked a break from the monotony, so they had fortnightly production plans, and they also became very popular, so they then had weekly production meetings. The phrase that I recall from that book was “eagle-eyed zealots” who were always on the lookout for anyone who would seek to put a plan into practice.

Therein lies the problems with a lot of this. It is entirely well-meaning but, despite what is being said, the focus of a significant part of the workforce will be on populating plans that will gather dust on shelves or be referred to occasionally.

I will not speak to all the amendments in the group. In this case, I think that Maureen Watt has got the balance right and I will support her amendments.

Richard Lyle

My reply to my colleague’s comments is that communism did not work out very well, did it?

A company can have a plan but there has to be flexibility in its daily running. Most companies that have a plan review it. When I was on the council, planners continually reviewed plans and sometimes nothing got done, as far as I could see.

Yes, there should be a plan, but there should also be flexibility to ensure that the plan works. That is what a businessman, an entrepreneur or an official does every day of the week. As a boss said to me when I worked at the Royal Bank of Scotland, you have to look at the bigger picture.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, it is now down to you to give the bigger picture.

Fergus Ewing

I will try to rise to the occasion, convener.

I am grateful to members for their contributions to the debate. We all want to achieve the same thing, and I am mindful of the fact that, at stage 1, the committee asked us to find a way to better consult the people who live and work in the south of Scotland.

I welcome Maureen Watt’s amendments 30, 36 and 39. Indeed, if she had not lodged them, I might have been minded to do so. They ensure that consultation with people across the south of Scotland will continue by introducing a specific requirement for the new agency to consult local people. That was what the committee wanted the Government to do, and that is what we believe should be done without enfankling the new agency in an overly burdensome framework of overly prescriptive rules and regulations.

Maureen Watt’s amendments are less prescriptive than, for example, Mr Smyth’s amendment 34, which is at the same time both prescriptive and vague. It says that the agency “must regularly seek representations” from different people but—and this is not a criticism of Mr Smyth—it does not say what “regularly” means. Vagueness in legislation allows people to argue different things, and becoming enmeshed in side issues is never a good thing.

Mr Smyth’s amendments 31 to 33, 37 and 46 deal with consultation with local authorities. The main reason for not accepting the amendments is that they would, in effect, give local authorities the right to veto plans. I do not think that the committee wants that and, as far as I know from my frequent engagement with them, neither do local authorities. No local authority should be able to direct an agency for the whole area about its plans. The desire is for the local authorities and the new agency to work together, and I am confident that they will do so because of the will that exists for that to happen. I urge members to reject Mr Smyth’s well-meaning and well-intentioned amendments.

To be as helpful as possible, before stage 3 we will consider any further proposals on the key issue of accountability that members wish to put to me. The onus is on members. If they have any further thoughts after stage 2, I give the undertaking that we will carefully consider their proposals in the same way that we will collaborate with others.

I turn to the timetable and to timing issues. I point out that all public bodies are required by the Scottish public finance manual, which applies to public bodies, to review their corporate plans every three years. That requirement applies across the board. They are also required by the finance manual to produce an annual business plan.

Those are the rules that apply to Scottish Enterprise and HIE. There should not be a misalignment or disjunct between the other enterprise agencies and the new one. The new agency should be bound to operate in the same way as other public bodies with regard to reviews and business plans. We have made clear to the other bodies that we expect them to align their planning cycles to a common three-year cycle, rather than having different three-year cycles.

Jamie Greene

I am a bit confused. Are you saying that the current enterprise agencies have one-year or three-year reviews of their action or other plans? Which plans are reviewed when? Amendment 29 asks for

“a review of the plan at least annually”.

I presume that “plan” means the action plan, although that is not explicitly stated. I am trying to get my head around the difference.

Fergus Ewing

The position is that the enterprise agencies are required to review their corporate plans every three years. I put it to the committee that, given that the enterprise agencies are required to collaborate, as there are often issues that transcend boundaries—for example, companies operating in different parts of Scotland get help from different enterprise agencies, which have to collaborate—it makes a lot of sense for there to be alignment in the timing of their corporate plans and to have the same three-year cycle. That will require a little bit of synchronisation, if that is the right word, but that can readily be achieved. If a one-year review was required, that would be too frequent and would impose a significant burden on the agency and those consulted.

I have a specific point to make about that. I get the sense that Maureen Watt’s amendments will be agreed to by the committee. Members should bear in mind that amendment 39 would import an obligation to consult when a plan is modified. If Mr Smyth’s proposal to review a plan every year is agreed to, we must accept that if a plan is to be reviewed, the corollary is that there must be an opportunity to modify it as a result of that review. In order to modify it, there would have to be a consultation, which would import an annual round of consultations. The consultation process is not straightforward, so that would impose an unduly burdensome process. I am sure that Mr Smyth does not wish to do that. If members are minded to agree to Ms Watt’s amendments, I urge them not to agree to the one-year review suggested by Mr Smyth.

Finlay Carson

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

In a moment—I want to make one final point.

If Mr Smyth agrees to withdraw amendment 29 and not to move his other amendments in the group, I will be happy to bring something back at stage 3 to provide for an aligned three-year cycle, so that we have clarity on such matters.

Convener, if I am permitted to give way to Mr Carson, I will do so.

Finlay Carson

I have a simple question. Is there an expectation, guide or policy about how extensive a review is required to be?

Fergus Ewing

I am not sure that there is, but I will come back to Mr Carson if I am incorrect. If one agrees that a plan should be reviewed, the review will of necessity and by definition encompass the whole plan. In contrast, if a partial review were to take place, that would need to be specified. If a bill says that a plan must be reviewed, all of the plan falls to be reviewed and the outcome of the review must result in the opportunity to modify the plan. If the plan were to be modified, that would entail a duty to consult every year, which would be an unreasonable burden.

Richard Lyle

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fergus Ewing

If the convener is so minded, I am happy to take a further intervention.

The Convener

Briefly, Mr Lyle.

Richard Lyle

If the enterprise body had to continually review and consult on its plan—it would have to consult, because otherwise people would say that it had not consulted local people, and one reason for establishing the body is to improve things—would it get mired in a lot of paperwork and meetings? The whole year could be away doing that.

Fergus Ewing

There is merit in what Mr Lyle says. Plans are important, but implementing them is even more important. We all wish the body to do the job that it is expected to do. It will be judged by how it does that job and not—I suspect—by the content of its plan, no matter how perfectly worded and comprehensibly drafted it is.

I encourage members to support Maureen Watt’s amendments. I invite Mr Smyth to withdraw amendment 29 and not to move his other amendments in the group, and I refer to the undertakings that I have given the committee.

Colin Smyth

A lot of assertions have been made about the amendments in my name, but many of those assertions do not reflect the wording of the amendments or relate to their practical implementation.

Amendment 29 would require

“a review of the plan at least annually”,

but it does not say that the plan would have to be modified.

Richard Lyle

I see Mr Smyth’s point—[Interruption.]

The Convener

I was slow in calling Richard Lyle’s name, so the microphone was slow in coming on. I am sorry; that was my fault.

Richard Lyle

Knowing Colin Smyth, I think that he would ask for local people to be consulted as part of the annual review. As I said, if the agency has to spend time annually consulting, reviewing and holding public meetings—we have all held them and been at them, and we know how long it takes to get a view together—that will waste a lot of time.

Colin Smyth

The consultation requirements would be those that are set out in the bill—I will come to amendment 39 in a moment. Amendment 29 makes no reference whatever to consulting every time the body reviews its action plan. Amendment 39 says that, if the body were to modify the plan, it would be required to consult, but amendment 29 does not refer to consultation when the plan is reviewed.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise publishes an annual operating plan; the one that is in front of me is for 2018-19. It sets out such a plan every year. I am at a loss to understand why people think that south of Scotland enterprise should not have an annual plan, although one is produced for Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Jamie Greene

I said that I am sympathetic to the idea of an annual review of the plan, which is a bona fide request to make of the agency.

However, having listened to the debate, I have a concern. I support amendment 39, on consultation on the action plan, but I do not want to end up in a situation in which, if we support both amendment 29 and amendment 39, the plan would have to be reviewed and consulted on annually. Even if the board’s view was that the plan should not be modified, which, as Colin Smyth has said, would be perfectly acceptable, having to go through a consultation process—as is right and proper—before that decision was made would become the onerous task that I said it should not be. I am in a difficult position.

Every member is addressing the issue from an important angle. I wonder whether there is a better way for the committee to reflect on all the valid points that have been made and come back with something that works. I hope that we can get this right at stage 3.

Colin Smyth

In the debate, all sorts of myths have been invented about what consultation should look like. My view is that any organisation should have on-going consultation. That happens at the moment, with the predecessor to the south of Scotland enterprise agency carrying out regular discussions and consultation meetings across the south of Scotland. It has done one set already and is about to carry out a similar process in only its second year.

A prescription for consultation is not set out in my amendments—it is not set out in anyone’s amendments. It is up to the new agency to set out how it plans to consult, which should not be an onerous task. I return to the point that Maureen Watt is not proposing that there should be a consultation process every time the annual action plan is reviewed. I repeat that Highlands and Islands Enterprise has an annual operating plan, and I am at a wee bit of a loss as to why we should not have one in the south of Scotland.

Gail Ross

So far, we have had four descriptions or terms for the plan: a strategic plan, an operating plan, a corporate plan and an action plan. Are they all the same thing? Is the HIE operating plan different from an action plan? I am confused about terms that are being used interchangeably.

Colin Smyth

You would have to ask the cabinet secretary why the phrase “action plan” is specified in the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. It is not my language; the people who drafted the bill specified an action plan. I can only work on that basis, and that is why my amendments refer to an action plan. The language is different from that used in the legislation that established Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask the new agency to review its plan annually. That is different from saying that it has to modify its plan annually, which would be a decision for the new agency.

The Convener

I will try to add a bit of clarity. I, too, am confused about the plans. I noticed in what the cabinet secretary said some willingness to discuss the issue. It seems appropriate to try to get the plan right, so that it is not a plan for a plan for a plan, to be reviewed on a reviewable basis, whether that happens annually or there is a set period of five years. The plan must suit its purpose. I favour getting the cabinet secretary to draw up a process to ensure that the plan is appropriate and that it is reviewed at the appropriate time, which could be discussed at stage 3. Would Colin Smyth support that?

Colin Smyth

That is the point that I was coming to, convener. The two aspects to the proposals are the requirement to review the plan and the requirement to modify it after a certain period. As I said, the precedent for that is this committee’s support for a Government amendment to the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, which said that the forestry strategy had to be modified after a set period. The wording that I used in relation to modifying the action plan is exactly the same—only the timescale is different.

I would support a process coming forward. My main concern is that there are currently no timescales in the bill. It is perfectly reasonable to have a debate if there is a commitment to bring forward proposals at stage 3 on setting timescales and requirements for the new agency as to when its plan has to be reviewed and when it has to be modified if there are no changes following the review.

I set a five-year limit because I would be astonished if the action plan from the new agency was not modified at all within a five-year period, given how the economy changes. I certainly share the views and comments expressed by the convener in that respect.

On amendment 39, in the name of Maureen Watt, my one slight concern is that it talks about the agency carrying out consultation

“Before making or modifying its action plan”.

I find that quite restrictive, as it would mean that the agency would consult only at the start of the process of making its plan or when it was modifying the plan. The process of consultation must be more on-going than that. I am happy to support amendment 39, but the wording needs to be looked at in more detail to ensure that consultation does not take place just when the plan is modified, because that might be five or 10 years down the line. Consultation should happen more regularly than that. As I have said, I am concerned about the wording, but I am happy to support the amendment at this time.

The cabinet secretary suggested that my aim was for local authorities to have a veto on the action plan. I stress that amendment 32 in my name refers to having “regard to any comments” made by the local authorities. That is no veto—no lawyer will tell you that having regard to something is the same as having a veto over it. It is important that we do not mislead people by implying that the amendment gives the local authority a veto over the action plan. All it says is that the local authority should be consulted and that the agency should “have regard to” the authority’s comments.

Richard Lyle

One of the member’s amendments—amendment 37—says:

“The Scottish Ministers must by regulations make provision for how South of Scotland Enterprise is to proceed where a draft of, or a draft modification of, its action plan is rejected by ... a local authority”.

I am sorry, but if he does not think that the local authority is going to try to interject with regard to the south of Scotland enterprise board, I have to disagree with him. It is something that the local authority could do.

If a cabinet secretary said to me, “I’ll work with you to sort out what you’re asking for,” I would grasp that invitation as soon as possible and not move that particular amendment. I therefore ask the member not to press or move any of his amendments and to work with the cabinet secretary to get what he wants. After all, that is what we all want.

Colin Smyth

I am happy to take advice from Mr Lyle at every opportunity, but it is important not to mislead the committee. In considering amendments 32 and 33, I come back to the point that, as I made clear in my earlier comments, one is an alternative to the other. One amendment would give the local authority the opportunity to decide whether it agreed with the action plan. That is exactly the same as what happens with the police and the fire service at the moment, and I note that Mr Lyle supported the legislation that deals with the local plan for the police and the fire service. The weakness with that provision is, as the Justice Committee recently pointed out, the lack of a resolution process for any dispute that might arise. What I am saying is that if the committee were to agree to amendment 33, a dispute resolution process would have to be put in place.

However, amendment 33 is an alternative to amendment 32, and amendment 32 does not give the local authority a veto over the action plan. It simply requires the local authority to be consulted and the agency to “have regard to” the authority’s comments. Surely nobody is suggesting that having regard to the local authority’s comments is somehow the same as giving the local authority a veto. It is important to point out that there are two amendments, and that they effectively give the committee a set of options.

Fergus Ewing

My argument was that the potential consequence of amendment 37 was to confer a veto on local authorities. It specifically says that where a local authority rejects

“a draft ... or a draft modification of”

the plan,

“Scottish Ministers must by regulations make provision for how South of Scotland Enterprise is to proceed”.

In other words, SOSE would put forward a draft plan and, if the local authority rejected it, Scottish ministers—the Scottish Government—would have to tell the agency what to do.

I do not recall anybody during the consultation process suggesting that the Scottish Government should step in and have the power that is set out in amendment 37, which is basically to direct the new agency on what to do in those circumstances. Perhaps I did not fully explain that that was how I interpreted amendment 37 and why I suggest that it should not be agreed to.

Richard Lyle

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I do not think that I can; I am not the speaker.

The Convener

Hold on. I will let Colin Smyth back in, but we are getting to the stage of having a circular debate. I am close to saying that it is time for him to press or withdraw amendment 29 so that we can look at the other amendments. He can let Richard Lyle in, if he feels that it is appropriate to do so.

Colin Smyth

It is important to respond to the cabinet secretary’s point. Amendment 37 directly follows on from amendment 33. If we go down the route of allowing the local authority to decide whether it agrees with the action plan, which is what happens in relation to the police and the fire service, my view is that there should be a resolution process. One of the current major weaknesses in the legislation on the police and the fire service is that if there is a disagreement—if a local authority disagrees with the local plan for the police service, for example—there is no resolution process. The Justice Committee made it very clear that it thought that that was wrong and it is asking the Government to change it.

Again, I make the point that the alternative amendment simply allows the local authority to comment on the action plan, and the agency should have regard to those comments; it does not give the local authority a vote or say on the plan or a veto over it. Amendment 32 is an alternative to amendment 33, and amendment 37 would be moved only if amendment 33 was moved. It is important to place that on the record.

Richard Lyle

Will the member take an intervention?

The Convener

As far as I am concerned, this is critical legislation and it is right that, if members want to intervene and the speaker is prepared to listen to them, interventions should be taken. It is up to Colin Smyth whether he wants to take Mr Lyle’s intervention, but then I will ask him to wind up on the amendment.

Colin Smyth

I am happy to take the intervention.

Richard Lyle

The member has just explained that he has two counter amendments. I go back to amendment 37, which says that, if the council objects to the plan, the issue has to go back to the Scottish ministers. That is surely not the intention. At the end of the day, if the cabinet secretary is showing good grace by saying, “Let’s work on this,” I suggest that the member should work on it.

