Scottish Parliament, 6 October 2022

297 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.

Road Fuel (Variation in Prices)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the Competition and Markets Authority regarding the impact on Scotland of its investigation into the variation of prices across the United Kingdom in relation to the supply of road fuel. (S6O-01436)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I am aware of the impact on the people of Scotland from the increased fuel prices this year and of reports of inconsistent pricing at forecourts across the country. I was therefore pleased to learn that the United Kingdom Government had asked the

Competition and Markets Authority to launch an urgent review of the road fuel market.

Sarah Cardell, who is the CMA’s interim chief executive, has been in contact with the Scottish Government to outline the review’s initial findings and offer opportunities for engagement as the full market study is undertaken. The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, welcomed the CMA’s engagement and offered the services of relevant Scottish Government and Transport Scotland officials who might be required.

The Scottish Government stands ready to work with the CMA to improve outcomes for consumers and businesses. Earlier in the year, I met the CMA to establish relationships for working on such situations.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The minister will be aware that Inverclyde has some of the highest pump prices in Scotland. I have challenged those prices, but Morrisons, Tesco and BP claim that they are competitive locally. I recognise that there is also wide variation across the country.

I have previously highlighted in the chamber the impact that such prices have had on social care workers. It is worrying that a new community care survey suggests that a majority of social workers are also out of pocket because mileage allowances are inadequate as a result of rising fuel costs. Will the minister echo my call to companies such as BP, Tesco and Morrisons, which supply fuel in my constituency and have collectively made billions in profits in recent years, to put their customers first in the cost of living crisis and in particular to stop ripping off my Greenock and Inverclyde constituents?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I recognise the pressure that is on Stuart McMillan’s constituents and others across the country as a result of high fuel costs and I acknowledge the reported inconsistent pricing in the Inverclyde area. Such reports from road users across the country justify the CMA’s review of the UK’s road fuel market.

The CMA has confirmed that its inquiry will cover the factors that drive local price variation and any steps that could be taken to improve local competition. We expect the subsequent recommendations from the market study to be appropriately actioned by the UK Government when the study is published later this year. We recognise that some companies are making excess profits in the cost crisis, which is why we have made it clear that any new support from the UK Government should be funded in part by an enhanced windfall tax.

Independence (Currency)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its policy is on whether to peg an independent Scottish currency to the pound. (S6O-01437)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

We will publish our proposals for Scotland’s economy under independence as part of the building a new Scotland series. The proposals will set out the economic opportunities and the currency arrangements for an independent Scotland.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

So yet another new currency policy from the Government is on the way. The Tories’ calamitous run on the pound last week would have left an independent Scotland having to defend the madness of a currency peg. Professor Ronnie MacDonald of the University of Glasgow has estimated in recent days that the cost of that would be £100 billion. Where would the Scottish people find that money?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Where the Scottish people find themselves right now, under a Tory Government that they did not elect, is with soaring mortgage rates, financial instability and the threat of billions of pounds in cuts to public expenditure—a new age of austerity. That is where the Scottish people find themselves, which is why more and more people in Scotland support independence and why, when they are given the opportunity to vote for independence, they will do so.

“Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2022”

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making to develop its “Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2022”. (S6O-01438)

The Minister for Community Safety (Ash Regan)

Following a public consultation, the “Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2022” was published on the Scottish Government’s website on 29 March 2022. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Framework) Order 2022 was laid in Parliament on 31 March 2022, and the framework was brought into effect from 26 May 2022. The new fire and rescue framework has been fully reviewed and updated. The “Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Strategic Plan 2022-25” was laid in Parliament on Monday 3 October and is based on priorities that are set out in the new framework.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is my understanding that the workforce, the Fire Brigades Union and the management have all bought into the framework and are really keen to make it happen. There is an enthusiasm for it, but the question that they are all asking is how it will be funded, given the current financial proposals for real-term cuts.

In addition, a 2 per cent pay offer is on the table at a United Kingdom level. The FBU has been clear that it will not accept that. Therefore, regardless of whether we have industrial action, the bottom line is that the final settlement will be much higher than 2 per cent. Will the Scottish Government honour the pay award and make sure that it does not come out of further cuts to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

Ash Regan

The Scottish Government has a long track record of investment in the SFRS. We recognise its importance and the contribution of all its employees to keeping Scotland safe. The budget for 2022-23 contains an uplift of £9.5 million, and the next budget will be set in the normal way through the parliamentary process that takes place.

The Scottish Government is not part of the negotiations on firefighter pay. That is obviously a matter for the SFRS as the employer, and firefighter pay is negotiated under a well-established UK-wide collective bargaining arrangement. We encourage both sides to continue negotiating in order to reach a fair deal for firefighters. However, the Scottish Government will continue to work with the SFRS to ensure that it has sufficient budget to support a pay deal for its staff.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The “Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2022” is a classic of the Scottish National Party Government genre—all jargon and graphics. Page 7 has a kaleidoscope-style graphic that sets out the SFRS’s strategic priorities, which include the need to “grow up loved”;

“sharing opportunities, wealth and power”;

“a globally competitive, entrepreneurial, inclusive and sustainable economy”;

and making

“a positive contribution internationally”.

Rather than that exercise in jargon, do the people of Scotland not just want firefighters to turn up and be there when they need them?

Ash Regan

Obviously, the main priorities of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are prevention, protection and keeping the people of Scotland safe.

Bus Industry (Passenger Numbers)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to revive the bus industry following a slump in passenger numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic. (S6O-01439)

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

We are investing in the bus network to support long-term growth by providing more than £2.1 billion for bus travel over the rest of this parliamentary session. We have extended free bus travel to children and young people under 22, and around half of Scotland’s population is now eligible to travel anywhere in Scotland by bus free of charge.

M

ore people are travelling by bus since the pandemic, and I hope to see passenger numbers increase further. The sector currently faces a range of challenges, and, later today, I will convene the first meeting of the industry task force to explore those issues and work together to find solutions.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I asked the minister last week about the network support grant plus, which is due to end on 9 October. The minister has just three days left to save the bus industry. If she does not extend that grant, more than 200 jobs could go, 50 routes across Scotland could be cancelled entirely and, in some areas, there could be a cut in services of more than a third. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland estimates that it will cost £44.8 million to extend the grant for six months, and its modelling shows a potential underspend of £79 million for the concessionary travel scheme and of £84.5 million for the under-22s scheme. The bus industry is teetering on the edge and, as I have just demonstrated, the Scottish Government has the money, so when will it act?

