The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13384, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a timetable for consideration of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to consider the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill as follows—
Stage 3 on Thursday 30 May 2024.—[Jamie Hepburn]
Motion agreed to.
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13389, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—
(a) Wednesday 29 May 2024—
after
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands;
NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care
insert
followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6)
delete
5.10 pm Decision Time
and insert
5.40 pm Decision Time
(b) Thursday 30 May 2024—
delete
2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice
followed by Scottish Government Debate: A Vision for Health and Social Care in Scotland
and insert
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice
followed by Ministerial Statement: Industrial Relations in the Further Education Sector
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill
delete
5.00 pm Decision Time
and insert
4.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business.—[Jamie Hepburn]
I call Liam Kerr to speak to and move amendment S6M-13389.1. You have up to five minutes.
14:05
I rise to request that, after the early finish this week, on Thursday 30 May, a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport regarding the imposition of a low-emission zone in Aberdeen from 1 June be inserted. I requested such a statement at the Parliamentary Bureau, but it was refused. I lodged a request for a topical question this afternoon, but I was not selected. I lodged a request for a question on the matter at First Minister’s questions on Thursday, but I was not selected.
The amendment is very much the last resort and, indeed, the last opportunity—hence, my request to Parliament today. The issue must be aired, because from this Saturday, a large area of central Aberdeen will be designated as a low-emission zone and non-compliant vehicles entering that area will be subject to a financial penalty.
Many people have argued that the extent and design of the scheme, and the area that it covers, must be rethought, and many suggest that it will discriminate against the likes of people of lesser means, the disabled and the unemployed. Many people suggest that, in the context of bus gates that were introduced in August 2023 having reportedly reduced city-centre footfall by around 0.5 million, businesses and the already struggling Union Street will be further hammered.
Perhaps most crucial, however, is that many people suggest that the data on which Aberdeen City Council based its decisions is years out of date. It fails to recognise that Aberdeen’s air quality has been below strict European standards for years, and it fails to account for the effects of far greater emitters that will not be ameliorated or impacted at all by the LEZ.
The reason why we need a statement on the matter is that Aberdeen City Council’s co-leader suggested that the Aberdeen LEZ is a direct imposition by the Scottish National Party Government and cannot be changed now. Last week, I was called to ask a supplementary question to another member’s portfolio question, and the transport secretary offered a different view. She said that
“flexibilities can be”
made
“depending on individual circumstances”,
and that
“it will be up to council leaders in”
those particular
“areas to decide for themselves what makes sense for their cities.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2024; c 48-49.]
That seems to be, to any observer, like a clear and unequivocal contradiction of the council’s position by the cabinet secretary.
Given the significance of the issue not only to Aberdeen but to many other cities in Scotland, it is imperative that the council be helped to understand that it does have flexibility and can rethink, if the data on emissions and necessity has changed. A statement from the cabinet secretary could clarify where the misunderstandings lie, what data should be used, what variation might be appropriate under the legislation and what the Government’s expectations of the council are in considering the likes of disabled people.
With an early finish on Thursday, MSPs will be in Parliament anyway and will no doubt be eager to hear that statement. Let me be clear: it must happen this week, before the imposition of the LEZ this Saturday.
I therefore ask Parliament to agree to the insertion of a statement on the Aberdeen LEZ by the transport secretary on Thursday at 4.30.
I move amendment S6M-13389.1, to leave out from third “delete” to end and insert:
“followed by Ministerial Statement: LEZ Implementation
after
5.00 pm Decision Time
insert
followed by Members’ Business”.
I call Jamie Hepburn to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. You have up to five minutes.
14:09
I thank Mr Kerr for lodging his amendment. The matter was discussed at the bureau this morning, where there was no agreement to a statement—indeed, it was not particularly pushed for at the bureau.
I indicated at the bureau that I am receptive to the request for a statement; I have no significant concerns per se about there being a statement. However, despite Mr Kerr’s closing remarks, I am unconvinced of and unclear about the urgency or necessity for the statement being made this week.
Surely the minister must concede that, given that the zone will be imposed from Saturday, we have to hear the statement now, before the measures come in. Given that we will have an early finish, I presume that the minister will be comfortable with the statement happening this week.
