Scottish Parliament, 12 May 2022

286 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would appreciate short and succinct questions, and answers to match.

Ferries (Procurement)

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what lessons have been learned regarding the procurement of new ferries. (S6O-01078)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Transport Scotland works closely with Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd in relation to the procurement of new ferries and on lessons learned from previous processes. The recent report by Audit Scotland noted that, since the 801 and 802 project, a number of improvements have already been made, including CMAL undertaking additional risk assessments, enhanced financial diligence on preferred bidders and the employment of additional independent technical and commercial support.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The problem with the email that was published yesterday is that the Scottish ministers are asking us to accept that a one-line email that simply alludes to a conversation with the Deputy First Minister is sufficient for the Government to undertake a contract that is worth the best part of £100 million, with, as it turns out, hundreds of millions of pounds of liabilities further to that.

Yesterday, Audit Scotland’s statement made it clear that that is not sufficient documentary evidence for the decision and, last week, in relation to the decision making on the contract, the permanent secretary accepted that there was a question whether the law had been complied with.

To learn lessons, one must accept the mistakes that have been made. Will the minister accept Audit Scotland’s position of last night that the email is “insufficient documentary evidence” of the decision? Does she accept the permanent secretary’s position that there is a question whether there has been a breach of the law? If there is a question about a possible breach of the law, will ministers now refer themselves to the relevant authorities so that that can be investigated?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

In Daniel Johnson’s question, he speaks of one email signing off the procurement of ferries. That is how Government works; it is how decisions are signed off by ministers on a daily basis. That is the job and how it is processed.

On the lessons that have been learned—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Outrageous! That is not how Government works.

The Presiding Officer

Ms Gilruth, will you just give me a moment? Members, we will hear the minister’s response.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

First, CMAL conducted the procurement process in its capacity as the procuring authority. It then awarded the contract to Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd and signed it off, following ministerial approval, as was outlined to the Parliament yesterday. It was signed off by the then Minister for Transport and Islands.

On Daniel Johnson’s substantive question, we have already confirmed to members that we will look at a formal lessons-learned exercise on the completion of hulls 801 and 802. The Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and CMAL have already accepted all the recommendations of the Audit Scotland report. CMAL and Transport Scotland have already confirmed that, in future, all major vessel procurements will require a full refund guarantee to be in place. As Audit Scotland has reported, CMAL has redesigned its tender process so that it will carry out additional risk assessments on all bidders, to undertake enhanced financial diligence, as I have previously stated. That will include financial monitoring by an independent accountancy firm before and after the contract award.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It sounds as though there have been no lessons learned. I have been nagging the minister for weeks to publish the project Neptune report. If she published it, we could start to have a conversation about how we procure ferries. When will she publish it? There is no barrier to that now, so she could do it next week.

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Mr Simpson knows that I have already given an assurance to the Parliament, and directly to him, that I will publish the project Neptune report. He will understand that some of the content of the project Neptune report was impacted by the purdah restrictions for the local government elections, but I recognise the need for transparency on this and I am liaising with officials about publishing the report as quickly as possible. Indeed, I believe that, only last night, Mr Simpson made direct representations on the matter to the director of ferries at Transport Scotland.

For the bodies themselves, I will not set out the detail of that today—not in an answer during general question time—but it is essential that we have transparency on that. I recognise the need for that and I have already given Mr Simpson an undertaking on the publication of

the project Neptune report.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

It is clear that the yard won contracts to build three other vessels as well as the 801 and 802. Does the minister agree that the recent reports on the owner of the floating barge indicates that there were issues at the yard that affected public contracts, and put the yard into liquidation, so the nationalisation of the yard was the only way to create a business that was fit to win future public and private contracts?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Yes, I agree with Mr McMillan’s observations. We have set out two very clear priorities for the yard’s management. Those are to finish building the two ferries that are under construction, and to get the yard into shape so that it can compete for new work. That is absolutely vital. Although any decisions about pursuing future vessel contracts, whether they be in the public or private sector, are for the yard itself, I know that Ferguson Marine is actively pursuing a range of different opportunities and ministers will support the yard in any way that we can to help to secure those opportunities.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I think that the minister does not realise that she has made the situation a whole lot worse. She might be satisfied with one-line emails signing off on hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but Audit Scotland is not, and it said so last night. We need a proper public inquiry into what has happened. We need the Government to refer itself to the authorities, because there is now a question about state aid, as the permanent secretary made clear last week. When is the minister going to wake up and realise the mess that she is in?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I am not sure that there was necessarily a question in what Mr Rennie said. As I have already explained, the Auditor General welcomed the evidence that was given to the Parliament previously. He said:

“We are pleased that CMAL has acknowledged some of our recommendations on the adequacy of the contract and the need for milestone payments to be reviewed to ensure that they are more closely aligned with quality and progress”.—[

Official Report

,

Public Audit Committee

, 21 April 2022; c 39.]

CMAL and Transport Scotland have already agreed that all major future vessel procurements will require a full builder’s refund guarantee to be in place.

Community Hospitals

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what role it considers community hospitals will have in the delivery of national health service services in the future. (S6O-01079)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Community hospitals form an integral part of local healthcare delivery systems. I was delighted to visit Falkirk community hospital this morning. Community hospitals help to provide personalised, holistic and patient-centred care closer to people’s homes. They can provide a wide range of services, including non-acute in-patient services, particularly post-acute geriatric care, rehabilitation services and palliative care. They have a potential part to play in facilitating service integration locally, and they often act as a locale for the development of a single point of access to integrated services.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In Perthshire, there are community hospitals in Blairgowrie, Crieff and Pitlochry. They have all seen a reduction in services in the past number of years, and the process was accelerated during the Covid pandemic. There are now indications that some of the services that were removed during the Covid pandemic, such as minor injuries units with open access, will not be reinstated. That process is being gone through without any consultation with the local communities. Can we have an assurance from the cabinet secretary that local communities will be fully engaged and consulted before decisions are taken about the future of those services?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Murdo Fraser raises an important point and I agree with him that, when decisions are made, whether it be by the local health board or the local health and social care partnership, they should be made in conjunction with members of the public.

Mr Fraser has raised a number of issues to do with Pitlochry community hospital, Blairgowrie and some of the minor injuries units. I have detailed information on each of those issues. If there are particular concerns or specific issues about the region that he represents, I would be more than happy to raise them with the local health board and health and social care partnership.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the Edington cottage hospital in East Lothian within South Scotland, and the outstanding invitation from the broad community group to discuss the current situation with him. Last night, we heard that it will be more than two months before NHS Lothian is in a position to make a decision about staffing for the reopening of the hospital. What does the cabinet secretary say about that on-going delay until after the NHS is removed from the crisis that was occasioned by Covid?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I take issue with some of the premises of the member’s question. First, he knows that I have met the community group as he was on that call. I have also met MSPs and we have had a debate in the Parliament about the Edington cottage hospital, so I am well versed in the issues.

The second point that I take issue with is his suggestion that the national health service is suddenly no longer under significant pressure. That is not the case. I visit hospitals and community services on a very regular basis—indeed, I have just come back from Falkirk community hospital—and I know that our NHS still faces extremely significant challenges.

My understanding is that the decision on the Edington hospital continues to be reviewed and monitored regularly by NHS Lothian’s gold command. I would expect it to continue its engagement with MSPs and local community groups. I am sure that Mr Whitfield will be fully aware of the fact, and will agree, that the NHS is still under extreme pressure. Therefore, it is only right that such decisions are kept under review.

Infrastructure Investment (South of Scotland)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on infrastructure investment in the south of Scotland. (S6O-01080)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The second strategic transport projects review includes plans for future transport investment. For the south-west specifically, it recommends improvements to the A75 and A77, including bypassing the villages of Crocketford and Springholm and upgrading or relocating Stranraer rail station.

Recent investment includes investment in the Maybole bypass and investment in two new rail stations, at Reston and East Linton. Other regional investment in infrastructure extends to investment in affordable housing, superfast broadband, active travel and new schools, as well as investment through growth and city region deals.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Exactly six months ago, in this chamber, the First Minister and the then Minister for Transport, Graeme Dey, promised to engage with the United Kingdom Government on an upgrade to the A75, which is often referred to as “the goat track”, after it was singled out in the union connectivity review as the trunk road that was in most need of upgrade in the whole of the UK.

Freight companies are now threatening to move their businesses away from Cairnryan, which would be a devastating blow to the economy of the south of Scotland. Stena Line, which operates a ferry service from Cairnryan, has also appealed to the First Minister to act immediately and make the A75 and A77 a priority.

However, I am told that, to date, no meeting has been held—indeed, a date for such a meeting has not even been organised—despite requests being made by the UK Government.

Given the broken promises—

The Presiding Officer

Can we have a question, please, Mr Carson?

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

—can the Scottish National Party stop dragging its heels and engage with the UK Government to act much faster?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

For the benefit of Mr Carson’s awareness, I can inform him that I met representatives of Stena Line on 29 April. That was a really positive meeting; it was also an opportunity to hear directly from them about their views on the need for improvements on both routes. That was the latest in a series of meetings that have taken place between ministers and ferry operators over a number of years.

In response to Mr Carson’s substantive question about engagement with the UK Government on the issue, as he will be aware, the union connectivity review claims to offer a level of funding support for the A75. We await the UK Government’s response to that. Despite being frozen out of that process, and despite the fact that transport is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with the UK Government. However, I will need to receive an assurance that any such funding would be additional and would not be top sliced by the UK Government, and I am sure that Mr Carson, as a proud member of this Parliament, would agree.

Ukrainian Refugees (Glasgow)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how many Ukrainian refugees have arrived in Glasgow. (S6O-01081)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The most recent data on visas and arrivals, which is published by the United Kingdom Government, shows that, as of 10 May, a total of 7,684 visas had been issued to people from Ukraine naming a Scottish sponsor, including 4,982 naming the Scottish Government as the sponsor under the Ukraine sponsorship scheme.

As of 10 May, 180 of those visas had been issued to postcodes within the Glasgow City Council authority, with 88 arrivals in the Glasgow city area having been reported. The total number of arrivals under the Ukraine sponsorship scheme for Scotland was reported at 2,126, 855 of whom had named the Scottish Government as their sponsor, with 1,271 naming a private sponsor.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Can the minister give us an update on the welcome hub at Glasgow airport, the council’s resettlement team and the provision of the £200 resettlement grant? Some people have had difficulty in getting that £200.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank John Mason for giving me the opportunity to set out the position in detail. Nationally, more than 600 people have been triaged at Scotland’s welcome hubs. Glasgow airport’s hub has triaged more than 120 people.

Welcome hubs and the support that they offer have been designed at pace in a constantly evolving environment, and the signage at Glasgow airport has been improved to ensure that arrivals can locate the welcome desk, where they will be directed to the welcome hub or given advice.

I am grateful to our local authorities and third sector partners for making that possible.

The UK Government is responsible for funding the Ukraine sponsor schemes. We continue to seek clarity from the UK Government on funding mechanisms and reporting arrangements. In the meantime, local authorities are making up-front emergency payments and, where needed, we have worked with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to reassure councils that funding for the scheme will be provided by the UK Government.

Ukrainian Refugees (Community Integration)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what plans are in place to support community integration for Ukrainian refugees resettling in Scotland. (S6O-01082)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are working alongside local authorities and other partners to help displaced people from Ukraine integrate into communities, supporting them to settle here. Local authority caseworkers are in place to enable access to services, including healthcare, education, and employment and social security advice.

Our new Scots strategy provides a clear framework for integration and assists partners to make the best use of resources and expertise by promoting partnership approaches, joined-up working and early intervention. We have also provided £1.4 million to the Scottish Refugee Council for the expansion of its refugee integration service, as well as funding JustRight Scotland to provide free and confidential legal advice to Ukrainians seeking safety in Scotland.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Government guidance states that children who are unaccompanied, or who are accompanied by adults who are not their legal guardians, are the most vulnerable group of refugees arriving in Scotland. Will the Government develop plans to ensure that proactive efforts are made to reunite unaccompanied children with their parents, should such situations arise in Scotland? Will it also ensure that those who work with Ukrainian refugees, such as local council caseworkers, are trained to deal with the safeguarding concerns that are specific to unaccompanied children who do not speak English?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Bill Kidd for raising a very important issue, and one that is a key concern for this Government. Sadly, the United Kingdom is in the unenviable position of being the only major European country without a legal route for unaccompanied children who do not have a prior familial connection. That position is untenable and exposes vulnerable children to preventable harm. I have raised the issue with UK ministers and have called for an urgent four nations meeting to agree what more can be done to provide sanctuary for those children.

Scotland’s priority will be to ensure that children who arrive are safe and cared for.

The arrangements are considered to be temporary and are in place only until the children can return home safely, in accordance with international convention. We will continue to work with the Ukrainian authorities, operational partners and the third sector to support reunions for displaced, unaccompanied Ukrainian children.

Energy Transition Fund (North East Scotland)

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how much of the £500 million energy transition fund for the north-east has now been allocated. (S6O-01083)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The first £20 million of the 10-year £500 million just transition fund for the north-east and Moray—which we have called on the United Kingdom Government to match—was allocated in this year’s budget. Since that announcement, ministers have engaged extensively with regional stakeholders, meeting trade unions, businesses, communities and local authorities in order to develop the fund in partnership with those who live and work in the area. The insights collected have been crucial in shaping our approach. We are finalising the objectives of and criteria for the fund with our stakeholders and hope to publish those in the coming weeks.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Meetings are one thing, but people want action. The fund was unveiled more than nine months ago, but we still have no details. I hear that £20 million was allocated in this year’s budget, but it appears that not one single penny has been spent and that the money is still sitting in the Government’s coffers.