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

I believe that I covered that matter in detail last week. I am looking urgently at a range of options to provide further support to the bus industry. However, I must remind Mr Simpson of the level of support that we provide to the industry in Scotland, which is significantly greater than the support in other parts of the United Kingdom. For example, we budgeted £93.5 million from April this year to support the bus network as we recover from the pandemic. Up to £20.5 million of net additional funding is already being provided to extend recovery funding to October, which is in addition to around £210 million that was provided during the pandemic. We have also provided additionality, with the £25 million of funding in relation to bus priority measures, which delivers funding to 28 local authorities in Scotland.

I note that, in his question, Mr Simpson did not identify some of the labour shortage issues that the sector is currently facing in relation to Brexit, nor did he identify any of the fuel cost charges that are really hampering some of our bus operators.

I look forward to meeting operators this afternoon, while noting that some of the competences that I have just addressed remain reserved.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To get more people on to public transport, we need to make it more affordable. Does the Scottish Government support fare capping and price regulation in the bus market, and will it make fare caps a condition of any future support for the bus industry?

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

That is a fair question. There is the network support grant, and we are also capping fare rises in line with the latest monthly consumer price index figure, although we know that we need to do more. I recognise some of the challenges, which is why we are conducting a fair fares review to look at the affordability of public transport across the piece.

In many areas across the country, fares are already below £2. In Edinburgh, people can travel anywhere in the city for a flat fare of £1.80. I cannot give a direct answer to Mr Bibby’s question today, because we are looking at a range of options in relation to any additionality that the Scottish Government might be able to provide. However, I am more than happy to write to Mr Bibby with more detail on his specific point about fair capping.

Higher Education (Widening Access in Colleges)

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what contribution colleges make to widening access to higher education for students living in the most deprived areas. (S6O-01440)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Our colleges make a significant contribution to widening access to higher education and offer an alternative route to university through articulation. Scottish Funding Council statistics show that in 2020-21, 25.3 per cent of entrants to higher education at colleges came from the 20 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland, and 11,780 students who were enrolled on a first degree course at a university in Scotland in the same year had previously achieved a higher national certificate or higher national diploma qualification at college.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

The minister will know that around 43 per cent of undergraduates at university who come from Scotland’s most deprived backgrounds went there via a college route, such is the central role that colleges play in widening access. However, universities receive a greater level of reimbursement per student studying at an equivalent Scottish credit and qualifications framework level than their college counterparts receive.

Despite the significant budgetary challenges that the Government is facing, will it consider reviewing reimbursement levels and working towards achieving greater parity between the college and university sectors?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

With regard to the budgetary position, we should remind ourselves that the challenges that involved are very real and far reaching. However, even in that context, we have allocated nearly £2 billion to colleges and universities, which is a record amount. The agreements on funding levels and arrangements with colleges and universities are of long standing.

On Mr Doris’s question, we are developing the 2023-24 budget, and there is engagement with the SFC, Colleges Scotland and Universities Scotland. Mr Doris’s questions can best be considered as part of that. We are open to considering the matter, which we will do through the budget process.

Royal Mail (Strikes)

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the Communication Workers Union has organised strikes for Royal Mail workers next month, including in Scotland. (S6O-01441)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Although employment law remains reserved to the United Kingdom Government, maintaining a progressive approach to industrial relations remains a priority for the Scottish Government. We therefore strongly encourage all parties involved in industrial relations issues to work together to reach resolution. However, we cannot overstate the importance of fair work and fair pay, particularly in the midst of a cost of living crisis. Unions play an important role in securing fairer conditions for workers in Scotland. On that note, I am sure that I am not alone in my concern about the UK Government’s continued aggressive anti-worker, anti-trade union agenda.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I completely agree with the sentiments that the minister has expressed in that response. I was glad to meet some CWU organisers outside the Parliament earlier this morning.

Does the minister agree that, with full powers over employment, this Parliament would be better placed to deliver fair work and build the fairer economy that workers in Scotland deserve?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Yes, I absolutely agree with the member.

In reference to the member having met union representatives, we owe a great debt to our posties, particularly for working so hard throughout the pandemic. We thank them for that. It is absurd of Liz Truss to claim that anyone who is not a divisive, right-wing, out-of-touch Tory and who is part of a trade union movement that is trying to win better workers’ rights is part of an “anti-growth coalition”.

Under the Tories, the gap between rich and poor has widened, as has the gap between low pay and excessive pay. If we could stop that gap growing, perhaps that would be an anti-growth coalition that we could all be proud of joining.

Gaelic-medium Education (Primary Schools)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to grow and encourage primary Gaelic-medium education. (S6O-01442)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting the growth of Gaelic-medium education across Scotland. We are working with a number of local authorities that wish to start or grow their Gaelic provision. Those local authorities, along with others, will continue to benefit from our funding streams, the Gaelic-specific grant and the Gaelic capital fund.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Gaelic is thriving not just in Scotland but across the world. There has been a 72 per cent increase in interest in Scottish Gaelic-related content over the past few years, and more than a million people have taken a Gaelic course in the language learning app Duolingo.

How important is it that action is taken to ensure a sustainable future for the language that is such an important part of our heritage and our cultural identity?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am very pleased to see the growing interest in Gaelic that has arisen through activities such as Duolingo. That is why the Scottish Government has supported the SpeakGaelic multiplatform learning project, which has around 5,000 users a month. The platform will enable those who start their learning journey on Duolingo to reach fluency.

It is very important that action is taken to ensure a sustainable future for Gaelic, and for that reason the Government will continue to support a wide range of activities in that area. Further evidence of our support is demonstrated in the ambitious commitments that we are currently consulting on. I encourage all members to encourage their constituents across the country to get involved in that consultation, to ensure that we do everything that we can to support the Gaelic language and, indeed, the Scots language in Scotland.

Edinburgh Tram Inquiry (Conclusion)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it anticipates a conclusion to the Edinburgh tram inquiry. (S6O-01443)

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

Questions concerning the conclusion of the inquiry, including its timeline, are a matter for the Edinburgh tram inquiry team and Lord Hardie. That is because, as a statutory inquiry, it is independent of the Scottish Government. Updates on the publication of Lord Hardie’s report will be provided on the inquiry’s website.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for that answer and I respect what she has to say, but the Edinburgh tram inquiry has now been running for over eight years. To date, it has cost Scottish taxpayers £13.1 million, and the end is still not in sight. The cost of the inquiry now stands at more than the cost of the Iraq war investigation.