Colin Smyth

I am happy to work on the amendments. What I am not happy about is that people keep making frankly inaccurate references to the amendments. Amendment 37 directly follows on from amendment 33. If amendment 33 is agreed to, there should be a resolution process in case there is a dispute. I come back to the fact that that is the very point that the Justice Committee made recently about the legislation for the police and the fire services. If amendment 33 is agreed to, amendment 37 would provide for the resolution process. However, there is an alternative to amendment 33—amendment 32, which does not require a resolution process.

Maureen Watt

Will the member take an intervention?

Colin Smyth

I am happy to.

The Convener

This is the last intervention.

Maureen Watt

As Colin Smyth has gone on, he has shown why it is important that we have flexibility and balance. From what he is saying, it feels as though the new enterprise agency will be bound up in consultation all the time. It is important to have consultation on the initial strategic plan, and flexibility needs to be built into that. The agency needs to get on with the job rather than constantly putting things out for consultation, which is what I feel that Colin Smyth’s amendments would bind it to doing.

The Convener

I ask Colin Smyth to summarise very briefly and then to press or withdraw amendment 29.

Colin Smyth

I have been trying to summarise for some time, convener, but it is important to point out that people’s interpretation of the amendments is slightly different from the wording. I am happy to leave it at that.

The important point is that a principle is missing from the bill, which is the need to consult the community in the south of Scotland. That is a major weakness in the bill as it stands, and I hope that, if there is a commitment from the Government to find wording that works between now and stage 3, we can find a way to meet that need.

Amendment 29, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 30 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.

Amendment 31 not moved.

The Convener

Does Colin Smyth wish to move amendment 32?

Colin Smyth

I will not move amendment 32, based on the commitment to look at the wording at stage 3.

Amendment 32 not moved.

Amendments 33 and 34 not moved.

The Convener

Does Colin Smyth wish to move amendment 35?

Colin Smyth

Again, on the basis of the commitment to look at the wording at stage 3, I will not move amendment 35.

Amendment 35 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.

Amendment 37 not moved.

The Convener

Does Colin Smyth wish to move amendment 38?

Colin Smyth

Again, I will not move amendment 38 at this stage, on the basis of the commitment to look at the wording at stage 3.

Amendment 38 not moved.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

After section 6

Amendment 39 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.

The Convener

Before I call amendment 40, I point out that we have a series of amendments that are all in groups on their own, so I am sure that we can be particularly focused on them.

Amendment 40, in the name of Colin Smyth, is in a group on its own.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 40 would create a duty on the agency to develop an equalities strategy as part of its action plan and to report against that regularly. The agency has an important role in tackling inequality, so we need an element of oversight and accountability in relation to its work in that regard. The strategy and, crucially, the requirement to report against it will provide that. In setting up a new agency, we should do all that we can to embed best practice from the outset, and that includes requiring the agency to produce an equalities strategy.

Again, I have tried not to be overly prescriptive with regard to what exactly that should involve, in order to give the agency flexibility. It is relatively common practice for bodies to produce strategies and reports of this nature. For example, Skills Development Scotland reports regularly on progress with regard to equalities. Amendment 40 would require the agency to proactively think through what it can and should do in that regard, to set out specific plans and, crucially, to be accountable for its progress, all of which are highly likely to improve how the issues are handled and the priority that they are given by the agency. That approach should be best practice for such organisations and so should be specified in the bill.

I move amendment 40.

Fergus Ewing

I reassure the committee that equality will be integrated into all that the new agency does. In essence, my argument is that what is being sought is already in law. Once the agency is established, it will be added to the list of public bodies that are regulated by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The public sector equality duty will automatically apply to the agency, because the Scottish Government will make the necessary consequential legislative changes as soon as possible after the bill is passed. That is the normal practice but, because the issue is linked to reserved legislation, we cannot do it through schedule 2, as we have done for other legislation. It is not within the Parliament’s legislative competence so to do.

All public authorities in Scotland are already required to produce reports on mainstreaming equality. Amendment 40 would place on the new body an additional reporting requirement that is neither necessary nor proportionate. However, I undertake to give further consideration to how we make clear the importance of equality and tackling inequality as part of the agency’s work, as I fully appreciate the point that Mr Smyth is seeking to make. For those reasons, I hope that he will not press his amendment but, if he presses it, I ask members not to support it.

Colin Smyth

It is important to point out that what is stated in the amendment is not currently in law, because it is specifically about the new agency. It says that the agency’s action plan

“must include a strategy setting out how South of Scotland Enterprise will ... comply with its duties under the Equality Act 2010”

and

“promote equalities in pursuing its aims.”

It specifically requires that to be included in the action plan and requires the agency to report on performance. That is very different from what the law currently states, under which there will be no requirement for the agency to set that out specifically in its action plan.

However, I am happy to take on board the cabinet secretary’s comment that we should look to see how we can be more specific about the agency’s role. I hope that that will lead to an amendment, or a very clear process, from the Government ahead of stage 3.

The Convener

Do you wish to press or withdraw amendment 40?

Colin Smyth

Given the cabinet secretary’s commitment, I seek to withdraw it.

Amendment 40, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 7—General powers

The Convener

Amendment 41, in the name of John Finnie, is in a group on its own.

John Finnie

The group is entitled “Powers not to be used to contribute to arms trade”. Although comparisons have been made with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, it does not currently have the general power that is set out in section 7. I made a number of inquiries with Highlands and Islands Enterprise to establish what moneys it has provided to the arms sector, and I got a reply detailing several companies, some of which had received substantial, six-figure sums. Following that, I had a meeting with the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

I want to be fair and balanced, as ever. Where someone owns a company that makes batteries, for example, one of their products might go into private cars but also into tanks. The fact that the company makes batteries does not mean that it is necessarily involved in the arms trade, so there is an important distinction there.

Members will be aware that, in a previous session, I asked questions on the issue and my Green colleagues have done so in the current session. Most recently, my colleague Ross Greer asked a question that drew the unequivocal and very reassuring reply from the Scottish Government:

“The Scottish Government has not used public money to support the manufacture or export of munitions from Scotland.”

That is a clear statement. It is unfortunate that the next sentence begins with the words

“However, we recognise the vital role that Aerospace, Defence and Marine engineering sectors play in Scotland’s economy”.—[Written Answers, 23 February 2018; S5W-14271.]

Having taken reassurance from the meeting with the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, I was surprised in, I think, the following week to receive an invitation—this will not come as a surprise to you, convener, because you will have received it too, along with Ms Ross—to a free workshop at the Inverness campus for local businesses

“to find out how the region can benefit from opportunities in the aerospace, defence, security and space industries.”

The event was

“organised by Highlands and Islands Enterprise ... and ADS Scotland which is the Scottish branch of the aerospace, defence, security and space industry trade organisation, ADS.”

We have repeatedly heard fine words from the Scottish Government, which has talked about UN sustainable development goal 16, on peace, justice and strong institutions. The Government was asked what assessment had been made in relation to that.

People may well ask where the definition used in amendment 41 comes from. It is from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The issue is very clear. The finite public resources that are available to be spent in the south of Scotland should be directed to constructive and productive uses that benefit the whole of humanity, particularly the people of the south of Scotland.

I am optimistic that, given all those previous pronouncements, SNP members will have no difficulty in lending their support to the very modest proposal in my amendment.

I move amendment 41.

Mike Rumbles

So that those who are listening are aware of my background, I point out that I spent 15 years in the Army both at home and abroad and was involved in military aid to the civil power and other issues.

Rather than talk about the arms trade, as John Finnie has just done, I will talk about his amendment. His amendment is not about the arms trade. The arms trade is a serious subject that deserves to be treated seriously, but amendment 41 does not do that. The amendment would lead to the people of the south of Scotland facing serious situations.

In amendment 41, the definition of “arms trade” refers to sales for “domestic procurement” and the definition of “military services” includes providing “operational support”. If there was, God forbid, a crisis in the south of Scotland, the amendment—if it is passed into law—would prevent the agency from working with any other organisation or body to support military aid to the civil power in an emergency. In my view, it is an irresponsible amendment and we should have nothing to do with it.

Stewart Stevenson

The amendment states:

“South of Scotland Enterprise may not do anything which contributes financially to the arms trade”.

That is an all-encompassing definition that creates substantial difficulties, which I will come back to.

In proposed new subsection (3B), the definition of “military services” is services that are

“specifically provided to support military purposes, including ... information technology”.

If the military buys software from a computer retailer to run on a personal computer, it would certainly appear to be the case that that would be information technology that is specifically provided to support military purposes.

The definition goes on to include “intelligence”. I want the intelligence services, including the security services, to continue to do their job. In 1967, I was a laundry van driver and one of my customers was a Government Communications Headquarters outstation, where I took roller towels and collected soiled roller towels weekly. That activity would be supporting the intelligence services and presumably contributing to their financial viability.

The definition of “military services” also includes “training”. One of the important parts of training, which I think John Finnie would wish to support, is training that relates to diversification of companies that are currently involved in the arms business into civilian business. It would appear that the provision of training that would help diversification would be banned under amendment 41.

Without seeking to engage on the principle that I think John is trying to address, the construction of the amendment creates real difficulties, such that it would be all but impossible for south of Scotland enterprise, or any other enterprise agency, to comply with the specific wording.

Jamie Greene

Amendment 41 does not merit huge swathes of our time, but it is important to address the point. I commend Mr Finnie for using the bill to make his point, which he has made well but, as far as amendments go, it is erring on the side of bonkers.

We should consider the strategic small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the south of Scotland that will look towards the new agency for assistance. I point to companies such as Penman Engineering in Dumfriesshire, which makes armoured vehicles for military services. What would happen if such a company approached the agency to ask for support to expand and develop its business and employ more local people or take on more apprentices? Amendment 41 would prevent the agency from dealing with such companies, and we just cannot have that.

Mr Finnie has made his point about the arms trade but, unfortunately, amendment 41 is so all-encompassing that it includes things such as the provision to our military of logistical support and facilities management services. That could cover anything—for example, it could cover the production of UHT milk for forces and squaddies or the making of woolly jumpers in the Borders. I say with all due respect to Mr Finnie that I cannot see how the committee can support an amendment that would restrict so many small and medium-sized businesses that operate in the south of Scotland. The agency should have its arms open and should be all-encompassing.

Richard Lyle

I would love to live in a world where companies did not supply arms to other countries to kill people but, sadly, that is the world that we live in. Mr Finnie’s point is about the arms trade. To me, that is guns, planes and bombs. What about tyres for planes or plastics that might be made down in the south of Scotland? Mr Finnie’s amendment would cover anything that goes into a vehicle or a plane, as well as personal equipment. Mr Greene mentioned jumpers—soldiers who go to the Arctic might need a type of jumper or undergarment that is made in the south of Scotland.

I agree with Mr Finnie on the supply of arms—I wish it would stop but, sadly, it will not. Amendment 41 does not cut it, and I will not support it.

Finlay Carson

I strongly urge the committee to reject amendment 41. As Jamie Greene mentioned, in Dumfries we have a successful company that makes specialist and armoured vehicles. It is a fantastic example of enterprise and entrepreneurial behaviour in the south of Scotland, and it would be dreadful to think that an amendment such as amendment 41 might restrict that company’s ability to grow and employ people.

The Convener

I have a brief comment about operational support for the armed services. One needs to be careful in this area, because—I speak from experience—the armed services are sometimes deployed on peacekeeping missions. If we were to hinder their ability to carry out peacekeeping, that would be detrimental. There are also soldiers who are deployed to prevent poaching in Africa. Mr Finnie’s amendment would deny the new agency the opportunity to deal with companies that provide operational support for that. I am not sure that that is what he intends to do but, to my mind, that would be a consequence of the way in which amendment 41 is written. For that reason, I will not support it.

Stewart Stevenson

Convener, I should have made a declaration of interests: I am a committee member of the Highland Reserve Forces and Cadets Association.

The Convener

I am sure that, as you do not receive any remuneration for that, that is fine.

After we have heard from the cabinet secretary, I will come back to John Finnie.

Fergus Ewing

As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions. Our agencies’ support is focused on helping firms to diversify and to develop non-military applications for their technology.

Although our enterprise agencies do not support the manufacture of munitions, they recognise the importance of the aerospace, defence and marine sectors in Scotland, which employ many young graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. They work proactively with those sectors to help them to diversify their activities and to grow and sustain employment. That position would apply to the new agency as well.

Amendment 41 would penalise businesses that applied for support with such activities. It would also impact on small businesses, which dominate the rural economy in the south of Scotland and which might provide goods or services to main contractors, as Mr Greene and Mr Lyle pointed out.

As the committee will be aware, there are companies in the south of Scotland that operate in the area of defence. The new agency should be able to support them with diversification and non-military applications for their technology. The defence, aerospace and marine sectors in Scotland are very important to our economy and, if amendment 41 were agreed to, it could damage the contribution that companies in those sectors make, thereby putting jobs in the south of Scotland and elsewhere at risk.

The new agency provides the opportunity to deliver a fresh approach and to promote economic growth in a balanced way. As well as attracting inward investors, it will have the ability to support businesses in the area to establish and grow, and we want to ensure that it has the flexibility to do that. For that reason, I invite members not to agree to amendment 41.

John Finnie

I thank members for their contributions, but I think that some of them have not read amendment 41, which is, of course, competent or else it would not be in front of us.

Mr Rumbles’s comments are incorrect, because proposed new subsection (3B) sets out that the term “military goods” refers to goods that are designed “for military purposes”, so the amendment would not affect the fight against poaching or the making of woolly jumpers. We need to get the terminology correct.

Diversification is commendable and everyone wants to encourage it. However, the Scottish Government gave £2 million to Lockheed Martin, which is a company that made a $0.25 billion profit a couple of Novembers ago, although the money was dressed up as money for the University of Glasgow. Raytheon has also received money, and it is complicit in the slaughter of innocent people in Yemen, where there is now a famine.

It is surprising that Mr Stevenson said that he was not seeking to engage on the principle. However, there is a principle behind amendment 41. If there was an opportunity to provide public moneys to one of two bodies, one of which was involved in providing military goods for military purposes, I hope that the money would be given to the body that was not involved in those activities. However, the evidence suggests that that would not be the case.

We have the opportunity to do something very modest. I hear what members have said, but I wish to press amendment 41.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

Abstentions

Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 41 disagreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 to 13 agreed to.

The Convener

At the outset of the meeting, I said that we aimed to complete stage 2 today but that we would see how we got on. Unfortunately, it is clear that we will not be able to complete the rest of stage 2 today. We have got as far as we are able to go, so next week we will need to pick up from where we left off today. I remind members that amendments to the remaining sections of the bill can still be lodged, and that the deadline for doing so is 12 noon on 9 May, which is tomorrow.

We have other items on our agenda that, unfortunately, we will be unable to get to, so they will be rescheduled.

I thank the cabinet secretary, his officials and everyone else for attending today’s meeting, and I look forward to the early start of next week’s meeting.

The Convener

Item 5 is day 2 of our consideration of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill at stage 2.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and his supporting officials: Karen Jackson is south of Scotland economic development team leader; Sandra Reid is bill team leader; Felicity Cullen is from the Scottish Government directorate for legal services; and Fraser Gough is parliamentary counsel. I also welcome Finlay Carson MSP.

We will resume where we left off.

Section 14—Annual report

The Convener

Amendment 42, in the name of John Mason, is in a group on its own.

John Mason

As members can see, section 14 states:

“South of Scotland Enterprise must, after each financial year—

(a) prepare and publish a report of its activities during the year, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Scottish Ministers.”

Amendment 42 would require the report also to be laid before the Parliament, which will ensure that members are regularly informed about the agency’s activities and that the agency is accountable for its actions, to enable members to build up a picture of activity over time. I think that such an approach is standard practice for most non-departmental public bodies and would bring the new agency’s reporting requirements into line with those of the existing enterprise agencies. I hope that members will support amendment 42, which will increase transparency.