We also do not know whether the fund will complement the UK Government’s £16 billion transition fund. When will the devolved Government report back with an update about the fund so that it can actually start helping the people of the north-east?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

That question demonstrates the risk of scripting the supplementary before hearing the answer to the substantive question.

As I said, details will be published in the coming weeks.

The member asks where the money is. I remind him that the money has been allocated for this financial year and that we are six weeks into this financial year. The rapidity with which funds are deployed is not the strongest suit for the Tories to play. It took six years for the Tory Government to get from Brexit to indicating what the shared prosperity fund would look like.

We are engaging with partners across the region and working collaboratively on a bottom-up approach. We will report back to Parliament imminently on the criteria for and aims and objectives of the funding.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time.

Ferries (Construction Contract)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Yesterday, the Government finally found the missing documents in its ferry fiasco. For a brief moment, it looked like islanders and taxpayers here in Scotland might finally get the answers that they deserve, but they did not. For weeks, Nicola Sturgeon has stood in this chamber and told MSPs that Derek Mackay signed off the vital contract for Ferguson Marine to build replacement ferries, but operation blame Derek Mackay has a fatal flaw. This new document, which was previously hidden from the public, reveals that the person who signed the deal at the final stage was the Deputy First Minister. Civil servants escalated this to John Swinney and they waited for the Deputy First Minister to give the green light. Honest John’s hands are all over this dodgy deal.

How does the First Minister explain blaming Derek Mackay when her own documents confirm that John Swinney signed off the deal?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I think that all that Douglas Ross is displaying right now is his own utter desperation, which perhaps is not surprising given events since we last all gathered here for First Minister’s questions in the chamber.

Let me read from the emails that were published yesterday. On the important one, people who have listened to this will remember that I said that I thought that, if this email could be found, it would be a one-line email saying that the minister was content with the proposal. Here is the email from Derek Mackay’s office:

“The Minister is content with the proposals and would like”

it

“to be moved on as quickly as possible”.

That was the decision to proceed with the contract.

The email from the official who had briefed the Deputy First Minister then says that the Deputy First Minister

“now understands ... that Mr McKay has cleared the proposal.”

It seems pretty obvious to anybody who is looking at this that the Deputy First Minister did not take the decision. He was not even copied in to the advice of 8 October that was the basis of that decision. He was simply briefed on the decision after it was taken, not even at his request, but on the initiative of an official.

It is really not unusual for finance secretaries to be briefed on all sorts of decisions that involve the spending of money. It does not mean that the finance secretary actually took the decision. I would say that Douglas Ross should know that that is how Government works, but of course Douglas Ross does not know how Government works, and on recent evidence Douglas Ross is unlikely to ever know how Government works.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It seems from that answer that the First Minister does not know how emails work, because it is very clear in the documents that officials escalated it to John Swinney, waiting for his green light. In the

emails, civil servants state that the Deputy First Minister confirmed—this is a quote—

“the absence of banana skins”.

John Swinney could not find a single banana skin when they were absolutely littered around him. There were more banana skins in this project than there are in the monkey house at Edinburgh zoo.

I turn to the latest incompetence from this SNP Government. It published a series of responses to the requests for more information that were heavily redacted, with lines blacked out, except that it has done such a poor job of redacting the documents that, if they are copied and pasted into Microsoft Word, the information is revealed. One section of the redacted document warns of a risk of legal challenge for the contract. It states:

“The impact of a successful legal challenge could be high—in the worst case the contract could be declared ineffective”.

In other words, going ahead with the contract was such a bad idea that it could open up the Government to even more losses than it has already experienced.

I say to the First Minister that it is now clear to everyone why she and her Government wanted that redacted, but it is now in the public domain. We all knew that this was a bad deal, but will she tell us whether it was also unlawful?

The First Minister

Douglas Ross has, no doubt unwittingly, just holed his own arguments below the waterline—pardon the pun.

There are two matters. First, on the Deputy First Minister not seeing any problems with the award of the contract, that is because the Deputy First Minister had not been copied into the paperwork that formed the basis for the decision. The Deputy First Minister could not have been the person who took the decision, because he was not copied in to the paperwork of 8 October. He was not the decision taker. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

As the email makes clear, he was briefed on the decision after the Minister for Transport and Islands had taken it.

Secondly, on the issues of legal challenge, ministers are briefed on many issues on which decisions could be subject to legal challenge. On the minority of occasions, such a challenge comes to pass; on most occasions, it does not. Ministers have to weigh up such issues in reaching decisions. However, where Douglas Ross undermines his own case is that it did not come to pass that the contract was legally challenged. Ministers weigh up all such issues and come to decisions.

What is now beyond any doubt—I suspect that this is what is really annoying Douglas Ross—is that the minister who took that decision was Derek Mackay. That is now clear from the email chain.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is not clear; in fact, the exact opposite is clear, and maybe the stony silence from John Swinney—which is unusual in these exchanges—is telling in itself.

There we have it, Presiding Officer: the SNP’s secret Scotland has been foiled by copy and paste. They cannot even redact documents properly. It is little wonder that those ferries are not on time and on budget.

Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd warned the Government about the risks, and we now know that the legal advice to the Government was that the situation was high risk, but it went ahead anyway, and taxpayers and islanders are paying the price for its failures.

The new emails state that John Swinney

“understands the background and ... the way is clear to award.”

If he did not clear the deal, it would not go ahead—that is what the emails say. He went ahead, knowing, as we have just revealed, that doing so could open the Government to legal challenge. We now know all of that, but we still do not know why the Deputy First Minister ignored all those banana skins.

Still missing is the most crucial document in the affair—the one that explains why John Swinney charged ahead against expert advice. Last night, Audit Scotland said:

“there remains insufficient documentary evidence to explain why the decision was made to proceed with the contract, given the significant risks and concerns raised by CMAL.”

Why did John Swinney go ahead with the deal, against the advice of experts, when he knew that the contract was so bad that it could be challenged in court and rendered ineffective?

The First Minister

I will make three points.

First, in Government, finance secretaries are often briefed on decisions that involve the spending of money. In this case, of course, the budget had already been approved by John Swinney.

Secondly—and interestingly, because he has to do this to sustain the case that he is trying to make—Douglas Ross has selectively quoted from the email from the official who briefed John Swinney. That email starts:

“Just finished my call with DFM”—

the Deputy First Minister, who was finance secretary at the time. Douglas Ross read out:

“He now understands the background and ... the way is clear to award.”

I will read out the bit that Douglas Ross did not read out. After

“He now understands the background”,

the email goes on to say:

“and that Mr McKay has cleared the proposal.”

Had Douglas Ross read out that bit, his entire argument would have fallen to pieces—that was a bit misleading, Presiding Officer. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

I am not sure that Douglas Ross should be speaking to any other leader about their back benchers. I suspect that he might have issues rather closer to home.

Finally, the reasons for the decision are clear. The basis for the decision, and, in particular, the mitigations that had been put in place to address the risk of having no full refund guarantee, are set out in the paperwork of 8 October. Without the email that we now have from Derek Mackay, we could have assumed that that was the case, but I accept that we did not know for sure. However, now that we have that email, it is clear that the decision was taken on the basis of all the information and mitigations that are set out in the paperwork of 8 October 2015. That paperwork was not copied to John Swinney; it went to Derek Mackay as transport minister, and Derek Mackay took the decision. That is clear to anybody who reads the emails that are now published.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What is clear to anybody and everybody from these emails is that the junior transport minister agreed something, and it was escalated to the Deputy First Minister for the green light and approval, so that it could be said in the email that

“the way is clear to award.”

That was from the Deputy First Minister—he had to sign it off. However, the document that is still missing is the crucial one; the one that explains why John Swinney did this. The First Minister has forgotten—her memory has gone blank again—but the good news is that the man with all the answers is sitting right next to her. If the First Minister will not tell us all the details, let us hear from the Deputy First Minister. Let us hear why he chose to ignore expert advice and forge ahead with a deal that has cost taxpayers £250 million. Let us hear why John Swinney decided to give the green light to a deal that opened up the Government to potential legal action.

The stench of cover-up and corruption is running through this whole sorry affair. If the First Minister—[

Interruption

.] If the First Minister will not come clean, let us get John Swinney on the stand. Will the First Minister agree to the Deputy First Minister appearing—[

Interruption

.] Will the First Minister agree to the Deputy First Minister appearing before Parliament and giving a statement in the chamber today, facing scrutiny and telling the public what on earth he was thinking?

The First Minister

It is not my job to help out desperate Douglas Ross, frankly, Presiding Officer.

On this issue, the Deputy First Minister was briefed as finance secretary because a decision had been taken by the transport minister that involved the spending of money. That is why it was a finance official who briefed him. I repeat that Douglas Ross has only been able to sustain his argument today—although he has not done so particularly well—by selectively quoting from an email and by missing out the crucial words that underline what is already clear in the email from Derek Mackay’s office: Derek Mackay took the decision.

I do not know whether Douglas Ross has actually bothered to read all the paperwork, but, from his questions, I suspect that the answer is no. The paperwork that shows why the decision was taken has always been there; it is the paperwork of 8 October 2015. We now know that Derek Mackay took the decision on the basis of the advice that is set out there. Those are the facts. I am sorry if Douglas Ross cannot accept them—I am sorry if he is too desperate to do so—but I am afraid that that is his problem.

Cabinet Ministers (Bullying Investigations)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Can the First Minister confirm how many investigations into bullying by current or former Scottish National Party cabinet ministers there have been, whether those investigations have concluded, and what the outcomes of those investigations are?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have been asked this question by journalists over the

past few days, and, as I made clear to them, I am not in a position to get into the issues because I am bound by very considerable legal data protection issues.

Governments have a duty of transparency, but they also have a duty to abide by the law on privacy and data protection. By its nature, a complaint includes personal details and data relating both to the complainer and the person complained about. That personal information can be made available outwith the narrow confines of the complaint only if there is a lawful basis to do so in the general data protection regulation. The law governing that is United Kingdom legislation, not legislation that was passed by this Parliament. Yes, there is a duty of transparency, but there is also a duty to abide by the law.

Anas Sarwar should perhaps confer with his deputy, Jackie Baillie, because she was one of the co-authors of a report that was published by a committee of this Parliament last year into complaints about another former minister. The report says:

“The Committee believes that the fundamental principle of any complaints process is that confidentiality must be observed ... The Scottish Government has a duty to ensure the confidentiality of the process”

and says that the

“Confidentiality of an investigation is of paramount importance.”

That is what the committee of this Parliament said, and those are the constraints within which I answer those questions.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That committee also found the First Minister guilty of misleading this Parliament—I do not think that she should forget that, either.

No one is asking the First Minister to reveal confidential details; they are asking her to reveal the outcome of those investigations.

The First Minister did not answer the questions, so I will quote something to her:

“we have to lead by example, we have to show leadership and we have to make it very clear that those who work in Parliament and those who work elsewhere in society need the fullest protection”

from bullying. Those are the words of the Scottish National Party’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, speaking with regard to the Priti Patel case. I agree with him. After the allegations against Alex Salmond and then Derek Mackay, and the bullying allegations against UK Government ministers, we need to restore trust in politics, and that must start with complaints being handled transparently. Therefore, will the First Minister today confirm the outcome—not the personal details—of the bullying investigation into Fergus Ewing? Will she confirm whether there have been any other investigations into current and former Scottish ministers? And will she commit to make public the conclusion of any and all complaints that are upheld against ministers in this Government?

The First Minister

This Government and I take very seriously any complaints about any ministers. That is evidenced by the development and the publication of the updated procedure for handling complaints made by civil servants about current or former ministers. This is not a question of any complaints, if raised, not being investigated. However, that has to be done within the law. I have to abide by the law. I have a duty to uphold the law. There are laws on privacy and data protection that apply in relation to the matter that we are discussing and, if I answer questions on it, I will be at risk of breaching that law. If I did so, I am sure that, next week or the week after, Anas Sarwar or his colleagues would ask for me to be held to account for doing that.

These are serious issues. They must be treated seriously, but they must also be treated within the confines of the law that applies.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Let me be very clear. I am not asking for the data or for the personal details of the person making the complaint; I am saying that the public deserve to know the outcome of investigations relating to ministers in the SNP Government. That is an issue of public transparency.

The fact that Nicola Sturgeon cannot escape from is that her Government and the SNP operate in a culture of secrecy and cover-up—it is not the first time that we have heard that today. There are cover-ups when it comes to allegations against ministers, cover-ups when it comes to the awarding of Government ferry contracts, and cover-ups—shamefully—when it comes to the deaths of children in hospital. Further, there is a culture of contempt for journalists and anyone who dares to ask a difficult question of the First Minister—one standard for them and another for everybody else. There is a culture in which an SNP MP can avoid being disciplined for sexual harassment and can, instead, lead a parliamentary debate on the subject.

In 2003, Nicola Sturgeon said this of the then Scottish Government:

“They have the arrogance of a party which has been in power for too long and no longer believe the common values of fairness, decency and honesty apply to them.”

I cannot think of a more appropriate way of describing this Government led by Nicola Sturgeon. After 15 years of being in government, why does Nicola Sturgeon think that there is one standard for her and another standard for everyone else?