The Inquiries Act 2005 obliges the chair to consider costs at all times if they are funded from the public purse. I ask the minister a very simple question: does she believe that the inquiry has been value for money?

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

We are all keen to see the inquiry reach a satisfactory conclusion. I am advised that Lord Hardie and the inquiry team have been preparing the final report and recommendations for publication. I will again seek advice on the parameters that are open to me, as a minister, in the matter, but I must remind the member that the inquiry is independent and that its time and cost cannot be influenced by ministers, who are, of course, core participants in the inquiry.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time.

Accident and Emergency Departments (Waiting Times)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Two weeks ago, in this chamber, I asked the First Minister about the scale of the crisis across Scotland’s accident and emergency departments. The answers were not good enough. This week, it emerged that, for the month of August alone, 5,000 patients spent more than half a day waiting to be seen in A and E departments across the country. Waits of more than 12 hours for emergency treatment are completely unacceptable, yet such waits are faced by thousands of Scots at hospitals right across the country. This Government is presiding over the worst ever A and E waiting times in Scotland, so does the First Minister believe that the plans that were outlined by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on Tuesday will end those appalling waits?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, performance in our accident and emergency departments is not good enough. I have been candid about that, as has the health secretary. Our national health service is dealing with backlogs that were created by the Covid pandemic; indeed, it is still dealing in many different ways with the impact of that pandemic. We continue to support the national health service to recover. That includes accident and emergency services, as it does all parts of our national health service.

Of course, it is incumbent on me to point out again that although there are big challenges in our NHS and in A and E departments, our A and E departments remain the best performing anywhere in the United Kingdom, which is down to the dedication and hard work—[

Interruption

.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members.

The First Minister

That is down to the dedication and hard work of the people who work in our national health service. Of course, staff numbers are at a record high across the NHS and investment is at a record high. Although I and the health secretary are not complacent, we believe that the measures that he set out in the recovery plan update and the winter plan will make a positive difference.

Finally, I say frankly that it beggars belief that Douglas Ross stands here and talks about the national health service. His concern today for the national health service is even less convincing than it normally is, because he has spent much of the past week arguing for us to put millions of pounds into the pockets of the richest people in our society, regardless of the impact that that would have on our national health service.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I ask the First Minister, please, to not ever question my commitment to our national health service, given that it was just over—[

Interruption

.] It was just over a year ago that I had to follow my wife who was in an ambulance as she gave birth, and just over a year ago that I had to see my infant child on oxygen and fed through a tube in the Royal Aberdeen children’s hospital. She should not make political points when politicians are raising serious issues. Just as we did last year when the United Kingdom armed forces had to step in to help, we are seeing this crisis spread throughout Scotland’s NHS.

Long waiting times in A and E have a knock-on effect on the rest of our health system. A freedom of information request response that we have received shows that ambulances are queuing up outside hospitals because of the crisis inside in A and E. In Glasgow earlier this year, one ambulance was stuck outside the hospital for more than 13 hours because the patient could not be admitted. It was stuck outside for 13 hours.

The Press and Journal

revealed today that, in the past month, ambulance turnaround times at Aberdeen royal infirmary were at a record high. That is critical time during which an ambulance could be deployed to help other patients. Therefore, if the First Minister can answer about Scotland’s NHS and Scotland’s ambulances, will she tell us what her Government is doing to prevent ambulances from being held up outside hospitals?

The First Minister

Of course, £45 million for the Scottish Ambulance Service was part of the winter plan that was announced—which is about Scotland’s national health service. I say, Presiding Officer, that I have enormous sympathy for the personal experience of Douglas Ross, as I do for the personal experience of anyone in the national health service. However, I am sorry, but I think that it is reasonable to question the commitment to the national health service of anybody who argues for millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money going on cutting taxes for the richest people in our society, rather than being invested in the national health service.

It is because of the Government’s commitment to the national health service that we do not shy away from the difficulties that it faces, largely because of the Covid pandemic that has placed such burdens on health services across the world. That is why we are investing in our national health service instead of giving tax cuts to the richest people in our society. It is why we are supporting greater recruitment to our national health service, with staffing numbers at an all-time high, and it is why we are seeking a fair pay deal for the people who work in our national health service. They deserve it. We will continue to do the hard work to support our national health service in tough times as well as in good times.

Finally, we will take no lessons from the UK Government, which is doing real damage to the national health service. Although our NHS faces challenges,

Scotland’s

national health service

is the best performing in the UK

o

n A and E waiting times and on many other measurements, and that is down to the dedication of the people who work in it.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister has been busy all week on Twitter and responding to events elsewhere, but people turn to First Minister’s question time to hear the First Minister and her Government being challenged, and—hopefully—to hear responses. However, there has been absolutely nothing.

Let me go back to the topic that I am focusing on today, even if the First Minister will not do so in her responses. The FOI request that I mentioned revealed that the lengths of time that people are waiting for ambulances even to arrive is getting worse, which is unacceptable. Amber incidents involve patients who need an ambulance within 19 minutes—they have called and they need someone to arrive within that time. Our FOI request response mentioned one individual from Ayrshire and Arran, who was categorised as an amber incident but waited more than 32 hours—more than 100 times the wait of 19 minutes that he was supposed to have.

The situation is also dire for people who face the most serious incidents—purple incidents, which are so serious that the target response time is eight minutes. However, this summer, one purple incident patient in the Lothians waited more than two hours for an ambulance, and another patient, in Glasgow, waited more than an hour and a half. Others have waited close to an hour in Lanarkshire, Forth Valley, the Highlands and Shetland. Those incidents are the most critical and lives are on the line: people are waiting for hours when the response should arrive in minutes. Can the First Minister honestly stand there and tell us that those incidents are not jeopardising people’s lives?

The First Minister

I have been, and will continue to be, entirely candid that instances such as those are not acceptable. Our NHS is under extreme pressure, which is why it is so important that we continue to take the steps that we are taking to support it.

Douglas Ross is just plain wrong—as anybody who is listening to this will know—to say that I did not address the issues about Scotland’s NHS in my previous answers. I spoke about the £45 million of additional investment in the Scottish Ambulance Service to help specifically with winter pressures, and I spoke about record investment and record numbers of staff—in particular, the staffing of the SAS, which is up under the Scottish National Party Government by 67.3 per cent. That is the reality.