I move amendment 42.

Peter Chapman

Amendment 42 would increase the accountability of the board. We would expect such accountability from any public service body, and we think that it is the correct approach. I support amendment 42.

The Convener

No one else wants to speak, so I will bring in the cabinet secretary.

The Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy (Fergus Ewing)

Thank you, convener. I am pleased to support amendment 42, which will bring the new enterprise agency’s reporting requirements into line with those of the existing enterprise agencies.

Amendment 42 agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Before section 15

The Convener

Amendment 43, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 44.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 43 would give ministers a duty to set up a framework to ensure that the new agency interacts effectively with the many existing bodies that cover the south of Scotland. As members know, one of the big concerns that was raised with the committee by stakeholders in the south of Scotland was about how the new agency will interact with other bodies working in the region. That issue dominates the views of many businesses and organisations that I speak to regularly in the south of Scotland. I presume that that is why committee members agreed to recommend in our stage 1 report that there should be an amendment to the bill regarding that issue.

The agency will operate alongside councils, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, VisitScotland, whatever governance is put in place regarding the Borderlands growth deal and so on. In practical terms, we need to ensure that there is no duplication or no gap in the work being done and that there is clarity about who is responsible for what.

More broadly, we need to ensure that there is collaboration and coherence across the bodies. The new agency will have a crucial leadership and co-ordinating role to play in that regard. The existing duties that are set out in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 require co-operation, but that is at local authority level. The new agency will work across local authorities, and community planning partnerships will not be sufficient to cover the need to co-ordinate that work. Amendment 44 is consequential on amendment 43.

I move amendment 43.

Stewart Stevenson

I am one of two constituency MSPs whose constituencies cross the Highland and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise boundaries, so I see how the two agencies work together. As far as I am aware, they work together not because of a requirement in a piece of legislation but through concordats and formal agreements. I suspect that that might be a better way of working together.

More specifically, looking at the way in which Colin Smyth has constructed his amendment 43, I wonder whether the phrase

“which operate in the South of Scotland”

is a bit restrictive. There are public authorities whose effects are in the south of Scotland but which do not necessarily meet the test of operating in the south of Scotland. I think that there is a wee issue in that regard, which Colin Smyth might be able to address in his concluding remarks.

The phrase that I quoted is qualified by the phrase

“and which have functions relevant to the aims of South of Scotland Enterprise.”

Again, I suspect that that is more restrictive than would likely be the case with the agreement that I would expect to be reached between the new body and whatever bodies it is relevant for it to have agreements and to co-operate with.

I will listen to the debate, but what I have said about amendment 43 means that I am not sure that I should support it at this stage.

Jamie Greene

Amendment 43 is interesting, and I thank Colin Smyth for lodging it. He raises an important issue, and the premise behind the amendment is something that the committee discussed and reflected on at stage 1. One of the conundrums that we face is how the new agency will work with other bodies and agencies. We had a lengthy discussion last week about the agency’s aims and the areas of portfolio interest that it will reflect. We looked at transport, digital connectivity and so on.

I support the principle of what Mr Smyth is trying to achieve with amendment 43, but I have some questions for him that he can perhaps reflect on in summing up. His response might influence how I—or, indeed, committee colleagues—vote on the amendment.

First, can Colin Smyth provide me with any comfort that the amendment will not place any additional duties on the new agency to deliver the functions of any other agency that operates in the south of Scotland, or indeed, as Mr Stevenson stated, any other agency that has functions relevant to the new agency’s aims? I appreciate that the agency’s final aims have yet to be agreed at stage 3. I look for comfort that the amendment would not place an additional duty to deliver things that other agencies should be delivering.

What does

“co-operates and co-ordinates activities with”

mean? The statement is valid, but it is vague. What is the definition of co-operation and co-ordination? What would be the consequences of not co-operating or co-ordinating? I am slightly worried that there would be recourse to the agency’s board, the agency and ministers if they were deemed not to have co-operated with and co-ordinated other agencies’ work, although that work will be largely outside the agency’s control.

Would Colin Smyth be willing to work with other committee members to tighten the wording, if we felt that it did not achieve his premise technically? Would he work with us to develop a watertight amendment for stage 3 that we could support?

John Mason

To build on what Jamie Greene said, I share some of his concerns about the phrase “co-operates and co-ordinates”. I understand that, if three of us are co-operating, we are all equal and working together to find a solution. If three of us are together, the person who co-ordinates is taking a lead. Mr Smyth used the word “leadership”, which suggests that south of Scotland enterprise’s position would be above that of the local authorities. That might not be the member’s intention, but it is my reading, which suggests that local authorities’ autonomy would be undermined.

Mike Rumbles

The duties are

“to ensure that South of Scotland Enterprise co-operates and co-ordinates activities with other Scottish public authorities”.

That is clear and is the whole point. I am relaxed about the proposal, but do we need the Scottish Government to make regulations on that? That seems to be overkill.

John Finnie

I share some of the concerns that other members have expressed, although I do not doubt that amendment 43 is entirely well meant. If the two local authorities in the area took diametrically opposed positions on an issue—I cannot think of an example at this juncture—how would the co-ordination and co-operation work? What additional pressures could that place on the new agency?

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

I share the concerns of a lot of committee members, but I think that amendment 43 could be important, with changes. We do not want money that the board allocates to be used in areas in which other public bodies—such as the Scottish funding council, Skills Development Scotland and VisitScotland—have the funding for delivery. We want accountability and co-operation to ensure that money comes out of the right pot. There was an argument that, although the £6.6 million that was allocated to colleges in Dumfries and Galloway and the south of Scotland was greatly welcome, some of it should have come from the funding council. The amendment could enable us to hold board members to account and ensure that money is allocated from the right pot.

Fergus Ewing

I have listened with great interest to the discussion. I agree with the principle, which Mr Smyth is to be commended for introducing, that it is essential for south of Scotland enterprise to work closely with other public bodies across the south of Scotland. I would go further and suggest that it is equally important for the agency to engage with businesses, education institutions, communities and—as Mr Stevenson said—public bodies that do not operate in the south of Scotland but whose influence and decisions have an impact on the area.

I am cognisant of the fact that, earlier in stage 2, Claudia Beamish moved a similar amendment about a duty to co-operate with environmental bodies. I will say the same thing that I said about that: of course there needs to be co-operation with all relevant stakeholders. As all members have done, I agree that the principle is correct. The question is how the objective is best secured in practice and whether primary legislation is the best way to achieve it.

The amendment says that the Scottish ministers “must” make regulations. That would confer powers on the Scottish ministers that we do not seek. We would prefer to leave it to the judgment of the people who are appointed following due process as the chair and members of the board, and their staff, to work in the way that we all wish them to do. I do not want the Scottish ministers to take a prescriptive approach, and I do not see why that is necessary or desirable. However, we absolutely want to encourage a culture of co-operation. We have seen that culture in the south of Scotland economic partnership under Professor Griggs’s chairmanship. Indeed, from what I have seen—I have had the privilege of being involved in many of the meetings and discussions—the partnership is working extremely well.

Of course, we have no idea who the office bearers of the new body will be, but I hope that that culture of co-operation will carry on. SOSEP has brought together public sector organisations with private, third and education sector bodies and has forged good working relations, and it is right to record that. Professor Griggs is about to engage on another 32 public meetings across the area, which is an outstanding stint. Those of us who have been involved in public meetings will know that that is a bit of a shift, to put it in non-ministerial parlance.

I am sure that those relationships will continue with the establishment of the enterprise agency, and rightly so. However, I want to try to be helpful, because there is a mood of trying to find a positive way through, as Mr Greene and Mr Finnie expressed. First, I should have discussions with the local authorities to see what they want in relation to the matter, and I have an opportunity to do so prior to stage 3. That would be useful. Mr Finnie postulated a question about what would happen if there was a disagreement between local authorities and how the duty would impact on that, which is a fair point.

Secondly, I can give an absolute assurance that ministerial letters of guidance are used as an extra-statutory mechanism. I have given a commitment to the committee to write in detail before stage 3 about what the initial letter of guidance to the new body should contain. In response to amendment 43, I guarantee that, if the bill is passed by Parliament and we get to the stage of the initial letter of guidance, my intention is that the letter will cover the duty to co-operate with all relevant parties. That seems to me to be the correct procedural way to achieve the objective that we all share.

Further, the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board focuses strongly on alignment, and the chair of the new agency will of course be a member of the board. Part of the purpose of setting up that board was to achieve exactly what amendment 43 seeks. I also point to our commitment to establishing regional economic partnerships across Scotland. I believe that Mr Smyth is a former chair of the south of Scotland alliance, so I hope that he sees value in an increased role for that alliance, building on the successes and bringing together a wider group of agencies.

I have listened with care and I am sympathetic to the aims, but there are better ways to achieve them. I hope that members agree that I have given clear proof that the overall objective will be achieved with letters of guidance and that legislation is not the best way forward on the issue. However, I am happy to give an additional assurance to members that we will explore the issue further before stage 3, as we have done before stage 2.

In light of those assurances and guarantees, as well as the points that have been made in the debate, all of which were interesting, relevant and germane, I hope that Mr Smyth will not press amendment 43.

Colin Smyth

As a starting point, I believe that there is a requirement to have something in the legislation to achieve this aim. The cabinet secretary used the interesting phrase that he hopes that the current “culture of co-operation” in SOSEP will continue. Hope is something that we all have, but there are no guarantees when it comes to hope. There is a guarantee that if it is a legal requirement, it has to continue.

The cabinet secretary mentioned that co-ordination will be a key part of the initial letter of guidance, but letters of guidance change regularly; cabinet secretaries change too, and Governments change. In my view, a letter of guidance is not enough because, prior to SOSEP, we had a lack of co-ordination, a lack of working together and a lack of delivery among a lot of public bodies in Scotland. Had we not had that lack of delivery, there would be no requirement for the bill in the first place. I therefore believe that there is a need for a legal underpinning.

I do not think that there is anything in the wording

“operate in the South of Scotland”

that would in any way prevent any organisation that has any work taking place in the south of Scotland—within the aims of the agency, it is important to stress—from being involved in those discussions. I cannot think of a single example in which that would be the case.

Mike Rumbles asked whether the existing duties are enough. We have seen from the evidence that stakeholders believe that what has happened in the past has not been enough. There has not been sufficient co-ordination among organisations and there have been huge gaps in what has been delivered in the south of Scotland. Had those gaps not existed—had there not in the past been a lack of co-ordination and working together—we would not have needed the bill in the first place. Amendment 43 would give a legal underpinning to that requirement.

The cabinet secretary referred to discussions with local authorities. It is important to point out that local authorities called for this provision in their evidence. In fact, Elaine Murray gave a specific example of how it could work, in the form of a memorandum of understanding to avoid duplication and to make sure that there are no gaps. This has very much come from the local authorities in the first place.

I understand that members have a concern about the specific wording. My view is that the best way to deal with that is to agree to amendment 43 at stage 2 and, if required, to tweak the language as we move to stage 3; I am more than happy to work with other members and the cabinet secretary. I am open to changes to the exact wording, but I think that the best way of achieving what is needed is to place the proposed new duty in the bill and then, if it requires tweaks, to look at how we can achieve that. Having an amendment on this issue was a committee recommendation in our stage 1 report. Crucially, stakeholders called for it, too.

Jamie Greene

I appreciate that we are at the end of the debate, but I have a concern, in light of the balance of opinion in the committee, that if we pursue the amendment and it is not agreed to, it would be difficult to bring back the concept at stage 3, given the precedent and the nature of things.

The amendment concerns a point that it is important to make in the bill, in some shape or form. My worry is that, if the current wording means that the amendment is not agreed to, that would make it more difficult to beef up the premise of what the member is trying to achieve.

Colin Smyth

My concern is that if the amendment is not agreed to, it would be difficult for a similar amendment to be agreed to at stage 3, given that some members seem to be implying that there is no requirement for any such provision in the legislation. That is a real concern because, as I said earlier, simply using letters of guidance and hoping that things will continue in the way that SOSEP is currently operating is not enough; to achieve that, we need to include something in the legislation.

I press amendment 43.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 43 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 43 disagreed to.

Section 15—Direction

The Convener

Amendment 12, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 13.

Fergus Ewing

The amendments in this group will require the Scottish ministers to consult south of Scotland enterprise before they issue directions to the agency, and to publish the reasons for any directions that they issue.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee called for such requirements to be in the bill, as did this committee in its stage 1 report. I am happy to accept the recommendation and to give effect to it. Amendments 12 and 13 do just that.

I move amendment 12.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendment 13 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 16 to 19 agreed to.

Section 20—Regulation-making powers

Amendments 44 to 46 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration. The bill will now be reprinted, as amended at stage 2.

The Parliament has not yet decided when stage 3 will be held. Members will be informed of that in due course, along with the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments. In the meantime, stage 3 amendments can be lodged with the clerks in the legislative team.

Cabinet secretary, I thank you and your officials for coming back to the meeting. I also thank committee members, because this turned out to be a marathon four-and-a-quarter-hours meeting to get through the work that we had to get through this morning. I look forward to—I hope—a shorter meeting next week.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

Section 5—Aims

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on aims. Amendment 9, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 2, 3 and 10 to 12.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendment 9 amends the agency’s aims so that it is clear that it should further “sustainable” social and economic development rather than simply social and economic development. At stage 2, the bill was amended to call for sustainable economic growth, which was a welcome addition. However, amendment 9 makes clear that, when it comes to the implementation of the agency’s aims, the principle of sustainability should inform decisions across the board, not only those that are expected to secure economic growth. For example, that includes environmental sustainability and support on the sustainability of communities or the sustainability of vital but not necessarily profitable services, if that furthers the aims of the agency. Therefore, sustainability should be a key priority for the agency. Amendment 9 will ensure that the legislation reflects that.

By adding reference to it in the agency’s aims, amendment 2 clarifies the importance of

“supporting rural businesses, enterprises and communities”.

It reflects the fact that large parts of the region are rural and, as a result, those communities have specific challenges and opportunities. That support can take several forms, such as recognising the importance to the region of rural-based industries, such as forestry, aquaculture and agriculture, or recognising that creating a handful of jobs in a small rural community by supporting many small and micro businesses could be as important to the sustainability of that community as creating 100 jobs in a large town. Amendment 2 makes clear that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work in the south of Scotland and ensures that we learn from the difficulty that the current Scottish Enterprise model has had in properly responding to the unique needs of different parts of the area that it covers. It is essential to ensure that the agency delivers for our rural communities and recognises that that will require a different approach. Amendment 2 emphasises that aspect by placing it on the face of the bill.

The cabinet secretary’s amendment 3 tidies up the language used in my amendment that was agreed to at stage 2, which ensures that supporting “social enterprises and co-operatives” is a key aim of the agency. I am more than happy to support that amendment.

My amendment 10 adds the need to promote

“the development of affordable housing”

to the agency’s aims. At stage 2, amendments relating to promoting digital connectivity and transport infrastructure were added to the agency’s aims on the basis that those are key challenges in the region that the agency will have a role to play in tackling. I believe that the shortage of affordable housing is the other major issue of that kind, so there is again a role to be played by the new agency. As with transport and digital connectivity, I am not suggesting that the agency should be the only body to deliver on such an aim. In relation to social housing, for example, the main role will be played by the local authority and social housing landlords, but amendment 10 calls for the agency to promote

“the development of affordable housing”

in order to reflect the leadership role that it should have in tackling problems in the area that are having an impact on things such as economic growth.

This week, I met the largest social housing provider in the region. It highlighted the skills shortage facing the area in various trades and the need for the new agency to work with it and the local colleges to support and grow a programme for tradespeople. The role of the agency in fulfilling the aim in amendment 10 would be to work with stakeholders to develop solutions to the challenges that the region faces with regard to affordable housing. Making it an aim of the agency stresses the importance of the issue to the south of Scotland.

Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11 adds a reference to “cultural heritage” to the agency’s aims, calling on the agency to maintain, protect and enhance that heritage. Members will not be surprised that I fully support that addition to the bill, having lodged the same amendment. The region has a rich cultural heritage and it is one of our key social and economic assets. It is right, therefore, that maintaining, protecting and enhancing our cultural heritage as well as our natural heritage is reflected in the agency’s aims.

Finally, Emma Harper’s amendment 12 clarifies the language of my stage 2 amendment on the agency’s responsibility to support the transition to net zero emissions. That is a crucial aim, so I am more than happy to support that small but important amendment.

I move amendment 9.

The Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy (Fergus Ewing)

Amendment 3 is a technical, tidying-up revision to ensure that the bill’s terms are reflective of the full range of models that co-operatives and social enterprises come in. It is to do with a technical defect in Mr Smyth’s amendment at stage 2—an amendment that we welcomed. I am pleased to hear that he agrees that the form of amendment 3 is acceptable.

Turning to amendments from other members, I am happy to support amendment 9 lodged by Colin Smyth. I agree that the agency should be involved in furthering development in the region that is both economically and socially “sustainable”.

I am also happy to support Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11, which emphasises the importance of

“protecting and enhancing the ... cultural”

as well as the natural heritage. I thank Finlay Carson for highlighting the issue at stage 2. It builds on the good work of members of the south of Scotland economic partnership such as Paula Ogilvie and Dame Barbara Kelly in bringing experience of book festivals and arts trusts to the south of Scotland. I will also be supporting Emma Harper’s amendment 12, which brings the bill’s wording into line with climate legislation.

I am getting off to an extremely positive start, Presiding Officer, which I hope is appreciated by all. However, I have some concerns about Mr Smyth’s amendments 2 and 10. I start by saying that I understand what he is seeking to do, but I do not think that the amendments are technically felicitous.

I understand the point that Mr Smyth is making with the reference to “rural businesses”, but I contend that all businesses in communities in the south of Scotland are predominantly rural, including those based in some of the bigger towns such as Dumfries and Galashiels. If, by rural, Mr Smyth means those businesses that are considered to be rural industries, such as farming, forestry and fishing, it is absolutely the case that the agency will take a closer-than-ever interest in those industries, which are vital to the south of Scotland. I hope that members would expect nothing less and they are right to do so.

I appreciate the aim of amendment 10 about “affordable housing”, which is key to inclusive growth as well as to achieving the aims of the proposed agency. However, I am sure that Mr Smyth would not want to rule out supporting other types such as mid-market housing and housing developments, not all of which may be affordable. Although his amendment is not intended to rule that out, it may have that effect.

I do not consider it necessary for the bill to refer to the promotion of affordable housing, because that is already absolutely clearly implicit in the aims that are set out in the bill and the ways in which those aims will be supported. For example, I refer members to sections 5(2)(f) and 5(2)(ba), which are already in the bill and through which the agency will support communities

“to help them meet their needs”,

which of course incorporates affordable housing, and increase

“the number of residents in the South of Scotland who are of working age”.

I encourage members to support amendments 9, 3, 11 and 12 and to resist amendment 2.

Joan McAlpine (South Scotland) (SNP)

My amendment 11 emphasises the importance of protecting and enhancing the cultural as well as the natural heritage of the south of Scotland. During stage 2, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was keen that cultural heritage be included in the bill in recognition of the role of culture alongside that of natural heritage. That resonates with people across the south of Scotland, who are rightly proud of their culture, which is why I would like amendment 11 to be supported.

The vibrancy of our area’s culture is renowned locally, nationally and internationally. From the abbeys in the Borders to the castles and standing stones of Dumfries and Galloway, the south has a heritage of which to be proud. That heritage spans centuries, and many genres and forms. In 2021, we will celebrate the 250th birthday of Walter Scott and, next year, we will celebrate the 160th birthday of J M Barrie. I was pleased to attend the opening of Moat Brae storytelling centre, which is in the house in Dumfries in which J M Barrie found inspiration for Peter Pan.

In the south of Scotland, our summer starts with the Borders book festival and closes with the Wigtown book festival. Kirkcudbright thrived as an artists’ town, leading Dorothy L Sayers to say:

“in Galloway, one either fishes or paints.”

Of course, that historical success is being built on through the wonderful new art gallery that recently opened in Kirkcudbright. Coming right up to date, our success continues with the Dumfries born and Brit award-winning DJ Calvin Harris.

Culture and the creative economy are more than simply means in themselves, and are more than means of boosting tourism; they are also ways of developing community capacity and aiding regeneration. I cite the work of the Stove Network, which is an artists collective in Dumfries, in driving the Midsteeple quarter initiative, which is aimed at regenerating the High Street through housing and other economic activity. Part of the Stove’s work includes the creative futures project, which is building community capacity in west Dumfries. That is a good example of art and culture playing an important role in engagement and in energising communities and community development—which is, of course, very much in the spirit of what we are doing with the bill.

Amendment 11 makes it clear that one way in which the new south of Scotland enterprise agency can further its aims is through maintaining, protecting and enhancing the cultural heritage of the south of Scotland. I urge members to support the amendment.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I welcomed the amendments at stage 2, first from the Scottish Government and then from Colin Smyth, that committed the new south of Scotland enterprise agency to working to support our climate change ambitions. Although Colin Smyth’s amendment at stage 2 helped to move the framing of the provision into the appropriate net zero space, the language is not quite appropriate. My amendment 12 would therefore revise the language that was agreed to at stage 2: its aim is to bring it into line with current terminology in environmental legislation, and to provide better alignment with the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

Parliament is also considering the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which would set a world-leading statutory target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and is the flagship legislative response to the climate emergency. It is appropriate that we link what we are trying to achieve on environmental policy and legislation with the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, so I encourage members to support amendment 12.

I support amendment 11. It is essential that the new agency supports the wide-ranging cultural aspects of the region, which Joan McAlpine described so clearly.

I agree with the cabinet secretary about amendment 10, which could lead to duplication in relation to housing developments, given that local authorities, housing authorities and the Scottish Government all share an aim to build affordable housing. Duplication is not the goal.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

Does Emma Harper agree that social housing and the role that it plays not only in retaining the population but in encouraging population growth is worthy of mention in the bill, given that an aim of the agency is to promote the south?

Emma Harper

I thank John Finnie for making that point. The Scottish Government is committed to building affordable housing in rural communities; that essential programme is in place. I am not keen for there to be duplication, and there are already concerns about multiple agencies and people not knowing what is the best direction in which to go. Affordable housing is essential, but its promotion does not need to be mentioned in the list of the agency’s aims.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Liberal Democrats will support Colin Smyth’s amendment 9, Fergus Ewing’s amendment 3, Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11 and Emma Harper’s amendment 12.

Like the cabinet secretary, we have issues with amendments 2 and 10. Amendment 2 is too restrictive. It would include in the bill the aim of “supporting rural businesses”. We all want to support rural businesses, of course, but if we were to put that in the bill, what would we be saying about urban businesses? I do not think that amendment 2 would achieve what Colin Smyth is aiming for, and I do not think that such a provision should go in the bill.

Amendment 10 would add the aim of

“promoting the development of affordable housing”.

Liberal Democrats very much believe that mixed housing provision is necessary to support employment and to bring people into the south of Scotland. Reference to just affordable housing, important though it is, is too restrictive.

Oliver Mundell (Dumfriesshire) (Con)

I represent that part of the world, where there is an acute problem with affordable housing. The arguments that Mr Rumbles and other members have made have not convinced me that any harm would come from making such an aim explicit in the bill. Will he explain his position?

Mike Rumbles

That was a helpful intervention; maybe I should explain more. Housing is a really important issue. Everyone deserves to live in a decent house. It is a fundamental human right, and we are not currently meeting that need. However, I think that the aim in section 5(2)(f), which is

“supporting communities to help them meet their needs”,

is an enabling element.

Colin Smyth

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

I have just taken an intervention on that point, but I will take one from Mr Smyth.

Colin Smyth

Two members have referred to other aims of the agency in relation to support for communities. The same argument could have been made about the changes that we made at stage 2 to include transport and digital connectivity—and digital connectivity is a reserved issue. Will Mr Rumbles explain why he thinks it appropriate for the new agency to have aims that are about promoting improvements to transport and digital connectivity, but not to have an aim that is about promoting housing? Housing, transport and digital connectivity are probably the three biggest issues that face the south of Scotland.

Mike Rumbles

Colin Smyth has misunderstood me. I just said that everybody needs a decent house to live in. I said that it is a fundamental human right, on which we need to focus. However, I am worried about including in the bill an aim that is about only affordable housing. We must have affordable housing, but if we are to attract employment to the south of Scotland we need to promote a mix of housing, for everyone. The Government has taken the right approach with section 5(2)(f), which talks about

“supporting communities to help them meet their needs”,

That is the enabling provision that I prefer to support.

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

I have finished.

The Presiding Officer

In that case, I ask Colin Smyth to wind up the debate.

Colin Smyth

I welcome the support from the cabinet secretary and other members for some of the amendments in my name in the group, but I am disappointed that there is no support for my substantive amendments on

“promoting the development of affordable housing”

and

“supporting rural businesses, enterprises and communities”.

I have to say that the arguments against the housing amendment are exactly the same ones that the Government put at stage 2 against including transport and digital connectivity, which is a reserved issue. One of the aims of the agency will be to improve connectivity, so it is disappointing that the Government does not believe that housing—which is probably the third major problem that the area faces—should be included.

Fergus Ewing

The reason why we think that amendments 2 and 10 should not be accepted is that affordable housing already falls within the definition of communities, and the matters that are to be pursued. The agency will already deal with that. Also, as Mr Rumbles indicated, singling out one type of housing, could—[Interruption.]

We are hearing a lot of noises off. By including one type of housing—which we all in the chamber absolutely support—we run the risk that the interpretation of law by the courts would be that the agency should not promote other types of housing. Surely that is not something that any member would wish.

Colin Smyth

Nobody is suggesting that the agency will take the lead on housing: it will not take the lead on transport, which is the role of Transport Scotland. The point is that we in the region have a challenge in respect of affordable housing. Housing is being built across Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. Where the shortage exists, where we need intervention and where there is market failure is in affordable housing. That is one of the reasons why every day we see young people leaving the south of Scotland and moving to the central belt to get jobs and educational opportunities. They cannot afford housing in the south of Scotland and there are not job opportunities for them there.

Everybody recognises that that is a big challenge for the area. We should be recognising it by putting it on the face on the bill and making it an aim for the new agency.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

I agree that it is crucial that we bring young people back to the south of Scotland, but the situation is that they cannot find affordable housing. That is a crucial part of economic growth, so the Conservatives will support amendment 10.

Colin Smyth

On amendment 2, which would include “supporting rural businesses”, it has been implied that that would somehow mean not supporting urban businesses, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the rest of the aims in the bill, which include

“supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth”

and

“encouraging business start-ups and entrepreneurship”

The bill already covers all businesses, but there is a specific challenge when it comes to rural businesses. Amendment 2 recognises that sometimes, to make a small community sustainable, four or five jobs might need to be created, which is as important as creating 100 jobs in a town or city. That is missing from the current economic development support that our region receives.

Likewise, amendment 2 recognises that in rural communities additional support is needed to make that happen and to make a difference. That is why it is important that the bill specify rural communities. It also encompasses the importance of the industries—from forestry, to agriculture, to aquaculture—that will make a big difference to the economy of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, going forward. That is why so many organisations, including the NFU Scotland, very much support the amendment.

Mike Rumbles

Colin Smyth said that it was “implied”, but it was not implied: I said straight out that just putting “supporting rural businesses” into law could easily be interpreted as saying that urban businesses may not be supported. That is the point. We have no revising chamber, so it is really important that we get it right at stage 3.

Colin Smyth

That interpretation means, frankly, that Mike Rumbles has not looked at the rest of the aims of the bill, which talk about

“encouraging business startups and entrepreneurship”

Those are covered, but the distinctive way in which we need to support rural business is not. One could argue, in the same way, that we should not include transport or support for digital connectivity because they exclude other things. That would be a ridiculous statement to make. Amendment 2 emphasises the importance of the new agency focusing on rural businesses. That is why I am happy to support amendment 2 and amendment 10, which, disappointingly, other members do not appear to support.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 2 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the day, there will be a five-minute suspension while I call members to the chamber.

The Presiding Officer

We move to the division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 2 disagreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Amendment 11 moved—[Joan McAlpine]—and agreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on collaboration and co-operation with other bodies. Amendment 13, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 14 and 19.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

I declare an interest as a member of the Co-operative group of members of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 13 would add to the aims in section 5 a requirement to encourage

“persons and bodies with an interest in the environment to co-operate in achieving environmental objectives”.

I have brought the amendment back from stage 2 because I strongly believe that the requirement should be in the bill. It would enable and facilitate—the cabinet secretary is not listening—a whole range of bodies and individuals, such as farmers, land managers and communities, urban and rural, to work together. The amendment would encourage groups to take environmental projects forward on a co-operative model.

I emphasise that it is about not only co-operation but a more robust model of co-operation. I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary does not grasp the importance of that. In commenting on the amendment at stage 2, he stated:

“It is essential that everyone works together and co-operates, but that is not really about the agency. The bill is not really about telling third parties what to do—that does not really come under the scope of the bill. People need to work together across the whole scope of government—that is expected and desirable—but it is not really within the scope of any bill that establishes a new body to state that third parties should co-operate. That should happen anyway”.—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 8 May 2019; c 36-7.]

The “persons and bodies” that would be interested in the model would be self-selecting; there would be no obligation. The amendment is not about “should”, but “could”. It is not about telling people what to do, as the cabinet secretary stated was his interpretation at stage 2; it is about facilitating co-operative action.

The cabinet secretary also stated at stage 2 that the term

“with an interest in the environment”

is vague. I disagree with that, and I will give examples of things that would be far more difficult for individual, small-scale farmers, land managers and community groups to do without support and advice on working co-operatively.

One example is river basin-wide work—including such actions as riparian tree planting—to mitigate flooding and bring shade to salmon spawning grounds.

Another example is the removal of non-native invasive plant species, such as giant hogweed, from a wide area. That is less worth doing on a small scale because of the likelihood of the species continuing to spread despite being tackled.

Another example is agroforestry schemes, which would enable action that would, because of economies of scale, make tree planting more possible across smaller landholdings in a way that would otherwise be more difficult.

My final example is woodland planting. There are already many good examples of communities doing that, in Peebles and other places in South Scotland. That would be further enhanced. My amendment would support and facilitate communities working on that and many other issues with advice and support from the agency.

In view of the recent United Nations report on nature and the extinction warnings therein, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning about remaining below an increase of 1.5°C, the new commitment by the Scottish Government to net zero emissions by 2045, which is welcome, and, more broadly, the climate and environment emergencies and the cabinet secretary’s commitment to look at all policies in those contexts—certainly in the context of climate change—I am clear that amendment 13 adds to the aims in a way that would facilitate a co-operative approach to positive environmental and climate change objectives.

That support for co-operation for environmental purposes is surely exactly the sort of policy marker that the Scottish Government should make explicit in this relevant bill. In view of those imperatives, the amendment is in the public interest. I hope that, even at this late stage, the cabinet secretary will reconsider his position and agree to my amendment, in view of the arguments that I have put forward.

The Presiding Officer will be pleased to hear that I will leave the other two amendments in the group to the members who lodged them.

I move amendment 13.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

During the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s consideration of the bill, it was clear that, with a number of bodies operating in the south of Scotland, it would be important to ensure that the new agency did not duplicate existing activity, but enhanced the current landscape. My amendment 14 makes it clear that, in working to deliver its aims, the new agency should encourage and facilitate collaboration. Collaboration can effectively contribute to advancing the agency’s aims, whether the collaboration and co-operation are between the various agencies that operate in the region, or other persons or bodies.

Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth similarly recognise the need for collaboration and co-operation to be mentioned in the bill, but their amendments place a narrower focus on the purpose of that collaboration and the bodies involved. Collaboration will be important to the delivery of all the aims of the new agency, whether they are environmental, economic or social aims, and we should not be prescriptive about that collaboration.

My amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of the new agency working collaboratively and promoting collaboration in pursuit of its aims. It provides the necessary flexibility to drive collaboration and co-operation in the most appropriate way and with the most appropriate bodies.

I ask members to support amendment 14.

Colin Smyth

My amendment 19 places a duty on the new agency to facilitate co-operation between relevant bodies. That serves a specific purpose that relates to the practical operations of public bodies in the region. It is about not just supporting the broad concept of co-operation but making co-operation a requirement.

There is no doubt that one of the key concerns that local stakeholders raised with the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee during stage 1 was how the new agency would work with existing bodies. The risk of duplication or gaps was raised, and most stakeholders stressed the need for a cohesive and collaborative approach to achieving aims.

The new agency will work alongside Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, the business gateway, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, two local authorities, whatever governance structure is introduced to run the Borderlands initiative, and many others.

The cluttered landscape and concerns about poor co-operation between existing bodies have been real problems in the region in the past. As we add a new agency to the list of existing bodies, we cannot afford a repeat of such a situation in the future. Simply saying that co-operation will take place is not as robust as it being underpinned in legislation. The REC Committee recognised that in its stage 1 report, which called for

“the development of appropriate mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and coordination between the new agency and all of the various existing agencies operating in the region, including the Strategic Board.”

An example of such a mechanism was provided by the leader of Dumfries and Galloway Council, Elaine Murray, who gave evidence on behalf of the council and all the groups on the council. She suggested that there should be a memorandum of understanding between the various public authorities.

Amendment 19 is not prescriptive about the approach that should be taken. We can talk all we like about promoting improved transport and digital connectivity, but that will be meaningless unless we make it a priority—indeed, a legal requirement—for there to be clear collaboration and co-operation across agencies. The best way to focus minds on the need for such collaboration is by making it a legal requirement.

Amendment 13, in the name of Claudia Beamish, calls for the agency to take a role in encouraging co-operation to achieve environmental aims. Such co-operation could cover a range of models, from formal co-operatives or catchment-based co-operation to more general collaboration, and that would clearly be a positive move. Given that the new agency will have a social and an environmental remit as well as an economic remit, it is fair to ask the agency to play a role in encouraging such co-operation.

Likewise, amendment 14, in the name of Maureen Watt, calls for the agency to facilitate collaboration in the region. Amendment 14 would be a worthwhile addition to the bill, and I lodged an amendment with the same wording. However, the new agency needs to have a leadership role in the region on issues that are relevant to its aims, and I do not think that amendment 14 goes far enough in delivering that. I do not believe that amendment 14 is in any way a substitute for amendment 19, as Maureen Watt seemed to imply; it will complement amendment 19.

Fergus Ewing

In differing ways, amendments 13, 14 and 19 all seek to impress upon the new agency the importance of working collaboratively and promoting collaboration. A culture of co-operation has been a key characteristic of the work across the south to date that has been taken forward by the south of Scotland economic partnership. Indeed, we have already seen the willingness of the partnership to work with other agencies and communities to deliver for the region. I am confident that the relationships that it has forged and the fresh dynamic that it has brought to discussions and activities will continue.

The Government strongly encourages co-operation and alignment in order to deliver maximum impact. First, we highlight that theme in the strategic guidance letters that we issue to agencies, and I intend to do the same in the guidance letters that we will send to the south of Scotland enterprise agency. Secondly, co-operation is a key theme of the work of the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board, which, by its very existence, is concerned with creating greater synergy and alignment across the planning of our enterprise and skills agencies. In addition, the chair of the new agency will be a member of the strategic board. Thirdly, we are committed to establishing regional economic partnerships across Scotland.

It would not make sense for all three amendments in the group, which seek to do the same thing, to make it into the bill. Saying the same thing in legislation several times in slightly different words tends to make the law not clearer, but more confusing. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 14, in the name of Maureen Watt, and to reject the other amendments in the group. I will set out the reasons why.

Amendment 14 is the most complete statement about the sort of collaboration that I am sure everybody in the chamber wants the new agency to engage in and promote. The amendment makes it clear that the new agency should work collaboratively with others and that it should encourage and facilitate others to work co-operatively among themselves to support the delivery of all the agency’s aims, including furthering sustainable “economic and social development” and improving

“the amenity and environment of the South of Scotland”.

In contrast, amendment 13, in the name of Claudia Beamish, relates only to collaboration on achieving environmental aims. I welcome the fact that Ms Beamish has lodged the amendment to highlight the undoubted importance of collaboration on environmental goals. However, if the bill were to underscore the importance of collaboration on environmental matters only, it would suggest that collaboration on economic and social development was less important. I do not think that that is the message that anyone, including Ms Beamish, wants to send through the bill, which is concerned with setting up an enterprise agency.

Amendment 19, in the name of Colin Smyth, is also narrower than amendment 14. Whereas amendment 14 and, for that matter, amendment 13 are rightly concerned with the promotion of co-operation among all persons, be they public, private or third sector, amendment 19 is limited to dealing with co-operation in the public sector and makes no reference to bodies in the private or third sector. It further confines the agency’s role to facilitating co-operation between itself and other public authorities operating in the region instead of acknowledging that the agency might also wish to encourage co-operation between and with any public body that might play a part in achieving the agency’s aims, even if that body operates or is based outwith the region. As a result, amendment 19 ignores the importance of the agency working co-operatively with, for example, neighbouring local authorities in Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire, in spite of the committee’s strong view at stage 1 that it would want the agency to work in co-operation with them.

For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 14, in the name of Maureen Watt, which will be helpful in fostering co-operation and collaboration in an expansive way, and to reject the other amendments in the group.

Claudia Beamish

As Colin Smyth said on amendment 19, stakeholders have stressed the need for the new agency to work in a cohesive and collaborative way with existing bodies. However, his comment about a cluttered landscape is really important. With any form of collaboration, the lines of communication have to be really clear.

As a resident of Clydesdale who represents the whole South Scotland region, I take the point about working with other local authorities that are not included in the area covered by the agency, but I do not think that amendment 19 excludes anything. In fact, it is inclusive with regard to collaboration, and it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary is not prepared to support it. Including it in the bill would have brought clarity.

I do not want to add very much to what I have said about my amendment 13, but given the climate and environment emergencies that have been called, I believe that it is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Scottish Government not to support it, given what it says about environmental co-operation. My amendment is not exclusive and it does not prevent social and economic co-operation. It simply emphasises the importance of this particular aspect in light of the climate emergency.

I will leave it at that, Presiding Officer. We will see where we go.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a one-minute division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 59, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 13 disagreed to.

Amendment 14 moved—[Maureen Watt]—and agreed to.

Section 6—Action plan

The Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on consultation on the action plan. Amendment 15, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendments 16 and 17.

Colin Smyth

Amendments 15 to 17 set out requirements and timescales for the new agency to review and consult on its action plan. During stage 2, having lodged a number of amendments on that issue, I agreed to consider the committee’s feedback on them. However, the principle remains exactly the same: consulting communities will be essential to the new agency, and I believe that the bill must include clear requirements in that regard. We need an agency that is for and very much rooted in the south of Scotland. Unless we find local solutions to the local challenges and opportunities facing the economy and communities in the region, the agency will not deliver on its aim. That means listening to the communities in the south of Scotland.

Amendment 17 would place a requirement on the new agency to consult before making its first action plan and a maximum of five years after that. It is important that the agency’s action plan is kept up to date, to ensure that it is always relevant to the needs and priorities of the region, and consulting on the plan regularly would help to achieve that. A maximum five-year window would deliver the flexibility needed to allow the agency to make plans on its own terms and to synchronise with those of other enterprise agencies. I stress that the five-year period is a maximum—we should fully expect the agency to revise its plan often enough that that upper limit does not need to be enforced and to ensure that on-going consultation and community engagement are part of its regular activity.

Local input to any consultation is essential. The agency needs to reflect the views of the people whom it serves. Amendment 17 makes it clear that the new agency would have to consult

“people who live and work in the South of Scotland, and ... businesses and public authorities that operate”

in the south of Scotland. However, I consider it crucial that local authorities in particular have the opportunity to respond, and the amendment would make provision for that in proposed new section 6A(3) by making it clear that the agency must specifically seek views from Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Borders Council. Proposed new section 6A(4) would require the agency to report on what it will do in response to the views obtained through the consultation process. In the interests of transparency, that report would have to be sent to Scottish ministers and local authorities and then laid before Parliament.

Amendments 15 and 16 are technical, and are required should amendment 17 be agreed to.

I move amendment 15.

Fergus Ewing

I support amendments 15 to 17, which address key issues of whom the agency should consult, when and how often, and what it should do with the consultation findings. The amendments would give effect to key matters raised at stage 2, but without imposing an unduly bureaucratic burden on the agency.

By stating that the action plan must be reviewed at least every five years, amendment 17 will ensure that the agency’s planning cycle can be synchronised with that of the other enterprise agencies. I am pleased that the amendment also expressly states that the agency must consult those

“who live and work in the South of Scotland”,

as well as

“businesses and public authorities that operate”

in the south, including both local authorities, which are critical partners for the agency.

I hope that members will join the Government in supporting the amendments.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Amendment 16 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Section 6A—Consultation on action plan

Amendment 17 moved—[Colin Smyth]—and agreed to.

Section 7—General Powers

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on powers not being used to contribute to the arms trade. Amendment 1, in the name of John Finnie, is the only amendment in the group.

John Finnie

Throughout deliberations on and scrutiny of the bill, much has been made of Highlands and Islands Enterprise being a comparator for the new agency. Over a number of years, Scottish Green Party colleagues and I have asked about the role of public moneys provided to companies in the defence sector. In 2017, I asked a series of questions, which culminated in a meeting with the chief executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, where she explained that—she gave a real example—just because a company is manufacturing batteries that are used in motor vehicles but could be used in tanks does not necessarily mean that they are working for the defence sector. I got a breakdown of the moneys that had been provided and I was assured that there was no promotion of such activities. Members can imagine my surprise when I received an invitation from Highlands and Islands Enterprise the following week that highlighted an event on aerospace and defence sector opportunities in the region. It said:

“Businesses in the Highlands and Islands are being invited to a free workshop to find out how the region can benefit from opportunities in the aerospace, defence, security and space industries.”

The event, which was held in Inverness, was organised by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and ADS Scotland. For members who do not know what ADS Scotland is, I will read out what it says on its website:

“ADS is one of the founding partners of the Defence Growth Partnership ... which aims to secure a thriving UK defence sector delivering long-term security, growth and prosperity for our nation. As a partnership between Industry and Government, the DGP is an important part of generating high-tech, export-led growth.”

Rachael Hamilton

I am listening intently to what the member is saying. Does he have any examples that relate to the south of Scotland? Why is he using an example from the Highlands and Islands?

John Finnie

I am grateful that the member is listening intently to what I am saying. If she continues to do so, I hope that my reason for using the example will become clear. I started off by saying that HIE and south of Scotland enterprise are comparator bodies.

ADS Scotland’s website goes on to say:

“The DGP is working to:

• Grow the UK’s global market share through increased exports

• Foster greater collaboration and innovation across the sector, bringing products and services to the market that meet customer needs

• Improve competitiveness through the whole value chain”.

At stage 2, when I lodged an amendment on the issue that covered a range of services that could be made available to the military, I was told by a number of members that it was far too expansive. Therefore, I have lodged a stage 3 amendment that mentions the word “munitions”. Members might ask where that word comes from. It is frequently cited by the Scottish Government. Last year, my colleague Ross Greer asked the Scottish Government

“what information it has regarding whether any companies that it provides financial support to have supplied weapons or equipment that might have been used in the alleged war crimes in Yemen by the Saudi Arabian air force”.

In his reply, Paul Wheelhouse said:

“The Scottish Government has not used public money to support the manufacture or export of munitions from Scotland”.—[Written Answers, 23 February 2018; S5W-14272.]

David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The member will know that there is great support in the chamber for funding of the spaceport in Sutherland, which HIE has provided great funding for. Does Mr Finnie object to HIE funding the spaceport?

John Finnie

Mr Stewart will know that there are a number of competitions for space moneys in the Highlands, in which HIE is actively involved. I am talking about the defence sector.

When he was asked what the definition of “munitions” was, Ivan McKee said:

“The ... definition for munition is a ‘weapon or ammunition—particularly for military use’. Scotland’s enterprise agencies do not support the manufacture or export of munitions.”—[Written Answers, 28 September 2018; S5W-18505.]

Oliver Mundell

I understand that the member might have very different views from me on some of these issues, but does he not recognise that it is a bit odd to rule out the making of munitions for UK armed forces anywhere in the south of Scotland?

John Finnie

No, I do not think that that is remotely odd.

The subject was discussed during the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 2 consideration of the bill, when, as I mentioned, I lodged a more expansive amendment on the issue. Fergus Ewing said:

“As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions ... our enterprise agencies do not support the manufacture of munitions”.—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 8 May 2019; c 63-4.]

If that is the case, I cannot see why there would be any issue with the Scottish Government supporting amendment 1, but I understand that it does not plan to do so.

I turn to the south of Scotland. Penman Engineering in Dumfries received funding from Scottish Enterprise. Penman’s products include armoured vehicles for military purposes. I am told that one of its products is the Penman Metras MRV, which looks similar to a Humvee. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands says that it is used as an ambulance, but the company’s promotional material shows it with a machine gun mounted on the top. That is not my idea of an ambulance.

The Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands (Paul Wheelhouse)

The risk of speaking from a sedentary position is that the member might mishear. I said that Penman Engineering also makes ambulances.

John Finnie

I am a big fan of ambulances. If they can be manufactured in the south of Scotland, that is really good.

In 2012, Penman Engineering applied for an export licence for military vehicles for Saudi Arabia, and it had previously applied for export licences for military vehicles for Libya.

We are repeatedly told that diversification is what it is all about, and that is commendable.

Oliver Mundell

Will the member confirm for my constituents whether he intends his amendment to rule out future funding for Penman Engineering or whether he recognises that that company does not make munitions?

John Finnie

I did not quite catch the end bit. If the member reads amendment 1, he will see that I would rule out any funding for munitions, yes.

Oliver Mundell

On a further point of clarification, I am saying that Penman Engineering in Dumfries does not make munitions. Does the member agree with that point?

John Finnie

I have read out the information that I have about that. If the company does not make munitions, that is good.

Given the undoubted support of the Scottish Government for no funding to be made available for munitions, it will have no difficulty supporting amendment 1.

I move amendment 1.

Mike Rumbles

Amendment 1 purports to be about the arms trade, but it is not about the arms trade. In the amendment, the Greens define the arms trade as being the sale of munitions “for domestic procurement”. This is not about the arms trade, and it is a bit false to pretend that it is.

John Finnie

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles

John Finnie has had his say. He can come back later on, when he sums up.

Amendment 1 is not about the arms trade, despite what we have heard from John Finnie just now. What about domestic munitions such as shotguns for farmers and all that sort of thing? If a company making those wanted to set up in the south of Scotland, amendment 1 would run counter to that.

I spent 15 years in the Army. As long as we have an Army, it will need munitions; I hope that we all agree with that. Do the Greens not want us to have an Army with munitions? Do they not want us to have an Army at all? Let us be honest in this sort of debate.

This is a remarkably daft amendment, if I am allowed to say so, Presiding Officer. It was not supported by anybody else at stage 2 and it should not be supported by anybody other than the Greens at stage 3. I hope that we will send a resounding message that if we have an Army, it must have munitions, for goodness’ sake!

Finlay Carson

The Conservatives will certainly not be supporting John Finnie’s amendment, particularly in light of his suggestion that it might affect companies such as Penman Engineering in Dumfries and Helmet Integrated Systems in Stranraer, which produces cutting-edge technology for helmets that go to the American air force and the gendarmes in France. Removing funding from such companies would be disastrous for the south of Scotland, not just for Stranraer.