The First Minister

The people of Scotland have had two opportunities in just a year to decide whether they think that my party has been in government for too long, and their answer on both occasions has been pretty clear.

These issues are important. First, on Queen Elizabeth university hospital issues, I am so opposed to transparency there that, with my Government, I have established a full independent statutory public inquiry into those issues.

Secondly, I stand to be corrected if somebody can challenge me on this, but I have probably answered more questions from journalists over the past couple of years than any other political leader anywhere on these islands has.

Thirdly, in my view, I have ended up being the subject of investigations over the past couple of years because I was not prepared to cover up accusations against a former minister. The fact is that I have to abide by the law. Whether I like it or not, all parties have rights under data protection law that protect their personal data. That includes the fact or the detail of complaints. The processing of that data can, under the law, occur only if there is a lawful basis to do so. That is the legal position.

Governments have a duty of transparency and I take that duty very seriously. However, Governments also have a duty to abide by the law on privacy and data protection. If we breached that law, Anas Sarwar would be among the first standing up in the Parliament to accuse us of doing so.

The Presiding Officer

W

e will now move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Scottish Football Writers’ Association Dinner

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I am sure that the First Minister and others across the chamber will join me in condemning reports of sexist, racist and homophobic comments at the Scottish Football Writers’ Association gala dinner and will offer support to those who walked out in protest. Although I recognise that an apology has been issued, does the First Minister agree that what happened appears to be a shocking illustration of the outdated discriminatory attitudes that still exist in football and, indeed, in journalism, and which need to be eradicated?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I very much agree with those sentiments. From what I have read about what occurred at that particular awards dinner, it was unacceptable. I pay tribute to Eilidh Barbour and others, who courageously took a stand against it and spoke out. It is never easy for any woman to speak out in that way, particularly in what is traditionally a man’s world, and Eilidh Barbour and her colleagues deserve credit for doing so.

What we have seen over the past week—that is one example; I think that another has been reported—is that sexism and misogyny still run far too deep in our society and it is a reminder that they must be tackled. It is also a reminder that that starts with male behaviour and that it is male behaviour that we must see changed.

Rail Services

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The First Minister may be aware that the timetable for the new Reston station in my constituency does not include adequate evening services. That is a problem for my constituents. The Rail Action Group East of Scotland has said that there are no plans for ScotRail to provide evening services and that it is for Transport Scotland to confirm that.

We already have 40 per cent of trains to Tweedbank from Edinburgh being cancelled by the pay dispute, and now we have no evening services for my constituents. Will the First Minister confirm that she will work with Transport Scotland to ensure that there are evening services? Does she think that the current service is adequate for my constituents?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is important that people in all parts of the country have access to appropriate rail services. I certainly agree on that general point.

I am happy to raise that issue with Transport Scotland and to come back to the member in due course.

Mental Health Services (Tayside)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

My constituent Ryan Caswell has been a resident patient in Carseview mental health unit in Dundee for two years and three months as a result of delayed discharge. Ryan has autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities, and his parents are beside themselves with worry due to the lack of appropriate medical care being provided to their son. They fear for his life.

Ryan struggles to communicate and, for much of the past year, he has been crying out in severe pain, which has led only to restraint and sedation. After many months of suffering without help, he had five impacted molars removed. The staff available to him do not have sufficient medical training to diagnose patients in their care.

There have been two damning reports on mental health services in Tayside. The second of the Strang reports has been described to me as the most worrying report in Scottish public life. This has gone on for years, as people suffer and die. When will it change?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Those are really important issues. The independent oversight and assurance group on Tayside’s mental health services provides scrutiny and assurance on the implementation of the recommendations of “Trust and Respect—Final Report of the Independent Inquiry into Mental Health Services in Tayside”, and that group continues to work with partners, the third sector and people with lived experience to deliver improvements to mental health services and achieve outcomes that local communities and individuals have a right to expect.

I am not familiar with all the details of Ryan Caswell’s case, but from what Michael Marra describes, the situation sounds unacceptable. In fairness to Ryan and his parents, who are understandably anxious and distressed, I want to look further into it, and when I have had the opportunity to do so, I or the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will reply in more detail to the member.

Cost of Living Crisis

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the First Minister share my disgust at the comments that were made in the House of Commons by Tory Member of Parliament Lee Anderson, who said that people who use food banks across these islands do so because they “cannot cook” and “cannot budget”, and does she agree that that clearly demonstrates that the Tories are completely out of touch with people who are suffering from the cost of living crisis that they created?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Those comments were despicable and disgusting. It seems to me that every time a Tory MP opens their mouth right now, they demonstrate how out of touch they are with the suffering of too many people across Scotland and the entire United Kingdom.

People have to go to food banks not because they cannot cook but because they do not have enough money to feed themselves and their children. My Government is doing and will continue to do everything that we can to get money into the pockets of the lowest-income families across the country, and the Scottish child payment is the chief example of that. However, it is well past time that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the UK Government stood up, stepped up and took action to get money into the pockets of those who need it, to stop people having to decide whether to heat their homes or feed their children.

Midwifery Services

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

First Minister, midwifery services across Scotland are at breaking point. A survey conducted by the Royal College of Midwives revealed that three quarters of midwives in Scotland are thinking of leaving the profession due to understaffing, burnout and fears that they cannot provide safe care. That is despite the Scottish Government having provided £12 million of funding to support the mental health and wellbeing of the workforce; it clear that that has had little effect. The lives of women and babies are at risk. The situation is not safe, sustainable or acceptable, so what urgent action can the Scottish Government put in place to rectify it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Midwives play a key role in making sure that women receive the care that they need when they need it, and we value the role that the RCM and its members have played in our on-going response to the pandemic. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care met with the RCM this week to discuss that report and its recommendations, and we will continue to work with the RCM and midwives generally to address the pressures that they and other health professionals work under.

Overall, nursing and midwifery staffing in Scotland is at a record high; it has increased by 14.5 per cent since this Government took office. That is the fact of the matter. All our health professionals are working under extreme pressure, and through our investment, support and reforms, we will continue to support them in the invaluable job that they do.

Mental Health (Loneliness)

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that this week is mental health awareness week, with a focus on loneliness. Findings from the Mental Health Foundation show that 25 per cent of people who were surveyed had felt lonely some or all of the time over the previous month, and it is concerning that 31 per cent of people who were surveyed said that feelings of loneliness had negatively impacted on their mental health. Action is needed.

Despite having 15 years in office, the Scottish Government has failed to deliver an effective mental health strategy that supports the wellbeing of the Scottish population. Why has the First Minister failed so badly in that regard, and what steps can she set out today on prevention and intervention to address the crisis in our mental health services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Mental health is and will continue to be a priority, as I have said many times in the chamber. The fact that more people feel able to come forward with mental health problems is something that we should continue to support, but we must make sure that services are there for them when they need them. The focus of mental health awareness week is loneliness and isolation, and the Scottish Government supports a range of work in that area.

Last year, we provided more than £20 million to local communities through the communities mental health and wellbeing fund, which supports adults. Earlier this month, we announced that a further £15 million would be available in this financial year. That fund is supporting almost 2,000 local community projects, many of which address loneliness and isolation. We are investing £10 million over the course of the parliamentary session to tackle social isolation and loneliness specifically. We will continue to make investments and to do everything that we can to support the many organisations across the country that do such good work.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

3. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-01083)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

On Tuesday.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful for that reply.

Raw sewage is released into our rivers every day. It is routinely dumped by Scotland’s Government-owned water company. Thanks to investigations by

The Ferret,

we now know that that happened more than 10,000 times last year, which was 30 times a day. Scottish Water is required to monitor only 3 per cent of sewage release points, so the true figure will be much worse. Scotland is way behind England on that.

The SNP-Green coalition claims to champion the environment, but the Minister for Environment and Land Reform described the routine dumping of untreated human waste in our rivers as “vital”. That should not be allowed to happen. We are talking about excrement, wet wipes and sanitary towels. Right now, in west Edinburgh, there are otters, fish, children and dogs playing in the River Almond, where sewage has been dumped hundreds of times.

I ask the First Minister, why are there no targets to end the release of sewage into rivers? How long does she plan to allow that to continue?

The First Minister

Alex Cole-Hamilton has raised an important issue. The cleanliness of our rivers and seas is of paramount importance. How we deal with waste in all forms in our country is a big issue and it is a big challenge for Governments everywhere. I apologise to Alex Cole-Hamilton—I have not seen the investigation by

The Ferret

, but I will take steps to ensure that I do. I will come back to him with more detail about what the Government is doing and what more it, like all Governments across the world, needs to do to tackle that serious issue.

Owner-occupied Homes (Decarbonisation)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the report that was published last Friday, “Owning the Future: A framework of regulations for decarbonising owner-occupied homes in Scotland”, which was commissioned by the Existing Homes Alliance. (S6F-01081)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government welcomes the publication of the research that was commissioned by the Existing Homes Alliance. Heating our homes and our places of work is the third-largest cause of emissions in Scotland. In the light of that, our “Heat in Buildings Strategy: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in Scotland's Buildings”, which was published in October, sets out over 100 different actions to support households and businesses to make energy efficiency improvements and transition from fossil fuel heating systems.

The strategy includes a commitment to regulate for minimum standards in homes. We will consult in detail on our proposed approach in the coming year. The Existing Homes Alliance and others have worked positively and constructively with us to date, and we will continue to engage with that organisation and others as we finalise our approach.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I thank the First Minister for her detailed reply. It is a highly complex area and there are very detailed recommendations in the report, including on the need for legislation, if we are to fully decarbonise our buildings by 2045. Scottish solutions that were identified in the report include installation of low-temperature heat pumps, district heating and, for some homes, biomass boilers. The key driver will be the improvement of building fabric efficiency.

Can the First Minister confirm that, as we focus more on decarbonisation, her Government will prioritise a fabric-first approach, introduce a fabric energy efficiency standard, begin the phasing out of fossil fuels for heating and act to ensure that we have in our communities the skilled workers who are necessary to deliver on our vital climate change targets?

The First Minister

We have a long-standing commitment to taking a fabric-first approach, which is critical to reducing energy demand, making homes warmer and preparing them for zero-emissions technologies. We have committed to regulating minimum energy efficiency standards in homes by 2033, which will be equivalent to the energy performance certificate, reformed to focus on fabric measures.

Fabric improvement alone will not get us close to net zero; we need a strong focus on heating-system change. We will phase out the need to install new replacement fossil fuel boilers in off-gas areas from 2025, and in on-gas areas from 2030. The opportunity that is presented by the heat transition will require further capability and capacity in our supply chains, so we are also developing a new heat in buildings supply chain delivery plan with industry, so that we can deliver that work at the pace and scale that are needed.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Kenny Gibson for raising the issue, because 28 per cent of people in Scotland live in tenemented dwellings, and the proportion is even higher in my constituency. On page 3, the report sets out clearly that

we need to look at existing forms of heating, because air source heat pumps simply will not work for people in tenemented dwellings. Likewise, the current legal framework makes it difficult for tenement-dwelling owners to do the required retrofitting.

Will the Scottish Government give consideration to plans for investment in municipal heat networks and for a change in the law to make it easier for tenement owners to come together to do the retrofitting that is required to heat homes sustainably?

The First Minister

Yes, we will do all that. I certainly have a lot of sympathy with the points that have been made. I, too, represent a constituency—albeit that it is in a different city—that has a high number of tenement properties.

The £300 million heat network fund will support large networks that are suited to urban environments as well as supporting small rural and community-led heat networks and communal systems.

The issues are complex, as I acknowledged in my response to Kenny Gibson. We are working through those issues in partnership with industry. It is important that all those points are borne in mind as we continue to do that.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The cost of the heat in buildings strategy is £33 billion. This Government has offered £1.8 billion towards it. Who will pay the rest?

The First Minister

Liam Kerr should know the process that we have under way, right now. Of course, the £1.8 billion will come over the course of this parliamentary session. That significant investment will support those who are least able to pay, as will Scotland’s heat network fund and the social housing net zero heat fund. We have also established the green heat finance task force, which will recommend ways to increase private sector investment and look at contributions from individuals, which we all want to keep to a minimum.

As the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights set out when he launched the strategy, it will require us to lever in significant private capital investment. I was at the All-Energy 2022 conference yesterday, where I heard Keith Anderson of Scottish Power make that point. The good news is that significant investors of private capital are looking for ways to invest in the net zero transition, so the task force has an important job to do. That work is under way.

Early Learning and Childcare

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what meetings the Scottish Government has had with the private and voluntary nursery sector regarding the delivery of its early learning and childcare strategy. (S6F-01082)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We continue to engage with the childcare sector in open and constructive discussions as we develop a new strategic plan for our childcare commitments for the remainder of this parliamentary session.

Providers in the private, third and childminding sectors are playing a crucial role in the successful delivery of the transformational 1,140 hours offer, through which more than 111,000 children are accessing high-quality, funded early learning and childcare.

Scotland has the highest ELC funding rates across the United Kingdom. As a result of the expansion, the average rates that are paid to providers—for three to five-year-olds who receive funded ELC—have increased by 48 per cent between 2017 and 2021. We continue to work closely with partners in local government to ensure that providers are paid sustainable rates that reflect the cost of delivery.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Scottish Conservative MSPs have met concerned representatives from nurseries across the private, voluntary and independent sector, who have continuously raised concerns over their relationship with local authorities. We have tried to arrange a meeting with the Minister for Children and Young People in order to raise those concerns on the nurseries’ behalf. A particular concern is the funding formula that creates inequality between local authorities and the PVI sector. Regrettably, the minister has now rescheduled two meetings that were due to take place. These matters are pressing. If the minister cannot meet concerned MSPs, will the First Minister do so?

