Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Diversity in Businesses
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting and encouraging diversity in Scotland’s businesses, including who leads, owns and works within them. (S6O-04624)
We are committed to advancing diversity across Scotland’s economy. Our fair work action plan and anti-racist employment strategy set out support for employers across the economy to address workplace inequalities and enable marginalised groups to enter, thrive in and lead organisations.
We are also implementing the recommendations of the pathways review, which was co-authored by our newly appointed chief entrepreneur, Ana Stewart. The South of Scotland Enterprise regional pathways pre-start pilot and the pathways fund have opened opportunities for entrepreneurship to women and people in other underrepresented and undersupported groups.
Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting OutBritain, the United Kingdom’s first LGBTQ+ chamber of commerce, in the Parliament to discuss its recent report on the massive contribution that LGBTQ+ business makes to the economy. An issue that came up again and again was the lack of data collection, not only for LGBTQ+ owned, run and employing businesses but in relation to diversity more generally. Given that the evidence points to diversity in business being good for productivity internally and externally, what more can the Scottish Government do to identify and support diverse businesses?
Last week, the Minister for Business, Richard Lochhead, attended the launch of the “LGBTQ+ Businesses Count” report, which recognises the value of diversity in Scotland’s business community and the contribution that LGBTQ+ business leaders make to our economy. It also highlights the challenges that many LGBTQ+ people have faced in their business journey.
Mr Lochhead offered to meet OutBritain to discuss its research in more detail. Work is under way to arrange a follow-up meeting with officials to discuss in more detail the issues that Emma Roddick raises.
Transmission Impact Assessment
To ask the Scottish Government when it last engaged with the United Kingdom Government, transmission operators and the National Energy System Operator, to explore the possibility of reviewing the transmission impact assessment, in light of reports that this limits Scotland’s solar energy development. (S6O-04625)
The Scottish Government regularly engages with key energy stakeholders, including Ofgem, the National Energy System Operator and transmission operators, along with our counterparts in the UK Government, to ensure that transmission infrastructure delivers for Scotland. That includes exploration of the transmission impact assessment threshold and consideration of the impact that that has on energy users in Scotland.
Solar Energy UK recently published a report that showed that solar and battery projects could contribute more than £5 billion in gross value added to the UK economy by 2035 if the sector continues to grow. For Scotland to secure its fair share of those economic benefits, it must remain attractive to investors. However, the current disparity in TIA thresholds—the threshold is only 200kW in Scotland, compared with the proposed threshold of 5MW in England and Wales—makes it easier and cheaper to connect projects south of the border. Can the cabinet secretary outline the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that solar is not left behind in Scotland, that it has a clear and growing role in our energy mix and that it can reach its full potential to help Scotland to continue to lead the way on clean energy and benefit fully from the transition to renewables?
We recognise the importance of energy that is generated from solar in contributing to the decarbonisation of our energy supply in Scotland and to our just transition to net zero. We have already removed several barriers to enable greater deployment of solar across Scotland, particularly on the roofs of buildings. We will shortly publish our solar vision, which will outline further work that we are undertaking.
Although matters relating to the regulation and operation of the electricity system are reserved, we continue to engage closely with the UK Government and NESO on their plans for the Great British Energy system.
Nursery Mothballing (National Guidance)
To ask the Scottish Government, further to the First Minister’s recent comments regarding the mothballing of nurseries, what systems are in place to ensure local authorities comply with national guidance. (S6O-04626)
Local authorities are responsible for the management of their early learning and childcare estate. Statutory guidance sets out the Scottish Government’s expectations in relation to the mothballing of nurseries. Any mothballing must be temporary. Parents should still be able to make applications for children to attend mothballed nurseries, and councils should be able to reopen them if circumstances change.
As the First Minister stated last month, we are reviewing the guidance to provide greater clarity on whether mothballing is the appropriate action to take. Local authorities are responsible for complying with their statutory duties and are democratically accountable to their local electorate.
