 erst item of businesses. Afternoon is consideration of business motion 14261, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the British Sign Language Scotland bill. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press the request to speak button now. I now call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move the motion 14261. Moved. As no member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I will now put the question into the chamber and the question is that motion number 14261 in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick may be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Thank you very much. We now move to the next item of business, thank you at point of order from Liam McArthur. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The motion in the name of the minister asked Parliament to welcome a specific point within the updated 2020 route map for renewable energy in Scotland, namely that it records a significant increase in the generation of electricity from renewable sources. The nature of this debate was agreed by Parliament last Wednesday. The parliamentary clerks asked for indications of debate speakers last Thursday. The minister tabled his motion on Tuesday. It referred to that specific point within the report, but the Scottish Government did not make the report public until this morning. While it was circulated to members last night, that only happened at 10 to 6, well after the deadline for submitting amendments. At the very least, that shows a lack of courtesy to members by the minister, which is regrettable, but also somewhat surprising, not least given the broad welcome that the report has received. In order to allow business here to take place in a courteous manner, I ask the Scottish Government to make sure that in future it gets organised and publishes any document in time for amendments. It is going to quote selected parts of the report in its motion to be amended. Thank you very much. I think that Fergus Ewing wants to respond to the point of order. Just to respond to that point, I do accept, Mr MacArthur, that I would have preferred that the document be published earlier as soon as it was brought to my attention that it was not published. The steps were taken to rectify that. As Mr MacArthur said, the document was communicated to all MSPs last night, but later than it should have been for which I apologise. I hope, however, that the information contained in the document is information that is relatively straightforward and familiar territory for all the members in the debate. Many thanks. Since I have to rule on that matter, Mr MacArthur will know that this was not a point of order and that the timing is a matter for the Government. However, I welcome the minister's apology on that occasion. I hope that it will not happen again. Many thanks, minister. We now move to the next item of business, which is our business debate on motion number 14272 in the name of Fergus Ewing on the future of renewables in Scotland's energy policy. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Minister Fergus Ewing to speak to you and move the motion. Minister Ewing, you have 10 minutes, please, so they are right. Presiding Officer, earlier this week I set out the Scottish Government's views on what is needed to sustain the oil and gas sector. Its continued health is important in its own terms, particularly as we transition to a low-carbon economy. We have already achieved much as part of this transition. Today, I wish to update members on our success in delivering a marked increase in renewable electricity generation, as described in the updated 2020 route map for renewable energy. Provisional figures show that we generated a record 49.8 per cent of Scotland's gross electricity consumption in 2014 from renewables, while on course to meet our interim target of 50 per cent by 2015. We are committed to increasing community and locally owned generation towards a target of 500 megawatts by 2020. I have just heard this morning, Presiding Officer, that we have now passed our target with nearly 12,000 individual installations across Scotland. 61 megawatts is wholly owned by community groups, and there are now 45 examples of shared ownership, nearly quadrupling last year's figure of 12. We continue to support the work that is being done in carbon capture and storage, and it is extremely exciting that the world's first full-scale gas, carbon capture and storage project is moving closer to being built in Peterhead. We are also supporting Summit Power's Caledonia clean energy project, providing £2.5 million from the Scottish Government to support the development of the CCS clean energy project in Grangemouth. We continue to champion wave and tidal energy technologies, both through the creation of wave energy Scotland and through our investment in MAGEN, the world's largest planned tidal stream energy project. The onshore construction phase of the Pentland first tidal project is well under way, and I was delighted to hear this week that the project owner atlantis resources is relocating its corporate head office from Singapore to Edinburgh. We are also making progress in other areas. On energy demand, we have achieved an 11.8 per cent reduction against a 2005 to 2007 baseline, almost achieving our 12 per cent target figure well in advance of the target date of 2020. We have set a clear framework to support delivery of low-carbon affordable heat through publishing our heat policy statement in June this year to focus and drive the pace of change and set out a framework for investment in a low-carbon heat sector. We have supplemented our support through the establishment of the £76 million low-carbon infrastructure transition programme, which is a Scotland-wide cross-sector project development unit to support the development and acceleration of low-carbon infrastructure projects in the next three years. Under that programme, I launched the geothermal challenge fund earlier this year. I am pleased to announce that we are turning our attention to accelerating large-scale water source heat pump projects to support low-carbon district heating schemes in Scotland. £375,000 is being made available to help with the development of business proposals, while a further £2 million will be available to support a commercially viable demonstrator project. Despite our success, we now face significant challenges. First, security of electricity supply is now under threat across the UK. Across the GB, spare capacity in the system could be as low as 1.2 per cent for this winter. Second, UK charges prevent new thermal plants being created in Scotland, as we called for in 2013. In Scotland, Scottish power has confirmed that Long Anit will close on 31 March next year as a result of discriminatory transmission charges. It also confirmed that it would not be progressing with the development of a CCGT gas plant at Cokinsey and, I quote, due to the same economic conditions affecting all thermal plants in Scotland. Third, the UK Government has carried out what can only be described as an assault on renewables. This includes the early closure of the renewables obligation for on-show wind and solar PV projects, the review of the feed-in tariff scheme and the proposed removal of FITS accreditation and, bizarrely, the removal from renewables of the exemption of the climate change levy. Those have caused widespread uncertainty and concern. Indeed, a report by Chartered Accountants, Ernst and Young, published earlier this week, shows that investment in on-shore wind energy is already being hit. Chartered Accountants, not necessarily known for the use of extravagant or colourful language, said that the UK Government has sentenced the renewables industry to death by 1,000 cuts, EY. Fourth, we wait to see if the UK Government and the Prime Minister honour their promise to connect the northern and western isles to the UK grid or whether they will remain separated therefrom. Those decisions, taken since May, cut to the heart of a major Scottish interest and yet they were done without meaningful consultation, despite the recommendation that was made by the Smith Commission to do just that. That raises questions about the extent to which energy issues are and will ever be given appropriate consideration by the UK Government. Without the appropriate recognition of our role in setting the policy framework, Scotland risks missing the opportunity to cement the growth of our renewable electricity industry with significant supply chain benefits whilst decarbonising our energy supply. Our ambition is set out in the electricity generation policy statement to largely decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 to greatly enhance community renewables and have a balanced generation mix are unchanged. However, in the context of future UK policy uncertainty and the lack of clarity on whether it will serve Scotland's interests, I want today to inform you of my intention to begin a process to ensure that we have the best suite of policies to address the future challenges of delivering affordable, secure, low-carbon energy supplies, not just electricity but heat as well, given that heat is by far the largest source of our energy demand in Scotland at over 50 per cent. I take Ken Macintosh. The Labour Party can clearly make common cause with the UK Government's decision to close the rock scheme a year earlier than originally planned. Although clearly we wish to press them to rethink or negotiate at least a transition period, can I ask the minister if he is considered, or will he consider, using the Scottish Government's power to extend the rocks over this transition period? Until the rocks are actually closed, in other words, for the next year, the Scottish Government has the power to issue its own rocks, paid for not by the UK consumer but paid for here in Scotland. Has the Government considered using its power to do just that? First of all, we have, as I think Ken Macintosh acknowledges, pressed the UK Government very hard on this matter. We know that the UK Government have a mandate in their manifesto that there should be no new subsidies. However, I would argue that the decision taken to curtail an existing subsidy scheme does not accord with the wording of that manifesto because it is not a new provision, it is the curtailment of an existing one. Secondly, I have not only pressed this matter in writing and letters but I have also had a meeting with Amber Rudd in the summer to press our concerns. That made no impact whatsoever on the UK Government. As to the specific question that Mr Macintosh raises, we do not have the budget in order to pay for reserved matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. Our overall vision will be to reduce overall energy demand in the system in the first place by focusing on heat demand reduction, further addressing household fuel poverty and helping to reduce costs to improve the competitiveness of our business and energy intensive industries and the efficiency of the public sector. We need more local heat generation supply and energy storage at transmission, distribution and household levels. We have many of the building blocks in place. In June, we designated energy efficiency as a national priority. I will say more about that when I close, as I cut through the sum of the remaining speech that I have run out of time to deliver, taking the intervention. I say that, of course, we will be in all of this work, as always, drawing on advice from experts across the sector including members of the Scottish Energy Advisory Board for the purposes for which I have clearly set out earlier. That will underpin our work over the coming months towards an overarching energy strategy for Scotland, setting out what we can do to optimise the benefits of Scotland's significant energy resources and expertise through to 2030. Many thanks, minister, for cutting your speech short. Very much regret, we're incredibly tight for time today. Now call on minister, on Sarah Boyack, as seven minutes if you speak to and move your amendment, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Predictably, we were asked to welcome the SNP's new strategy, which of course we hadn't seen, but charmingly, Fergus Ewing acknowledged the fact that it probably wasn't that important that we had seen it before today's debate, implying that it wasn't that radical. I do think that there is a lot that we can agree on in this Parliament in terms of renewables. I personally have pride at setting the first target, which then was seen as bold and brave. If I can say it wasn't what the officials thought we would do anyway, there's a danger about targets that are what you're going to do, there's also an issue about stretching targets, and I think that we need more stretching targets now. The power of setting a stretching target and adding political leadership, working with business and the higher education sector on innovation, on design and a degree of consensus across the chamber, not all of the members all of the time, did let Scotland really do something different when this Parliament was set up. There's much to be proud of, and it has continued over the first 15 to 16 years. I do want to say that we are absolutely appalled at the way that the UK Government is putting real developments, scoppering projects where companies have put tens upon tens of millions of pounds in good faith. That is unacceptable. It's all right for the UK Government and the Scottish Government to disagree with each other now and again. That's the nature of government, but to put at risk those developments when investment in renewables and infrastructure needs long-term certainty is unacceptable. On that issue, we are as one with the SNP Government. The Ernst and Young report quoted by Fergus Ewing is a massive blow to investor confidence and immediate impact on jobs and the supply chain. The Scottish Renewable figures that they've given us today highlight the fact that we're talking about one in a quarter million homes that could have been served and £3 billion of investment, and then you've got the community impact. That is a hugely retrograde step. I also want to highlight the threat that is caused by the review of the food and tariff scheme. Potentially a massive impact on community projects has always been slower to get going and are just now coming into their own. For the future reference, I hope that the minister will have a look at the issue of whether tying in energy storage and heat batteries might make it still possible for some projects to go ahead, particularly in relation to solar PV and domestic and commercial rooftops. I think that we've now got to think quite creatively and we've really got to sit down and say how we're going to move forward for the long run. We've got the CFD uncertainty, currently no commitment beyond March 2016. That is a critical issue for banks and big investors. I believe that we need high-level engagement with the UK Government and in public with UK ministers. We need to get to a point where we might have differences between different Governments across the UK in tone, in emphasis and style, in substance, but we have a UK energy market. We have UK consumers, so that difference has to be respected and the precipitate withdrawal of feed and tariff support and the support for rocks is not acceptable. UK ministers must now work and exercise political humility and a bit of leadership with other Administrations in the country. It's bad for jobs and investment and it's appalling in advance of the climate talks that we will have this December. Our motion focuses on the need for a long-term strategy with stable finance and a better planning regime. Across the globe, countries are looking at low-carbon economies and preparing for the transition that we need for cleaner energy and cleaner industry. We need to be part of that, not behind it. In preparing my amendment, which I move in my name, I think about trying to put something that would be acceptable to the Minister. I reckon that I wanted to go further than the Minister would go today. I wanted to go further than his officials would advise them, because we need to be more ambitious. What is happening at the UK level makes me even more convinced of that. I ask the minister to go away and look properly at the point that Ken Macintosh made. In 2005, we supplemented the marine renewables, the rocks, with a higher level of support. It is a UK issue, and I ask the minister to look at all options. Just look at the money that is