The First Minister

Scottish Government officials met representatives of ambition 1140 recently to discuss their specific concerns. A commitment has been given to hold a further meeting in the near future to continue those discussions and, of course, there will be ministerial engagement as required.

It is important to recognise that the funding agreement between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to support the expansion that has been delivered so far allows local authorities to pay sustainable rates to private and third sector nurseries that provide free early learning and childcare places, as well as to childminders. However, I know that there are concerns, and we want to address them.

The financial sustainability health check that was published in August 2021 found that 88 per cent of private and third sector providers that delivered funded ELC planned to pay all staff in their setting the real living wage from August last year. That can be compared with the position before the expansion in 2016, when around 80 per cent of practitioners were paid less than the living wage.

Of course, public funding accounts for around 33 to 45 per cent of overall income for private childcare services, the majority of which also provide private services, so there are bigger issues that need to be addressed. We will continue to engage with those in the sector, and we have a determination to do so.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

With energy bills and inflation skyrocketing, unchecked by the United Kingdom Tory Government, thousands of parents are having to resort to skipping meals to ensure that their children can get fed. As more and more young families struggle to stay afloat through the cost of living crisis, what further action is the Scottish Government taking to help new parents make ends meet, so that neither they nor their children need to go hungry?

The Presiding Officer

I call the First Minister, but I remind members of the need to ensure that supplementaries reflect the substantive question.

The First Minister

The member raises a really important issue. The difficulties that people are having feeding their children right now is perhaps one of the most important issues that any politician and any Government has to address.

The expansion of free childcare is very relevant here. It is worth up to almost £5,000—£4,900—each year for eligible children, so it is one of the significant interventions that the Government has made. In addition, there are five family benefits, including the Scottish child payment, which is now £20 per week and is set to be extended to under-16s and rise to £25 per week by the end of this year.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The problem is that there is a massive exodus of staff from the private and voluntary sector, because there is no fair funding formula and those nurseries cannot compete with council wages. That has a direct impact on not only the capacity but the flexibility that the First Minister will remember she promised would be available for parents across the country. The situation is stark, so will the First Minister intervene and fix it?

The First Minister

The fact of the matter is that parents across the country have more funded childcare available, and it is available more flexibly. The funding agreement between the Scottish Government and COSLA to support the expansion allowed local authorities to pay sustainable rates. I have recognised, however, the issues that those in the private and voluntary sector are facing, and I have given a commitment that we will continue to engage with them to seek to address those issues.

Abortion Healthcare

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will convene an emergency summit on abortion healthcare in response to anti-abortion rights action in Scotland and around the world. (S6F-01094)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Women have the right to access abortion without fear or intimidation. To that end, let me say this again to anyone who wants to protest against abortion: do it outside Parliament. Protesting outside hospitals or sexual health clinics targets women, not lawmakers, and it causes stress and anxiety to those who are accessing healthcare. That, in my view, is deeply wrong.

I strongly support the introduction of buffer zones, and the Government is actively considering how this Parliament can legislate in a way that is effective and capable of withstanding legal challenge. I am also aware that Gillian Mackay might shortly consult on a member’s bill on the issue.

On the latter point about legality, members will be aware that the law on buffer zones that was passed in Northern Ireland has recently been referred to the Supreme Court. The outcome of that might have relevance for any steps that we take here. In the meantime, as we consider and, I hope, resolve issues around national legislation, we will support any local authority that is willing to use byelaws to establish buffer zones.

Finally, I am very happy to convene—indeed, I will personally chair—a round-table summit to discuss buffer zones and any other matters that need to be addressed to ensure safe and timely access to abortion services in Scotland within the current law.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I warmly welcome the First Minister’s agreement to convene an urgent summit, which more than a dozen women’s organisations have called for. I also welcome her personal commitment to chair the talks and to facilitate politicians, campaigners and healthcare experts working together. That is hugely important, and I thank her.

Does the First Minister agree that we must use the forum to actively demonstrate our solidarity with women in America, and around the world, who fear that their legal rights are slipping away, while we also take urgent action to deal with the challenges facing people who access and provide abortion healthcare in Scotland?

Although it is the case that operational policing matters are for Police Scotland, does the First Minister agree that it is important that any member of the public who experiences harassment or intimidation when seeking to access or provide such healthcare must feel confident that if they come forward to the police with complaints, those will be properly investigated?

The First Minister

I agree with all that Monica Lennon has said. I will address each of her points briefly.

First, I agree that it is important to show solidarity on such issues. The attack on abortion rights

that we are seeing—chiefly in the United States, as a result of the concern about the overturning of Roe v Wade, but also in other countries—is deeply concerning. Let us call it what it is: an attack on the right of women to control our own bodies. I believe in a woman’s right to choose, and that those of us who hold that view have a duty to show solidarity with those in other parts of the world where that right is coming under most significant attack.

On police powers, of course those are operational matters for the police. It would be wrong for me to say how the police should use those powers, but there are powers under antisocial behaviour legislation that are there for the police, should they judge that it is appropriate to use them.

Finally, everybody, without exception, should have the right to access healthcare without fear and intimidation. That applies to any woman—no woman does this lightly—who is seeking to access abortion services completely within the law. I say again to those who want to protest: in a democracy there is absolutely a right to protest, but come to Parliament and protest against lawmakers. Do not cause women to feel fear, anxiety and intimidation.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

If there is going to be a summit on abortion healthcare, will the 24-week limit be under review? Science and medicine have moved on since 1990 and many children are surviving at 23 weeks.

The First Minister

No—that would not be on the agenda of the summit that I have agreed to convene. I do not support a reduction in the current time limit for abortion. On the contrary, the challenge in Scotland is to ensure that women—and I repeat that this is something that no woman does lightly—who need to access that right can do so in a safe and timely manner.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

As we have heard, the First Minister will be aware of the loud protest outside the Sandyford clinic in Glasgow yesterday. Not only do such protests intimidate many of the people who use those services, but clinicians have contacted me to say that the protest forced the clinic to close particular rooms on one side of the building, due to the amplification system that the protesters were using. As part of the summit that the First Minister has just committed to, will she ensure that clinical and trade union representatives are present, as well as patients’ representatives, to ensure that clinicians are not subject to harassment when they are simply doing their jobs?

The First Minister

I will give that commitment. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to Gillian Mackay for the work that she has done on the issue. I hope that she will agree to take part in the summit that we are talking about.

Even if the Sandyford clinic was providing only abortion services, the protests outside it would, in my view, be wrong because they cause women to feel intimidation and anxiety. However, a range of sexual health services are provided by the Sandyford clinic. The last thing that anybody should be doing is making it harder for people to access those services and clinicians to go about the jobs that they do.

I appeal again to those who want to protest. Let me underline this point: it is a right in a democracy to protest—I am not questioning that in any way, shape or form—but the place to protest is where the laws are made. The people to protest to are us—parliamentarians and lawmakers. Allow people to exercise the right to access healthcare in the way that we all have a right to do, without any fear and intimidation and without added stress and anxiety; that is the decent thing to do.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Striking University Staff

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask the people who are leaving the public gallery to please do so quickly and quietly. Thank you.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-04187, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on supporting striking university staff. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes reports that staff are taking part in two sets of industrial action in two industrial disputes at a number of universities in the North East Scotland region, and across the country; understands that these are over pension cuts and falling pay, gender and ethnicity pay gaps, precarious employment practices, and unsafe workloads, known as the Four Fights; believes that cuts to pensions of an average of 35% are going ahead on the basis of an outdated valuation of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pension fund; understands that this valuation was made during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on the economy, and that the health of the fund has recovered significantly since then; appreciates that the trustee that manages the scheme has reportedly confirmed that a new valuation at this point could result in benefits being increased, rather than cut; notes with regret that university management has reportedly rejected proposals made by the Universities and College Union (UCU) that are deemed to be “viable and implementable” by the USS; understands that, in a recent survey of UK higher education staff, two thirds said that they were considering leaving the sector over cuts to pensions and attacks on pay and working conditions; notes the calls on the management of all educational institutions involved in both the pensions and Four Fights disputes to engage constructively with staff and the unions to resolve the disputes, and notes the view that reversals of pension and pay cuts and urgent action against casualisation, gender and ethnicity inequalities in pay and promotions, and against unsafe workloads, are in the best interests of university staff, students, Scottish universities and Scotland as a whole.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Universities in the north-east of Scotland and across the country have made enormous contributions to Scotland, Europe and the world. Medical science has been transformed by the discovery of insulin and the development of the magnetic resonance imaging—MRI—scanner, both of which have connections with the work of University of Aberdeen academics. Abertay University was the first in the world to offer courses in computer game design and has spawned a whole generation of game designers.

Scotland’s universities attract students and researchers from across the world for their reputation of excellence in research and teaching. However, universities are nothing without their students, their academics and their support staff, and the way in which some universities are treating their staff puts the future of our institutions under serious threat.

Staff are taking a stand by striking, and I am glad that the Parliament has the opportunity today to express support for their fight for fairness. I thank all those staff, University and College Union members and branches, others who have been in touch in advance of today’s debate, and of course colleagues for supporting my motion and enabling the debate.

Pensions are a vital element of any fair society and should allow us to live in dignity after a lifetime of hard work. However, dignity is not what university staff will get now that new arrangements for pensions have been forced through. Staff will see a cut in their pensions of between 35 and 41 per cent. More than a third of someone’s nest egg for their retirement—their deferred wages—will be gone, because university management insists on basing pensions on a largely imaginary deficit.

The universities superannuation scheme—the pension scheme that operates at many universities in Scotland and across the United Kingdom—was last valued in March 2020, when economies across the world were in free fall as a result of Covid lockdowns.

Since then, the health of the scheme has recovered significantly. A recent financial monitoring report, which the scheme’s own trustees provided, confirms that, were a new valuation conducted now, the deficit would be reduced by at least 85 per cent. However, with some honourable exceptions including the University of Glasgow, which has called on the next valuation to be used to increase pension payments, management insist on pushing ahead with the clearly outdated March 2020 valuation. University principals and managers appear content to spend public money—Scottish public money, which has been voted on by this Parliament—to fund a deficit that has massively reduced.

That is where the Scottish Government comes in. Pensions are not regulated by the Scottish Parliament, and universities are autonomous, independent organisations. However, they are funded by public money, so the Scottish Government has a clear role to ensure that university management act responsibly and to encourage management back to the table to negotiate properly with trade unions.

Staff are striking not just about pensions but about fairer pay, an end to unsafe workloads, the rolling back of casualisation and action on pay gaps that women, black, Asian and minority ethnic and disabled staff face—the four fights campaign. Average pay in the sector has been cut by around 25 per cent since 2009 and, with inflation set to peak at 10 per cent, at least, the situation will only get worse. The same period has seen ever-rising workloads for staff, with the average higher education staff member working around 50 hours a week.

Like so many other public sector workers during the Covid-19 lockdowns, university staff went above and beyond, and they are still doing so. Underresourced counselling staff had to deal with a huge demand for their support from students. Library staff worked incredibly hard to ensure that students off campus could access learning resources. As well as dealing with the disruptive impact of Covid on their research, academic staff converted entire degree programmes to be taught online. That process would usually take years, but it was done in weeks, facilitated by legions of information technology staff.

Universities might simply have shut down under the pressure of what they needed to do, but they did not, and that was because of their staff. That staff were rewarded for all that work with a pay increase of 0 per cent in 2020-21 is nothing short of sheer contempt.

Staff are striking against increasing casualisation. More than a third of academic university staff are on a fixed-term contract. Talk to any academic and they will tell you of the years that they have to spend shuttling from contract to contract, constantly having to uproot themselves and move to a new university. Many of our students are taught by postgraduate research students, who teach alongside their studies on highly insecure contracts.

Given the falling pay, rising workloads and more precarious contracts, it is no wonder that the gender, black and minority ethnic and disability pay gaps stand at 15.5 per cent, 17 per cent and 9 per cent, respectively.

Faced with all that, staff have voted to strike in huge numbers. Last month, 77 per cent of those who were balloted at the University of Dundee voted to strike again for fairer pensions and, at the University of Aberdeen, 73 per cent voted to strike. Some local unions will not go ahead with further strike action, but that is nothing to do with the resolve of staff and everything to do with Tory trade union laws that have deliberately made it harder to strike.

In a UCU survey, two thirds of staff said that they were likely or very likely to leave the university sector within the next five years because of pensions, pay and working conditions—potentially, two thirds of the workforce lost in five years. Those working conditions are the learning conditions of students, many of whom this Parliament rightly spends hundreds of millions of pounds on so that they receive an outstanding education. However, that level of excellence is under threat because of the pressures on staff. Those pensions are paid to researchers who conduct life-saving medical research. The ever-falling pay and the ever-rising workloads will make it harder to retain expertise on climate change and the other challenges that we face.

In short, this is a problem not just for our university staff or the higher education sector but for us all. If our universities lose our hard-working researchers, lecturers, library staff, learning technologists, postgraduate teaching and research assistants and many more, we will all be worse off. It is time for university management to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. It is imperative for Scotland that they do so. We must take a close look at what is happening with pensions if deficits that do not really exist are allowed to take nearly £80 million out of workers’ pockets.