We will not support amendment 1 because it would not achieve what John Finnie intends.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The purpose of the products of Helmet Integrated Systems is safety. In other words, the helmets are for protecting people from incidents that happen in the field of war. The 100 people who are employed at Helmet Integrated Systems will be listening carefully to this debate. The idea that the south of Scotland enterprise agency should be denied the opportunity to support that company, and other innovative companies that are genuinely saving lives in the most hazardous of conditions, is insupportable.

Fergus Ewing

We cannot support amendment 1, although we acknowledge Mr Finnie’s right to bring it back to Parliament.

Put simply, amendment 1 could prevent the new agency from providing support to companies in the defence sector in the south of Scotland, even for business development activities and development into other areas.

As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions. Our agencies’ support helps firms to diversify and develop non-military applications for their technology. We recognise the importance of the aerospace, defence and marine sectors in Scotland, which employ many young graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects. The agencies work proactively with those sectors to help them to diversify their activities and to grow and sustain employment.

That position would apply to the new agency as well. It is important to ensure that we do not restrict the flexibility of the new agency to be able to do that work, which amendment 1 would do. The defence, aerospace and marine sectors in Scotland matter to our economy and we do not wish to damage the contribution that companies in those sectors make, or the ability to respond at a future date, should exceptional circumstances that relate to the defence of the state mean that we wish to provide support to a business to enable it to provide goods and services to the military.

I, too, will mention Helmet Integrated Systems in Stranraer, which is part of Gentex Europe. The company employs more than 100 people, who have a mixed range of skills, and is a living-wage employer. It has been based in south-west Scotland since the 1980s. It currently manufactures safety helmets for police, fire and rescue crews, as well as products for various industrial applications and specialist helmets for civil and military aircrew. In short, it provides equipment that keeps those who put themselves in the face of danger, often daily, safe. The staff use their expertise, skills and knowledge to provide high-quality equipment that those who undertake dangerous and risky work rely on to keep them safe. Far from being an employer that the Government, and indeed its enterprise agencies, should stop supporting, it is exactly the sort of business that we wish to continue to help, should the need arise in the future.

I urge members to oppose amendment 1.

John Finnie

There have been some interesting contributions, but it would have been excellent if the members who contributed had actually looked at the amendment, rather than presume what it says.

For instance, Mr Rumbles somehow thought that the previous iteration of the amendment was trying to interfere with military involvement in emergencies such as flooding, and another member thought that I was trying to attack the knitwear industry in the Borders. Unless helmets are being used as weapons—and I do not think that any of us would suggest that—I wish all the companies that have been mentioned every success.

Of course, the word “diversification” is bandied about a lot, and we were told in an official answer that Lockheed Martin, which is the largest arms manufacturer in the world, is an information technology company that is based in Aberdeen.

The mantra of the Green Party is people, planet and peace. By supporting the amendment, members will have an opportunity to do something positive. I hope that members take that opportunity.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 107, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

After section 7

Amendment 19 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 51, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 disagreed to.

After section 9

The Presiding Officer

Before we turn to group 5, members may have noticed that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on the previous group to finish. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.5A to allow debate on this group to continue, to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. We are about 10 minutes behind.

Group 5 is on a workers’ interests committee. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.

Fergus Ewing

This Government wants Scotland to be a world-leading fair work nation by 2025. We believe that fair work is key to underpinning our economic success and the wellbeing and prosperity of individuals, businesses, organisations and society with more and better jobs and more and better working conditions.

We know that the south of Scotland is a low pay region, and that there is a need to enhance productivity; workers’ and employees’ conditions and relationships with their work are key to that. Although there has been welcome progress in closing the pay gap between men and women in the region and elsewhere in the rural economy, the gap persists. Issues that contribute to inequality and in-work poverty constrain economic growth, incomes and the wealth of the region and we are determined that the agency will help to address those issues. The establishment of a workers’ interests committee will help to achieve that.

Amendment 4 will ensure that worker engagement will be a core function of the agency and that workers’ voices will be heard and listened to. I envisage that the committee will encompass the widest range of workers’ interests, including those who are employees and those who are self-employed. It is deliberately wide so that the new agency will be informed by issues impacting on a broad range of working people. It is important that the perspectives of all those who work in the south of Scotland are heard. At just over 20 per cent, the south of Scotland has a much higher proportion of people who are self-employed than Scotland as a whole at 12 per cent. Indeed, among Scotland’s 32 local authority areas, Dumfries and Galloway has the highest self-employment rate and Scottish Borders the third highest rate, at 22 and 19 per cent respectively.

This is a specific, deliberate and concerted effort to ensure that the new agency will consider what can be done to advance workers’ interests, which will not only deliver an effective voice but result in effective and credible policies and actions.

Mike Rumbles

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the term “workers” has a wider meaning than just employees?

Fergus Ewing

Yes. I am happy to confirm that the term “workers” will incorporate employees and those who are in self-employment and not schedule E employees. For the reasons that I have just stated, that issue has been particularly important in the south of Scotland.

I expect the workers’ interests committee to include representation from business, which could be provided from organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors Scotland, to name but a few. That will ensure that the new agency hears advice from different perspectives, so that its actions are properly informed.

Amendment 4 complements amendment 5, which we will come to shortly in group 7, which will require the Government to issue a fair work direction for the agency, and amendments 7 and 8 in group 8, which will ensure that the membership of the agency as a whole has experience or knowledge of the issues that face those who work in the south of Scotland.

I thank the Scottish Trades Union Congress for our constructive dialogue, which has helped to put our social partnership into action. Those discussions have been productive and I know that the STUC has welcomed the considerable progress that has been made on the matter of fair work. I want to build on those discussions as we implement the requirements in the bill to ensure that fair work is embedded in the new agency and that the voice of workers is heard. I am committed to doing so.

I move amendment 4.

Colin Smyth

I support amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, which will create a workers’ interests committee. At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that called for the agency’s board to include trade union representation, in order to ensure that the board would be responsive to the needs and concerns of workers in the region. That remains my preferred position and it is the preferred position of the STUC.

One of the biggest challenges that the agency faces is the need to tackle low pay and support the creation of high-quality, well-paid jobs in the south of Scotland. Trade unions have an essential role to play in that. A consistent trade union voice on the board would have been a big asset to the new agency. Although I am disappointed that the Government has not lodged an amendment to guarantee trade union representation on the board, I hope that the workers’ interests committee will be given sufficient authority and power to ensure that the voice of workers is heard loud and clear in the work of the new agency.

Finlay Carson

I welcome amendment 4 in the name of the cabinet secretary. We had concerns regarding the appointment of a trade union member to the board. This is a good compromise that recognises the above-average level of self-employed workers in the south of Scotland.

We support the cabinet secretary’s amendment.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Section 14—Annual report

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on an annual report. Amendment 18, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 18 requires the agency’s annual report to include an assessment of progress against the agency’s aims, as set out in the bill, and its action plan. As it stands, the bill does not require the annual report to include performance monitoring; it requires the agency to report only on its activities, not on their impact or outcomes. Updating stakeholders and communities on delivery is essential. Amendment 18 guarantees that that will happen on an annual basis and adds an important additional element of accountability.

I move amendment 18.

Fergus Ewing

I agree that annual reports are an important means of providing accountability and transparency and that they should assure people, not least in the south of Scotland, that the agency is working to deliver on its functions, aims and the priorities that were identified through consultation in its action plan.

Annual reports should demonstrate impacts and outcomes from the agency’s activities. That is why section 14 already makes clear that the agency

“must, after each financial year ... prepare and publish a report of its activities during the year”.

There is another way to ensure that that happens. As part of our governance arrangements with each public body, we agree a framework document. That is a requirement of the Scottish public finance manual, in which we set out requirements for annual reports and accounts in relation to outlining bodies’ main activities and performance against agreed objectives and targets; it makes abundantly clear what an annual report on activities should say.

Therefore, although I understand and support the intention behind Colin Smyth’s amendment, I do not believe that it adds anything necessary to the bill. I respectfully submit that it is self-evident that an annual report should cover delivery on the agency’s aims and priorities. I hope that Mr Smyth agrees and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Colin Smyth

If something is going to happen, as the cabinet secretary says it will, I do not see the problem with including it in the bill—unless it is perhaps not going to happen. Amendment 18 is a small amendment that makes it clear that the annual report should include performance monitoring. As things stand, that is not specified in the bill. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why anybody would oppose this small amendment.

I press amendment 18.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 53, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 18 disagreed to.

After section 15

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on fair work direction. Amendment 5, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group.

Fergus Ewing

I undertook at stage 2 to consider what, if anything, we might be able to put in the bill to further our ambitions on fair work. That required careful deliberation, because those ambitions are linked to reserved matters and we need to be certain that anything that we put in the bill is within legislative competence and would not create difficulties for the new agency.

Amendment 5 works within the constraints on legislative competence to ensure that fair work is embedded in the approach that we expect south of Scotland enterprise to take. It requires Scottish ministers to issue a direction to the new agency to make it clear that we expect it “to promote fair work” in all that it does. In the direction, we will set out our expectations of what the new agency should take forward. I anticipate significant alignment to the fair work action plan that the Government published last year.

Amendment 5 also requires that people representing the interests of workers and employers in the region are consulted about the fair work direction before it is made. That gives effect to our commitment that the new enterprise agency will act as an exemplar in the area to establish the dimensions of fair work—namely effective voice, opportunity, security, fulfilment and respect—both in its role as an employer and in its activities with business.

As members will recognise, we do not use direction-making powers lightly. The fact that we have taken a specific power affirms our determination to make fair work more than just an aspiration. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommended in its stage 1 report that we include “furthering fair work” in the bill’s aims. I hope that members will accept that I have sought to give effect to that call and will support the amendment.

I move amendment 5.

Colin Smyth

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s amendment 5, which calls for a fair work direction to be issued to the agency that sets out its responsibilities in that regard. The agency has a vital role to play in promoting fair work in the region. At stage 2, I pressed for the bill to be amended to reflect that. The promotion of fair work will help to tackle many of the challenges facing the region, particularly around pay and working conditions, and it will help the agency to achieve a number of its other aims.

It is important that the agency’s responsibilities with regard to fair work are clearly set out in the bill, so that they are not considered either optional or secondary to the aims that are included in the bill. I am content that the approach in amendment 5 provides a way of delivering that while avoiding the legal challenge of legislating on employment law, which is a reserved matter. I am therefore happy to support the amendment.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Schedule 1—Members and staff

The Presiding Officer

Group 8 is on south of Scotland enterprise: membership. Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 7, 7A and 8.

Fergus Ewing

Amendments 6, 7 and 8 focus on the skills and expertise required of members of south of Scotland enterprise. Creating a new agency is an opportunity to bring a fresh approach to economic development in the south of Scotland. Members of the agency will be key to shaping its culture and approach in delivering for the area’s interests and needs, so it is vital for agency members to have the right mix of skills and expertise.

As demonstrated by the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, this Government is committed to improving the diversity of our boardrooms, in order to ensure that they are properly representative of modern Scotland and, importantly, that public boards benefit from a wider range of skills, knowledge and expertise.

Although south of Scotland enterprise will be subject to the provisions of the 2018 act, amendment 6 seeks to go further by encouraging diversity in its membership. Paragraph 1(2A) of schedule 1 was added at stage 2. I listened carefully to the views expressed by a number of committee members during the debate on that amendment, particularly on the need to ensure that the issues facing workers in the region are represented on the board.

One of the key issues for the region is the need to increase the working age population and to encourage more young people to stay in and move to the area to live and work. That is now rightly recognised in section 5(2)(ba). It is also right that the agency’s membership reflects that aspiration. There is a risk that, by emphasising the importance of members having both knowledge and experience, paragraph 1(2A) of schedule 1 in its current form could inhibit people who lack experience—particularly young people—from becoming agency members.

To address the concerns that a number of members expressed at stage 2, amendment 6 would change the emphasis of paragraph 1(2A) of schedule 1 so that it refers to members having either knowledge or experience. Ensuring that the membership criteria do not inhibit young people from applying to be members will open up opportunities to hear the voice of young people and shows our commitment to seek opportunities to deliver a legacy from our year of young people in 2018.

Amendments 7 and 8 address workers representation, which is a key dimension, and the provision of effective work. Taken with amendment 5, which requires a fair work direction, and amendment 4, which establishes a workers’ interests committee—we have already debated those amendments—amendments 7 and 8 will sustain a culture of fair work and fair work practices in the long term, making the consideration of workers’ interests the norm in the agency.

For those reasons, I ask members to support those three amendments in my name. I hope that my explanation of why we are proposing changing “and” to “or” through amendment 6 will persuade Colin Smyth of the best intentions of the change. I am seeking to be as inclusive as possible. Accordingly, I hope that Mr Smyth will not move his amendment 7A but, if he does, I ask members not to support it.

I move amendment 6.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 6, in the name of the cabinet secretary, would be a step backwards from what is in the bill at present. The bill requires the membership “taken as a whole” to have “experience and knowledge”; it does not refer to members individually. At no point does the bill say that individual members must have knowledge and experience; it simply says that the whole board should have that. Amendment 6 would change that so that the board as a whole would need to have only experience or knowledge. I believe that the membership overall should have experience and knowledge. Given that the bill is clear that it relates to the board as a whole, the consequence of amendment 6 could be that the entire board could have experience but no knowledge of the region or vice versa.

The justification for amendment 6 appears to be to ensure that young people can sit on the board. It is somewhat patronising to suggest that young people who live in the region do not have any experience of it. Their experience as young people living in the region is exactly what we need on the board. The wording as it stands would not prevent any individual, including a young person with only experience or knowledge, from sitting on the board. I reiterate that schedule 1 refers to the board “as a whole”. Therefore, this is a completely unnecessary change and one that risks the quite absurd situation in which the entire board may have no experience or knowledge of the region. I think that that is what we call an unintended consequence.

Likewise, Fergus Ewing’s amendment 7 opts for “or” rather than “and”, and amendment 7A, in my name, seeks to change that. As I said, paragraph 1(2A) refers to the board’s membership taken as a whole and does not apply to every individual member. In my view, amendment 7 is already a disappointing addition to the bill that falls short of the dedicated trade union representation that I wanted. I see absolutely no benefit from weakening the bill further by requiring the board to have either knowledge or experience of the issues facing workers in the region rather than requiring the board as a whole to include members with a combination of both.

Mike Rumbles

I commend the cabinet secretary for his amendments, which I particularly wanted to be in the bill. There are no unintended consequences—they are deliberate measures. The cabinet secretary has listened to the evidence that we presented and the points that we made. When we advertise outside the usual channels for membership of the board, we do not want to put off young people in any way from applying to be considered as members. If we put it in legislation that members of the board must have experience and knowledge of the issues facing those who work in the south of Scotland, that could be off-putting to some young people.

Rachael Hamilton

Colin Smyth made the point that the provision relates to the membership taken as a whole and not individually. I agree entirely with the sentiment that experience or knowledge is important but, when we look at the board as a whole, we can see that experience and knowledge are important.

Mike Rumbles

I could not agree more, but the point that I am making, and the point that is being missed, is that if we are thinking outside the box and trying to go outwith the usual channels, to get young people on the board of the south of—

Colin Smyth

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

The member should let me address the point before he tries to intervene.

We want to think outside the box, and the minister is in charge of the process. If people see in the bill and in adverts that go out that board members must have experience and knowledge, they could be put off applying. That is the evidence that was put to me; I put it to the cabinet secretary and he listened. To keep the current wording would be a backward step.

I understand the intentions and the issue. The board as a whole can have knowledge and experience, but requiring both knowledge and experience can put people off applying. If we are in the business of change and doing things differently, we have to make every effort to encourage young people to take part.

Finlay Carson

This is very confusing. Perhaps the cabinet secretary, who is a lawyer, can clarify the matter. As Colin Smyth said, the bill as amended at stage 2 refers to

“the desirability of ensuring that the membership (taken as a whole)—

(a) has experience and knowledge of the whole of the South of Scotland”.

Surely replacing “and” with “or” means that the whole board could simply have experience or simply have knowledge. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will explain why a change is needed.