there and think about how it needs to be spent in the next year to 18 months because of the loss of investment and jobs. Our amendment highlights other work that urgently needs to be achieved. A much better integration, a real integration between renewables and the energy efficiency strategy, both on domestic and non-domestic sectors. We need to make political priority for energy efficiency, particularly in the business sector. There are massive savings to be made, and meeting with companies last night, I was absolutely struck by how all the really big opportunities that they are investing in are not in Scotland. We need to fix that. Looking at domestic fuel, we are not going to meet the abolition of our fuel poverty targets of the fuel poverty in Scotland next year. No matter how many times ministers re-announced the budget, we need a more radical approach. More on community and cooperative schemes means a more joined-up approach with our local authorities. You look at the impact of local authorities on staffing and expertise and the impact of the underfunded council tax. They are understandably cautious, and yet south of the border, local authorities are doing much more, much more radical stuff and much more practical stuff now. We need political leadership, we need political determination. Minister, you will have our support to do that, but you also need to raise your game, particularly in terms of the local targets. They are nowhere near radical enough to drive the change that we need now. It is difficult, it will need us to work together. I am incredibly disappointed with the Conservative amendment today. It could have been more constructive, I believe. It could have acknowledged the impact that the UK Government's changes are going to have on the Scottish industry. One simple thing that the Scottish Government could do is to accelerate the permitted development rights issue. I have called for it for a decade. We are going to get air-source heat pumps. What about non-domestic solar too? We have just got to raise our game, and everybody needs to be part of that process. The Scottish Conservatives have always believed that renewable energy has a part to play as a component in Scotland's energy mix. We certainly do not share the single-minded focus of some other parties on onshore wind as a technology, but we want to see a balanced portfolio of renewable energy making a contribution. There are a great many success stories in Scotland that we can all celebrate, whether that is hydro, wind, biomass, air and ground heat pumps, solar, wave or tidal. We know when we have heard it again today that the Scottish Government is critical of the UK Government's plans to cut subsidies for wind power. I would just remind members that those were signalled well in advance of the general election. It was back in April 2014 that the then energy minister, Michael Fallon, made it absolutely crystal clear that any wind projects that did not have planning consent and grid connection by the date of the general election would not be eligible for subsidies thereafter, and he was simply reiterating what had been stated previously. All that party has done is hold true to its manifesto commitments and keep its promises. Why have we done so? No, I need to make some progress. Why have we done so simply because the costs have been spiralling too high? The respected Scottish economist, a specialist in energy, Tony Mackay, calculated that wind farm subsidies in Scotland were between 2.5 and three times higher than those that are required for those to be built. Tony Mackay puts his best estimate at 2.8 times. In his words, that means that developers have been making supernormal profits from those projects, all at the expense of the electricity bill pair. Does Mr Fraser not realise that it is surely perverse that the UK decided for the objective of reducing costs, not to reduce the cost of the most expensive form of delivering renewables, but to reduce the cost of the most efficient and the least expensive, namely £80 per megawatt hour for onshore, as opposed to, in excess of £110 per hour for offshore wind? Does he at least acknowledge that there is an irrationality to the argument that he has just mentioned? I thank the minister for his intervention. I thought that the minister represents the highlands. I thought that he would be concerned about fuel poverty. Electricity bill payers are paying more, according to the economist, who lives in his own constituency, 2.8 times more than they should be for onshore wind. I think that he would welcome a reduction in the subsidy being paid for by his constituents for this technology. We need to remember that, if we add together all the projects that are already constructed, all those under construction and all those that have planning consent, we will have exceeded our target of 100 per cent of our electricity needs for renewable energy by 2020. We cannot go on pouring public subsidy into one technology when our targets are already being met. Of course, those proposals have had a warm welcome for communities across Scotland and from conservation groups such as the John Muir Trust. Tony Mackay himself commented that the UK Government's proposed changes may not be ideal, but at least they are a sensible way forward. They will not result in a reduction in wind energy capacity in Scotland, but may slow down future growth. Hopefully, they will result in lower electricity prices for consumers in Scotland. We have heard an awful lot of doom and gloom in the chamber on what the subsidy changes will mean for the renewable energy sector. Fortunately, not everyone involved takes such a pessimistic view. Brian Galloway, energy policy director at Scottish Power, wrote in July, saying that, once the dust settles, we will come to understand that onshore wind still has a vital role to play. I remain optimistic on the prospects for Scotland's onshore wind energy. The Canadian company Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners said in August that they were planning to build up to 200 megawatts of wind farms in Scotland before the end of the decade. The president commented that those projects really can stand on their own two feet without the need for significant subsidy. We see a similar picture in relation to solar power. Of course, it was back in 2011 when there were previous subsidy changes that SNP members in this chamber were predicting the demise of the industry. Mike McKenzie MSP said of the change then that this could have a devastating impact for households, businesses and housing associations across Scotland. Of course, it had nothing of the sort. The solar PV industry went from strength— Members, in his last minute, I'm sorry. The president of the British Photovoltaic Association, Greg Barker, has called on the sector to avoid the hysteria and self-damaging doom mungering that we saw in 2011. He added that, around the world, the solar industry is already operating without subsidy, and there are still further opportunities to create additional value and extract further efficiency savings in the UK sector. It is time to muster up an optimistic can-do ethic and talk up the huge success and enormous potential of UK solar, not plead for years more subsidy, as the minister is doing this very afternoon. Presiding Officer, renewable energy still has a bright future, despite all the doom mungering that we hear from the other benches today. The UK Government is taking the right decisions to protect consumers and should be commended for doing so. I have pleasure in moving the amendment in my name. Thank you. We are very tight for time and now move to open debate. Up to four-minute speeches, please. Graham Day to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In the limited time that I have, I want to focus on the impact, the all-too-real impact, that UK Government actions are having here in Scotland on our efforts as a nation to green our energy generation, on some of our communities and on an agricultural sector seeking to diversify. Let me offer a few examples by way of a illustration. Fifteen kilometres off the coast of my constituency lies the planned Inchcape wind farm, which has the potential to power up to half a million homes, but it was unsuccessful on its bid for contracts with difference earlier this year. The developers will try again in the next round, but, with absolutely no guarantee of success at the second time of asking, unsettling times made even more unsettling by the fact that Inchcape, along with three other proposed offshore developments, including Alpha and Bravo Sea Green, planned for a little further off the Angus coast, await the outcome of an RSPB instigated judicial review expected within the next couple of weeks. Of course, you cannot blame Westminster for the actions of the RSPB, but you can blame the UK Government for its approach to offshore wind, and for that matter, solar and onshore wind. It seems eye-watering subsidies for Hinkley Point, with all the concerns that exist over whether or when it might begin generating are fine. It seems that pushing fracking is fine. Supporting renewables in all their guises and in any meaningful way is very best on the way. So much for David Cameron's pledge that he would lead the greenest government ever. However, it is not just in an upfront way that Westminster is undermining our drive to become renewables powerhouse. I have a farmer on the coastal strip of my constituency who has spent in excess of £60,000 thus far to secure conditional planning permission for a single 800 kilowatt wind turbine. The Consent is conditional on MOD radar interference mitigation measures, a solution for which was accepted by Defence of States back in 2013. The farmer has secured a grid connection at a cost of a further £120,000. He must pay a £10,000 deposit on that by October 9. However, the MOD, despite the fact that RAF Lookers is now closed as an airbase, is demanding that further radar mitigation fieldwork be carried out at a cost of £1.2 million. The cost to be shared amongst a group of farmers, another three of whom I understand to be constituents of mine. The total number of turbines involved in Angus runs into double figures. The farmer who came to me has been told his phase 1 share of what is termed continuing development of the measures, and there will be three phases all told. It is going to be £12,000, which must be paid now if his turbine is to be retained within the project. He would face a similar charge at phase 2, no estimate for a figure that the final phase is available, nor is there a timescale for when deployment of the system can be anticipated. Proposals by DEC to reduce tariffs drastically for the scale of turbine come January and the decision to remove the ability to tie into current rates by pre-registering a project means that this proposal, unless commissioned within 12 months, which is not possible, is no longer viable. The farmer has been advised that rather than committing another £22,000 to the project just to keep it alive, he should quit now, right off the money that he has spent thus far. There are many other individuals and groups facing similar choices now. Although in rural affairs committee business area this week, I heard of a community turbine proposal in the calendar area supported by £145,000 community renewables Scotland grant, which aims to provide an income screen for a variety of local projects over the next 20 years and which is now at significant risk because of the changes to the feed-in tariff regime. As those examples demonstrate, there are painful economic consequences to the UK Government's retreat from supporting renewable generation for individuals and communities. The consequences and environmental terms will be even more serious. In advance of Paris, the UK Government needs to rethink its approach. As colleagues will know, I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate the issue of renewable energy in ways in which we can harness the enormous potential here in Scotland, given our world-leading natural resources, research capability and skills base. As the update report published today makes clear, we are seeing good progress, albeit as Sarah Boyack indicated, we could and should be doing more and better in a number of areas. However, while I agreed with pretty much everything that the minister had to say in his speech, I was a bit disappointed by some of the wording in the motion, arguing that, quote Scotland's energy ambitions cannot be delivered, is, I think, a council of despair and, in fact, untrue. Sarah Boyack's amendment makes this and other highly relevant points very well. The minister has an excellent track record, I think, in trying to build consensus and focusing on those areas of agreement. I wish he would continue to do that and avoid lapsing into finding excuses to rerun the referendum, rewrite the Smith commission or indeed reignite political differences that the sector is desperate for us to avoid. That said, I welcome confirmation of the significant increase in generation of electricity from renewable resources. It is encouraging with regards to our interim target and for laying the foundation for reaching the 100 per cent target in due course. This is something that Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly support, having been responsible in the previous executive for setting some of the early stage targets on this journey towards decarbonising our energy system. As I said earlier, the political continuity and consensus that we have seen is important for the sector that has helped to remove some of the political risk. Under the previous UK coalition government, although there were differences, and I think that Sarah Boyack alluded to some of those, I know that Fergus Ewing enjoyed a good working relationship with successive Lib Dem energy secretaries, particularly my good friend and strongest possible advocate of the renewable sector, Ed Davie. Sadly, since May's election, we have seen a different approach, like the minister I am dismayed by what seems to be a cavalier attitude adopted by the current Conservative government. The plans to close the renewables obligation, whereas Murdoff Reiser indicated signposted, but the decision to accelerate those plans by a year was irresponsible and I believe in bad faith. Not only has it undermined a great many projects, including around £100 million worth of community projects, along with the other measures referred to by the minister, it has not confidence in the wider renewable sector beyond onshore wind, and even the Tories may come to regret that. Looking at the overall picture, I have a specific interest in marine renewables where Orkney has led the way, but since the last 2020 update, things have not been easy. The challenges facing the wave sector in particular are significant, although I still firmly believe that it and tidal energy have a key role to play in our renewables future. As well as the technical challenges, it is the continued lack of grid infrastructure that poses the greatest risk. I know that this is not an easy nut to crack, but it would have been sorted already. However, without a clear and urgent timetable for delivering this key strategic asset, the threat to the development of renewables in the islands that I represent should not be underestimated. There is not just a concern for Orkney in terms of the potential loss of jobs and wealth creation. It matters for Scotland and the UK who will struggle to meet the renewables and climate change targets without Orkney playing its full part. In the meantime, as I said in Tuesday's debate, innovative solutions are being identified to better use the resources that we have available. The surf and turf project is looking at how hydrogen can be used to run our ferries. Installed renewables can and should be used to heat and power the replacement buffer hospital in Kirkwall. There are opportunities to use renewables and special tariffs to deliver affordable warmth, helping, along with energy efficiency measures, to reduce the scandalous levels of fuel poverty that blight my constituency and many like it. The minister can count on my support in helping to deliver those and other changes that demonstrate what our renewables future should be about. In the lead-up to the Paris summit, climate justice here in Scotland is of vital importance, as an example of inclusive action on the global stage. Communities and workers must be at the heart of a just transition. I have recently spoken about how it is essential for