I pay tribute to university staff. The current disputes have roots that go back years, and staff have struggled against unfair treatment for a long time—too long. I say to them that unions work, strikes work and solidarity works. Their action is not only the way to better pay and conditions for themselves, it is part of a process of rethinking how universities can be: not businesses, but places in which we can imagine a better world and create and develop the tools to build that world. They should be in no doubt that they have the full support of the Scottish Green Party in doing so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind all members who wish to speak in the debate that their card needs to be in and their button needs to be pressed.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I associate myself with Maggie Chapman’s comments and pay tribute to her for securing this important debate, as well as to higher education staff across Scotland. I also declare an interest in that I am a member of the universities superannuation scheme with 15 years of contributions, and I recently received my letter that indicated the significant reductions in my pension. That is nothing in comparison to some of my former colleagues at the University of Dundee, who are some of the lowest-paid staff and who are fighting to retain the benefits of their local pension scheme.

I consider that university management is in the process of breaking a covenant that it has made with staff. When someone takes on a job, pays into a scheme and plans for the life ahead of them, they make decisions on the basis of that money. We have a responsibility to maintain dignity in retirement as best we can, wherever we can, by making sure that schemes continue to be well funded.

Maggie Chapman makes important and correct points about the valuation of the scheme. When the valuation was made during the previous major dispute about the USS, it took the same form. There was a mis-valuation and—lo and behold!—within months, the value of the scheme rose significantly. This is a long-term issue that has bedevilled the sector and that has resulted in many strike days and affected many students and much research.

The pay uplift that the UCU is fighting for during a cost of living crisis is critical. The issues of casualisation and pay inequality must be addressed, and the figure that two-thirds of staff are considering leaving our precious universities is a stark reminder of that.

I want to talk about the workloads that university staff have taken on in recent years. We must pay tribute to them for that. When I worked at the University of Dundee, one woman put the entirety of teaching for our school online—for thousands of students—within two weeks, when the university had spent £16 million on a scheme to do that and failed utterly. That is the kind of can-do attitude that maintained our universities during the pandemic and in the face of the challenges that were in front of them. I pay tribute to those people.

Our universities are in a really difficult situation and it is getting worse across Scotland. The system is overloaded and the business model is not working. The Government has stewardship of the system, which is vital national infrastructure that could not be more critical to our future, whatever direction it might take—I know that we have regular disagreements on that.

In many regards, the research excellence framework results that came out today are an outstanding set of results, but we should look at the fact that eight of the top 10 research institutions have declined in comparison to those in the rest of the UK. We know why: there has been an 18.2 per cent decline in the research excellence grant under this Government and, as a result, the research funding capture for the sector has declined by 2.5 per cent.

All of that is based on the fact that there has been no increase in the unit of resource that is paid to universities for 13 years. That leaves the universities in a precarious situation, and the issues are flowing down to staff. We know that the business model of ever-increasing reliance on international students that was driven by the decisions that the Government has taken and imposed on our universities is not sustainable socially or environmentally, and neither is the ever-increasing size of universities in our major cities, which is pushing families out of housing and causing a huge crisis.

The system is cracking. Colleagues on the Education, Children and Young People Committee and elsewhere in the Parliament are keen to look at the issue, and the Government must change its attitude before the system breaks.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for giving us the opportunity to have a members’ business debate on an important issue that affects universities and colleges around Scotland.

Scotland’s universities are world leading. We can and should be proud of their success and international reputation, both of which are down to the expertise and dedication of lecturers, academics, librarians and other staff, who often go above and beyond to ensure that success.

I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that university and college staff have done in supporting students throughout the pandemic and to thank them for it.

Universities play a key role in the Scottish Government’s Covid recovery plan, and we need them to be robust and resilient institutions so that they can fulfil that role effectively. It is clear that the on-going dispute that today’s debate highlights undermines that work, and it is absolutely vital that a resolution can be found as soon as possible.

The dispute focuses primarily on measures to cut the universities superannuation scheme pension. We have been clear in saying that the UK-wide universities superannuation scheme does not fall within the devolved responsibility of the Scottish ministers. Universities are autonomous institutions, and matters relating to pay, working conditions and pensions are for them to determine. Therefore, the Scottish Government has no locus to intervene in the dispute.

Nevertheless, the Minister for Higher Education and Further Education, Youth Employment and Training has met university leaders and trade unions on a number of occasions to encourage them to continue negotiations, in an attempt—

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I understand that the Scottish Government provides more than £1 billion to universities every year. Does Kaukab Stewart not think that that gives it a locus to intervene on the issue?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I understand the member’s point, but the dispute resolution process must be conducted between the employer and the trade unions. That is the nature of collective bargaining. We would not want the Government to intervene in that process.

Central to the Scottish Government’s fair work approach is the expectation that employers, workers and trade unions should work together to ensure that workers are treated fairly, and university and college staff should not be an exception to that approach.

The UCU’s briefing for the debate lists some concerning statistics that suggest that resolution of the dispute will be difficult, but that does not remove the responsibility of university leaders and trade unions to reach an agreement as soon as possible, in the interests of staff and students. Many students have written to me to highlight the effects that the dispute is having on their education and learning.

Despite the on-going dispute, today, Universities Scotland has released statistics that show that nearly 85 per cent of the research submitted by Scotland’s universities has been judged to be world leading.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I will just crack on.

Most recently, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland was ranked fifth for studying the performing arts in the prestigious Quacquarelli Symonds world university rankings.

I make no apology for repeating that Scotland’s unis and colleges are institutions that we can be proud of. I remind everyone that Glasgow Kelvin is very proud to have eight—the figure increases to nine if we include the Open University—further and higher education institutes within the constituency. I trust that employers and unions will redouble their efforts to find a resolution.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Oliver Mundell, who joins us remotely.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for giving voice to the concerns that are felt by many in the university sector.

As a member of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and from the contents of my inbox, I am well aware of the strength of feeling on the issue. Although it is hard for the committee to intervene in a dispute between employee and employer, I welcome the fact that the committee has committed to looking at wider issues and challenges in the university sector later this year.

Scottish Conservatives, like others who have spoken today, remain incredibly grateful to lecturers and teaching and support staff at universities, who have worked exceptionally hard in the past two years as Scotland has gone through the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic. That work builds on years of professionalism and world-leading research and teaching. Without our lecturers and teaching staff, our university sector would not be as vibrant and successful as it is and would have fallen further behind in the face of financial pressures.

Given that clear and unwavering commitment, the fact that we are seeing widespread strike action and discontent speaks of a deep unhappiness in the sector, which is something that Scottish Conservatives are concerned about. Of course, we do not want education to be further disrupted, especially for students, but we recognise that staff face pressures and that changes to pensions and issues with pay and conditions are understandably sources of frustration and threaten the long-term viability of the sector.

Although I do not believe that it is for politicians to tell independent institutions how to employ their staff, I cannot believe that anyone thinks that the casualisation of the university workforce, unsafe workloads or inequalities in pay and promotion are in the best interests of university staff, students, universities or Scotland as a whole. Parliament and Government have a role here: we should be asking difficult questions about funding and the general decline that the current model promotes.

If universities do not feel that fair working practices are affordable under the current funding model and in the context of the courses that they provide, they must speak out to explain the challenges that they face. In the meantime, the priority must be for university bosses to get back round the table with staff and unions to try to find a way forward. It is disingenuous of members of the governing party to suggest that the Government has no role. Although it is not for the Government to tell universities what to do, it has an important role in facilitating that discussion and in making it clear that, where Government funding supports activities, fair work and good relations between employer and employee must be at the heart of all decisions.

The long-standing issues must be resolved, or everyone will suffer. We cannot let the issue drag on: all parties must take responsibility for bringing it to a conclusion and moving the sector forward. I again thank the member for today’s debate, which I hope will nudge the situation a little further forward. As we have heard from other speakers, the issues will not be easy to resolve.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Mundell, I apologise for the fact that your screen froze at certain moments. We could hear you loud and clear, which I hope gives you some comfort.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I congratulate Maggie Chapman on lodging the motion and getting cross-party support for it.

We are talking about an element of our community—university and college staff, but also our students—that is so important for the future that we all hear so much about in the chamber and in our newspapers and for what we want Scotland to become. Our university and college staff are entrusted with leading students into adult life. We expect so much of them, but the current dispute and the wording of the motion show that we invest little in them.

There has been mutual support between our students and our university and college staff. Each knows the importance of the other. Students know that success lies in quality support from university and college staff. For those staff, it is an absolute vocation to give the next generation the best start in adult life. Matt Crilly, president of the National Union of Students Scotland, has said that

“college students in Scotland face a perfect storm”.

In a letter to the Scottish Government that was co-signed by student officers from colleges across Scotland, he calls for

“investment to ensure that students, staff or our colleges do not bear the brunt of the cost-of-living crisis we face.”

The motion sets out that this country is facing two sets of industrial action in two sets of disputes based on what we have heard described as the four fights and also the on-going dispute on pensions. As we have heard, pensions will see average cuts of 35 per cent based on what we now know to be an outdated valuation of the fund. All of that comes on the back of the Scottish Government’s budget for 2022-23, under which the college sector faces a real-terms cut of £23.9 million to its core budget, with the loss of the £28 million that was provided in 2021 to support it through the pandemic. Of course, our students and colleges have not come out of the pandemic or returned to pre-pandemic teaching, support and conditions.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Does the member recognise that the specific funding that he mentioned came on the back of UK Government consequentials that it has removed? That money does not exist for the Scottish Government any more.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful for that intervention but, of course, the reality is that the impact is still hitting our college sector and our students. They are not getting their lectures.

Scottish Labour supports the trade unions’ position that the current pay offer is unacceptable. Our dedicated lecturers should not be facing real-terms pay cuts through below-inflation awards, but this is just the latest in a long line of examples of the SNP-Green Government undervaluing education and our teaching professionals. The Scottish Government uses so much rhetoric regarding prioritisation of education, but the action that it takes rarely backs that up.

Our young people have had two years of unprecedented disruption to their education. Our college and university lecturers are key to those young adults’ recovery from Covid and they must be valued as such. Those staff pride themselves on supporting the education of their students and they are right to do so. They would not risk more disruption through industrial action unless they believed that it was absolutely necessary. Colleges Scotland has highlighted that the 2022-23 budget that the SNP-Green Government has just passed means a national reduction in funding for the sector that is equivalent to £51.9 million. All of that is leading to increasing pressures on finances, but the pay offer devalues our education.

I say with some caution that the Government’s attitude in standing to the side and not doing stuff also devalues our education. As Matt Crilly said,

“We need the government to prioritise student welfare, reverse their cuts to our education and ensure staff are supported.”

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I

refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I thank Maggie Chapman for securing this important parliamentary debate on this long-running industrial dispute. There is no wonder that the university workers are taking industrial action. These are workers whose employers imposed a freeze on pay two years ago and then imposed a below-inflation pay award on them last September—timed, I have to say, to undermine a lawful ballot for industrial action with the squalid bribery and cajolery of back pay: a trick that did not succeed.

The same employers have now threatened the deduction of wages—and presumably pension contributions as well—when trade union members take part in industrial action short of strike action. That is a draconian step that, I have to say, I never saw taken in all my time as a trade union organiser, even by cut-throat multinational corporations, never mind by public institutions whose very existence depends on billions of pounds of public money.

Then there is the widespread and unforgivable casualisation of the workforce in our universities so that a third of academic staff are on fixed-term contracts. One worker whom I spoke to in Glasgow just this week said that, since 2010, he has been on a procession of fixed-term contracts, sometimes being out of work for six months at a time. He told me:

“There is a generational layer of academics stuck in a hugely disruptive cycle of short-term employment and unemployment; a precarious limbo that denies us dignity and a basic quality of life.”

No wonder these workers are angry—they have every right to be. This is not only an assault on individuals, but a war on hard-won collective basic employment rights—a war without honour.

When I speak to these striking workers on picket lines at University Avenue in Glasgow, at the Riccarton campus of Heriot-Watt University and at Moray house in the Canongate on the way down to this Parliament, they tell me not just how angry they are but how determined they are. That is the message for their employers: these people are angry and determined.

It is also the message for this SNP-Green Scottish Government. Last November, the joint trade unions—the UCU, Unite, the Educational Institute of Scotland, the GMB and Unison—wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to highlight

“successive below inflation pay impositions ... unsafe workloads ... pay inequality”

And

“insecure contractual arrangements”.

They concluded:

“While the trade unions believe universities in Scotland can and should be doing more to resolve these issues, there can be no doubt that consistent underfunding is a major contributory factor to the various disputes and unresolved collective issues in the sector.”

My message—and the message of a new generation of outstanding trade union leaders such as Jo Grady and, indeed, Mary Senior, who joins us in Parliament today—is clear. We are now six months on, and these higher education disputes and collective issues remain unresolved. As we have been reminded this morning by the EIS, whose members are protesting outside this Parliament, they have now been joined by unresolved disputes and collective issues in our further education colleges, too. The situation in our colleges and universities is at crisis point.

The minister for further and higher education needs to step in, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills needs to step up, and the First Minister needs to wield the authority of her office, exercise the leverage of the Scottish exchequer and act decisively to get these disputes and these injustices resolved once and for all.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I congratulate Maggie Chapman on securing this important debate and on her opening contribution, which set the issues out very clearly. There is no question but that colleges and universities in this country are in crisis, and I speak today in support of the UCU and, indeed, the EIS-Further Education Lecturers Association college lecturers, who are also on strike in the face of a real-terms pay cut and have been demonstrating outside the Parliament.