Any instances such as those that Douglas Ross narrated are clearly unacceptable. However, our ambulance crews responded to more than 68 per cent of their highest priority calls in under 10 minutes, and to more than 99 per cent of their highest priority calls in under 30 minutes. That is what the dedication of our paramedics and our ambulance technicians is delivering. We will continue to support our NHS in the ways that I have outlined.

It is not possible to separate those issues from the overall funding of our NHS, which—like the overall funding of Scotland’s budget—depends on decisions that are made by the Government at Westminster. We have already had the U-turn on tax cuts for the richest 1 per cent of people in the country, which Douglas Ross this time last week wanted this Government to emulate, and which would have taken millions of pounds out of the budget of our public services—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Could we hear the First Minister? Thank you.

The First Minister

Last week, the former deputy governor—I think—of the Bank of England said that the spending cuts that are coming down the track from the Tory UK Government could mean the “end of the NHS” as we know it.

That is the reality. This Government will continue to prioritise the national health service, but we are doing that in the face of a Tory Government that seems to be intent on destroying it.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We all, across Scotland, would really benefit if Nicola Sturgeon spent more of a Thursday morning practising her responses on the issues that really matter to people in Scotland, rather than political attacks.

The First Minister has to accept and must see that the situation with ambulance waiting times in our NHS is appalling and is happening all over the country.

The First Minister said that I was narrating cases, so let us look at a case that we both should know about. On Monday, she and I were both emailed by a 78-year-old man explaining what had recently happened to his 73-year-old wife. His wife fell in their garden and broke her hip. She was in agony, but was told that a broken hip does not constitute a priority for receiving an ambulance. They waited for hours for an ambulance to come to take them to Aberdeen royal infirmary, but it never arrived.

After four and a half hours outside in the garden in agony and distress—from 10 minutes to 3 in the afternoon until half past 7 at night—they gave up and called a taxi. The 78-year-old man had to get help from his neighbours to lift his wife into the taxi to eventually get her to hospital. A line in the email that the First Minister and I received says:

“She endured even more severe pain getting into the taxi but, by this time, we were getting desperate.”

The email from that gentleman also says that the First Minister’s Government should

“hang your heads in shame.”

He is right, is he not?

The First Minister

He is absolutely right that experiences like that are not acceptable. Nobody will ever hear me say otherwise.

Our health service, including the Ambulance Service, is under the most extreme pressure that most of us can remember. I believe that most people understand the reasons for that. I also believe that most people understand the support that is being given to the national health service, as is right and proper. There are record staffing levels in our NHS and there is record investment.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care set out the winter plan in the chamber earlier this week.

We will continue to get on with the serious responsibility of supporting the recovery of our national health service. We will always respond on incidences in which people’s experiences are not what they should be and we will not shy away from that. The Government prioritises and supports the national health service and will continue to do so each and every day.

National Health Service (Waiting Times)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. The Scottish Government’s failure to get to grips with NHS waiting times is costing lives. In February, my colleague Foysol Choudhury raised the case of Anne Sinclair, who was waiting for cancer treatment. Anne, a previous cancer survivor, waited seven months for her diagnosis, at which point she was told that she had an aggressive form of cancer. She was then forced to wait more than five months for treatment.

We know that the sooner someone is diagnosed and the sooner they start treatment, the more likely they are to survive. Anne tragically died this summer. Her last words to her son Ricky were:

“Keep fighting; tell my story; we need to stop this happening to anyone else. I love you.”

In February, the First Minister said that Anne’s case was “unacceptable”, a word that she has used at least six times already this afternoon. If it is unacceptable, why is it still happening to others?

The First Minister

First, I convey my sincere condolences to Anne’s loved ones—her family and her friends. I do not know all the circumstances of her situation but I know what was narrated to me in the chamber previously.

Individual experiences in which the treatment or care in the NHS is not what all of us expect are unacceptable. I will never stop saying that.

That does not change the fact that, for the overwhelming majority of people in this country, the NHS delivers an outstanding service. Cancer is and always should be a clinical priority. We have two key waiting time standards on the NHS for cancer care: the 31-day target for the period from decision to treat to first treatment, and the 62-day target. More people are now being seen on those urgent pathways than was previously the case, and we continue to invest in cancer services and the early diagnosis of cancer. Those issues are a priority.

I do not and will never shy away from the serious challenges and pressures on our national health service. That is why it is so incumbent on Government to support the NHS with the investment and the other forms of support that it needs, and we will always do that, for the sake of patients like Anne and, of course, the many other patients who depend on the NHS each and every day.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Anne’s case is not an isolated or individual case. Here is another. A 56-year-old man in West Dunbartonshire first went to his doctor with back pain in autumn 2020. He was prescribed painkillers and told to visit a physio. Six months later, he was passing blood and being violently sick. He called an ambulance but was told twice that one would not attend because his condition was not life threatening, so he got himself to accident and emergency and eventually had a CT scan, which showed a large tumour that had spread to his spine. He died a year after first seeking help from the NHS. That demonstrates a systemic failure and what happens when services and staff are pushed to breaking point.

Does the First Minister accept that her failure to get to grips with the NHS crisis is costing lives?

The First Minister

I take my responsibility to the NHS seriously every single day. The pressures on our NHS are well known. That is why the support that we are giving to our NHS is so important. That is the case across all conditions and all specialties in our NHS, but it is perhaps even more particularly the case when it comes to cancer care.

I mentioned the two targets. I explain to people that the 31-day target relates to the period from a decision being taken to treat to the first treatment happening. More than 95 per cent of patients are seen within that target period. The 62-day target, which relates to the whole referral to treatment period, is much more challenging. However, almost eight out of 10 patients are seen within that target period, and more people are being seen through that urgent pathway than has ever been the case.

The reason I have spent time talking about that is that it is important for people to understand that, for the vast majority, our NHS—on cancer care and on everything else—delivers an outstanding service of clinical care. It is clear that that is not the case for everyone, especially now, given the pressures that are faced. That is why the responsibility that I, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the whole Government have to make sure that we support the NHS is such a vital one and one that we take so incredibly seriously.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

A failure to get to grips with the NHS crisis is costing lives. Let us look at the facts. In the past year, 3,393 people waited for longer than the 62-day target period for urgent cancer treatment, which is a standard that has not been met in 10 years and the performance on which is getting worse. That means lives lost.