I return to the point about the scheduling of business. Even Liam Kerr would accept that a statement this week will not change the fact of the coming of the LEZ. There will still be plenty of opportunity—indeed, there has been plenty of opportunity—for members to raise issues around low-emission zones. As he will know, or should know, the commitment to introducing low-emission zones stemmed from a 2017 programme for government commitment. That was seven years ago: there have been seven years in which to raise questions about such matters. The preparations for low-emission zones are very well advanced and have been going on for a number of years through national and local consultations and extensive national awareness-raising advertising campaigns.
Questions, such as on our support for small businesses and the impacts of the low-emission zone, have already been answered, and various questions have been put to ministers in the Parliament. The Scottish Government is providing £5 million for reopening of the low-emission zone support fund for next year. This is the fifth year in a row that the fund has supported low-income households and smaller businesses, with more than £13 million having been paid out since 2019.
Will the minister take another quick intervention?
On the matter of footfall, the Glasgow LEZ has been in operation since June 2023, and the metrics from Glasgow Chamber of Commerce show that weekend footfall is at 100 per cent of pre-Covid figures, and that nighttime footfall is at 116 per cent of pre-Covid levels.
I will give way once more.
I am genuinely grateful to the minister for giving way again, and I understand the point that he is making. The point that I am very clear on is that it appears that the council co-leader has misunderstood what is happening. That is why it is so important that clarity be given to Parliament and the city councils before LEZs go live.
The cabinet secretary cannot be held to account for the misunderstanding or otherwise of the leader of Aberdeen City Council. I do respect—
Will the minister give way?
One last time—very briefly.
I declare an interest, as I live within the LEZ.
We have a situation here in which we are seeing electioneering. Mr Kerr’s colleague, Councillor Lumsden—I am sorry; I mean Douglas Lumsden MSP, who is a former council co-leader—was ultra-supportive of the LEZ. What has changed in the time between his being co-leader and now?
Just as the cabinet secretary cannot be held to account for the council leader’s comments, I certainly cannot be held to account for Mr Lumsden’s comments.
Will the minister take an intervention? He has to let me speak—I have been mentioned.
Mr Lumsden knows that I am normally very amenable, but I think that I have just a minute and 15 seconds left.
To continue with the point that I was making, I note that there are many means by which MSPs can scrutinise the activities of Government. I appreciate that Mr Kerr sought to raise a topical question and to lodge a question for First Minister’s question time. He will, of course, appreciate that it is not in my gift or that of the bureau to determine whether or not questions are accepted. Any points of concern can be raised during general question time, and they can be raised at transport portfolio questions, for instance, at which the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has already answered a number of questions relating to low-emission zones. Indeed, Mr Kerr made the point that he has had that opportunity.
I remain of the view that the case for a statement this week has not been made and that there is no particularly strong or compelling argument. On the point about there being an early finish on Thursday, the time is indicative, and we still do not know how many stage 3 amendments there will be for us to debate on Thursday, so it might be that we do not finish at the time that has been suggested.
I am more than amenable to facilitating a statement, and I said as much at the bureau. I would commit to dong that, so I urge Mr Kerr not to press his amendment: I will bring a proposal to next week’s meeting of the bureau to schedule such a statement.
The question is, that amendment S6M-13389.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion S6M-13389, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.
14:14 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment S6M-13389.1, in the name of Liam Kerr. Members should cast their votes now.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer—
Colleagues should bear with us for a moment.
I am going to rerun the vote. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise; I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.
Thank you, Mr Gray. We will ensure that that is recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (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)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (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)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 62, Abstentions 18.
Amendment disagreed to.
The next question is, that motion S6M-13389, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—
(a) Wednesday 29 May 2024—
after
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands;
NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care
insert
followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6)
delete
5.10 pm Decision Time
and insert
5.40 pm Decision Time
(b) Thursday 30 May 2024—
delete
2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice
followed by Scottish Government Debate: A Vision for Health and Social Care in Scotland
and insert
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Social Justice
followed by Ministerial Statement: Industrial Relations in the Further Education Sector
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill
delete
5.00 pm Decision Time
and insert
4.30 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Air ais
Time for ReflectionAir adhart
Topical Question Time