the Scottish Government to have a strategy for the development of transferable skills for the future in relation to the challenges faced by the oil industry in the North Sea. In the lead-up to the Paris summit and beyond, we must also ensure that rural Scotland is not left behind in a just transition to a low-carbon economy, supporting our communities and signalling that rural communities across the globe must not be marginalised. There are some fine examples of transition at a community level. Some of those have been supported by the Scottish Government Climate Challenge Fund, such as the Atlantic Development Trust and Peoples Can. Going around my region, I have seen cause for optimism. I have spotted a van of a company called EcoEdge tucked into a driveway of a small village. They install biomass boilers. I have witnessed the installation of a wood pellet boiler by a resident in the village of Douglas. But how many residents in rural, isolated areas and off-grid dwellings can afford to do this? In some parts of South Scotland, you cannot even find a plumber, let alone someone to fit a biomass boiler, air source heat pump or a solar panel. What is the Scottish Government doing specifically to support the start-up of small rural businesses to take up the opportunities offered by the transition? What is being done specifically to support transferable skills for small rural businesses? How are those opportunities being promoted? Can the minister reassure us today that the rural fuel poverty task force will offer truly inclusive solutions? What is the timescale for that recommendation? We must also focus in the lead-up to Paris, as well as supporting, through the climate justice fund abroad, women in Malawi and Bangladesh. We must also look at women here in Scotland today and the contribution that they are making to renewable energy action. It is a significant opportunity to stabilise the gender imbalance in the energy sector. Without the barrier of entrenched inequality in a long-standing industry, women are making a valuable contribution to ensuring that our emerging renewables is globally competitive. I was pleased to see that the Scottish Government commit to ensuring that policy development is adapted to helping women to reach their full potential, which has already reached an increase of 28 per cent. Continued research and monitoring is key to ensuring fair funding and skills development opportunities, and particularly for women in rural areas. In the lead-up to the Paris summit, we must be able also to show clearly that renewable energy must be connected and combined with energy efficiency for there to be success. Some councils have been brave despite the challenges highlighted by my colleague Sarah Boyack for councils. That includes my own council of South Lanarkshire through their investment programme in their housing stock, which has moved on to improving energy efficiency in properties that they own. In Clydesdale, they have started a programme of works for rural off-grid areas such as Douglas and Forth, where they are replacing old heating systems with air-source heat pumps. In addition to that, using Government funding, they have been putting external cladding on to older wooden houses in places such as Lanarkand Castells on a universal basis in order to act as insulation where there is not a cavity wall. If we lead by example—I must draw to a close note, please—by being inclusive in our actions to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency in Scotland, we can truly be an inspiration to the rest of the world in the lead-up to the Paris summit. Many, many thanks. I now call on Mike McKenzie to be followed by Patrick Harvie. Presiding Officer, ever since Margaret Thatcher began the privatisation of her energy system in the early 1980s, UK Government energy policy has been progressively failing. Back then, we had a robust system with inbuilt resilience and spare capacity. The term fuel poverty had not yet been climbed. Now, often, we have been repeatedly warning about the lights going out. Spare capacity is down to 2 per cent. National grid is buying in spare capacity generation at absurdly high prices, and when energy is in short supply, the price goes up. It is as simple as that. The UK Government energy plan is building more interconnectors to Europe, hoping to buy in energy from elsewhere at who knows what price. The other part of the plan is to spend £35 billion on the new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. I hope that Mr Fraser is listening carefully. A subsidy of over twice the wholesale price of energy for 35 years, a further £10 billion is to be spent on necessary infrastructure, huge amounts of money delivered straight into the hands of Chinese investors and a French state-owned company who are already asking for more. No EPR reactor has yet been successfully built. The finish and the French EPRs will cost at least twice as much as they were supposed to. The two Finnish EPR reactors are already five years behind schedule. Who knows what the decommissioning cost will be? Cellar fields are approaching £70 billion, and the job is by no means finished. The plan to buy in energy anywhere it can except, it seems, Scotland's renewable energy. We were told during the referendum that, if we voted yes, the broad shoulders of the UK Government would not support Scotland's renewable energy sector. The trust of many people in Scotland is now severely strained, because the UK Government—Mr Fraser's Government—is now in the process of rapidly withdrawing support from our renewable sector. That is no means just about onshore wind. Wave energy companies such as SeaTricity have relocated from Ocnet to Kirtl because they lack a grid connection. I am sure that Mr MacArthur would be pleased to confirm that. The European Marine Energy Centre in Ocnet, 10 years ahead of the rest of the world in waving tidal research, has recently made 25 per cent of its workforce redundant. The Green Deal is being withdrawn because it is not fit for purpose, although I have said this from the start with its unworkable golden rule. It is not just about what is being done, it is about how it is being done. Some subsidies have been withdrawn with undue haste. Investor confidence is severely shaken. Trust is easily lost, but it is very difficult to win it back. In the investor's world, this means very much higher returns on investments, perceived as risky, not because of the technical challenges but because of an inconsistent and incoherent energy policy on the part of the UK Government. Jobs are being lost, investment is being lost and climate change targets have been threatened. It is time, Presiding Officer, that this Parliament and this Scottish Government had full powers over energy so that we can reverse these misguided decisions. If not, we all face a future of energy prices that are much, much higher than they need to be. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful for the two minutes. I apologise for the oversight in not submitting an advance request to speak for the debate. It is not every day that I find myself coming to the chamber and on the same side of a debate as Fergus Ewing. What a rare pleasure. I am sure that there will be many other opportunities for us to disagree on fossil fuel policy, to disagree on aviation taxes, but on this occasion we have some common ground. I should imagine that my reaction was much the same as Fergus Ewing's reaction when we heard Murdo Fraser tell us that we should be talking up renewables at the same time as his own party colleagues are pulling the rug from under the industry. I think that that is a position that is completely untenable. Let us make no mistake, that is what the UK Government's recent decisions have been about. A slew of them, just at the beginning of our summer recess, leaving us without the opportunity even to challenge those issues on the record at the beginning of summer, whether in relation to the subsidies for solar and wind, as we have heard, or the policies on reducing our demand, which is the other part of the sustainable energy future that we need. In the time available, I want to make a case for just one additional policy change from the Scottish Government. It should be commended for having reached ahead of time or almost reached the target for community and locally-owned renewables, but community and locally-owned renewables are not the same thing. They are both good—a small business, a farmer or another small business investing in some renewables and community ownership. Those are both good, but the challenges on those two different forms of renewable ownership are different. I would put in a case for the Scottish Government to accept that it has reached its target, to set a more stretching one, but to set two of them—one for community ownership, including local authorities and another for local private ownership. I now call Alex Johnson to wind up on behalf of the Conservatives. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been an interesting, but I suspect a very predictable debate. We have heard from the minister that something will become used to in recent weeks, and that has wheeled out once again the begging bowl mentality, complaining that the UK Government has somehow, by the withdrawal of subsidy, not only undermined what he claims repeatedly to be a highly efficient form of energy production, but that that has been done without any warning. As was pointed out by my colleague just earlier in the debate, Michael Fallon, the then energy minister, made it very clear as long as April 2014 that it was the intention of this Government to withdraw the subsidies for onshore wind. The only surprise that the element in this was the fact that none of his political opponents expected him to be the energy minister after the general election. That surprise has cut to the quick with many of those in this debate. The truth is that Scotland has a huge number of wind turbines in place. That high-cost form of energy has had the result of pushing up energy prices across Scotland. At a time when we should have sought ways of increasing the diversity in our energy market, we have chosen an expensive option and we have, in many respects, pushed fuel poverty upwards. Of course, when I say that it is an expensive option, occasionally we hear the minister and the First Minister at times telling us that that is one of the cheapest and most efficient ways to generate electricity. Why, then, do we have to subsidise it? If it is the case, we must remember that it is important to target resources at new and diverse ways of encouraging additional environmentally-based renewable energy sources. That means ensuring that the ones that are most efficient and should be paying their way are not in receipt of subsidy payments that should be going to other sectors. This Scottish Government has become obsessed with onshore wind. It has interfered in the planning process to ensure that many of those onshore wind turbines have been built in areas where local authorities would have sought or have sought to prevent them. Planning has become a lottery because of that interference. Over large areas of Scotland, people are genuinely upset by the way in which that has been conducted. I took the opportunity to go to the top of the Garvick hill near Lawrence carc last weekend and was able to account over 100 industrial-scale wind turbines from a single standing point. That is an indication of what this Government has done to Scotland and the responsibility for which it must be held to account. We have huge opportunities for a diverse and well-developed energy policy in Scotland. We have huge opportunities to bring in additional resources from offshore wind, from solar photovoltaics, from wave and from tidal power. However, if those opportunities are to be taken, we must not make the mistake of pursuing a single method of production of power to the exclusion of all others. This single act by the UK Government predicted and flagged more than a year in advance has been a courageous move to ensure that we see finally movement in the energy market, particularly by the reduction in support for offshore wind. I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Murdo Fraser. Thank you very much. There is, of course, broad agreement in theory on the objectives of energy policies, security of supply, affordable energy and tackling climate change, but today we have heard very different approaches as to how to do all those things at the same time and about the priorities that we should set. Onshore wind, of course, is today's headline issue. Successive Scottish Governments have followed the lead given by Sarah Boyack as Environment Minister in the first session of this Parliament in setting ever more demanding targets for renewable energy. The private sector, the industry and communities by their investments have helped those targets to be met. The British Labour Government of 1997 to 2010 also played an important role. It created a single GB energy market covering Scotland, England and Wales, and it devolved the system of renewable obligations to provide public support to private developers. The single market, renewable obligations certificates and ambitious Scottish targets have together stimulated a dynamic and successful wind energy sector. It is so successful indeed that the need for public subsidy was coming to an end and the industry was clearly gearing up for moving to the next phase of its development in the next couple of years. What a pity the Conservative Government lacked the wisdom and judgment to allow that maturing to take its course and instead chose to rip up the subsidy regime and deny support to some very good projects that were not quite ready to go when an extra 12 months of support could have made all the difference. Of course, the details of how the subsidy schemes will come to an end are still up for discussion. The Scottish Government can and I think should play a strong role in negotiating with the Department for Energy and Climate Change on cut-off dates and grace periods to determine which projects in the pipeline will or will not qualify for subsidy. This is clearly of great urgency and importance to project developers, large and small, as Mr Ewing's reference to the EY report itself indicated. We have been asking on clarity on this for some time and I hope that the minister will make clear what he expects to be able to achieve with the powers and influence that he has. It is, of course, the case, as Ken Macintosh pointed out, that the Scottish Government has powers to address this, not through additional public expenditure, as the minister's response to Mr Macintosh implied, but by directing existing renewable obligations certificates to sustaining good projects currently at risk. We would simply ask the Scottish Government to look at that again. Good projects have also been put at risk in deployment of solar power, which is, if anything, closer than onshore wind to reaching the stage of profitability without subsidies. It is frankly bizarre that a party in Government that would claim to be a friend of business and a farmer should sabotage investment plans and block the roll-out of small-scale wind and solar projects in the Scottish countryside because the Government at Westminster could not find a smarter way to shift the energy balance in the direction that it wants. It is not too late to do something about that, as we have heard this afternoon. I think that we are all in agreement that subsidies should gradually be rolled back as technologies come to maturity. In disagreement, I think, with the Tories in terms of the speed at which those are being withdrawn. However, how do you justify the huge subsidies that the nuclear industry is receiving, given that, if it is not a mature technology by now, when will it ever be? Isn't it a pity that Mr Mackenzie doesn't take the hint about building consensus and agreement across parties that oppose the actions that are being taken by the Tory Government at Westminster? I'm afraid that with that approach we may have to work harder to achieve that consensus going forward. At least I would look to David Cameron to agree to his ministers sitting down with the devolved Administrations across Britain to find ways to restore investor confidence and to enable small-scale developments to go ahead. In the summer, I visited the first community-owned wind turbine in mainland Scotland near Rodney in Aberdeenshire, and I saw the benefits of solar roof panels at