Stewart Stevenson

One of the great problems that youngsters face when they leave the education system is getting their first job. When I was a graduate with a humble degree, I had three job offers. That ain’t the case now: I have family members, better qualified than me, for whom it has taken three years to get a proper job. We need to ensure that we do not create barriers, in the minds of applicants and in the application process, that prevent people from applying who are probably better qualified than many who have experience, and who would bring their knowledge to bear on the problems that face the south of Scotland, where it is particularly difficult to retain young people. I will certainly not support amendment 7A.

Fergus Ewing

I have listened to and enjoyed the debate. It is our desire and intention that we do not deter young people from seeking to apply and, if appropriate, becoming members of the new enterprise agency board. It is absolutely right that we avoid doing anything that stops or discourages that, which is the point that Mr Stevenson—

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

Hang on a second. I might give way later.

Mr Stevenson made that point, and he is absolutely right. Views were imputed to me—

Jamie Greene

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

No, I will not.

Views were imputed to me by Mr Smyth that I not only do not hold but would not dream of holding, far less expressing. That is unfortunate. I confirm that I am not suggesting that all young people have had no experience—that would be absurd. What I am saying is that many young people, for various reasons, have not had the opportunity to amass experience of life and work beyond, for example, further and higher education.

It is abundantly clear that the incisive arguments that Mr Rumbles put forward—[Interruption.] I see that there is a lot of support for that sentiment. It is clear that Mr Rumbles’s incisive arguments should be preferred. We, at least, are determined that young people should not be left behind and should play an active, positive and growing part in the business of south of Scotland enterprise as it does its job for the south of Scotland.

The Presiding Officer

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

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 68, Against 45, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 7A moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 52, Against 62, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7A disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 27, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

That ends consideration of amendments. As members will be aware, at this stage in the proceedings, I am now required under the standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter; that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view it does no such thing, and therefore it does not require a supermajority at stage 3.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-17517, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill at stage 3.

The Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy (Fergus Ewing)

I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill.

The Presiding Officer

One second, cabinet secretary. I ask members to keep the conversations down—a debate is going on.

Fergus Ewing

This is a momentous day for the south of Scotland, which will usher in a new era for Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders—an era in which the area has its own enterprise agency that is able to respond to the different and distinct rural economy, to drive inclusive and sustainable growth to benefit its communities and to meet the needs and interests of alI who live there.

We all recognise the untapped potential of the south of Scotland. It has real strengths in traditional sectors such as farming, forestry, fishing and textiles; it has developed sectors such as food and drink, tourism and creative industries; and it has the opportunity to contribute to the industries of the future, not least in the low-carbon economy. It has a wealth of natural resources ready to contribute to the area’s sustainable economic growth.

It also has a wealth of people resources, ambitious for their area and entrepreneurial, with a sense of belonging and a lively culture and enjoying a great quality of life. It is no accident that John Buchan’s hero Richard Hannay sought sanctuary in the south of Scotland,

“in this blessed, honest-smelling hill country,”

where, he says,

“every mile put me in better humour with myself.”

However, we also all recognise that the region has challenges to overcome: low pay and low productivity; gaps in connectivity and infrastructure; and a declining and ageing population, with young people, sadly, not always seeing or finding reasons to stay.

With this legislation, we have sought to establish an agency to lead on addressing those challenges. The bill sets out the legislative basis for a new agency with the right powers to take forward the right activities. It provides us with an agency that will further the sustainable economic and social development of the south of Scotland and which will seek to improve the amenity and environment of the area. It is clearly accountable—to Government, to the Parliament and, importantly, locally. Further, of course, the legislation will now be an exemplar in delivering real progress on fair work practices. We set out to deliver a fresh and different approach, and we have done so.

Throughout this process, I have welcomed cross-party support for the bill’s proposals. Since the bill’s introduction in October, members have worked together to create legislation that provides a strong statutory framework for the new agency. The positive stage 1 debate confirmed MSPs’ support, and we have worked since then to build consensus where it matters.

I am grateful for the work of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and for its careful scrutiny of the bill at stages 1 and 2. Its thoughtful stage 1 report reflected its evidence gathering and helped to inform amendments that I and others made at stage 2. I also welcome the consideration and input of the Finance and Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

Of course, passing the bill today is not the end of the story. The next chapter will focus on implementation. Work is already under way to translate law into an operational agency that is ready to start work on 1 April 2020. South of Scotland enterprise will be up and running in eight months’ time, signalling this Government’s intent to not only create an agency but deliver one. We want an agency with staff working across the region, delivering the activities that people want to see and that are set out in the bill.

Our next step is to appoint the agency’s chair, and that process is now under way. We will then move to appoint the agency’s members. We are determined to ensure that south of Scotland enterprise benefits from the right mix of skills and experiences. The amendments that have been made today will help to deliver that diversity. I hope that the south of Scotland’s MSPs will encourage people to apply.

With this legislation, we had the opportunity to be bold and ambitious, and we took it. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new enterprise agency—an agency that can transform the area’s economy by building on its strengths and traditions; an agency that creates opportunities for everyone; an agency that supports communities to thrive; and an agency that can make a real difference for individuals and businesses.

I, therefore, move,

That the Parliament agrees that the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill be passed.

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

The creation of a south of Scotland enterprise agency was a manifesto commitment of the Scottish Conservatives ahead of the 2016 election, and I believe that today represents a hugely welcome and exciting step forward in addressing the barriers to economic sustainability and economic growth in the communities that I represent in Galloway and West Dumfries, and in the wider south of Scotland region.

In living and running a business in Galloway for more than 35 years, I have always been aware of the unique nature of the economy in the south of Scotland. I have always recognised the significant challenges that my rural constituency faces. However, more importantly, I have always known of the significant opportunities that we have.

The Scottish Conservatives’ 2016 manifesto commitment recognised that the rural communities and businesses of the south of Scotland had unique economic needs that were similar to those in the Highlands and Islands. I welcome the fact that, now, the Government, the lead committee and, ultimately, the bill that is before us recognise and accept the unique challenges and opportunities that exist in the south of Scotland.

Today, in many ways, we are moving back to something similar to the old Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise model, but, this time, the model is much improved, with stronger local accountability and focus. As is the case with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the new agency will place an emphasis on socioeconomic as well as simply economic development.

Despite its weaknesses, Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise helped to support and create businesses that are still thriving today. The south of Scotland enterprise agency can be a catalyst for economic growth and business creation once again, in a region that so badly needs it.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at it stands at decision time. As the bill progressed through its committee stage, welcome measures strengthened it and its aims. Although there are many situations where Colin Smyth and I disagree, on this occasion, I welcomed his amendment that put a duty on the new body to facilitate co-operation with other relevant bodies. I am pleased that an amendment has gone through on that basis. In practice, it will ensure that the south of Scotland enterprise agency acts as a catalyst for future projects across the region, facilitating the co-operation and joint working with other bodies that will be key to its overall success. To give just a few examples, those bodies might be Transport Scotland, VisitScotland, Skills Development Scotland or the R100 delivery organisation that is yet to be announced. Throughout the consultation on the bill, there was a recognition that they should be the focus of projects that will boost local infrastructure.

I know from the petition on the A75 road upgrade that I have been running that infrastructure is an important topic, and that transport investment is important to my constituents. Although it would not be appropriate for the new body to fund any road-building infrastructure projects, it would absolutely be appropriate for it to be the overarching agency and the driving force behind necessary improvements, backed up by a close working relationship with the relevant body, which, in that case, would be Transport Scotland.

That type of facilitation could move us towards a more cost-effective and accountable system, where local residents and businesses know that there is an evidence-based plan of action to remove the barriers to economic sustainability. Such an action plan must recognise that the south of Scotland is ideally situated midway between Scotland’s central belt and the northern powerhouse across the border. It continues to be a source of great anger for me and my constituents that I have to do this but I will take the opportunity to once again remind the Government that Stranraer—and its ports at Cairnryan—is one of the most important gateways into Scotland, and that the lack of appropriate investment in the A75 and A77 should be a source of extreme embarrassment to this Government. I hope that the new agency can assist the Government in making the right road-infrastructure decisions in the very near future.

During the consultation period on the agency, I received many comments that the engagement process must be straightforward and transparent, particularly for those who are pitching new projects. The south of Scotland enterprise agency should act as a one-stop shop and avoid what many individuals and businesses have had to go through in the past, where they have been pushed from pillar to post and have had to jump through many different hoops when it has come to funding applications.

Maureen Watt’s amendment at stage 2 was welcome as it ensured that the new agency will be transparent and accountable to local people. I welcome the fact that that amendment will see the agency launch a consultation on its action plan. We also supported Colin Smyth’s amendment on the consultation action plan that will be undertaken by the new agency. Although it is right that the agency should seek the views of local bodies, including local authorities, I stress that councils should not be in a position to in any way veto, disproportionately influence or, indeed, delay the agency in carrying out its functions. In making its plan publicly available after consultation, the enterprise agency will fulfil a duty to the people of the south of Scotland, who have made it clear that they must play a part in the decision-making process. In addition, the requirement for a review after five years gives confidence that there will be regular checks on how the agency plans to deliver on the aspirations that we have today.

During the 2016 election, as well as standing on a manifesto that committed to the creation of a south of Scotland enterprise agency, I also stood on the platform of opposing further centralisation by the Scottish Government. That is why I welcome the fact that the bill has been strengthened, and that Scottish ministers will need to consult the enterprise agency and provide reasons before changing directives or offering new directives.

For far too long, the south of Scotland has suffered from a lack of focus and investment, which has resulted in many people—in particular young people—moving away, and potential investors being put off by the lack of adequate infrastructure. I hope that this afternoon, Wednesday 5 June 2019, heralds the dawn of a new era for the south of Scotland, in which the local people of Dumfries and Galloway and the south of Scotland will start to have the equity of access to tools and funding that has been so lacking in the past, and in which the true contribution that the people of the south of Scotland can make to the rest of the UK and beyond will start to be realised.

As the MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries, I am confident that this is the first step in unlocking the massive untapped potential that the natural resources, and the people and their skills, have to offer, and I look forward to seeing that on the ground. This region will be not only the most beautiful place to do business but the best.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Having campaigned for better support for the south of Scotland economy for 10 years, I welcome the fact that we will soon move from the establishment of a south of Scotland enterprise agency being an issue for debate in the Parliament to its being a reality for communities across the south of Scotland.

It is important not to lose sight of why such an agency is needed. I stood to be a member of the Scottish Parliament in 2016 because, as a local councillor who chaired the economy committee and the south of Scotland alliance, I saw every day that too many of the big economic challenges that the area faced were simply not being addressed. There is the scandal of low pay, with average earnings in Dumfries and Galloway being £11.52 per hour compared with a national average of £14.30—that makes the region the lowest paid in Scotland. There is the skills shortage: more than a quarter of the population of the south of Scotland are graduates, whereas the national figure is more than a third. There are also the low levels of productivity and growth. Gross value added per person in Dumfries and Galloway is 21 per cent lower than the national average; in the Borders, the figure is 26 per cent lower than the national average.

It is not just that those challenges were not being properly tackled; the opportunities for the area and its strengths and huge potential were not being fulfilled.

The south of Scotland is an area of outstanding natural beauty, with a history and a cultural heritage that are second to none, but in many ways our tourism potential is still untapped. There are sectors in our region—forestry, energy, arts and culture, and many others—that have a reputation for excellence, but there needs to be more focus from our economic agencies on delivering the inclusive sustainable growth that our region needs from those sectors.

We have a strong small and medium-sized business base that provides many opportunities to grow and create jobs—with the right level of support. The current economic agency model has simply not delivered that support for the region. We have a vibrant and ambitious social enterprise base that is already making a difference to communities, but it is desperate to do more and to access the same support that is offered to other businesses to help to achieve that growth. We also have excellent local colleges and a university campus with the potential to expand so that they can deliver more of the skills that our communities need.

Our location means that parts of the south of Scotland are just two hours’ travel from 14 million people—the 14 million potential customers in the central belt and the north of England.

Crucially, the people of the south of Scotland have a real community spirit, and a desire and determination to make the south of Scotland better. That determination is the reason why there is such strong support for the establishment of the new agency and the reason why the people of the south of Scotland now want to get on with making the agency a reality.

On behalf of my constituents, I place on record my thanks to everyone who has delivered the bill to pave the way for the agency. That includes the cabinet secretary for taking the bill through Parliament and for the strong interest that he has taken in the south of Scotland economy. While he picks himself up off the floor, I will caveat that by giving particular thanks to the south of Scotland economic development team, led by Karen Jackson, who have supported the cabinet secretary’s work.

I would, of course, like to have seen the bill go further: on co-operation between agencies; on more local accountability; on tackling poverty; on improving housing; and on trade union representation—and, obviously, on using the word “and” instead of “or”. However, I am pleased to have made some changes to the bill to strengthen the aims of the agency through including, for example, support for social enterprises, helping to take forward the fair work agenda and, crucially, putting in place local consultation on the agency’s action plan to ensure that the agency is rooted in the south of Scotland. I appreciate that the Government has often had to move its position to ensure that those changes happen.

The people who deserve most praise are the people of the south of Scotland, who have campaigned long and hard for the new agency and who will take it forward. I have the privilege of living in Dumfries and Galloway in the south of Scotland and I am a proud Doonhamer, but it breaks my heart to see so many young people leaving the region not through choice but because of the lack of high-skilled, well-paid jobs or the range of further and higher education opportunities to deliver the skills that they want and which our economy needs. If we look back in 10 years’ time and see so many young people still being forced to turn their back on the south of Scotland, we will have failed.

It is now up to all of us to get behind and support the bill and make the new agency a success in delivering the strong and vibrant local economy that I know the south of Scotland can have.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

It has been a real pleasure to have been involved with the bill. A number of people—the clerks, as ever, the witnesses and the people and representatives of the south of Scotland—need to be thanked for that. Elected representatives from the south of Scotland visited our committee on a number of occasions, of course, and there is no doubting the enthusiasm and energy that they brought and the additional contribution that they made.

Like others, I thank the cabinet secretary for the role that he has played in bringing people together. Those who were sitting in the public gallery half an hour ago might have thought that the process was not very conciliatory, but making legislation is based on debating issues—sometimes in a very heated manner. I think that we have come up with a good bill, but the proof of the pudding will be seen, as my colleague Colin Smyth said, in years to come. There has been a consensual approach.

Many members have talked about manifesto commitments, and my party—the Scottish Green Party—also had the creation of such an agency as a manifesto commitment.

Comparisons have been made with the Highlands and Islands on a number of occasions, but I do not think that we can always make direct comparisons. There is much to be learned—good and bad—from the experience in the Highlands and Islands. After the second world war, the Highlands were shaped by the hydro schemes, which were introduced by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston. Subsequently, the Highlands and Islands Development Board was established. As humans, we can be very cynical and we tend to reflect on the negatives rather than the positives, but an awful lot of positives came from that work. The new iteration is Highlands and Islands Enterprise, albeit that it has a slightly changed focus.

Partnership is always important. Throughout the bill process, we have discussed the role that the agency can play in galvanising support and bringing people together on the common objective of making the lives of people in the south of Scotland better. As someone who is enthusiastic about the role that the state can play, I hope that people will reflect on the enthusiasm for the new agency and that they will not be so scared of state involvement. Partnership with communities is very important.

Funding has been mentioned. There was never going to be a like-for-like comparison between the south and the Highlands. As a member for the Highlands and Islands region, I have been keen to stress that this should not be about having a competition between north and south; it should be about making things better for the south. As others have said, a gauge of success will be not only retaining the existing population—there is no doubt that better education facilities and an increase in the availability of skills, leading to increased wages will help in that regard—but growing the population.

It was not that the issue had been forgotten about, but, having heard the views of Dr Calum Macleod of Community Land Scotland that part of the new agency’s remit should be to establish “a community assets team”, I was pleased to have a part in ensuring that the bill says that. In the years to come, people will appreciate that such a team has brought people together.