As I said earlier, the Scottish Government provides over £1 billion a year to universities, so it cannot wash its hands of these issues and simply expect the institutions to behave autonomously and in a fair and benevolent way. The Scottish Government has the ability and the responsibility to intervene. There must be a clear expectation that universities in receipt of public money—taxpayers’ money—will treat their staff fairly and act as good employer. As it stands, that is not happening.

Since 2009, staff pay in the university sector has fallen by an astonishing 25.5 per cent in real terms, and employers continue to offer insulting real-terms pay cuts to staff. Around a third of all university staff in Scotland and across the United Kingdom are on precarious fixed-term contracts. I have been told that staff in some institutions in Scotland have been on such contracts for decades; indeed, I have been advised that, for some, it has been more than 30 years. The average working week in higher education is now more than 50 hours, with 29 per cent of academics averaging more than 55 hours, and in a UCU Scotland survey in July 2021, 76 per cent of respondents reported an increased workload during the pandemic.

There are several issues that the Government has a responsibility to address. The level of casualisation in the sector is alarming. It is not good enough simply to say that Governments cannot intervene. The Scottish Government needs to ensure that the Scottish Funding Council sets out guidance stating that temporary or fixed-term contracts should not be used. It needs to intervene in the current dispute, to bring the parties together and set out very clearly what the Government expects to happen. The Scottish Government needs to be at the forefront of demanding and pushing for change in the sector. That means that fair work should be the minimum standard for universities accessing Scottish Funding Council funding. The minister needs to intervene to make sure that that happens.

The Scottish Government needs to ensure that all staff in the sector are part of national collective agreements and bargaining with trade unions. Those are vital steps that the Scottish Government needs to take in a leadership capacity to ensure that we have dignity, that the workers are treated fairly and that our money is appropriately spent.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for lodging the motion for today’s debate. I recognise the significant interest in the issue; it is entirely appropriate that Parliament is debating the matter. I echo the points about the importance of the contribution of our universities and the people who work in them, which Maggie Chapman set out.

Michael Marra mentioned the research excellence framework results that were published today, which are, by anybody’s estimation, a further demonstration of the world-leading research that is conducted in Scotland. To respond to Mr Marra’s point, I say that the research excellence grant allocations will be made clear in due course.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Does the minister recognise that there are worrying trends in the figures? For example, of the 10 top universities in Scotland, the positions of eight have declined relative to universities in the rest of the UK. Is not the causal reality of that the significant cuts in real terms to the unit of resource for higher education and the research excellence grant over recent years?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Various factors contribute to movement in the rankings. My point—I am sure that Mr Marra will agree with it—is that, across the piece and across the country, we have seen significant improvements for most of our institutions, which is something that we should celebrate.

I am conscious of the context of the past couple of years, which have been very challenging for people who work and study in our higher education sector, as they have been for all sectors. I am enormously grateful for the resilience that has been demonstrated by the higher education sector throughout the period.

I share the concerns that have been expressed regarding the on-going disputes in the higher education sector over a range of issues. As several members have mentioned, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to intervene. I do not shirk that responsibility; we are not standing idly by on the sidelines.

Maggie Chapman suggested that the Scottish Government should be urging universities to remain at the negotiating table and continue to contribute to the process. I have made that point every time the matter has been raised in Parliament and I have put the point directly to university management. I meet unions and university management regularly and my clear call to all parties is to continue to negotiate to resolve the dispute.

Incidentally, I note that the situation is not specific to Scotland. The subject of negotiation and dispute is a UK-wide scheme, so it cannot be resolved in Scotland alone.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Kaukab Stewart made the point that the Scottish Government has a locus in relation to intervening, and we should offer clarity in that regard. The fundamental point—one that everyone surely agrees with—is that the Scottish Government is not directly a party in the negotiations, and I do not think that anyone is seeking for us to become one. That is where the difficulty exists; we are not directly involved in the negotiations, because universities are autonomous institutions. I am not aware that anyone is suggesting that they should be anything other than that so, on that basis, it is for the universities and their workforce representatives to come together to resolve matters. However, I will, of course, meet and work with those parties to assist them and urge them to resolve the process.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not think that the minister is taking an intervention.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I was about to give way. I just wanted to finish the point that I was making.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Okay. I just did not want Mr Marra to stand about endlessly waiting.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

He need wait no longer.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I greatly appreciate being put out of my misery. I thank the minister for giving way.

Does the minister recognise that, although we might not be calling for the Government to be at the table in the negotiations, there is a causal link in relation to the Government’s funding decisions?

Does he also recognise that, as my colleagues have laid out, the Government could make direct interventions through the Scottish Funding Council, which sets the terms against which public money is spent in the institutions? Requirements can be included through outcome agreements and on-going discussions with universities on a contractual basis in relation to what is required to be delivered using taxpayers’ money. The minister has a direct role in mandating the Scottish Funding Council to act.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The fundamental point comes down to the process and our ambitions for fair work. I used to be the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills, so I take the fair work agenda very seriously. I recognise that enabling workers having their voices heard—in this instance, through trade union recognition—is central to fair work.

Members

rose

.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

If members will allow me to finish my point, I will gladly give way.

There should be an appropriate and effective avenue by which parties can come together. In that sense, the Scottish Funding Council, in line with the Scottish Government, has a role to play in furthering the fair work agenda, which we take seriously. We engage regularly with our institutions to ensure that our fair work first criteria are embedded in our workplaces. I say, with respect, that having a fair work framework and fair work practices provides no guarantee that we will not sometimes end up with disputes between workers and management. They might still happen, even in a fair work context. It is about ensuring that the platform exists for fair negotiations to take place.

I am not sure which members wanted to intervene, but I am happy to give way.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for his comments about fair work. Does he think that it is acceptable that women and younger staff are most affected by the pension cuts? The plans bake in discrimination. Deficit recovery payments to repay a deficit that does not really exist any more will require cuts to pensions, which will most likely affect younger workers and women.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I would be concerned about any disproportionate impact. Those legitimate issues should be viewed through the prism of the negotiations. I am able to discuss such matters directly with Universities Scotland and trade unions, and I will do so. Ultimately, the inescapable point is that universities and their workforce representatives require to come together to resolve the issues. I think that we all agree that long-term industrial action is in no one’s interests, although I agree that workers have a fundamental right to undertake industrial action, if they feel that it is necessary.

What we want to, and must, see is a coming together, because there is a continued need to negotiate. That is my message, and it should be the Parliament’s message. We want the dispute to be resolved.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate. I suspend the meeting until 2 pm, which is very soon.

13:34 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Education and Skills

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and responses.

Gender-based Harassment

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what additional action it plans to take to tackle gender-based harassment in schools, in light of its response to the report “Misogyny—A Human Rights Issue”. (S6O-01070)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

A range of actions is being taken to address gender-based violence and harassment in schools. Alongside relationship and sex education, there are a number of targeted programmes to support positive behaviour and relationships. Those include mentors in violence prevention, to tackle gender stereotyping and attitudes that condone violence against women and girls; Equally Safe at School, to tackle gender-based violence; and Fearless, to educate and support pupils in speaking up about crime. The gender-based violence in schools working group is developing a national framework to ensure consistent messaging on gender-based harassment for everyone who works with young people.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government will be aware that organisations such as Girlguiding Scotland and Zero Tolerance have called for the introduction of more specific gender equality and consent-based sex and relationships studies as part of curriculum for excellence. What progress has the Scottish Government made in addressing those calls for preventative measures? If such implementation is to go ahead, what support and resources can the Scottish Government offer to schools and local authorities in the meantime, to ensure that teachers are confident in dealing with complaints or reports of sexual harassment in their schools?

In addition, it was not clear from the original answer what measures are being taken by the Government, in addition to those that the cabinet secretary has just described, in response to the report “Misogyny—A Human Rights Issue”.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Fiona Hyslop for raising what is a very important issue, and I am grateful to the organisations that she mentioned for engaging with the Scottish Government.

Obviously, the Government wants all children and young people to develop mutually respectful, responsible and confident relationships. We are committed to ensuring that all children and young people receive high-quality relationships, sexual health and parenthood education, so that pupils learn about safe and healthy relationships. Shortly, we will bring forward a consultation on revised RSHP teaching guidance, which will provide a focus on learning and teaching about gender equality and consent.

In the meantime, and alongside the initiatives that have been mentioned, Education Scotland’s national improvement hub contains resources to support professionals. As part of our shared policy programme with the Scottish Green Party, we are also committed to exploring what further actions are required beyond those that are already planned. That includes providing guidance for schools.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

On 16 December 2021, I raised this matter with the First Minister, and she confirmed that she would look into local authorities’ responsibility for the wi-fi in schools, over which much of the bullying and misogynistic attacks take place. Will the cabinet secretary follow up on that to find out the Government’s current position on that responsibility?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

In the past, we have said clearly that online bullying should not be treated any differently from face-to-face bullying.

It is the responsibility of local authorities—rather than that of the national Government—to address the use of wi-fi in their schools. However, the Scottish Government is certainly keen to work with local government and the organisations that I spoke about to see what more needs to be done to tackle all types of harassment in schools—in particular, sexual harassment bullying. We are determined to work with local authorities and other partners on that, both online and offline.

Race Equality and Anti-Racism in Education

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the expected timetable is for the race equality and anti-racism in education programme to report. (S6O-01071)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government is fully committed to addressing the issues that continue to perpetuate racism in schools. The race equality and anti-racism in education programme’s ambition is to create real, tangible and lasting change, rather than to issue one single report. Effecting systemic change takes time and, as such, working in partnership with stakeholders on the development and delivery of the programme is a long-term commitment.

As part of that process, we are working with stakeholders to develop a shared vision and a set of actions, with realistic timescales and milestones attached. Those will be key to providing a clear idea of when the ambitions can be met. Subject to stakeholder agreement, we expect that the programme will be published this summer and will be underpinned by an evaluation framework for the REAREP, which is also being developed in partnership with stakeholders.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

The programme that the Scottish Government has set up is important, and I applaud the work that has been done so far. However, we cannot afford to miss the opportunity to ensure that the curriculum itself is inclusive and representative. Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that curriculum reform will be given equal weight to other considerations?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I absolutely confirm that curriculum reform is one of the four key areas that the REAREP is looking at and will act on. There has been progress to date, and, as I said, we will publish more information about the programme in the summer, if stakeholders agree.

We are already seeing some examples. For instance, Education Scotland has begun to roll out the building racial literacy programme, and the national race diversity lead has been appointed by the General Teaching Council for Scotland. In addition, Education Scotland is developing a whole-school resource for practitioners, “Promoting Race Equality and Anti-racist Education”.

I confirm that reform of the curriculum is a key strand of the work, which we will publish details of in the summer.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in recognising the work of local authorities such as Glasgow City Council, which has passed a motion to support decolonisation of the curriculum and has produced a modern studies guide for its schools?

Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on how the Scottish Government is supporting all local authorities to ensure that Scotland’s colonial history is acknowledged and reflected in the curriculum?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I commend local authorities—including Glasgow City Council, as recognised by Kaukab Stewart—for the work that they are already doing to prioritise anti-racism education. We are drawing on such good ideas and on the good practice that is emerging in different parts of Scotland as part of the race equality and anti-racism in education programme. As I mentioned to Foysol Choudhury, the programme includes curriculum reform workstreams, which involve reviewing the curriculum for excellence framework. That is an important piece of work, and I commend Glasgow City Council and other local authorities for being so proactive in their work on the issue.

Circular Economy

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the education secretary has had with the circular economy minister regarding progress to enhance education and skills for a circular economy. (S6O-01072)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I last met the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity on Wednesday 4 May to discuss the role of the tertiary sector in promoting and supporting the development of, among other things, the skills that are required for the circular economy.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government promised to recruit circular economy teaching champions. As of 2020, fewer than 100 out of a total of 24,000 secondary teachers were involved. Does the minister accept that, after eight years, that progress is not good enough? What steps are being taken to train more circular economy teaching champions?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

What the member has laid out is progress, but we would like to see more. I absolutely recognise the need to ensure that young people are equipped with the necessary understanding of the world around them and, in relation to my area of activity, a deep understanding of the skills that they will require in order to take advantage of the opportunities that will exist through the circular economy.

The work that the member mentioned will continue, and I recognise that we need to do more in that regard. If the member wants to write to me, I would be happy to get back to him with further details.

The Presiding Officer

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Subject Choice (Secondary Schools)

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

5.

To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to increase subject choice for secondary pupils. (S6O-01074)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Young people should be able to access a range of pathways that meet their needs, abilities and aspirations. Schools and local authorities are encouraged and supported to consider innovative ways to ensure that a wide choice of courses is available to their learners. It is for them, working together with partners, to plan course choices in their areas.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

That is all very well and good, but I would like to know what the cabinet secretary has to say to my constituent who wrote this:

“As a parent of an S3 who is picking her options for next year, I am very concerned at this narrowing of the curriculum and education generally at such a young age. We have relatives in England of the same age as my daughter and they will be sitting ten exams next year. It just doesn’t compare and surely leaves our children here in Scotland lacking a wide and rounded education and massively disadvantaged against their peers in other parts of the UK and, indeed other parts of Scotland where children still get to sit at least eight subjects at Nat 5 level.”