the national trust's pit-medin garden. It is difficult to see the basis for anyone wanting to stymie projects like those, and I hope that ways can be found to make more of them happen. The Scottish Government can of course now act on one area where it has power to do so by promoting the deployment of solar panels on Government buildings and public sector housing across Scotland. Some councils have already done this very effectively, including Aberdeen City Council, and it would be a pity if Scotland's devolved Government continued to lag behind. Aberdeen, of course, is also best in class for combined heat and power, not just in Scotland but across the UK. The last three years have seen major extensions to the CHP networks put in place in social housing and public buildings in the city over the previous decade. It is a model for district housing, which the Scottish Government should also support, especially if it is possible to do so from renewable sources. I was pleased to hear of small but welcome steps from Mr Ewing today. The Aberdeen CHP example also points to a wider challenge, how to reduce carbon emissions without adding consumer costs. The installation of CHP in tower blocks in Aberdeen has seen reductions of 45 per cent in both greenhouse gas emissions and consumer bills. It is exactly that kind of community-based development that we should be supporting that the Scottish Government should be leading. There are opportunities, too, to make the response to the pressures on the oil and gas industry to share the skills and technologies on offshore publication. An imaginative response is above all what we require today, an imaginative and inclusive response from all who share the objective of taking forward a renewable sector, and I hope that that is what we can build across most of this chamber. I now call on Fergus Ewing to wind up the debate. Minister, you have up to eight minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have enjoyed moments of this debate. Let me try and respond to some of the specific points, although I fear that not all will be possible. I agreed with a great deal of what Sarah Boyack said and to respond to her point about doing more in relation to local energy systems. We are already, in fact, encouraging local energy systems and encouraging a mix of technologies with storage to which she has specifically alluded in the ground-breaking CARES Local Energy Challenge Fund demonstrator projects being funded this year with an early F fund of £20 million. Each of those is a ground-breaking innovative project, and certainly some of them fall into the categories that she, I think, would support. She also mentioned permitted development rights, and we already have committee development rights for some air-source heat pumps. She mentioned extending that to solar. I think that I may have already said that if she wishes to write to me in that matter, then I will give it very serious consideration. I think that we are coming from the same direction on those matters, and it behoves us to work together where there is common ground. I pledge that we will most certainly do that. Patrick Harvie, I am really very sorry, I would like to try and cover all as many points as I can in this debate before moving on to make some final comments. Mr Harvie was kind enough to acknowledge the achievement today, just today, in fact, of the community energy target. We are very proud that we have in Scotland achieved what appeared at the time when we set at 500 megawatts of community schemes to be an ambitious target. I acknowledge that much work was done with the support of colleagues in the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and the Green Party. Of course, in response to Mr Harvie's specific request, we will look now—now that we have achieved that target, it is sensible that we look now to establish what is appropriate to achieve in the future. Obviously, we have high ambitions, as does he, so we will give careful consideration to the matters that he has raised. I acknowledge Mr MacArthur's long-standing commitment to renewables and agreed with the great deal of what he said, although I thought that it was a little bit ironic that he berated me for making critical remarks of the UK Government, which he then said in his later speech was acting in a cavalier fashion. However, let me not be childish, so I won't really mention that any further than that. Suffice to say—and I think that this is the most important point—that we do try to develop as much common ground as possible in Scotland on those matters. The challenge that we face is that the Scottish consensus on energy policy does not appear to match the London agenda. That is the predicament that we face. Let me set out what I think do form components of that Scottish consensus. We need much more emphasis on energy efficiency and demand reduction. Of course, that applies to our own estate, so we have announced our intention to do much more in our own estate, the public building. Secondly, we need much more energy storage solutions, both at transmission and at household level. For example, the Corrie glass scheme, which I consented to SSE, the Kruchyn scheme, would offer tremendous additional pump storage capacity. The benefits of pump storage do not appear to be recognised by national grid. I invited them to look at this at an ILG meeting, which I co-chair. I believe that, where one looks towards increasingly a low-carbon electricity generation system with forms of energy that are intermittent, including hydro and wind, although they themselves are very good fit, that storage solutions are necessary in order to provide the equivalent of backup and baseload in the past. I have always argued, although Mr Fraser does not seem to recognise it very frequently in his remarks, that we need a variety of sources of generating electricity. I previously quoted Winston Churchill, who said that, when it comes to the problem of electricity generation for a country, the solution is variety and variety alone. I see that the mention of Winston Churchill has roused Mr Fraser. I am always grateful to the minister for mentioning Winston Churchill and for giving way. We are aware from the discussions that we had last evening that yesterday the output from wind power across the whole country was precisely zero, and that is not unusual. Wind power will work as a large component in energy with storage backup. What is the minister's estimate of the combined cost of wind power plus storage relative to other technologies? He is quite right that wind energy is intermittent, and that is precisely why we need more storage solutions. As to the cost of that, I can tell you that the cost of providing a sufficient level of storage will be far less expensive than the enormous cost of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station. Mr MacKenzie mentioned that. It is not eye-watering, it is almost unimaginable. It is £45,000 million. Let me just say that again. It is £45,000 million. The granddaddy of them all. It dwarfs the total aggregate subsidy for renewable energy. Peter Atherton of Liberham Capital said that at £5 million per megawatt, the cost of the nuclear energy that may someday be generated at Hinkley Point, the estimate at the moment is in the mid-2020s. Peter Atherton said that the cost is £5 million per megawatt. He pointed out that the comparable cost of per megawatt of CCGT gas generation is £755,000. In other words, nuclear is seven times more expensive than gas. Mr Fraser's argument is that we should be saving money. It is almost unbelievable. In any event, I got sidetracked there because of Mr Fraser. Let me just conclude my remarks by emphasising that we need more hydro. We need more solar, as Sarah Boyack and Lewis MacDonald quite rightly argue. We need more district heating schemes. We have developed 33 projects with £7 million thus far, but we need to do far more in that regard. We need to devote more attention to developing our heat resources in Scotland. Not enough attention has been devoted to that. We need offshore wind. There are around 22 offshore wind schemes south of the border. There is not one here yet. It is time to even up the balance. We need more floating offshore wind, and I hope that the STATOL project will be delivered quite soon. We also need a solution to the tremendous problems generated by the Conservatives' decision, which was not, as Mr Fraser said, set out in the manifesto to curtail without notice in that manifesto the rocks system, which is undermined investment and led Ernst and Young to use language in criticising the Tory Government, which is far more colourful, Presiding Officer, than anything that I could ever manage. Many thanks. Our next item of business this afternoon is stage 3 proceedings on the British Sign Language Scotland Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should have, the bill is amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 55A revised. The martial bliss, that is SP Bill 55AML revised. The groupings, that is SP Bill 55AG revised. 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, and 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 the request to speak buttons, as soon as possible, after I call the group. I would also ask members to note that we have interpreters in the chamber this afternoon, and therefore it would be helpful if speeches were delivered more slowly than usual. Can I now ask members to refer to the marshaled list of amendments, please? I call group 1, status of British Sign Language, and I call amendment 7, in the name of Mark Griffin, in a group on its own, and I ask Mark Griffin to move and speak to amendment 7, please, Mr Griffin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a small amendment, but it is a significant amendment. It removes one word from the bill, and it removes the word sign from the bill, because British Sign Language, although it is a sign language, is a language in its own right. I think that amendment 7 will give additional resonance and emphasis to the fact that BSL is a language in its own right. Throughout the progress of the bill, one of the clearest arguments put forward by witnesses in favour of the bill was that BSL should be recognised as such. I think that amendment 7 will help to achieve that goal and make it clear to non-BSL users that BSL is a language and not simply a form of communication for a particular group when I move amendment 7, in my name. The Scottish Government clearly likewise regards British Sign Language as a language, and we confirmed that in a formal statement of recognition in 2011. In referring to British Sign Language simply as a language, rather than as originally written as a sign language, amendment 7 is consistent with our support for BSL, and therefore the Scottish Government is very happy to support that amendment. Many thanks. Mark Griffin, do you wish to add anything further, and please indicate if you intend to press or withdraw? Nothing further to add, just to press the amendment, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. In that case, the question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 2, BSL translation of progress reports, and I call amendment 1, in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 2 and 3, and I ask the minister to move amendment 1, please, and to speak to all of the amendments in the group. Mr Griffin lodged a series of amendments at stage 2, requiring that both the BSL national plan and listed authority BSL plans be translated into British Sign Language. The Scottish Government fully supported those amendments at the time. This amendment requires Scottish ministers to translate the national progress report into British Sign Language. That means that the national progress report, which will be published every six years, will be accessible to British Sign Language users, who will naturally take great interest in what progress is being made by national, regional and locally-based public bodies. Amendments 2 and 3 are minor technical amendments, which are necessary as a consequence of amendment 1. I thank you, Presiding Officer. I just very briefly welcome the minister's statement today. Honoring a commitment, as he said, that he gave to the committee at stage 2. That was an anomaly that we largely addressed through Mark Griffin's amendments at an earlier stage, but I very much welcome the further commitment that he's been able to give. I welcome amendment 1, which extends the requirement to make progress reports available in BSL in the same way as that has already been extended in relation to national plans and authority plans as a result of those earlier stage 2 amendments mentioned by the minister. I support amendment 1 and amendment 2 and 3, as the minister says, that is a minor nature. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 2 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 1, and I ask the minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. I now call amendment 3 in the name of the minister, which has already been debated with amendment 1, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That brings us to group 3, minor and technical. I call amendment 4 in the name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments 5 and 6, and I ask the minister to move amendment 4, please, and speak to all of the amendments in the group. In moving those amendments, I can confirm that we are very minor tidying amendments as a result of the scale of amendments that were passed by the committee at stage 2. Amendment 4 inserts into section 8 some words that are necessary to make the provision read properly. Amendments 5 and 6 bring the long title into line with what the bill provides for in relation to references to plans following those amendments at stage 2. I note those minor amendments, which are of a tidy up nature and also ensure consistency in references throughout the bill as a result of stage 2 amendments. I am happy to support those amendments in the name of the minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. In which case I call amendment 5 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 4, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. In which case I call amendment 6 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 4, and I ask the minister to move formally, please. Question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. That ends consideration of amendments, which then brings us to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 14111, in the name of Mark Griffin, on the British Sign Language Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please. I call on Mark Griffin to speak to and to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is with great, great pleasure that I opened today's debate. The bill was introduced to Parliament on 29 October 2014 and concluded stage 1 with a parliamentary debate on 5 May 2015. The Education and Culture Committee considered the bill at stage 2 on 2 June, and today the Parliament debates whether to pass the bill. I very much hope that members will come together and welcome in this legislation and support the bill at decision time. Before I go on to discuss the main amendments to the bill that were agreed at stage 2, I would like to put on record my thanks to a number of people who have helped to shape and develop the bill. In particular, I would like to thank the Education and Culture Committee for its considered scrutiny of the bill and for its continued engagement with members of the deaf community by giving them the means to participate in the progress of the bill. I think that the Education and Culture Committee's processes enable as many people to participate as possible. I think that it is an exemplar for the Parliament. My thanks also goes to members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its continued scrutiny of the subordinate legislation powers and to those people who have worked so hard to support me in the bill prior to its introduction and through its parliamentary stages. I would also like to express my gratitude for the positive and constructive way in which the Minister for Learning Science and Scotland Languages, Dr Allan, and his officials have approached the bill. I would also like to thank you and your office for the support of your staff in the bills unit for doing a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of developing the bill and accompanying documents. They really have been a tremendous support. I would also like to thank you