The engagement started long before we began work on the bill. As has been said, the process has had a long genesis, and it is important to congratulate Professor Griggs and the south of Scotland economic partnership.

Co-location will be crucial as the agency moves forward, because there is no doubt that relationships are improved if we can see the whites of people’s eyes.

My colleague Colin Smyth made an important point—this is something that we can learn from the Highlands—about it being very easy to create a three-figure number of jobs in an urban area and to laud that, but having a small number of jobs in a rural area is also important, if it means that the rural school can be retained along with everything else that goes with such jobs.

I look forward to the success of the new agency.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Liberal Democrats fully support the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, which is the kind of legislation that can really benefit the people of the south of Scotland. It is about supporting the environment and, at the same time, supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth. It is about increasing the number of residents who are of working age, enhancing skills and capacities that are relevant to employment, encouraging business start-ups and entrepreneurship, and promoting improved transport services. However, most important, it is about supporting communities to help them meet the needs that they have identified.

I am particularly pleased that members of the committee worked well together to improve the bill—people who heard the exchanges on some of today’s amendments might not think so, but we did—as a result of engaging with people in the south of Scotland. In particular, the committee’s formal meeting in Dumfries and our meeting in Galashiels were excellent.

I want to put on record that the cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing has clearly and demonstrably worked hard to ensure that we get the bill right. He was willing to listen to the evidence, he responded extremely well to the committee’s stage 1 report—which, I have to say, has not always been my experience of ministerial responses to such reports—and he lodged very constructive amendments at stage 2. He has done the same thing today at stage 3. If I may say so—and I do not think that I am betraying any confidences here—his work with MSPs of all parties between each stage of the process has been welcome.

I reiterate that the bill should enable us to achieve real change in the south of Scotland. However, it is only a start. In fact, after working so long on it in committee, I have to say that I have mixed feelings about it. If I think that we have got it right, why do I have such feelings? Because I am an MSP from the north-east, and I would like a similar bill for my constituents. The cabinet secretary’s deputy, who is sitting beside him, is a north-east MSP, too, and I hope that the two of them are having a conversation about the issue right now and that they turn their heads towards the north-east in future. That would be a really first-class idea.

Maureen Watt (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)

As the member would realise if he came to some of the events in the north-east, the national health service and Scottish Enterprise in Grampian have been very fortunate in having Opportunity North East—or ONE—work on enterprise in the north-east. In fact, it has almost doubled the funding available.

Mike Rumbles

There were already organisations in the south of Scotland that had the same purpose. I would have thought that the member, who is a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, would have realised that. What I am saying is that what we have done for the south of Scotland we could do for the north-east.

Following on from that very positive intervention, I am pleased to say that this is a good bill. As I know that time is short, I will finish by saying that the cabinet secretary deserves recognition for his work in delivering it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

I thank everyone for the brevity of their speeches. It has allowed us to make up time.

We now move to the open debate, in which there is one speaker.

Emma Harper (South Scotland) (SNP)

I am extremely pleased to speak in favour of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. The bill, which I have engaged with at stage 1 and throughout the parliamentary process, will undoubtedly benefit the south of Scotland by supporting communities, businesses—including our small businesses and microbusinesses—and people across the south, and by developing, supporting and continuing the process of empowerment in order to deliver the transformational economic and cultural change that will be key to the region’s success.

I have had the privilege of working with the people who have been involved in the interim body, SOSEP—the south of Scotland economic partnership. Indeed, I have been able to work closely and collaboratively with many people, including Professor Russel Griggs, Rob Dickson, Dame Barbara Kelly, Amanda Burgauer, Lorna Young, Aylett Roan and others, all of whom I regularly engage with to discuss issues from across South Scotland. From the outset, I want to thank all those who have been involved for their work, which has allowed us to take a fresh approach to promoting sustainable economic growth in the south-west and across the rest of the south of Scotland.

I also thank everyone who has provided a briefing for the debate today, and the clerks, who have, as always, worked extremely competently to get us to this stage.

On 14 January, I attended the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s informal workshop and formal committee meeting at Easterbrook hall in Dumfries. The meeting, which was attended by more than 120 people from a range of community groups, local authorities and businesses from across the south-west of Scotland, provided the opportunity for local voices to feed into the committee’s work and, ultimately, its report. People said what they felt had to be done in order to provide benefit and to address the unique challenges of the south-west of Scotland. In doing so, they were able to inform the members of the committee. Such stakeholder engagement meetings have been key to informing the bill’s approach and content, so I thank the Scottish Government and the REC Committee for their level of engagement with the people who will be directly impacted by the bill.

It is vital that the new south of Scotland enterprise agency takes a fresh and tailored approach to supporting the south of Scotland’s economy. The area, particularly the south-west including Dumfries and Galloway, has a different and distinct rural economy with wide-ranging and significant opportunities, as well as its fair share of challenges, including an ageing population, the need for private sector investment and the need for a good standard of transport infrastructure. Our roads have been mentioned already: I agree with Finlay Carson that we need to focus not only on our rail infrastructure, but on our roads, including the A75, the A76 and the A77.

The Borders has a train line that connects its communities to Edinburgh and the central belt, but people in Galloway and areas between Dumfries and Stranraer do not have that ease of connectivity to the central belt and the wider regions. I am therefore pleased that the bill is intentionally high level and enabling. It aims to provide the south of Scotland enterprise agency with the powers that are necessary for it to achieve its strategic aims flexibly and responsively.

However, I make a plea to the people who will be involved—including the chair, when appointed—to ensure that the agency is not Borders-centric, and that Dumfries and Galloway and the south-west are considered equally. That aim will be aided by the location of the agency, which will have a headquarters hub and will operate not just in one area, but throughout the south, which is crucial due to the region’s rural geography. John Finnie has already mentioned the importance of co-location. I will be making representations for the hub to be located centrally—perhaps in Dumfries, itself.

I am pleased that the bill makes clear the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the new agency receives a fair budget and that it is funded on a per capita equivalent basis to Highlands and Island Enterprise.

I, again, put on record my support for the creation of this much-needed agency in the south of Scotland. It has been a long time coming. I look forward to continuing to work with all involved, to ensure that it delivers for my constituents, particularly across the south-west and the rest of South Scotland, and to ensure that they are collaborated with and not forgotten.

I encourage all members to support the bill at decision time.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

I, too, welcome the bill. I acknowledge the cabinet secretary’s work on the bill. I particularly thank my fellow South Scotland region colleague and friend Colin Smyth and the other South Scotland MSPs for their input to and scrutiny of the bill, in addition to what was done by the committee.

As Scottish Labour’s spokesperson on land reform, I particularly welcome the amendments that were lodged by Gail Ross and John Finnie and agreed to at stage 2, which will empower communities and give the new enterprise agency a similar social remit and land ownership remit to Highlands and Island Enterprise, which has been so successful in supporting and enabling communities by placing the sustainability of their economic future in their own hands. The amendments are very important in respect of empowering communities to take ownership of local land and building assets. As was discussed at stage 2, that has been a success of HIE, so I am encouraged that the new agency will have a similar social remit.

I strongly support the bill, and I am excited about seeing the positive effects that the agency will bring to communities in South Scotland, especially in relation to retaining young people in the region. However, I have a continuing concern that I feel strongly about: where the bill will deliver for people who live within the agency’s boundaries starkly highlights the lack of support for the communities that it will not reach.

Recent assurances from Scottish Enterprise have not gone far enough. Some of my constituents in Clydesdale and South Ayrshire are concerned and disappointed by what they believe to be a failure of the Government to provide them with a similar opportunity. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary give to my constituents? What specific actions will he take to support Clydesdale? Clydesdale is part of the South Scotland region that I represent, and it looks far more to the south than it does to Glasgow. I worry about the supposed reassurance that was given by Scottish Enterprise in a recent letter to me. It stated:

“a series of regional economic partnerships have been formed across much of Scotland with Clydesdale covered by the Glasgow City region”.

I have seen no evidence of focus on the sustainable development of Clydesdale in the Glasgow city region deal. What can the cabinet secretary do to address those concerns quickly? They are surely well beyond being operational matters.

On a more positive note, Transport Scotland has written to me highlighting that the second strategic transport projects review will

“take account of the priorities emerging from the new National Transport Strategy and support government policies including those on climate change and tackling inequality.”

I hope that it will also include rurality.

I am delighted that the bill was amended at stage 2, following amendments that were lodged by Colin Smyth, to include environmental policies that recognise the need to support the shift to a net zero emissions economy. It is necessary, in the context of the current climate emergency, that the bill reflects that.

However, I am disappointed that the cabinet secretary did not recognise the significance of my amendment 13, which would have included in the bill a provision on support for co-operation for environmental reasons, given that we face an environment and climate emergency. I hope that he will ensure that such issues are dealt with in regulation.

I welcome the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, and I look forward to its being passed and to working with all those who are involved in sustainable development across the region.

Rachael Hamilton (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

Today, Conservative members will vote to pass the bill and let the proposed agency become a reality. The new south of Scotland enterprise agency holds the key to unlocking significant potential right across our region, and I look forward to the renewed economic drive that I hope it will deliver.

The new agency should be an enabler, not a disabler. It must be dynamic and it must suit the needs of the south of Scotland. Many members have said that it is based on the Highlands and Islands Enterprise model, but our area is distinctive and different from the Highlands, so a bespoke approach that is shaped by people who have a passion for the south of Scotland must shine through in what SOSE does.

It is unfortunate that Colin Smyth’s amendment 2, which included support for rural businesses, was not agreed to, because such support is crucial in our large rural region. Removing barriers is the key to achieving accessible funding. I want the agency to make obtaining support a lot simpler, and to have a focus on rurality.

As the shadow culture secretary, I was pleased that Joan McAlpine’s amendment 11 on cultural assets, which I supported, was agreed to. Given our unique culture, history and heritage, we need to attract more tourists to the south of Scotland. Initiatives such as the #seesouth campaign must be built on and expanded.

We were disappointed that amendment 10, on affordable housing, was not agreed to, because the issue is crucial to the south of Scotland’s economy. A lack of affordable housing could be considered to be a barrier to retaining young people and to encouraging economic growth. A key aim of SOSE is to deliver construction skills, so a focus on affordable housing could have played a key role in meeting that aim.

I recognise that the new agency will not solve all the problems, but it will go some way by improving support for start-ups, and it will encourage a supportive business atmosphere. For years, we have had low-wage, low-hours jobs, a gender pay gap and a skills shortage. Those issues are not unique to the Borders, but they are definitely exacerbated by the rurality of the area and its poor connectivity—physically and digitally.

As I have suggested, skills development is essential for retaining young people and for upskilling working-age people, given the south of Scotland’s ageing demographic. We must have an agency that works in partnership with the colleges, and which encourages knowledge exchange. That is why we supported Maureen Watt’s amendment 14, which brought in “persons”, as well as organisations. A greater range of society than just businesses must participate in achievement of the overall aims of the new agency and in economic growth.

Through SOSE, further education institutions must be supported to encourage rural skills. The Scottish Borders area is as rural as Dumfries and Galloway, so working in partnership will be absolutely key. In doing that, we must make it easy for people to access education by reducing transport difficulties. Making learning an out-of-class experience relies on good digital infrastructure: so far, we are lagging behind in that respect. The impact of such action could be significant in driving greater innovation in the economy, and in improving competitiveness in the workforce and productivity in business. Ultimately, that will lead to better sustainability for local businesses.

The gender pay gap is a massive issue, and I believe that it deserves the greatest attention. If we are to retain young people—especially young women—in the Borders and in Dumfries and Galloway, we need to ensure that that gap is closed. It would be fantastic if the new agency could support more women into the workforce and provide support for women to start up new businesses.

We will support the bill. I look forward to the agency being delivered.

Fergus Ewing

The bill allows for an enterprise agency to be made of the south of Scotland, by the south of Scotland, for the south of Scotland.

I thank all those in the south of Scotland who contributed to the proceedings and the consultation for their positive engagement with the bill process. Their perspectives have helped to shape the legislation and will continue to shape the priorities of their enterprise agency.

I add my praise to the members of the south of Scotland economic partnership. During the past 18 months, their work has been unstinting in their local engagement and in the meetings that they have attended throughout the area. I have not seen anything like it, and I have been around for quite a long time.

Emma Harper mentioned some of the members of the partnership. I pay tribute to them, particularly the chair, Professor Russel Griggs, for their energy and commitment, which have given an element of excitement about the new opportunities that lie ahead. Their foundation work has paved the way for the new enterprise agency to flourish.

I also take this opportunity to thank the committee clerks for their work. As Finlay Carson said, the committee held meetings around the region. It did not just stay in Edinburgh to take evidence. It got out of here and went into the south of Scotland to meet and hear from and listen to people there. The committee is to be commended for that; it involves an awful lot of effort and hard work.

I also express my profound personal thanks to the members of the Scottish Government bill team. I was pleased to hear other members, including Colin Smyth, thank them as well, because we have worked together, and members across the chamber have seen just how significant and helpful the contribution of Government officials in the bill team has been. I thank them for their sterling work in drafting and shaping the bill, and for their willingness to find solutions, and, as Mr Rumbles pointed out, to respond positively to the views of members on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and from the south of Scotland. This has been a collegiate effort and I am pleased that Parliament has performed that role.

The bill fulfils a programme for government commitment to create a new enterprise agency for the south of Scotland. It was a key recommendation arising from the enterprise and skills review. I pay tribute to Keith Brown for his work thereanent and for shaping the bill content and establishing the partnership. Our collective efforts, including those of members from across the chamber, will ensure that the south of Scotland enterprise agency takes the different and fresh approach that people asked us for.

Rachael Hamilton quite rightly talked about the important work that is being done for women. She is absolutely right. I expect the women in agriculture development, for example, to be an early opportunity to build on that work.

The agency will be a keystone organisation, looking to bring together economic, social and environmental development to create jobs and prosperity for everyone who works there

Although we have had our differences this afternoon, I give my absolute assurance that the differences that we have discussed have been about process and not about substance. In response to questions raised by Finlay Carson, Claudia Beamish and Colin Smyth, I say yes, of course, the agency will take a close interest in furthering all the matters that have been referred to; yes, of course, it will seek to advance rural business; and yes, of course, it will take a deep, close and profound interest in pursuing the best environmental practice.

I specifically wanted to provide direct and positive responses to all members—you all know that I am, in fact, Mr Positive.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Hear, hear!

Fergus Ewing

Thank you. It is quite remarkable that consensus has broken out in the chamber and I am touched by all the nice things that people have said, particularly Mr Rumbles. I have never said this before—

Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP)

You will never say it again.

Fergus Ewing

—and as Mr Dey has pointed out, I might never say it again, but all I can say is, “Aw, shucks!”

Today, we are tracing a foundation for a new chapter in the life of Scotland, and the south of Scotland in particular. When Willie Ross strove to establish a development board for the Highlands and Islands, he said:

“the Highlander has been the man on Scotland’s conscience”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 March 1965; Vol 708, c 1095.]

For too long, the people of the south of Scotland have perceived themselves to be forgotten and neglected. We now have a chance to bring that to an end. In the words of one of the region’s greatest living sons, Calvin Harris—[Laughter.] Yes, I know him well; I know of him. In the words of Calvin Harris, I say to the people of the region:

“It’s not about what you’ve done ... It’s all about where you going ... Right now is where you shine”.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The first question is, that motion S5M-17517, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill, be agreed to. As the question is on passing a bill, there will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 113, Against 0, Abstentions 0.

That is agreed to and the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill is passed. [Applause.]

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill be passed.

The Presiding Officer

I propose to ask a single question on six Parliamentary Bureau motions, unless any member objects.

The question is, that motions S5M-17534 to S5M-17539, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, be agreed to.

Motions agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Code for the Welfare of Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens (Revocation) (Scotland) Notice 2019 be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Modification) (No. 1) Order 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Head Teachers Education and Training Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2019 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Equalities and Human Rights Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Female Genital Mutilation (Protection and Guidance) (Scotland) Bill at stage1.