We have the worst A and E waiting times on record. In one month alone, 13,000 patients waited for more than eight hours. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine has warned that that means lives lost.

This is a systemic failure on the Scottish National Party’s watch. Staff are being failed, patients are being let down and lives are being lost. How many more families have to suffer? How many more tragic stories do we have to bring to this Parliament before Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf do their jobs?

The First Minister

On the 62-day cancer target, if we look at the most recent quarter, we see that more patients were treated on that 62-day pathway than was the case before the pandemic. In the most recent year for which we have full-year figures, more people were treated on that 62-day pathway than, I think, was the case in any year since 2011.

Our national health service, because of investment and staff recruitment, is doing more in many senses than it was before. Demand is also increasing, which is why we have to continue to increase that support.

Whether in cancer care, accident and emergency or the Ambulance Service response times that we have just been talking about, there are very significant challenges. Those challenges are often experienced by patients and are felt every day by staff who work on the front line of our national health service.

This Government is committed to supporting our national health service. There has never been a more difficult time to do so, but there has also never been a more important time to do so, which is why we continue to take that responsibility so seriously.

The Presiding Officer

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Education (Anti-racism)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

What is the Scottish Government’s response to reports that some ethnic minority teaching professionals have experienced racist online abuse after sharing their plans for more diversity in Scottish education at the Scottish learning festival? Will the First Minister join me in condemning the racist abuse faced by St Albert’s primary school in her constituency and the racist graffiti that has been found on the campus of the University of Glasgow in my constituency? Will she further agree with me that anti-racist education is important in ensuring a more diverse and inclusive Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I whole-heartedly agree with that and I am sure that the whole chamber whole-heartedly agrees with that. No one should ever experience racism and we all have a duty to stand firmly in solidarity with anyone who does and against those who are racist. The vile racist abuse directed at teaching professionals, staff and children on the back of the Scottish learning festival should be condemned and I condemn it.

I make a particular comment, given how close to my heart the experience of pupils at St Albert’s primary in my constituency of Pollokshields is. I know St Albert’s very well. It is a fantastic school with a fantastic headteacher, fantastic teachers and outstanding young people. I was privileged to visit the school on Friday, as I have been many times in the past. Racism sickens me, but there is nothing that turns my stomach more than the idea of adults—whether from Scotland or anywhere else in the world—who can look at a photograph of beautiful, clever children and see only the colour of their skin. It is despicable, it is disgusting, it has no place in Scotland and I hope that all of us will unite in utter condemnation of vile racists everywhere. [

Applause

.]

Baby Loss (Certification)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The First Minister will know that next week is baby loss awareness week. Baby Loss Retreat, which is a fantastic charity in my region, helps people who have lost babies. I recently opened its charity shop in Airdrie. Heather Denham of East Kilbride works for that charity after being helped by it; she is in the public gallery today. Heather has an eight-year-old son but has lost three other children. In April last year, she went for her 20-week scan and learned that her baby daughter had no heartbeat. Heather had to give birth to little Jorgia and lay her to rest a few days later.

Because Jorgia was born at less than 24 weeks, she has no birth certificate. Heather told me:

“One of my children has a birth certificate, the other does not. My daughter does not exist in the eyes of the law and it breaks my heart every single day. I have held two children in my arms, so they should both exist in the eyes of the law.”

The United Kingdom Government has launched a new initiative that will provide parents with a pregnancy loss certificate if their baby is born before 24 weeks. Will the First Minister ensure that the same happens here?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will. Baby loss awareness week is a very important event every year and it is one that I always mark personally as well as in my role as First Minister, for very personal reasons. I absolutely understand the feelings and sentiments that have been narrated here today.

I know from personal experience how awful it is to lose a baby very early on, and I know how deep the desire is to have that lost baby recognised in a variety of ways. I think that the suggestion around pregnancy loss certificates is an important one and I give the undertaking that we will look very seriously at that in Scotland too.

Centre for the Moving Image

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

In recent hours, reports have emerged that the Centre for the Moving Image, which is the charity that runs both the Belmont cinema in Aberdeen and the Filmhouse in Edinburgh, has gone into receivership. The Filmhouse is located in Edinburgh Central, but it is an important institution for the whole of the city and indeed the whole of the country. It hosts the Edinburgh international film festival, which is the oldest continuously running film festival in the world.

What efforts will the Government be making? Will the First Minister ask ministers to engage with Aberdeen City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council so that they can co-ordinate an approach? What business and cultural support funds can be made available in order to save this vital cultural institution?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Daniel Johnson for raising the issue. The news, which has emerged publicly this morning, is of huge concern and I know that many people in Edinburgh and Aberdeen will be profoundly upset about it. These are really important cultural organisations and all of us want to see them, if at all possible, go from strength to strength.

The Scottish Government will engage to consider whether there is any support that we can bring to bear. I will ask Angus Robertson to engage with the Aberdeen and Edinburgh city councils and ensure that Creative Scotland, which of course takes funding decisions independently of ministers, engages with the organisations as well. Obviously, I cannot give any commitment standing here right now and I cannot go into any more detail ahead of that engagement, but I can say that we recognise the importance of the organisations and will do everything possible to support them at this difficult time.

Population Health Protection (Independence)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The First Minister will have seen the truly shocking findings by the University of Glasgow and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health that were published yesterday in the

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

. They show that 19,299 excess deaths in Scotland are likely to have been caused by United Kingdom Government’s economic policy. The academics also report that that translates into 300,000 deaths across the UK—deaths that lie squarely at the door of the Tories.

Does the First Minister therefore agree that it is essential for the protection of our population’s health that Scotland escapes Westminster control and the Tories for good, and that that can be guaranteed only with independence?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I do. The study that was published this week by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health is shocking, and it lays bare the real impact of austerity—the impact on people’s lives, which we see quite literally in the report.

The report is on the impact of past Tory austerity. We now face, unfortunately, a new period of Tory austerity. We have seen in recent days the estimate of what spending cuts will be and we know the impact that that will have on our public services and on people’s lives. We are watching a quite grotesque debate in the Conservative Party about whether it is right to cut the incomes of people on benefits—the lowest-paid people in our society.

If we want to chart a different course in Scotland—if we want to apply the values of respect and dignity in Scotland, as I believe most of us across the chamber do—we are not going to be able to do that for as long as we are tied to Westminster governance. That is one of many, many reasons why this country needs to be independent and why I believe that this country will be independent.