personally while you are clearly impartial today for the support that the Presiding Officer, as a whole, has given in terms of the corporate body translating a large volume of documents into BSL videos. Without that support, it would not have been possible to make the bill process as inclusive as it rightly was. Finally, I would like to thank members of the cross-party group on deafness, many of whom are in the chamber today. The bill marks almost a decade of their hard work. The bill is a fantastic advert for our Parliament in terms of its openness and accessibility. It is a fantastic example of a minority group in our society coming together, forming a cross-party group, setting out its priorities and lobbying members to the point. We will have a bill that is here in front of us today because of its dedication. I think that it is only right and proper that we show our appreciation and thanks for them. As I said, there have been a number of changes made to the bill since I last stood in the chamber at stage 1. Those changes are the result of a lot of joint working with the Scottish Government and valuable contributions from stakeholders such as Deaf Bind Scotland. However, one thing that has not changed is the aim of the bill. As I explained at stage 1, British Sign Language is the first language and only language of many deaf people in Scotland. BSL is a visual gestural language that uses space and movement. The hands, face and head are used to communicate and it has a different grammatical structure from English. Across Scotland BSL is the Indigenous manual language in the same way as English is the Indigenous spoken language. Deaf people who use BSL are part of a recognised cultural and linguistic minority. Unlike people who speak other minority languages, many deaf sign language users cannot learn to speak English as they cannot hear the language. The aim of my bill has been to encourage the use of BSL in Scottish public life and raise awareness of the language amongst the hearing population. I am confident that it is in good shape to achieve those aims. During the stage 1 process, the Education and Culture Committee heard evidence from witnesses who gave examples of how a lack of BSL awareness and skills among members of the hearing population affected their everyday lives. I would like to tell you about another case that is included in the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman's annual report. A woman who communicates through BSL was admitted to hospital for surgery during her 12-day stay in hospital at 12-hole days. Although hospital staff tried to communicate with her, they did not provide her with a BSL interpreter. That was despite the women repeatedly pointing to a poster for interpreter services and twice handing staff a BSL interpreter card. It was clear from the hospital records that she felt isolated because of the lack of communication. That is just one example that has been published by the Ombudsman. We also heard statistics provided by the Scottish Council on Deafness, who found that 77 per cent of BSL users who had visited hospital could not easily communicate with NHS staff. It is that sense of abandonment and isolation whether it be in a healthcare situation in a school, in an education situation that I hope the passing of that legislation will address. I would like to focus on some of the key changes that have come about from the stage 2 consideration of the bill and firstly the scope of the national plan for Scotland. The amendments that have been made in this area lodged by the minister reduced the total number of plans by bringing a number of other public bodies within the scope of the national plan. That gives greater clarity about the purpose of the national plan and will reduce that administrative burden on the public sector. At the same time, a number of bodies were added to the schedule, which means that the Scottish Government is able to take a more strategic co-ordinated approach to BSL at a national level on planning and reporting the amendments that have been made in that area create a fixed cycle for the production of plans and progress reports. When I first considered the timing of plans, it was my intention that national plans should be linked to each cycle of Parliament so that every Government would produce their own plan and review their own plan. I accepted the minister's argument that a fixed-term cycle is much more predictable, simpler and that a parliamentary cycle is potentially unhelpful for local authorities who operate on a different cycle. The bill also referred to performance reviews, which would highlight good and poor practice and name and shame those authorities who were falling short. I was persuaded that the minister's approach to replace that with a progress report that will identify progress with authority plans through a self-assessment process involving feedback from BSL users made sense. I would also like to thank Dennis Robertson for his continued keen interest in the bill. Dennis and I lodged some amendments that will guarantee the inclusion of people who are deafblind in the implementation of the bill. Firstly, a new section to the bill now means that references to BSL and the bill are in the main, both the visual form and the tactile form of the language. When we originally drafted the bill, we took the view that the term BSL covered all forms of BSL, but I was happy to amend the bill to deliver that clarity. I certainly give way to Mr Stewart. I put on record my thanks to Mr Griffin and to Mr Robertson for the changes that will benefit the deafblind community. Having talked to some of my constituents who are deafblind, the bill is immensely advantageous to them. I would like to thank Mr Griffin and Mr Robertson for their efforts in that front. Mark Griffin? I thank Mr Stewart for those kind words. I think that it just shows how mobilised and ambitious and enthusiastic the deaf and deafblind community are about the bill that I think most MSPs had communication on that particular amendment. It was great that we were able to do something about it. Those changes have been made so that tactile BSL is specifically included. There was also a change around ministerial responsibility. The bill included a section on the Scottish Government identifying a specific minister, but I am happy that the Government operates on the basis of collective responsibility and I have indicated that it will identify Dr Allan as the least minister in point of contact for anyone wishing to engage with BSL. The stage 2 process, along with today's final amendments, means that the bill is now in good shape to start delivering real tangible change for BSL users in Scotland. I am delighted to move the motion in my name that the Parliament agrees that the British Sign Language Scotland Bill will be passed. To the many in the gallery, I simply say thank you and welcome to the Scottish Parliament. I had the privilege of meeting with a few of our deaf and deaf blind visitors just before today's debate. I know that many of you have campaigned for a British Sign Language Bill for many years and I recognise that this is a significant day for that community. I would also like to congratulate Mark Griffin for proposing the bill and I want to thank him likewise for working with the Scottish Government so closely over the past few months to help together to improve the bill's provisions. The bill has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its parliamentary progress. Indeed, all of the amendments at stage 2 were supported by Mr Griffin and all members of the Education and Culture Committee. As Mr Griffin has said, the aim of the bill is to promote the use and understanding of BSL across the Scottish public sector. The clear intention is that, over time, this will improve the way that we understand and respond to the needs of our deaf and deaf blind citizens who, as has been mentioned, use BSL as a first language. However, it is more than that. Too often, perhaps, we talk about BSL users only as recipients of our public services. Instead, I want to pay tribute to the resilience and creativity of the deaf community in Scotland and I would suggest that we will all benefit all of us in Scotland from their contribution to our country and to our economy. The bill before us today requires Scottish ministers to publish a BSL national plan within two years of the act receiving royal assent. Listed authorities, including local authorities and regional NHS boards, will have to publish their own BSL plans a year later. We will be required to publish a national progress report that will highlight progress, best practice and areas for improvement across the entire public sector, which subsequent BSL plans will need to address. BSL plans and reports will be published every six years, meaning that we will be able to see real progress over time. As a result of our amendments, the BSL national plan will cover all public bodies with a national remit who are directly accountable to Scottish ministers. We think that that will enable a more co-ordinated strategic approach at a national level. It will also significantly reduce the number of plans being produced, which will reduce the administrative burden and the cost on the Scottish public sector. I am determined to ensure that the bill, if passed, will help us to take the practical steps that will make a real tangible difference to the day-to-day lives of our citizens who use BSL, families and communities. It is therefore crucial that the national and local BSL plans properly reflect their priorities. We intend to establish a BSL national advisory group, which will advise Scottish ministers on the content of the national plan. The group will include a significant proportion of deaf BSL users. The BSL national advisory group will draw on the views of the wider deaf and deaf-blind community and will develop a set of priorities to be included in that national plan. We also want to share expertise and resources to help public bodies to improve their understanding of and response to the deaf communities that they serve. This year, we have provided funding of £415,000 to five deaf organisations to help to make that happen. Working with the British Deaf Association, the Scottish Council on Deafness, Deaf Action, Deaf Connections and Deaf Blind Scotland, we have created the deaf sector partnership. The most important function of the partnership will be to support proper engagement between public bodies and the BSL communities that they serve. It is this engagement that will help to ensure that the plans focus on the right things and, in doing so, make a real practical difference to people's lives. I look forward to sharing more detail on the programme of work in due course. Before I finish, I want to make it clear that the Scottish Government recognises deafness as a culture and British Sign Language as a language. We recognised and formalised that in a statement of recognition in 2011 and I quote from it. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of British Sign Language to the deaf community in Scotland and the contribution that this vibrant language makes to the rich and varied use of language in Scotland today. British Sign Language is a vital means of communication for deaf people as well as a part of their linguistic and cultural identity. It is my view, Presiding Officer, that if we promote, protect, support and value British Sign Language and deaf culture, we will all of us benefit from the greater contribution which deaf and deafblind citizens can and want to make to our communities, to our country and to our economy. In doing so, it will contribute, too, to our wider efforts to create a fairer Scotland. In saying that, I commend this bill to Parliament. I now call on Rhoda Grant, five minutes please. Can I first congratulate Mark Griffin in bringing forward this bill? It requires hard work and determination to bring a bill through the Parliament and he has just done that. I hope that the whole Parliament will support the bill passing it into legislation tonight. It will send a strong message to the deaf and deafblind community that we value them and that we value their language. BSL is the main language used by people born deaf or deafblind and it can also be used by people who have become deaf later in life. The bill highlights that BSL is a language in its own right, like any other language that is used to pass down culture and history through the generations. The rich and famous have their history and culture written down in history books for them while the masses are dependent on their stories being handed down through generations. Language is hugely important in that process, which is why we value our languages that are used by all our communities and, indeed, we need to take steps to preserve and promote them, promoting with them the culture and history of our people. The bill will bring a focus on BSL. The requirement for plans will make public bodies and government think through their policy with regard to promoting and protecting the language. There are a number of issues that the bill will help to address. Making BSL more accessible will have an impact on school attainment. We have heard before that deaf children have a lower attainment than hearing children, and that is a built-in inequality that we must tackle to ensure that all young people reach their full potential. As people progress through school, language becomes technical, especially in the STEM subjects where we really need to encourage young people to participate. To increase attainment, we need to make sure that BSL is available to young people in school and that the signer has adequate knowledge of the subject to translate it back to the people in a way that will allow them to attain the same as hearing pupils in the school. It would also be useful if BSL, like other languages, was available as part of the school curriculum, so that young people who do not require it to communicate would learn it and be able to communicate with deaf and deafblind people and, indeed, enrich their lives through that learning. We also need to look at rolling out more BSL training, and I would like to pay tribute to trade union learning, which has done a huge amount of work in that respect. I undertook a short course through trade union learning in BSL. Sadly, because I have not been using it, I would have to say that the knowledge that I learned has been pretty sketchy. It is really important that we continue to learn, but we also have the opportunity to use skills gained through language courses to make sure that we continue to use it. Trade union learning was really keen that people in the public sector and in the service industries had those skills to enable them to better communicate with their clients. In Scotland, 90 per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents, and that indicates a real need for BSL, for families and adult learnings. For parents to be able to communicate effectively with their children, it requires them to learn the language before their children in order to help them to develop skills. Therefore, that learning needs to take place immediately when deafness is identified in a child. Promotion of the language will also ensure that many professionals learn to speak the language, and one of the big issues for BSL users is access to services. There are times that this can be an inconvenience, but there are other times when it is detrimental to take example access to health. Mark Griffin told us about some awful stories there. We are all nervous about going to hospital, but how much so if you are so isolated. However, it also interferes with the need for confidentiality, because that is compromised through a translator. That becomes even more difficult for people with mental health issues who need to be able to explain their thoughts and feelings to medical professionals. The use of an interpreter can be a barrier to that, so it is vital that people undertaking that role understand the issues involved and are able to put them across to health professionals. The bill highlights BSL as a language in its own right, a language to pass on history and culture, a language to communicate, to build relationships and indeed a language for fun. Isolation can be devastating, and if BSL were more widely used and understood, it would tackle isolation. It would also give hearing users access to another language with its rich heritage and culture. I want to thank and congratulate Mark Griffin again for bringing