Does the cabinet secretary agree that there should be a minimum number of subjects offered to all pupils in Scotland?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

One of the important issues that was raised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, quite rightly, was the importance of having a discussion about the breadth and depth of education within different years of the high school setting.

Oliver Mundell might think that the recommended approach is that a young person should sit 10 exams, and that that is the good practice that we should be aiming for. However, I again point to the OECD’s recommendation that Scotland should have a discussion about ensuring that children and young people have a broad and deep education, and that we need to get that balance correct.

Quite rightly, it is up to schools and local authorities to ensure that they design curriculums that are right for them, right for the children and young people and right for the communities that they are there to serve.

We should have that national discussion, but it is important that we leave it to local authorities to make final decisions that are right for the children and young people they know best.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary knows that members are greatly concerned about the narrowing of the curriculum in terms of the qualifications of young people and the experiences that young people seek.

In relation to the broad experience of senior phase pupils, I was greatly concerned by reports this week relating to the Scottish Government shelving plans for a replacement for the Erasmus scheme. In Wales, the replacement model is reaching out, in particular, to young people in the later years of schools who have missed out on experiences in the past couple of years. Can the cabinet secretary confirm when we will see plans for a replacement scheme in Scotland?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As has been made clear on many occasions by the Minister for Higher Education and Further Education, Youth Employment and Training, who is right beside me, we are discussing the scheme with stakeholders. It is important that we have those discussions in depth in order to ensure that we make decisions that are appropriate.

Clearly, we are in a situation that we deeply regret. It is one that, had Scotland not been forced out of the European Union and forced to deal with Brexit, we would never have got ourselves into.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary still cannot explain why, last year, Wales was able to put in place a replacement scheme with a £65 million fund. Many students from Wales and from other countries are able to benefit from that scheme right now. However, Scotland, under the Scottish National Party, has been unable to move an inch.

When will we get a replacement for Erasmus? If Wales has done it, surely Scotland can.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government has looked carefully at what has been introduced in Wales, as Mr Rennie would expect us to. That is part of our discussions with stakeholders, and we will, of course, make announcements on a replacement scheme in due course.

Fair Work Conditions (Funding)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether industrial relations in the college sector could be improved by applying fair work conditions to funding provided via the Scottish Funding Council. (S6O-01075)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I expect the Scottish Funding Council to continue its progress in adopting the guidance set out in “Fair Work First”, both as an employer and through attaching fair work first criteria to its grants, procurements and other funding.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Dundee and Angus College staff and others have been in touch with me about management delaying negotiations and causing additional strike action and disruption to students by refusing to meet for over one and a half weeks. There are concerns that that is an attempt to wear the unions down and anger at the disproportionate bloating of management and rising management pay compared with that of lecturers. If principals’ pay had increased in line with lecturers’ pay, it would be around £90,000 a year rather than £164,000 a year. Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable for college management to delay talks to grind the unions down, which has resulted in another week or more of strikes and disruption? Will he instruct college management to get back around the table until a fair pay deal is reached? Should we limit the pay rises of management to ensure that staff and student support services do not suffer?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On the fundamental point of the question, which is ensuring that both parties are at the table, I have emphasised that previously, publicly in the chamber and directly with College Employers Scotland and Colleges Scotland. I have no hesitation in saying to them and, indeed, to the unions that I want to see them around the table negotiating in a timeous fashion and, I hope, being able to resolve the issue together.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Maggie Chapman is right, of course. The people who suffer most in the situation are the students, who are having their studies, assessments and final tests massively disrupted. That creates huge uncertainty for them and about their futures. However, it does not help that the college sector in Scotland has had a core budget cut from the Scottish National Party at the very moment when that sector should be at the heart of a Scottish economic transformation. How many jobs in the college sector will be lost because of that SNP cut?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

What Mr Kerr omitted to say, of course, is that the Scottish Government is dealing with a 5.2 per cent real-terms reduction in funding as a consequence of United Kingdom Government decisions. I do not know whether he deliberately omitted that fact or neglected to say it—perhaps he has forgotten that. The decisions that we have taken this year have not only been about maintenance of the core college sector resource. There has been an additional £10 million through the young person’s guarantee, an increase of £41 million in capital funding, and £5 million capital funding for digital poverty, for example. We are stepping up and supporting the sector and students.

Neurodiversity (Support)

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with regard to supporting pupils with neurodiverse conditions. (S6O-01076)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are committed to ensuring that children and young people, including those with neurodiverse conditions, get the support that is needed to reach their full potential. Last year, we published our updated additional support for learning action plan and progress report, to deliver the Morgan review recommendations. We will publish a further update in the autumn. We also published last year our progress report on the autism in schools action plan. The majority of actions are complete, but we acknowledge that there is more to do to improve the support offered to neurodiverse learners. We continue to engage with partners to take that forward.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I have met people who feel that there is gatekeeping to help and support and a lack of understanding of neurodiverse conditions. Either a behaviour issue or an educational issue must be noted before support is offered. However, many neurodiverse people can pass or even thrive in academic and social situations due to masking. That can have a profound impact on many aspects of their lives. Can the Scottish Government give assurances that the many aspects of neurodiverse conditions, such as eating disorders, chronic pain, anxiety, depression and vulnerability to manipulation and bullying, will be given the focus that they deserve?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I can absolutely reassure Karen Adam that, in education, a formal diagnosis is not required for a child or young person to receive support with their learning. If a child or young person needs additional support for any reason, including the circumstances that have been mentioned, the education authority has a duty to identify, provide for and review that support.

I am aware of the issue of the masking of autism symptoms, particularly by young girls, and I would be happy to meet Karen Adam to discuss that if she wishes to go into it in further detail.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The mental wellbeing of pupils with neurodiverse conditions should be of paramount importance. How does the Scottish Government support that in the classroom setting and—this is important—in extracurricular activities to ensure that our schools are as inclusive as they can be and that they provide much-needed support and opportunity?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The member raises a very important point about support in the school setting and for extracurricular activities. I spoke in my original answer about the autism in school action plan, and there is also an autism toolbox, which is a free online resource that has been developed and is being hosted by Education Scotland to support the inclusion of autistic learners. If there are particular circumstances or particular constituency issues that the member has in mind, I would be happy to receive further details of those in writing.

Closing the Attainment Gap

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what progress it has made in closing the attainment gap among school pupils. (S6O-01077)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Closing the poverty-related attainment gap remains a key focus of the Scottish Government and speaks to our wider mission to reduce child poverty. Over the course of the previous parliamentary session, there was demonstrable progress on a number of long-term measures to close the poverty-related attainment gap, with pre-pandemic attainment gaps in literacy and numeracy in primary schools narrowing.

Covid-19 has made our ambition of achieving equity in education more difficult, but our increased investment of £1 billion in the refreshed Scottish attainment challenge programme is empowering local authorities, headteachers and teachers to identify evidence-based approaches that are right for the children and young people in their schools, to tackle the attainment gap.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

The attainment gap remains stark—it is at its highest level since 2017—and, despite the First Minister’s ambitious rhetoric, it is frustrating that evidence continues to point to education not being this Government’s number 1 priority. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, following years of damaging cuts to local government funding, councils and schools have one arm tied behind their back as they work to close the attainment gap?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I again point to the £1 billion-worth of expenditure on the Scottish attainment challenge, in addition to the local government settlement. I also point out the 3,500 additional teachers that the Scottish Government will fund. We already have 2,000 more teachers than we did pre-pandemic.

The Government has taken and will continue to take action to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap. We were making progress before the pandemic, and I am sure that we will see more progress with the refreshed Scottish attainment challenge funding, including the more than £500 million that is going directly to our headteachers, who have been empowered through our system.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, since the Scottish National Party Government formed, in 2007, Scotland has the highest pound-per-pupil spend in the United Kingdom and that attainment and the number of pupils who go on to positive destinations have improved? The figures for East Ayrshire and South Ayrshire, both in my constituency, are 95.7 and 98.4 per cent respectively. Does the cabinet secretary also agree that that is down to the SNP Government’s funding to reduce the poverty-related attainment gap, to give it its full title, and empower schools and teachers, who know their pupils best? That is in sharp contrast to the UK Government’s colossal failure of a tutoring scheme. It is clear that only the SNP can be trusted to give children the best opportunities that we can against a backdrop of continuing Tory austerity and the spiralling chaos of the cost of living crisis.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

[

Interruption

.] Mr Kerr may not like that—he comments from a sedentary position. He probably did not like the results of last week’s local government elections, which proved that the Scottish people have once again put their trust in the Scottish National Party at national and local level, because they see the action that is being taken on the issue.

Elena Whitham is right to point to our work across Government to tackle child poverty and the cost of the school day. That includes the extension of free school meals and the Scottish attainment challenge, which I mentioned in my original answer. It is important that the Government has taken and will continue to take action on the issue.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio question time.

Cladding Remediation

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Shona Robison on an update on the cladding remediation programme. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I want to provide members with an update on the work that the Scottish Government is carrying out to identify and remediate unsafe cladding and, specifically, our single building assessment pilot, which we introduced in 2021.

This has not been an easy process for anyone. The Grenfell tower tragedy shocked us all, and it highlighted that many people could be living in buildings that pose a clear risk to their safety. That risk was never commonly understood by developers, lenders, building insurance firms or even surveyors and fire engineers.

Overcoming that breakdown in shared knowledge and systems about what safety means has been central to our learning, and I will share how we plan to use that learning to help home owners. I understand how stressful and frustrating a time it has been for home owners, and I am grateful to them for their involvement with us. I also want to reassure people that I expect the vast majority of buildings to be found to be safe.

I know that, for many home owners, progress has not been quick enough, but we have to understand the extent of the problem in order to fix it. The purpose and approach of the single building assessment, which was a recommendation of our expert building and fire safety ministerial working group, is to carry out a comprehensive inspection of whole blocks of domestic residential buildings, looking at fire safety and suitability for mortgage lending. That is a free assessment, with no cost to property owners.

Single building assessments—or SBAs—identify what needs to be mitigated or remediated on a building-by-building basis, in line with the most current building standards. That includes the more stringent requirements that were laid last month and that, in effect, ban all combustible cladding on relevant buildings. Our initial approach for the SBA pilot involved giving grants to home owners, typically through an intermediary such as a property factor. Although that approach has worked, it came at a high cost in terms of time and demands, particularly on home owners. The process was slower than we would like, and it is complex. The spend on surveys last year as part of the pilot amounted to £241,000. We have assessed the pilot and have concluded that the method requires to be changed as we scale up to a national programme.

I specifically thank the residents in the 26 buildings who are participating in the pilot surveys and also the home owner associations, factors, and others who have helped to shape the process and our understanding of how best to deliver at scale. I am clear that the pilot has been necessary, but, as I have said, the timescales inherent in the initial method were proving too long and onerous for those who were not familiar with such a technical process.

I can therefore inform the Parliament that I have taken the decision to alter our method to allow us to scale up and expand the programme. Using powers and procurement tools that are available to the Scottish Government, we will now begin offering SBAs directly. That means that the Government will take on the role of procuring surveyors and fire engineers to carry out assessments of buildings. That takes away the burden on home owners or the need for factors to move beyond their traditional role, which is managing common parts. The approach will remove several months from the process of completing a lengthy and technical application, and it will simplify the commissioning of survey work. Importantly, it will allow many more buildings to be brought into the programme at the same time, which will allow us to scale up our programme.

As a result of that change, I can confirm that every block in the pilot that has not yet submitted a full application under the previous approach has been written to with the offer of a directly procured SBA. I also confirm that, from today, we will begin writing to more than 80 unique blocks that submitted an expression of interest last year, in order to invite them on to the programme through a new and simplified application process.

To achieve the increase in pace, I encourage qualified fire engineers and surveyors to be ready to meet the demands of the programme of work. We have already begun the process of placing tenders for single building assessments with public contracts Scotland and we ask people to register and be prepared to bid.

From 2023, we will invite all remaining privately owned high-rise buildings—about another 100 buildings—into the survey programme. We will contact them shortly to explain the timescales and process.

Our programme of surveys is important for today’s home owners and for tomorrow’s, too. As is set out in our programme for government, by the end of this parliamentary session, we will introduce a register of safe buildings. We are already working with the key institutions that will need to have access, such as insurers, mortgage lenders and the fire service, as well as home owners. That measure will help to overcome a key difference between our tenure system and that in the rest of the United Kingdom—the absence of a single building owner. Vitally, it will offer assurance, to those who need it, that a building is safe.

I now turn to the UK Government’s recent announcement on a developer fund. From the start, the Scottish Government has engaged in good faith with the UK Government on its approach to the building safety programme. With my Welsh counterpart, with whom I have worked closely on the issue, I have written a number of times to UK Government ministers. Only last week, I met Lord Greenhalgh to raise my concerns about the way that the UK Government has fallen short when it comes to basic commitments on issues such as collaboration and transparency, after saying from the outset that it wanted a four-nations approach.

Instead, we have had little information and sudden announcements, and those announcements have increasingly focused on fixing problems in England only. It remains the case that the UK Government’s approach of tackling key issues only in England benefits from powers that are available only at a UK level, such as corporation tax, which has been used to tax UK-wide residential property developers.

However, we continue to explore whether any elements of the UK developer fund might still be applicable on a four-nations level, such as extending the scope of any legal agreement that has been entered into between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the big Scottish developers of Scotland’s buildings.