Energy Efficiency Measures (Funding)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It was reported last weekend that the Scottish Government intends in its capital spending review to cut 14 per cent—that is, over £17 million—from the funding for energy efficiency measures for those in fuel poverty. Of course it is right that we focus on immediate measures to help families through the cost of living crisis, but investment in efficiency upgrades will reduce their heating bills and energy use in the long run.

The Scottish Government declined to confirm or deny those cuts. Will the First Minister confirm whether the cuts will go ahead as set out?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We have an emergency budget review under way right now. The Deputy First Minister will report the outcome of that to the Parliament following the recess. I wish that we were not having to undertake that emergency budget review. We have to do it because of the actions of the United Kingdom Conservative Government.

In effect, we have a fixed budget. We have very limited powers to borrow. Therefore, given that our budget is being eroded by soaring inflation and that we are facing even more cuts coming down the track from Westminster, we have to contemplate some very difficult decisions. We will take those decisions, through applying our values, and seek to protect those who need our protection most.

If Tory members do not want us to have to face some of those choices—and I wish that we did not have to face them—perhaps, instead of kowtowing to their masters in London over tax cuts to the rich, they could start standing up for Scotland and demanding fair budget treatment for this Parliament.

McVitie’s Factory Glasgow (Closure)

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Last week, Pladis ceased production at the McVitie’s factory in Tollcross, ending 205 years of biscuit making in Glasgow and terminating the connection of an iconic Scottish brand with our country. Workers faced the humiliation of having to walk out of their last shifts while the state-of-the-art machinery that they worked on was dismantled around them, to be shipped to factories in England. Some of that machinery was funded by almost £1 million in Scottish Enterprise grants. Has the Government raised concerns with Pladis’s management about its blatant asset stripping of the Glasgow factory, and what steps is it taking to secure the factory and its assets for future manufacturing use?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scottish Enterprise will consider all those issues.

Like Paul Sweeney, I was extremely disappointed that the tireless efforts—everybody would recognise them as tireless—of the Pladis action group were not able to secure the future of the Tollcross site and its skilled workforce. That was not for the want of trying. My thoughts are with the staff and their families, who now face redundancy. The Scottish Government will support them in every way possible. However, I hope that the member will accept that the Scottish Government did everything possible to try to reach a different outcome. We all regret that that outcome was not possible.

E-cigarettes (Teenagers)

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

3. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to curb the reported sharp rise in e-cigarette use among teenagers. (S6F-01433)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are greatly concerned by reports of young people obtaining e-cigarettes or vaping products. The only place for vaping should be as a possible aid to help existing smokers to quit using tobacco. Underpinning our concern is clear evidence that vaping products are not harm free. That is married with our concern about the tobacco industry’s involvement with and influence over vaping.

Last week, we published our consultation analysis on proposed restrictions on vaping products, and the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport aims to bring forward new regulations in the new year.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The recent consultation “Tightening rules on advertising and promoting vaping products” produced polarised views.

However, given that major Scottish football clubs are signing partnerships with vaping companies, and given reports that TikTok influencers are platforming such products to young people online, we need decisive action to control the crisis before it spirals out of control. Will the First Minister confirm whether further consideration has been given to introducing stricter regulations on the sale and marketing of e-cigarette products, both online and offline, and whether an effective, clear and educational public health message that addresses the new epidemic of nicotine addiction in children and young people is being developed?

The First Minister

Yes. I agree with the sentiments of that question. We are carefully considering the outcome of the consultation. We have not ruled anything out at this stage. Any action that we seek to take will build on the regulations that are already in place, which restrict the marketing, promotion and sale of vaping products to under-18s.

We recognise the vital importance of having a clear public health message for young people on the potential dangers of vaping, and we are working with Young Scot and the Children’s Parliament to bring their voices into our work to develop a refreshed tobacco action plan. We are determined to create a smoke-free Scotland, in which nicotine addiction is a thing of the past.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Will data on youth vaping that is collected from the local schools survey be collated and considered in the Scottish Government’s tobacco action plan that is due to be published next year?

The First Minister

Yes, it will be. We have a stated ambition to create a tobacco-free generation in Scotland by 2034, and we will consider how such a survey on vaping can help to deliver that ambition.

Investment Zones

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what discussions she has had with the United Kingdom Government about new investment zones for Scotland. (S6F-01419)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities wrote to the Deputy First Minister proposing official discussions on how investment zones might work in Scotland. We have agreed to exploratory discussions, but we have also emphasised that any model would require partnership working between the Scottish and UK Governments; that it must reflect the Scottish economic policy and governance landscape; and that it must respect the devolution settlement, particularly as it relates to planning and environmental protection.

We still await further information on the UK Government’s proposals.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I welcome the positivity of the First Minister’s response and I welcome the proposal to create investment zones in Scotland as one part of an ambitious plan to grow our economy—to incentivise businesses to invest, to build, and to create high-quality jobs.

I also welcome the reported constructive talks that have just been mentioned between Scottish ministers and the British Government.

However, for my constituents—the people of Central Scotland—and for people in businesses across Scotland, the success of the policy will depend on Scotland’s two Governments working co-operatively for the common good. That common good is about working together to attract new investment, new infrastructure and new high-skill and high-paid jobs.

I have read that as many as five or more investment zones could be created in Scotland. Will the First Minister set aside constitutional division, be ambitious for Scotland and work in partnership with the UK Government to bring the benefits of investment zones not only to the people of Central Scotland but to other parts of Scotland?

The First Minister

It is good to hear a Tory take a break from crashing the economy to talk about supporting the economy. That is certainly a refreshing change, although I am not convinced that it will be a long-standing one.

I say to the Tories that anybody who is really serious about growing the economy needs to tackle the anti-growth coalition in the Conservative Party—the people who took Scotland out of the European Union and the single market and the ones who are exacerbating skills shortages through their obsession with immigration. Perhaps it would support the economy to start there.

On investment zones, I am not sure whether Stephen Kerr listened to what I said. We have agreed to exploratory discussions, but we have to be satisfied that such zones are in Scotland’s interests. Crucially, we do not yet have any details on the UK Government’s proposals. [

Interruption

.] I know that the Scottish Tories just do anything that the UK Tories ask them to do, but this Government actually acts in the interests of the Scottish people—and that will be true on investment zones, as it is for everything else.