As the minister knows, it was announced just before Easter that four nurseries in Aberdeenshire would be mothballed. When the issue was raised in the chamber, the First Minister and the minister stated that there was a requirement for local consultation. No consultation has taken place with any of the communities affected, and parents are experiencing poor communication with council officers. We have also received the impact assessment of the decision for one of the nursery closures, which was approved on 30 April, more than a month after the closures were announced on 28 March.
Will the minister outline what action the Scottish Government will take to ensure that the national mothballing guidance is followed? What can parents do when councils do not follow their own processes?
I find the situation that Mr Burnett has brought to my attention very concerning. We expect local authorities to consult parents, carers and families to ensure that they meet local needs in relation to childcare. We want all families to have access to high-quality and flexible childcare that meets their needs. Of course, we understand that local authorities must have a level of flexibility when it comes to managing their estate. The need for such flexibility might be prompted by, for example, demographic changes.
I have already alluded to the review of the mothballing guidance, but I am more than happy to discuss Mr Burnett’s concerns in the context of the review.
The minister has alluded to the fact that, two weeks ago, the First Minister said that the Government was reviewing the guidance. Given that Conservative-led Scottish Borders Council has already made decisions on nurseries—although it has compromised and does not intend to go ahead with what it originally decided to do—can the minister provide a timeline for when the revised guidance will be available to the public? If she cannot do so today, I ask her to do so as soon as is practicable.
I appreciate Ms Grahame’s and other members’ concerns about the matter. As the First Minister highlighted, it is important that greater clarity is provided on whether mothballing is the appropriate action to take.
On the issue of the timeline, the review of the guidance is under way and ministers will consider the findings when they are available. I am happy to commit to providing Ms Grahame with a further update once those timings are available.
Galloway National Park
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with the rural affairs secretary regarding the potential environmental and biodiversity impact of the proposed Galloway national park. (S6O-04627)
The Scottish Government received NatureScot’s report on the Galloway and Ayrshire national park proposal on Monday 5 May. We will now carefully consider the outcome of the consultation and NatureScot’s advice on the proposal before taking any further decisions. That will include full consideration of the potential environmental, social and economic impacts. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands will update the Parliament on the next steps before recess, subject to parliamentary business.
Biodiversity, the natural environment and landscapes are, of course, key factors when it comes to designating any new national parks. Economic sustainability and growth are also critical considerations.
The designation process in Galloway has been less than satisfactory. There have been significant issues, including a perceived bias and a lack of any detail on how a Galloway national park would or could be different from the two existing national parks, given the area’s hugely important dairy farming, forestry and renewables sectors. That has resulted in mistrust and divisions within communities, which will take years to heal.
We have heard that the Scottish Government has now received the consultation report from NatureScot and that it is currently considering it. The Government promised that the report would be published, but it has not been, and constituents will have to wait until the end of June for the Government to respond with its decision.
It is my understanding that there is not a majority in favour of the national park proposal and that a full designation order is unlikely to be made. On that basis, in her discussions with the rural affairs secretary, will the cabinet secretary ensure that the Scottish Government will not simply walk away without recognising and addressing the unique challenges and opportunities that rural businesses and tourism and hospitality businesses in Galloway face?
As Mr Carson knows, there was a thorough and comprehensive consultation process—5,000 consultation surveys were completed and more than 30 consultation events were held across the area covered by the proposals, with more than 1,000 people attending. The rural affairs secretary has to look at the results of the consultation and take them seriously. An awful lot of information is included in the consultation, and she will advise the Parliament when she is ready to do so.
When the cabinet secretary looks at the responses to the consultation, will she impress upon NatureScot the importance of considering the postcodes of those who responded, so that we can tell whether those who live in the affected communities are those who are most opposed to the proposal?
As Mr Hoy knows, I am not the minister responsible for that decision, but I will pass on his comments to Mairi Gougeon, the rural affairs secretary.
Question 5 has not been lodged.