The terrible tragedy of Grenfell tower exposed the risk that many tall buildings might be clad in materials that make the consequences of fire much worse and the cost of remediation huge. I therefore move to the issue of funding. We received £97.1 million in consequentials in 2021-22, and the Government is committed to ensuring that every penny of that and any additional funding that is received for the programme will be invested in assessing buildings and making unsafe buildings safe.

However, further changes in UK Government policy mean that we cannot be 100 per cent sure about what further funding might be received in the future. The UK Government faces the same issues that we do with assessment and remediation, yet the scale of cladding issues in England is not matched by the funding that has been identified or committed by the UK Government. That creates an issue for Scotland, because we get the Barnett consequentials only when the UK Government actually spends the money. By short-changing England, the UK Government is therefore also short-changing the devolved Governments.

We have estimated that we might get associated funding of around £300 million as a share of already committed UK spending on cladding, as is set out in HM Treasury’s spending review, which was published last year. I reiterate that our intention is to spend any associated funding that we receive on assessment, safety and remediation so that we adequately ensure the safety of residents and support home owners over the lifetime of the programme.

Given the complexity and scale of the issue, those resources might not be enough, but that will not prevent us from doing what is right and necessary. We will make our resources go further by working collaboratively with housing developers, the finance industry and home owners in order to fix the issue properly and fully from the outset.

I now turn to our engagement with the house building sector. It has become clear that, even with the possible joint approach with the UK Government on the legal contract behind the pledges, practically, that would impact only on around 12 developers operating in Scotland. That is a fraction of the total, because most of them are small and medium sized. I am therefore pleased to inform Parliament today that Homes for Scotland, the house building members body, has agreed to work with the Scottish Government to develop a Scottish safer buildings accord with its members and the broader sector. Together, we will identify fair and workable solutions for all.

I see no reason why a developer would not commit to doing in Scotland exactly the same as it has agreed to do in England as part of the UK Government’s pledge. Developers must play their part in making unsafe buildings safe, wherever they are. I have met a number of developers in the past few days, and more meetings are to come as we reach out widely to build our accord with those who are affected by unsafe cladding. I am pleased to say that many major developers want to do what is right, and discussions have been co-operative and collaborative.

In the coming weeks, we will work together on the fine detail of the accord and will be involving home owners in that work. It is my clear expectation that, where developers that are linked to buildings with problematic cladding are identified, they will fund remediation. That will ensure that, when public funds need to be spent, we can use them to focus on buildings and works for which a developer cannot be identified or no parent developer exists.

The creation of our accord with the house building sector and home owners will form the basis of a way to address each building’s needs. However, I want to make it clear that, if required, I will make full use of the powers that are available to us to bring parties to the table—including, if necessary, legislation.

I hope that this update has been helpful to members and to those who are affected by the issue. I look forward to continuing to update Parliament as we make further progress with this important programme of work.

The Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to ask a question should push their request-to-speak buttons now.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Scottish Government began carrying out free single building assessments only in August 2021. We know that, by then, many home owners had already paid for safety assessments out of their own pockets. I will ask a couple of questions with regard to home owners who have been so desperately affected during this time.

What plans do ministers have to cover the costs that have already been incurred for work such as that which the cabinet secretary has announced the Government will cover?

Secondly, home owners who are being prevented from moving or obtaining mortgages due to their flats being covered in potentially combustible cladding are seeing their properties being valued at zero. What discussions has the Government had with the banks, with regard to mortgages, and with the insurance industry, with regard to affordable insurance, for home owners who are in those properties? None of those issues were covered in the cabinet secretary’s statement, but they are really important for property owners.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We will speak to home owners about any payments that they have already made in relation to assessments. I know that officials have already been engaging with some home owners on that. We will continue to do so, because it is important.

Let me be clear about the reason why the single building assessment is so important. It was launched only last summer because a lot of work had gone into addressing the very issues that Miles Briggs describes. That was so that the single building assessment would have the confidence of the sector and of lenders and financial institutions. That is important because we expect that the fact that a single building assessment has been done, with the remediation work being identified, will in itself provide mortgage lenders with confidence that will enable people to move their properties on, if that is what is required. That shows the importance of getting the SBA right and getting it recognised, so that things can go forward.

Many of the issues can be captured in the accord, in order that we can move forward and ensure that home owners are fully briefed and informed.

Miles Briggs also mentioned insurance, which is reserved to the UK Government. However, we have been discussing with the United Kingdom Government the need for insurance issues to be clarified. I have received a letter from Michael Gove just in the past few days, in which he said that the UK Government is hoping to make progress on insurance over the coming months. I know that it is an issue of great concern to people, so I am happy to perhaps arrange a cross-party briefing at which more detailed information on the issues can be gleaned, if that would be helpful.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful for advance sight of the cabinet secretary’s statement. The pilot has compounded residents’ stress and worry about the safety of their buildings, some of which are currently valued by financial institutions as being worthless. Householders have struggled to find qualified and competent assessors; the Government should have offered a proper service from the start. As happens all too often, Government schemes are set up in such a way that they push work and stress on to householders. The pilot has shown that that approach will not work.

Today, the Government has announced a delay that means that many more householders will have to wait until 2023 for action.

Will the cabinet secretary agree to publish a timetable for the scaling and completion of the work? Will she also agree to publish a quarterly report detailing the numbers of properties assessed, the remediation works completed, and the spending of the £97 million, plus any additional funding, as it is paid out?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I absolutely recognise home owners’ frustrations. I also recognise the technical challenges and difficulties with which home owners and factors have been struggling in the commissioning of reports. That is why

my statement announced a move to proactive commissioning of SBAs directly, and to harnessing the skill set that exists in Scotland. That will be tough, because we will need a lot of those skills to be focused on the work if we are to ensure that SBAs can be taken forward at pace.

I am happy to look at setting out more detail on the timetable as far as we can. I mentioned in my statement the initial 80, then 100, buildings. That will get us way down the line of buildings that are affected by prioritising the buildings that are most at risk. I am also happy to furnish Parliament with a quarterly update on the numbers. I think that we will see over the next year a ramping up of the number of SBAs being completed. Then, of course, the remediation work will scale up.

I should also say that a lot of the buildings that are assessed through the SBA process will be found to be safe. That, in itself, will be important for the home owners.

I am happy to work with Mark Griffin. If he would find it to be of benefit and help to have a more detailed briefing on technical detail, I can offer to arrange that on a cross-party basis.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the statement and would welcome a cross-party briefing on the details.

I am concerned that, despite assurances from the UK Government that the four nations would work closely together to tackle building safety issues, the interests of the devolved nations are being ignored. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the UK Government is no longer interested in co-ordination when it comes to cladding remediation? If so, how should the Scottish Government proceed?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Along with our Welsh colleagues, we have continually called for a joined-up four-nations approach to the issue. We thought that that would be the simplest way to move forward, given the complexity. However, a few weeks ago, the UK Government moved to what is clearly an England-only approach, despite matters such as insurance, mortgage lending and corporation tax clearly being reserved and playing a major part in the solution.

For that reason, co-ordination between the nations would be a better way forward—primarily for home owners, but also for developers. We will continue to pursue that approach with our Welsh counterparts. A four-nations meeting on building safety is due to take place later this month, at which we and our Welsh colleagues will continue to pursue those matters.

However, part of the reason for my statement and the announcement of the accord was the need to be realistic. It looks as though the UK Government is going in a particular direction of travel, which is why we have to progress and plan our own way forward to ensure that we are doing the best by property owners when it comes to cladding remediation. The accord will be the forum in which to take that forward.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Individuals who have bought flats with flammable cladding have found themselves in an unfortunate situation, with the value of their properties plummeting and insurance costs rising.

The cabinet secretary indicated in her statement that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that every penny of additional funding that is received will be invested in assessing buildings and making them safe. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that more might be required to support the individuals who are affected by the cladding crisis? What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I thank Alexander Stewart for the question. As I said earlier, the UK Government has contracted with an insurance underwriter to back the provision of a UK-wide professional indemnity insurance scheme. There has been some delay in that, but it will provide PII for fire risk assessors across the UK, which will help to move things forward.

However, we believe that the insurance for home owners issue continues to be best addressed at UK level because of the UK-wide nature of insurance institutions. I am happy to keep Alexander Stewart and others apprised of discussions about that.

All the money that we receive in consequentials will be spent on that—every penny—but we have to spend the money wisely, which is why I was clear in my statement that I expect developers, where they can be linked to a building, to remediate the cost of that building. We want it to be done under the single building assessment so that it is done properly, once and to a standard that meets all the current requirements. That is important for home owners’ assurance.

Will more money be required? Yes, it will. Obviously, the UK Government announced the building safety levy a couple of weeks ago. That is an England-only levy that will be levied through local government. We will need to look at what equivalent we need to use here to bridge any gap, because we will spend the public money on buildings for which no developer can be found. Those home owners must get the same treatment, so we want to give assurance that we will focus the public money on them. We will have to work through the Scottish safer buildings accord

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The expansion of the single building assessment pilot programme has resulted in properties in my constituency now being included, which was welcomed by affected constituents in Dundee City West. However, uncertain finances could undermine progress with the SBA. Can the cabinet secretary say more about discussions with the UK Government on consequentials? It is important that we ensure that the level of funding is sufficient to support the needs of the work that is required across Scotland.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I was pleased to be able to support the expansion of the pilot, and I announced today that our programme will tackle the most complex buildings, increase the number of properties in the programme and remove the burden from home owners. I know that that will be of particular importance to Joe FitzPatrick and some of his constituents.

In the statement, I said that the UK Government has moved away from the work being Treasury funded and is driving towards a mixture of funding that comes through corporation tax on developers and the building safety levy. That is quite a complicated landscape of funding.

After quite a lot of digging and going backwards and forwards, we have been able to identify the additional £300 million through consequentials. It is hard to find out how much of that is related to corporation tax money raised and how much is from the Treasury. It is very difficult to define the amount. One principle that needs to be clear is that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should get their fair share of any money that is raised through corporation tax at UK level.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, we then have to find our own mechanism to bridge any gaps that we identify. The building safety levy is what is being used down south, but we will have to find an equivalent for Scotland, because that levy will not generate any consequentials for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We will have to fill the gap ourselves.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I have written to the minister on many occasions about my constituents in Glasgow who welcome the fact that they have been prioritised for the single building assessment. Other constituents will have to wait until 2023. In both cases, my constituents can still not get adequate buildings insurance, which is quite dangerous.

In view of that, will the Scottish Government consider indemnifying those owners—standing behind them—while we wait for the final outcome? If the minister is confident that we will get to that point, the Scottish Government should not find that too risky.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am happy to continue to discuss all these issues with Pauline McNeill. The accord will give us a forum in which not just developers but home owners will be able to look at what more we can do in the here and now. Clearly, the issue of insurance is complicated, but the good thing about the single building assessment is that, because it has been worked through with so many critical institutions, it will have the confidence of those institutions. The point at which the SBA is completed could be really important in resolving some of these matters, rather than having to wait for the remediation works to be completed. That in itself could perhaps give home owners a bit of confidence that the SBA process will unlock doors for them. I am happy to keep Pauline McNeill informed about discussions as we take them forward.

The Presiding Officer

Before the next question, I point out that time is tight and there are many members who would like to put a question to the cabinet secretary.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Developers should, absolutely, be expected to remediate cladding on buildings that they have built, but what support is available to home owners for whose homes there is now no developer because they have stopped trading? How will the Scottish Government ensure that such buildings are assessed for any problems that have been identified or fully fixed and that there is no burden on home owners who are in need of assistance?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree that developers must take responsibility and remediate buildings that they have built and are associated with. My approach is to ensure that, in the interest of home owners, we work in a positive way with developers on the matter. I expect to take that forward through the Scottish safer buildings accord.

As I said in my statement, that approach means that the public funds that we have available can be prioritised for the very buildings and works that Jackie Dunbar talks about—those without a linked developer—so that home owners are assisted in every way possible. That is the best way to make maximum use of the collective pot of money.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We are five years on from Grenfell, so it is really disappointing that the minister has come to the chamber today to declare, after a year of the pilot being in place, that it has taken too long and is onerous. Home owners have been aware of that—it has been blindingly obvious for a long time, as we have seen from the evidence that they have provided—so why has it taken so long for the Government to admit that the pilot is failing? The minister talks about using powers to compel developers and other parties to come to the table. What powers are those,

and how will they be deployed?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I do not believe that the pilot has not been a success—it has been a success in being able to test out the single building assessment. The problem has been the way in which single building assessments have been commissioned, which has been shown to be too complex and onerous for home owners and factors. That is what we have learned, which is why we are switching to a commission basis.

However, the basis of the pilot and the single building assessment is absolutely sound. The SBA will help to identify those buildings that are safe and can be given the green light, which is good. It will also identify those buildings that require remediation and what that remediation is, and will ensure that work is done to a high standard—and done once only. It will ensure that the developers that are associated with those buildings pay for and get on and do that work, and that we can support the home owners in buildings for which no developer can be found.

On Willie Rennie’s final point, from the discussions that I have had with developers, I have every faith that they want to do the right thing. Every one of them that I have spoken to wants to do the right thing. I said at the end of my statement that, if some do not want to come to the table, we will look at using the powers that are at our disposal to compel them to do so, and we will consider legislating to do that if we need to. However, I do not think that we will need to do that because developers want to be seen to be doing the right thing and fulfilling their responsibilities. As I say, I will keep the Parliament updated on those matters as we go forward.

The Presiding Officer

I appreciate the minister’s desire to provide comprehensive responses, but we are very tight for time.