forward that legislation. This Parliament has passed many pieces of legislation that make us all proud. The bill will be another great example of that, and I hope that we can all support it tonight. Many thanks and I now call on Murdo Fraser. Five minutes or so please. Oh sorry, Mary Scanlon, I seem to have the wrong script. Five minutes or so please. I have never been taken for Murdo Fraser before. There is always a first. I would also like to thank Mark Griffin for successfully steering this bill to its final stages in this Parliament. I commend his commitment, which I understand was based on family experiences. At this final stage, it is also worth commending Kathy Craigie, former Labour MSP, and, more recently, Jenny Marra, for their excellent work on behalf of deaf people in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives fully support the measures in this bill, and we will be voting 100 per cent for the bill at 5 o'clock tonight. We also support any measures to assist deaf people and their families to communicate effectively. The bill will make a difference in promoting and raising awareness of BSL, as well as keeping the issue on the political agenda and it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. The words postcode provision is often used in relation to BSL, and I fully agree with Inclusion Scotland when they ask for an honest appraisal of where the gaps in provision exist and how those will be addressed during the period of the plan. Accurate baseline data is essential for the bill in order to achieve the success that we all hope for. One fact is that Inclusion Scotland states that there are 30 qualified BSL interpreters here in Scotland, and the National Deaf Children's Society says that there are 80. That is an example of two organisations that are well versed in the issue that disagree with the number of interpreters. Unless accurate figures are assured from the start, any progress measures are meaningless. On the subject of postcode lottery, there is one place that qualifies as a centre of excellence, and that is Dingwall academy in the Highlands. I am very pleased to welcome Margaret Kinsman and the pupils to the gallery today, along with so many other people in Scotland who have joined this Parliament to see this bill going through. I met teaching staff at Dingwall academy earlier this year, and I have to say that I was inspired by their enthusiasm and commitment to extending BSL to pupils. I make no apology for bringing forward what they want done after today. Every single pupil in first year at Dingwall academy gets 16 hours of BSL. I am not sure if Dingwall is the only secondary school in Scotland to offer all S1 pupils BSL, but I can ask if any MSP can give a local example to match Dingwall or do better than Dingwall, then I would be pleased to hear about it. Therefore, while we fully support and welcome all the progress today in today's bill, there is still more to do. It is disappointing that there is no formal qualification to national four or five in Scotland. Given that the Scottish Government always likes comparisons with England, I can say that in England a GSE has been developed in BSL and it is being piloted in five schools and one college starting this month. Given the equivalence between GCSE and the national exams, I hope that the Scottish Government will now work with English authorities with a view to bringing BSL into parity with qualifications for other languages. I have been asked by Dingwall academy that they would quite like to be one of the first when a pilot comes forward. I do not mind waiting until you sum up for you to give this guarantee. A reason often given for the lack of BSL teaching and support is the lack of teachers. I think that the Scottish Government could be looking at how to incentivise teachers to take up training and qualifications. I did not realise that currently a teaching qualification is needed, then three years of teaching experience followed by another two years of distance learning through Murray House in Edinburgh. I understand that most local authorities will fund around 85 per cent of fees and, of course, allow time off, but that is still a huge commitment for any individual to do this course of training, given that there is no pay enhancement at the end of study for teaching BSL. My five minutes are up and I am summing up, so I will finish off the rest of my speech later. I have a little bit of time in hand, so as we turn to the open debate, speeches of five minutes please, and I call Dennis Robertson to be followed by Kara Hilt. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome all our guests to the gallery this afternoon, Presiding Officer, and to those in the overspill room. I am not sure when last this Parliament had to use an overspill room when we were debating in this chamber. It gives me great pleasure to thank Mark Griffin for bringing this forward. Brewer Grant said that it is a proud moment, and I sincerely hope that Mr Griffin will have that sense of pride come five o'clock when his bill is passed. I also thank Mark Griffin and my friend and colleague Kevin Stewart for acknowledging the very small part that I played in this particular bill at stage 2. Small, but very important. Important to the deaf-blind community, a community who wishes to have the same equality as everyone else. To have tactile BSL to be recognised in this bill is a journey that they have been on for so long. I probably would like to offer my sincere thanks to Drina O'Malley, and it is not often that I would say that, Presiding Officer. Having worked with Drina O'Malley probably for the past 30 years is so in different sensory services, I can assure you. However, Drina's hard work, determination and enthusiasm energy has helped in steering this and bringing this acknowledgement of tactile BSL, and I thank her and everyone else in deaf-blind Scotland. I want to look at raising the awareness aspect and what it does mean. Prior to being elected, I had the great privilege to be the service manager for north-east century services. That included providing services for blind people who are deaf, harder hearing and deaf-blind. At that time, when we were awarded the contract to provide services for those who were deaf and deaf-blind, we had a staff group who had little knowledge, apart from those who had been too paid over from a different organisation, but the majority of our staff group had no awareness of BSL. When we asked staff to come forward to learn BSL, we were absolutely astounded. Every single member of staff came forward. Everyone wanted to embrace that stage 1 acknowledgement on BSL, so they could be at the front line. If any person who required BSL that came into the services, whether it be in Aberdeen or Murray, came in, they would at least face someone who could acknowledge their language and their wants, their needs and their requirements. That is all people ask for. People in the deaf community just want to be the same as everyone else. They want to be able to communicate and to be understood. The Scottish Government has not sat back and done nothing over the years. Indeed, in some respects, the work that has gone on within the cross-party group, and I thank Mark Griffin for his kind comments on the cross-party group. Jenny Marra is a convener of that, and I am one of the co-conveners. We are under a great deal of—I was going to say pressure, but it is not pressure. It is a great deal of understanding and taking forward the needs and wants of the people who recognise that they have a different need, a need that needs to be recognised. The point that I want to make is that we have moved forward and embraced technology. One of the examples that I can give with the technology—I know that my time is running out, Presiding Officer—is the video relay system. The video relay system is there, and initially it was with NHS 24, but it has now been rolled out to all public services. With additional funding from the Government, that enables people who use BSL to be able to communicate the same as anyone else. If they want to make a point with a GP or go to any other public service, they have an app on their phone, smart technology—all those things are available. The chief officer from the Scottish Council of Deafness, when that was rolled out, said that it was terrific, because she said that it gave people using BSL the confidence and the confidentiality to speak and to be heard, the same as everyone else. My time is up, Presiding Officer. When I looked at the national advisory group, I saw three initials—NAG. I sincerely hope that the advisory group will continue to nag the Government. Thank you very much. I now call Cara Hilton to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I begin by paying tribute to my colleague Mark Griffin for his tireless work in promoting the bill and progressing the welfare culture and values of the deaf community right across Scotland. I would also like to welcome all the guests to the gallery today. The bill presents us with an opportunity to drive an important culture change in society's attitude to BSL. I followed the bill with interest from its early stages and noted to some of the comments from stakeholders that the bill was unnecessary as a quality act. I acknowledge that we have signers in the gallery. One of the aspects of being able to sign to ensure that all your words are passed over to those in the gallery and those watching in video is perhaps the speed of presentation. Cara Hilton, I speak very fast. I think that it is a grange-mouth thing. We are also aware that there has been very limited progress in security and equal rights, and that is why we are debating the bill today. The importance of the bill is that it does not treat British sign language as an aid of those who are perceived as being disabled. It gives BSL its correct status as a fully independent and indigenous language of Scotland with its own culture, grammar and history. At the bill's heart is the aspiration to drive real change for deaf children, their families and all BSL users in Scotland. Turning to the provisions of the bill, I hope that the requirement for both the Scottish Government and public bodies to draft British sign language action plans will ensure increased support for deaf people, particularly for young people and children still in the education system. That is important because the National Deaf Children's Society estimates that there is many as 3,850 deaf children in Scotland and every year 120 children are born with severe or profound hearing loss. Figures show that a very worrying attainment gap between deaf children and their peers. Scottish Government figures reveal that only just over a third of deaf pupils attain higher or advanced higher compared to 60 per cent of hearing pupils. In 2012, almost 10 per cent of deaf school leavers left with no qualifications at SCQF2 or above, compared to just 2 per cent of all pupils. That discrepancy is unacceptable and it leaves many deaf young people struggling to find a decent college place or university place or to access job opportunities. However, it is not just about qualifications. The BDA and its evidence to the Education and Skills Committee highlighted how reliance on interpreters in the classroom means that deaf children are often unable to be fully engaged with classroom activities, including the natural jokes and banter of the classroom environment. That leaves many feeling bored and socially isolated at school, and that will obviously have a lasting effect on children's mental health. As the Children's Commissioner, Tam Bailey, pointed out in his briefing for today's debate, the failure of our education system to fully meet the needs of children who use BSL as their main language is not only a lost opportunity for those children, it is the denial of their basic human rights. The provision of national and local BSL action plans provides an opportunity for us to set goals and priorities to deal with those issues, to address the attainment gap and to prevent deaf children from being left behind by our education system. In their submission to the Education Committee, the BDA also highlighted the poor level of knowledge among some teachers and interpreters using BSL in the schools. Many of those professionals have qualifications in BSL no greater than a higher, so I welcome the opportunity that the bill offers to set more rigorous targets for the training and monitoring of BSL used by teachers and school interpreters, and I hope, too, that we will see BSL becoming part of the school curriculum. As Rhoda Grant has already highlighted, 90 per cent of deaf children have hearing parents and many report difficulties in adjusting to a child's diagnosis and a struggle to find the resources to help the children to communicate. Again, I welcome the steps that have been taken by some local authorities to provide home visits from BSL interpreters and to work with parents from a very early age to encourage linguistic development rather than wait until the children start school. Yet again, the support can be patchy. A recent survey of parents across Scotland found that a worry in 35 per cent had received no information about using BSL with their child before they started school, so there must be more done to ensure that local authorities share best practice as they develop their local action plans. I hope, too, that there will be more investment from the Scottish Government to address the current gaps in delivery and deliver real change, and that is especially important in closing the attainment gap. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, today is an historic moment for the deaf community in Scotland. The bill sends out a really important message to those who use BSL, that their language and culture is valued, that their rights are recognised, and it will help to raise and increase awareness of BSL across the hearing population This is a bill that really will transform the lives of every British Sign language user in Scotland. I would like to thank Mark Griffin once more for his tremendous work in bringing this bill through Parliament. I hope and trust that we will have the unanimous support of members today. Thank you very much, and I now call Liam McArthur to be followed by Stuart Maxwell. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, as I did at stage 1, start by thanking all those who helped the education committee in our scrutiny of the bill, particularly the BSL users and people from the deaf community who took time to give evidence. Thank you to those who helped us to break all previous attendance records at the education committee, many of whom are in the gallery this afternoon, including the representatives of Dingwall academy. I wish Mary Scanlon well in her campaign, presumably to become director or rector of Dingwall academy once she retires from this place. I offer sincere congratulations to Mark Griffin on his work alongside the minister in delivering for the BSL community. While the bill will not in itself deliver early improvements in access to services, better educational outcomes or the removal of barriers to employment, it holds out the real possibility of accelerating a cultural and attitudinal change that makes those changes more likely and more quickly in the future. By increasing recognition of BSL as an indigenous language that has its own culture and identity, as the minister remarked, we can pave the way for ensuring that deaf people are able to access information and services in their first language. Despite overwhelming support from Mr Griffin's bill, concerns were raised with us. Partly this related to the potential risk of expectations being raised unfairly, and I think that we had some sympathy with it. To a large extent, the BSL community has shown themselves to be very well aware of what the bill would and would not achieve, but there is the potential for misunderstanding. There was also an argument that the bill's aims are already covered elsewhere, notably by equality legislation. I think that we were right to reject this assertion as it fundamentally misses the point that equality legislation will do nothing to promote BSL as a standalone language. That said, I think that we did succeed in making a number of important improvements to the bill, reflecting some very genuine concerns and sensible suggestions put forward by those from whom we took evidence. The way in which national and local authority plans will be developed is, I believe, more pragmatic and meaningful as a result of changes that have been made to the bill as first introduced. There was always a balance to strike between ensuring transparency and accountability on the one hand, while on the other not drowning councils, public bodies and others in costly reporting requirements that would do little for the BSL community. Again, I think that the bill now better reflects that proper balance. The content of the plans will be developed over time, but we know from the evidence that we received that they will need to prioritise promotion of BSL in education settings, including in early years support, as well as opening up access to healthcare and employment opportunities. It is right that ministers should be required to keep Parliament updated on progress, not as a means of naming and shaming, but to ensure that the bill is actually doing what we intend it to do and identifying, along with the work of the advisory group, potential areas where changes and improvements might need to be made. That advisory group, as I said at stage 1, should be drawn in the main from the BSL community itself. Two other changes, which I would like briefly to highlight, fall into the category of the painfully obvious, yet for various reasons they were not explicit in the original bill. The first relates to the need for specific recognition of the distinct needs of the deafblind community. I know that this was something that Mark Griffin himself was keen to see, but it also came through strongly during our evidence session, and it is something that the law society also drew attention to. I am delighted that the initial weakness in the bill has now been addressed, thanks to the efforts of Mark Griffin and, indeed, of Dennis Robertson. The other area relates to the availability of the plans being produced in BSL. Frankly, it was utterly inconceivable that this would not be the case, but nevertheless, again, it was something that needed to be strengthened at stage 2, and I very much welcome the further improvements that have been made earlier this afternoon at stage 3. I think that the final comment that I would make about the bill is the impact it has had on Parliament itself. I referred earlier to the committee meetings where we struggled to accommodate all those who wished to attend, not a regular challenge that we are forced to confront, but I think that that reflects the inclusive way in which we have gone about engaging with those most directly affected by the legislation that we are scrutinising. That is how it should be, even if it is not always as it is. I therefore pay tribute to the committee clerks and the other parliamentary staff for the creativity and dedication that they have shown to the task. I think that they can be rightly proud of what they have been able to achieve, not just in relation to the passage of the bill but for the way that I hope it influences the manner in which we operate more generally and more excessively in the future. As I said at stage 1, the bill can and will help to raise the profile of BSL as a distinct language, and, over time, it will increase its use in the delivery of services. For that, committee colleagues, the minister and most of all, Mark Griffin deserve great credit. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I begin, like many others, in offering my sincerest congratulations to Mark Griffin. For those of us who have experienced trying to take a bill through this place, we understand and sympathise with any other member who is going through the difficult process of trying to take a bill through the Parliament as an individual member to have achieved not only to get the bill partway through and supported by the Government, but to get your own bill all the way through to stage 3 as a tremendous achievement, and you should be very proud of what you have done. I also thank all those who gave evidence to the committee. They really helped the committee in its examination of the bill. I want to thank in particular my fellow committee members, but one of the problems of speaking after fellow committee members, Mary Scanlon and Liam McArthur, is that, effectively, they cover the detail of the bill and many of the things that you wanted to say. In genuine appreciation of their work and their efforts throughout the process, I also echo what they have said today in the comments about the bill. I hope that the actions taken by the committee and indeed the Parliament to ensure that as many people as possible from both the deaf and deafblind communities could fully engage with the committee and the Parliament have made a genuine difference. I am sure that, like others, I was lobbied by deaf and deafblind constituents. Not only was that a tremendously important part of the process of my understanding the need and the importance of the bill, but it also made very clear to me in a very stark way the difficulties that individual members of the deaf and deafblind community face on a daily basis. I give you one example. A deaf constituent approached me and attempted to make an appointment to come and see me to talk about both the bill and also issues that he wanted to talk about personally. I could have seen him very quickly that week. In fact, the problem was getting a BSL interpreter to be available on the day that he and I were both available. Instead of being able to meet that constituent within a few days or a week, it took many, many weeks to arrange the appointment where three people could sit down so that we could speak to each other, understand each other and make sure that that constituent got their points across and that their view was recognised in the work that I was doing in Parliament. Dennis Robertson With the new video relay system that has been rolled out to more public services, does the member feel that that would avoid any further delay in making appointments with constituents? I think that Dennis Robertson makes an extremely important point. The use of technology—we have been talking about it in the committee—will be an extremely important way of ensuring that deaf members of the community, deaf constituents and deaf-blind constituents can indeed get in touch very quickly with their own MSPs. I am sure that MPs will ensure that they get their voice heard. I will be very interested to hear the detail of that particular roll-out of that programme. I am going to do something now that does not often get done in this Parliament. I am going to blow our own trumpet. I am sure that what the Education and Skills Committee did was not perfect by any means, but I believe that it was a substantial step forward in the way that this Parliament operates. We in the Education and Culture Committee created a BSL Facebook group, and we invited the BSL community to join and share their views on the bill posting BSL video clips. The group was extremely well received and it attracted some 2,400 members who posted simply hundreds of BSL videos and comments relating to the bill, and I think that that was a tremendous step forward. We also translated key documents into BSL, including our call for views and guidance on how we handle submissions, summaries of the evidence received and our stage 1 report. We adopted a bilingual approach to the committee's public meetings, and we invited witnesses to give evidence in BSL and provided English BSL interpretation for the public gallery and via Parliament TV. To accompany the launch of our stage 1 report, we filmed a Q&A session involving some BSL users who had given evidence to the committee. That video was posted on our website and various social media to offer deaf people an alternative means of finding out what the committee had included in its report. I think that that was a tremendous step forward, and I again want to echo the comments of Liam McArthur to thank those in the Parliament who did all the hard work in making sure that we could achieve that. A number of benefits came from that. In fact, the committee initiatives, particularly the Facebook group, were widely held up as good examples of how public bodies could be inclusive, and the feedback that we got was indeed very good for those in the BSL community who engaged with that process. Expectations are high among many of what that bill can deliver. We all hope that those expectations will be met and that much can be achieved through the recognition and long overdue promotion of BSL. I want to quote from the very beginning of the bill, an act of the Scottish Parliament to promote the use of British Sign Language, including by making provisions for the preparation and publication of national plans in relation to British Sign Language. Many people have waited a long, long time to see those words on an act of the Scottish Parliament. Scotland has many languages and many cultures, and I am delighted that we are taking this vital step today in putting BSL on an equal footing to the other languages of Scotland. We now move to the wind-up speeches, and I call Mary Scanlon. Stuart Maxwell mentioned expectations, and I think that that is what this bill is all about if we look at the expectations of deaf children and adults, but if we also add on our expectations in the education committee and the work that we are doing on attainment. That takes me back to Dingwall. Dingwall Academy is rightly proud of its pupils in recent years, and I have to say that I saw no limits to its expectations, with one profoundly deaf pupil becoming a maths teacher, another becoming an audiologist, two other profoundly deaf pupils now at university and a third graduated with first-class honours last year and various other ex-pupils at college in the Highlands. I think that that is what the bill is all about. It is about bringing deaf children on a level footing and giving them the same opportunities and career opportunities as all other children. A hearing pupil who has studied BSL and deaf studies at Dingwall has now gone on to be an interpreter graduating with first-class honours. I see no limit given that deaf children are given the proper support when they need it. The focus on progress reports against the published performance plan is commendable, and I hope that those who make progress but from a very low base will realise just how much progress is still required. I also hope that where provision is good that they will continue to make improvements and make progress in terms of providing BSL. Conservatives also welcome the setting up of a national advisory board to support the implementation of the bill, and I hope that they will adhere to the principles and the hopes contained in the bill. My final issue is one that I have raised at every opportunity since the commencement of the bill, and I have to say that it was raised again by Dingwall academy today. That is the proposal to improve the availability of family sign language, to enhance the ability of hearing parents to communicate with their deaf children and help to promote their development. Helping the child and also helping families must be such a positive way forward, given that 90 per cent of deaf children are born to hearing parents. I did not know that prior to looking at this bill. When it comes to postcode provision, that service certainly fits. I understand that there is an early years project by the national deaf children society, but there is still much that Scottish Government could do in future to ensure that all families are given the support that they need just to communicate with their own children, not much to ask. Rhoda Grant made the point that it should be at the point of diagnosis, not when they start school or when they go to secondary school. According to NDCS, there is currently no nationally funded provision for those parents to access training or classes in order to communicate with their child through sign language. Suggesting that family provision needs to include signs and phrases to facilitate play and child-centred activities, so that appropriate support for families, particularly birth to preschool. The family sign language improves vocabulary for deaf children, but it also contributes so positively to family relationships. I cannot imagine as a parent what it could be like not to communicate with a child, and we should all think of that. I would like to see family sign language included in the progress reports and the performance reviews in future. I ask the minister if that is a consideration that he will take on board for future. I very much welcome the bill. The Scottish Conservatives support every word in the bill, but we are also looking for more. I once again commend Mark Griffin and give my party's full support to the bill. It gives me great pleasure to close the debate for Scottish Labour today. I congratulate my colleague Mark Griffin on bringing the bill to the chamber and for giving the deaf community a voice in Parliament. I know that the bill means a lot to Mark Griffin, and that is evident from the effort that he has given to the bill throughout its entire process. I would also like to pay tribute to Kathy Craigie for her work in this area. Mark and I share a regional office, and I know that the hard work key and the staff Kathy and the particular Frank have dedicated to the bill. I am so pleased that the bill will be recognised at 5 p.m. tonight when this Parliament, hopefully, unites to pass this historic bill. It is a great privilege for me to be part of today's debate. As a member of the Education and Cultural Committee at the time that we were scrutinising the bill, I have heard first-hand evidence as to why we require the bill and what impact it is likely to have on people's life if it fulfills its potential. As Heather Gray, director of the National Deaf Children's Society, said, the British Sign Language Scotland bill marks a historic moment for the deaf community in Scotland, many of whom have British Sign Language as their first or preferred language. The National Deaf Children's Society strongly believes that, if implemented, this landmark legislation will become a key driver in Scotland towards more effective service provision, better opportunities and improved life chances for deaf children and young people. However, we must not rest on our laurels. When I spoke in the debate at stage 1, I highlighted a number of issues facing deaf people in Scotland today. I do not want to go through each of them again today, however. I believe that it is important to draw the chamber's attention to the attainment gap that is currently faced by deaf learners, which is extremely concerning. Scottish Government figures for 2011-12 show that 36.4 per cent of deaf pupils attained hires or advanced hires compared to 60.2 per cent of hearing pupils. Scottish Government data also shows that only 26 per cent of deaf school leavers are likely to go on to higher education, compared to 39 per cent of hearing school leavers. We also know from the Grimes report that only 8 per cent of teachers of the deaf can sign. We must address that, and I hope that the forthcoming report from the Education Committee on the attainment gap for those with a sensory impairment is looked at closely by the Scottish Government, and that all issues highlighted will be addressed as a matter of urgency. Statistics from the Scottish Council of Deafness show that up to 70 per cent of deaf people believe that they have failed to get a job because of their deafness. This is a sobering statistic, but one that has become all too familiar. In June of this year, I had the honour of sponsoring the action on hearing loss reception, which a vast number of MSPs attended. The reception was to highlight deaf awareness week and to recognise the importance for everyone to receive deaf awareness training and to learn about the communication needs of the 850,000 people across Scotland. At that event, we heard from Abigail Matheson about her experience of trying to gain employment. Abigail said at that time that employers lack of understanding of communication support, poor deaf awareness and not knowing about the access to work scheme are creating barriers preventing deaf people from having the chance to get into their preferred careers. Abigail also raised the problem as deaf people often face job centre plus, where staff will not always book British Sign Language interpreters or use the correct terminology when talking about the deaf community and their individual communication needs. We must do more to help those like Abigail to get the support that they require to enter the workplace. It is true that the bill will address some of the problems that Abigail outlined, but it will not address them all. It has been made clear by Mark Griffin and organisations supporting this bill that this bill is the first step on the journey to improve the lives of deaf people in Scotland. This bill will not solve all the problems that deaf people currently face, but it is an important first step that this Parliament must take today. As we heard in evidence, this bill will give deaf people the opportunity to access life through their own language. There could be no stronger point to end on. I look forward to supporting this bill at decision time tonight. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank members for their contribution to this afternoon's very productive and, I think, many people in the gallery will take the view quite historic debate. As I said in my opening remarks, the bill has enjoyed strong cross-party support from the start. It is clear that there is a great deal of interest in British Sign Language and in the experience of deaf BSL users in our communities from right across the chamber. I would like to add my own congratulations and thanks to the committee convener Stuart Maxwell, deputy convener Siobhan McMahon and all the members of the Education and Culture Committee for their very detailed and careful consideration of the bill, which, as has been said, allowed the bill to be improved and strengthened. The Scottish Parliament has been applauded for the approach that it has taken to ensure that its work on the BSL bill is accessible to deaf BSL users. That is, thanks partly to the committee, to the Parliament itself, and I hope to a new sense of, a new understanding that we have more generally as a society in the importance of being inclusive in that way. Dennis Robertson? I wonder if Dr Allan would like to also put on record the thanks to the parliamentary staff who have worked tirelessly to ensure that deaf and deafblind people here in the gallery in the overspill have been adequately looked after and accommodated in terms of the requirements. I will happily echo those remarks. As I have indicated, it is not often, other than that, First Minister's questions when there is an organised fight put on every week, it is not often that we see the gallery as full as we have today and I think that tells its own and very important story about the subject matter at hand. I want to comment on a couple of contributions that were made. Firstly, Mr Griffin mentioned an incident about a lack of interpretation in hospital. It is an incident that I know about and it is one that the Scottish Government is addressing with the support of the equality and human rights commissioner. I do not want to pretend for a moment that the existence of legislation of this kind will overnight transform all those situations, but I very much believe that it does strength in the hand of all those who campaign to put those situations right. Mary Scanlon in her contribution generously said that she would wait until I stood up and started speaking before I needed to answer her question. I do slightly feel as if I was intervened upon while silent, but she made a very important and indeed a very pertinent point. She asked about, among other things, the role that schools can play in providing BSL more generally beyond the deaf community. BSL can be offered as part of 1plus2, and Scotland's national centre for languages can advise schools about how BSL can fit into their language learning plans alongside other languages. I recognise that there is some work to be done in this area to ensure that BSL learners can progress in their language learning in the same way as spoken languages. I am very happy to explore that and to keep in touch with the member about the issues that she rightly raises. Dennis Robertson pointed to the great willingness that there is beyond the deaf community to learn BSL, which is something that I hope we can now all work together to try to meet that demand. Liam McArthur and others pointed to the importance of deaf people accessing services in their own language. Contact Scotland is an organisation that enables deaf BSL users to contact public services by phone, but I recognise that that does not replace the need for face-to-face interpretation. I will do my best to ensure that the levels of participation that many members have mentioned, which surrounded the bill's passage through the Parliament, are sustained through the bill's implementation of past in a few minutes' time. I would also like to thank the deaf and deafblind community and the many organisations that work with them for their contribution to the bill. As I mentioned, many of them are here in the gallery and I know that there are many, many more watching the debate online. By sharing their experiences and insights with us, they have helped us to gain a better understanding of the needs of BSL users and of what those users need from us. Not all people's experiences around the country, of course, are the same. I would particularly like to mention in that context the very different needs that there are of deaf people in remote and rural areas. I represent 13 islands and I know of BSL users who find it difficult to access a conversation, never mind services in their own language within many, many miles radius. I would particularly like to put on record my thanks to the five organisations who make up the deaf sector partnership, all of whom I think are here present in the gallery today. They are the British Deaf Association, Scottish Council on Deafness, Deaf Action, Deaf Connections and Deaf Blind Scotland. I am very grateful for their work with us over the last few months, which has helped us to prepare for implementation of the bill. I look forward to continuing to work with them over the coming months as we work to establish the BSL national advisory group and start to work on the BSL national plan. Finally, I would again like to thank Mark Griffin for proposing the bill in the first place. He has made a significant contribution to improving the lives of deaf and deaf-blind BSL users in Scotland and he should feel proud of that. Presiding Officer, we have made a good start, but it is clear that there is much more that can be done and much that we must do across Scotland to help to ensure that in the future we remove the barriers, which still in many cases prevent deaf and deaf-blind BSL users from maximising their potential and making their fullest contribution to daily and public life in Scotland. The BSL Scotland bill sets us firmly on the right path to address this and I would therefore urge my fellow members from across all political parties to vote in favour of this bill. Thank you minister. I now call Mark Griffin. Mr Griffin, I would be obliged if you would continue until five o'clock. Thank you Presiding Officer. I would like to thank the minister and members for the valuable contribution to the debate and those organisations outside of the chamber who have provided fantastic, supportive briefings. I would also like to thank the interpreters who have been at the back of the chamber for interpreting everything that has been going on and particularly to the hands-on tactile BSL interpreters who will be in the gallery doing one-to-one interpretation for any deaf-blind members in the audience. I know that they will be very tired by this point. I would just like to briefly remind members of some key facts about BSL in Scotland. According to the latest census figures, there are approximately 12,000 BSL users in Scotland, although there is thought to be a great deal of underreporting due to issues with BSL users being able to access a census form in written English. Nevertheless, 12,000 is the figure that we have. It is estimated that 120 children a year are born with a hearing loss, the majority of whom are born to hearing parents. As you can imagine, a child being born with a hearing loss can have a huge impact on parents, guardians, brothers and sisters and other family members, which Mary Scanlon has pointed out in a support or call for lessons for family members of children who are born deaf. That has been provided at a very early stage of a child's development. Scotland has a serious shortage of BSL-trained teachers, which has an obvious effect on the number of deaf children who are able to access their education. It was raised repeatedly by Rhoda Grant, Cara Hylton and Siobhan McMahon. Siobhan McMahon quoted Scottish Government figures that showed that only 36.4 per cent of deaf pupils attained hires or advanced hires in comparison with 60.2 per cent of hearing pupils and only 26 per cent of deaf school leavers have gone to higher education compared with 39 per cent of hearing school leavers. That comes down to an issue of the language skills of the teachers. It is not difficult to see why there is an attainment gap when a BSL user can be taught complex subjects such as maths, physics, chemistry. When the proficiency of the language skills of the teacher is lower than the learner itself, that is something that we will need to look at in the future to bring that attainment gap down. That skills gap can then lead to a higher rate of unemployment among young deaf people. Data from a deaf achievement Scotland project shows that the unemployment rate of young deaf people aged 16 to 24 was 49 per cent compared with 19 per cent of all young people. At stage 1, one of the reasons that we need this legislation is to encourage education providers to think about how deaf children can be educated in the language and in the culture that they belong rather than forcing their own methods of education on those children. I hope that my bill can go somewhere towards that. Dr Allan said in his opening speech that I fully agree with. We are missing out on what deaf and deaf-blind people have to offer society and the world of work and we can no longer afford to do so. One of the reasons for my attempt to introduce a British Sign Language Bill was personal. Mary Scanlon mentioned that earlier. It was two of my great-grandparents who were deaf-blind. I never met them because they died before I was born, but I was brought up with stories from my mum and her mum about how they raised their children, the difficulties they faced, how they interacted with their children and grandchildren, how they attempted to access services and carry out everyday activities with a dual-sensory impairment that we just take for granted. When I became an MSP, I joined the cross-party group on deafness, where I heard some of the experiences of the people in that group. I was sad to learn that almost three generations later people are still experiencing the same difficulties as they are in accessing services, including medical and police, and in educational attainment. It struck me that the language is still marginalised and misunderstood. I am under no illusion that the bill is anything other than a starting point. It is the starting point for a continuous cycle of improvement and access to services for BSL users. It aims to raise awareness of the language, to highlight gaps in provision and to identify and enable the sharing of good practice. The Education and Culture Committee heard evidence from witnesses who gave examples of how a lack of awareness of BSL affected their everyday lives. One witness told the committee about going into hospital, having experience of having to wait hours, days after appointments, weeks and months after appointments, without actually knowing what was going on, about being able to communicate what their symptoms were, about being able to get information about their medication and how to take it, because no BSL interpreter was available to help. I hope that that video really service is available for every member of the BSL community who accesses any medical services. Mary Scanlon spoke about the number of BSL interpreters that we have and the debate and discussion around the number. The number that I have is that we have 80 registered BSL interpreters in Scotland, whereas in Finland, a country that has a similar population to Scotland has 750. I hope that, if the bill is passed, the promotion of BSL in public life will lead to a resurgence of the language and an interest among all people in learning it, which will, in turn, cause an increase in the number of interpreters who come into the system. Many organisations have already made great progress. I do not think that anyone would deny that when we hear examples of what the NHS has done with the video really service in considering the needs of BSL users. It is time that experience is shared across the public sector so that others can start to catch up with them. I recognise that it is not possible to wave a magic wand and instantly enable BSL users to start using the language every time they engage with the health service, educational establishments and others. I wish that I could do that, but I believe that the bill is an important first step in putting BSL on a firmer footing and that it will make a positive difference to the lives of BSL users. Over the course of taking the bill through Parliament, it is often mentioned that the Equality Act 2010 is in place and that that should be enough to cover the needs of BSL users. I think that it is important that I state and others have stated that deaf BSL users do not define themselves as disabled. They are intellectually and physically as capable as any member in here and they resent the fact that they have to define themselves as disabled to access services that we take for granted. We do not go to a foreign country and define ourselves as disabled. That is about people communicating in their own language. We have to recognise that there is a minority in Scotland to use a different language that has no opportunity to learn the Indigenous spoken language and it is up to us to address that and adapt to our services accordingly. I hope that the bill will pass. I hope that the bill will achieve that aim and I commend the British Sign Language Scotland Bill to Parliament today. That concludes the debate on the British Sign Language Scotland Bill. We now move to the next item of business, which is consideration of a Parliamentary Bureau motion. I would ask Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion number 14291 on approval of an SSI. The question this motion will be put a decision time to which we now come. Because this is a very important day, we have a very important person, we have Shona Dixon, who is going to sign decision time for us. There are five questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 14272.3, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which seeks to amend motion number 14272, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the future of renewables and Scotland's energy policy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 14272.3, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is as follows. Yes, 33. No, 72. There were four abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment number 14272.1, in the name of Mardel Fraser, which seeks to amend motion number 14272, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the future of renewables and Scotland's energy policy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 14272.1, in the name of Mardel Fraser, is as follows. Yes, 13. No, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14272, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the future of renewables and Scotland's energy policy be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 14272, in the name of Fergus Ewing, is as follows. Yes, 63. No, 13. There were 33 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14291, in the name of Dolfox Patrick, on approval of an assess I be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 14111, in the name of Mark Griffin, on the British Sign Language Scotland Bill be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. And the British Sign Language Scotland Bill is passed. May I take this opportunity to thank Mark Griffin, the Government, the Education Committee for all their work in bringing the bill to this stage. My thanks to our parliamentary staff who have excelled themselves. Can I also take this opportunity to thank all of our signers today? You have done a fantastic job and the whole of the Parliament thanks you for that. Members can see for themselves the reaction from the blind and deafblind community as to how much this bill means to them. So can I say to members, thank you. That ends decision time. I now conclude this business.