Fife College (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Scottish Funding Council’s college indicative funding allocations 2025-26 and any impact this may have on the funding settlement for Fife College. (S6O-04629)
Building on the direction that I provided to the SFC in this year’s letter of guidance, the SFC has worked with the sector to bring about important changes in how funds are allocated. That has included responding to explicit asks from the sector that funds be distributed in a way that better reflects differences in the cost of delivering different courses in different places. Those changes are reflected in the publication of the college indicative allocations for the academic year 2025-26. The SFC has also put in place transition arrangements that mean that no college will see a funding reduction in the academic year 2025-26 compared with 2024-25.
I have to say that that is not the case. The overall increase of 2.6 per cent in funding from the SFC basically gives colleges a standstill budget. When we look further into it, we see that Fife College will receive a 1.26 per cent increase, which is a real-terms cut in its budget. That will result in a significant impact on college provision in Fife. Does the minister accept that colleges have a key part to play if the Government’s policy to drive the economy is to be successful and that Fife College cannot take that cut?
As I indicated in my initial answer, the allocations reflect the SFC’s response to a specific ask from the sector. In agreeing to that request, the SFC made it clear to the colleges that there would be winners and losers.
However, as I said, mindful of the financial challenges that colleges are facing, the SFC put in place transition arrangements to give colleges that are adversely affected a softer landing. That means that, once additional moneys are counted in, no college will see a reduction in 2025-26 compared with 2024-25.
As Mr Rowley pointed out, there is an increase in overall funding for Fife College of 1.26 per cent, and I understand that discussions are on-going between the SFC and Fife College. However, I say gently to Mr Rowley, since he talks about inflationary challenges, that one of the additional pressures that that college is facing is the employer national insurance contribution situation. I am sure that he knows full well from where that pressure has come.
There is absolutely no way that Fife College asked for a real-terms cut in its budget. The Government, along with the Scottish Funding Council, needs to think again, because the potential in Fife is huge. We have oil and gas jobs that are fading out while there is huge potential in offshore renewables as well as all the other sectors. Surely the minister understands that we cannot throw away that opportunity.
The changes in allocations reflect the number of high-tariff courses that each institution offers. That is what the institutions, as a collective, sought to have recognised.
Fife College is undertaking excellent work with the SFC on curriculum transformation, which has potential for the college. In addition, I am open to exploring whether we could add into the mix a further premium that recognises the delivery of courses that are linked to local and national economic need, which might provide a balancing mechanism in some instances.
Cruise Ship Levy
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to introduce a cruise ship levy, including the option for local authorities to apply a “point of entry” levy. (S6O-04630)
On 27 February, the Scottish Government commenced a consultation on the potential to give local authorities the power to introduce a cruise ship levy. That consultation closes on 30 May and we will consider next steps in due course, after the responses have been analysed.
The cabinet secretary will recall, from the discussions during the passage of the visitor levy legislation, that I raised concerns about the ability of local authorities such as Orkney Islands Council to introduce a visitor levy without a similar levy applying to cruise traffic, as the administration costs of that would be significant. I was encouraged that the consultation that was launched in February included the possibility of a cruise ship levy but also the possibility of a point-of-entry charge. That option has been backed by Destination Orkney as a way of making it fairer, simpler and more equitable. I appreciate that the consultation is on-going, but will the cabinet secretary please give an undertaking to look very seriously at the option of a point-of-entry levy?
I reassure Liam McArthur that the consultation provides a suitable opportunity to offer views on the idea of a point-of-entry levy, which has been raised with Scottish ministers. Further, detailed consideration of the potential impacts on local authorities, tourism bodies and visitors will be required before any decisions are made on whether to move ahead with any point-of-entry levy.
Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the positive impact that cruise ships and their passengers have not just on Scotland’s tourism economy as a whole but on the economies of the local communities where the ships dock?
There is some uncertainty about how much passengers and crews spend onshore per day. In the published business and regulatory impact assessment, the Scottish Government presents estimates of the overall passenger and crew spending onshore in Scotland in 2024, which range from £55 million to £102 million. The spending will generally be concentrated around the port where the cruise ship is docked, although passengers may travel further from some ports than from others. The BRIA highlights some local surveys that have identified benefits from increased visitor spending at local attractions, increased footfall in town centres and new employment opportunities.
There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Air adhart
Two Minutes’ Silence