“Poverty in Scotland 2022”

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, “Poverty in Scotland 2022”. (S6F-01422)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The report is a stark reminder of the pressures that low-income households are facing and why the Government’s actions to tackle poverty are so important.

We have allocated almost £3 billion this year to help to mitigate the impact of increasing costs on households. That is from within our fixed budget, which is £1.7 billion less than it was in December last year, due to inflation. We are taking a range of actions, including increasing our unique Scottish child payment to £25 per week.

That is in sharp contrast to a UK Government that is plunging the UK into economic turmoil. We have seen over the past week—and, indeed, over the past 12 years—why it is so vital that the Parliament has the full powers to be able to tackle poverty and the cost of living and to support those who are most in need.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the First Minister for that answer, but the

Joseph Rowntree Foundation report highlighted the particular pressures facing families in Scotland with a disabled person in them, noting that

“Three in four families ... where someone has a disability reported a negative impact on their mental health due to the cost of living crisis”,

and even higher numbers have had to cut back on essential spending.

Another report published this week by Inclusion Scotland made the very stark statement that there will be “avoidable deaths” of disabled people this winter without targeted action. Scottish Labour has pushed and pushed the Scottish Government to do something for disabled people during the cost of living crisis; so far, we have been ignored. What urgent action will the Government take to step in and alleviate the pressures that are facing disabled people this winter?

The First Minister

It is the case that poverty has a disproportionate impact on certain groups in our society, which undoubtedly include disabled groups. The £3 billion that I mentioned will, of course, be of benefit in many respects to people who live with disabilities; the fuel insecurity fund is one example of that. Within the fixed budget and limited powers that we have, we will continue to do as much as we can to mitigate the impact of the cost of living crisis.

Of course, the fundamental problem is that so many such powers, and the access to resources, lie outwith the hands of the Parliament. It is not enough to have partial powers over welfare or partial resources; we need full powers in this Parliament. I hope that we might yet see the day when Scottish Labour will argue for such powers to be not with Tory Governments at Westminster but in the hands of this democratically elected Parliament.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

If the First Minister has all that power, why is she taking away money from disabled people by cutting the employability budget by £53 million this year? Will she tell the Scottish people—in particular, those who are disabled—why it is harder for a disabled person to get a job in Scotland than it is anywhere else in the United Kingdom?

The First Minister

It is important to stress that the budget for employability is increasing. It is not increasing by as much as we would like it to, because of the choices that we are being forced to make since our budget is shrinking as a result of the economic incompetence and financial decisions of the UK Government.

If any member does not like the decisions that we are making—we do not want to be in the position of having to make them—they can come and argue how else we should balance our budget and protect the people who are most in need.

I say particularly to the Conservatives that, if they do not like the decisions, they should start to argue with their colleagues at Westminster to stop cutting the Parliament’s budget so that such decisions are not necessary in the first place.

Deaths in Custody

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to reduce deaths in custody, including suicides, in light of reports of a 60 per cent year-on-year increase. (S6F-01423)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First and foremost, my thoughts are with everyone who has lost a loved one in prison custody. The safety and wellbeing of people who are in prison are a priority, and we recognise that we need to do more to support positive health outcomes for vulnerable people in prisons.

The prison health and social care needs assessment, which we published last month, and work undertaken in response to the independent deaths in custody review are key steps in our commitment to achieving that aim. All front-line staff are trained in the Scottish Prison Service’s prevention of suicide strategy, which provides a person-centred care pathway for prisoners who are at risk of suicide and promotes a supportive environment in which people can ask for help. Individuals are screened on their arrival at prison. When needed, the SPS and the national health service work together to support vulnerable individuals and review them regularly.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister is right to say that we need to do more. In my hand is a one-page roll call, which contains a tragic list of every single death in Scotland’s prisons last year. The list includes individuals’ names, ages and causes of death. I will not read out those names, out of respect for the families involved and to avoid the risk of retraumatising them, but those prisoners should not be forgotten. For example, at HMP Addiewell, a 26-year-old man took his own life nine months into his sentence; at HMP Kilmarnock, a 29-year-old man was found hanging four months into his sentence; and at HMP Greenock, a 27-year-old man was found hanging 15 months into his sentence. At HMP Polmont, a 20-year-old man—who had not even been convicted; he was on remand—was found dead.

Those are just the tragic suicides in prisons. Where do I start with the overdoses? Etizolam and opioid overdoses and multidrug intoxication are killing people in our prisons every week. They account for 53 of the deaths on the list in the past year alone. Ten years ago, there were 21 names on an equivalent list. That is still too many, but we can see that the number has doubled in 10 years.

Why is it still the case that so many people in custody are taking their lives? Despite years of promises to get a grip on the problem, why are so many drugs still getting into our prisons and killing people? I warn that this situation must stop or, next year, the list of deaths will be two pages long and the year after that it will be three pages long. I ask the First Minister when this will end.

The First Minister

Every death from suicide is a tragedy, no matter where it takes place, which is why this issue is not specifically about prisons. However, it is why the new suicide prevention strategy from the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which was launched last week, is so important. Clearly there are particular issues in prisons, which is why the work that I set out in my original answer is so important. The prevention of suicide in prison strategy aims to care for those at risk of suicide by providing a specific pathway based on an individual’s specific needs. Of course, a supportive environment should also be promoted to ensure that people in custody are able to ask for help. We will continue to take forward all of that work.

Finally, this is not the only reason but one of the many reasons that this Government has made it a priority to try to reduce the number of people, particularly vulnerable people, who are in our prisons in the first place by, for example, reducing short-term sentences and increasing community rehabilitation options. Often, the Conservatives come here and oppose all of those things, so I say in the interests of consensus that we should take forward this important debate in the context of a proper debate on criminal justice as a whole. We send too many people to prison in Scotland in the first place, and we need to tackle that as well as ensure that we tackle the conditions inside our prisons.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Research from the University of Glasgow has shown that in more than nine out of 10 fatal accident inquiries sheriffs made no recommendations to improve practice. It also shows that, when families are involved, sheriffs are three times more likely to make findings based on lessons learned from the deaths; however, only 31 per cent of families are represented at FAIs.

My colleague Katy Clark has raised the issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, but I ask the First Minister to consider whether all families and the next of kin of family members who have died in custody should have access to non-means-tested legal aid funding throughout the investigation. I am sure that the First Minister will appreciate that many families who have lost someone in custody feel helpless and intimidated by the process and it is important to ensure that they get representation where it is needed.

The First Minister

Those are important and legitimate issues to raise. Of course, a fatal accident inquiry is an independent judicial process that is mandatory for all deaths in custody unless the circumstances of the death have been explained through a criminal trial or other inquiry. The current process for FAIs, as enacted in legislation in 2016, follows an in-depth review of the system, and a number of improvements have been made to the system for such inquiries since the legislation in question was introduced. However, Pauline McNeill has clearly raised an important issue about legal aid and the ability of families to engage with inquiries, and I will certainly take it away and consider whether there is any further action that it would be appropriate for the Scottish Government to take.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions. There will be a short suspension before we move on to the next item of business, which is a members’ business debate in the name of Mark Ruskell.

12:48 Meeting suspended.

12:49 On resuming—

Greyhound Racing

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind everyone that Parliament is still sitting, so those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery should do so as quickly and as quietly as possible.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-05949, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on greyhound racing in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put, and I encourage members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes reports that the last licensed greyhound racing track in Scotland, Shawfield Stadium, Rutherglen has not been operational since March 2020; further notes the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s view that there should be an end to greyhound racing at unlicensed tracks, including, it understands, the last remaining track at Thornton in Fife; acknowledges reported animal welfare concerns linked with greyhound racing, including neglect, malnutrition, doping with Class A substances, lack of adequate healthcare provision, and severe and fatal injuries; highlights the latest reported data released by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) regarding Shawfield Stadium, reporting 197 injuries and 15 deaths between 2017 and 2020; understands that there is no similar data at unlicensed tracks where there is no official regulatory body present to ensure that animal welfare standards are met, and commends campaigners and rescue organisations for their ongoing rehoming and awareness-raising work, including the Scottish SPCA, One Kind, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation, and others.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank members who signed the motion for debate

and those who have put time aside during this very busy day at Holyrood to listen and contribute. I also thank the organisations and campaigners who work tirelessly on greyhound welfare and rehoming across the United Kingdom, including Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation, OneKind, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Blue Cross and Dogs Trust. Some of those organisations are outside Parliament today with greyhounds. I invite all members and members of the public to join them after this debate.

I admit that few of my Holyrood motions garner support from all corners of the chamber. However, I was delighted to see strong cross-party support for this motion, and I look forward to hearing everyone’s contributions.

It is worth reflecting on what that level of support means. First, it means that greyhounds are a much-loved and iconic breed of dog that are loved as much for their good nature as for their speed and grace. It also shows that society’s attitudes to greyhound racing have seriously shifted.

In recent years, greyhound racing tracks around the country have closed down. Once, there were more than 20 licensed tracks in Scotland; now, with Shawfield stadium in Rutherglen having hosted no races since 2020, there are none left.

Thanks to dogged campaigners and organisations that have exposed the harms of that so-called sport, it is now impossible to ignore the brutal reality of greyhound racing. People have voted with their feet. Tracks have shut down and sites have been repurposed for housing. However, greyhound racing is still not banned in Scotland. With the de facto closure of Shawfield stadium, there may not be any operational licensed tracks left, but there still remains one unlicensed track at Thornton greyhound stadium in Fife, which operates under no obligations to meet industry welfare rules.

It will be no surprise to members that I am calling for a phased end to greyhound racing in Scotland. I am not the only one. Concerns about the levels of injuries and deaths of dogs at greyhound racing tracks across the UK have been growing, and the positions of bodies including the SSPCA, the RSPCA and Dogs Trust have now shifted decisively to back a phased ban on greyhound racing.

Those calls for a ban do not come lightly. They are evidence based, and they follow years of patient working with the industry to drive reform of welfare standards. However, the attempts at reform have, unfortunately, failed.

The Greyhound Board of Great Britain, which is the regulating body, has been required to publish injury and death statistics annually since 2017. In 2018, it introduced a “Greyhound Commitment”, which aimed to improve welfare and reduce injuries. Despite those measures, the latest data reported 197 injuries and 15 deaths between 2017 and 2020 at Shawfield stadium alone. The injuries data for Shawfield in 2020 nearly doubled.

Fundamentally, greyhounds cannot be raced against one another at 40mph around a circular track in a way that does not expose the dogs to unacceptable risks of injury and death. That is the crux of the matter, because even having a vet present at a licensed track does not remove or mitigate those risks. It is fundamentally unethical to race dogs as a spectacle for entertainment and gambling knowing that they face those unacceptable risks of injury and death.

It is clear that the current laws are inadequate and do not protect greyhounds from harm. The Animal Welfare Bill went through the Scottish Parliament in 2005, and the evidence sessions briefly focused on greyhound racing. I was a member of the committee that dealt with that bill. The committee as a whole felt that the duty of care placed on animal keepers to ensure that animals are

“protected from suffering, injury and disease”

was enough to drive better welfare for greyhounds. I agreed with that position, but, unfortunately, the Parliament was proven wrong. Welfare problems have increased, not declined, and greyhounds are being wilfully subjected to, rather than protected from, suffering and injury.

Even in the absolutely clearest cases of abuse that would breach the legal duty of care, the GBGB rules of racing are applied internally by its own disciplinary committee, with details published only four to five months after the offence. The SSPCA has found that that does not allow it enough time to gather evidence and mount a prosecution under the statutory time limits.

The risks at unregulated tracks such as Thornton are potentially even greater. Thornton is now reporting up to 30 dogs running on race nights and, as the last track standing in Scotland, it might attract trainers who previously raced greyhounds at Shawfield.

Unregulated tracks have no requirement to apply governing body rules, provide veterinary support on site or test dogs for doping. There is also the likelihood of ex-licensed track racers being sold on to race at Thornton, where they would be more prone to injury because of their age or health issues that come from a long career in racing.

Last week, Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and Blue Cross called for a phased end to greyhound racing. Reviews that those three charities have conducted have found disjointed and ineffective regulation in the greyhound sector, a lack of transparency about industry practices and concerns about the enforcement of regulatory standards.

The charities’ proposed phase-out across the UK is expected to be feasible within five years, to allow the racing industry and animal welfare organisations to carefully plan and co-ordinate the care of the many dogs that would be affected. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which has already called for an end to unlicensed greyhound tracks, has committed to considering the joint work of the charities before coming to its own position on the future of licensed tracks.

The previous Scottish Government was right to end the exploitation of wild animals in travelling circuses when their use had dwindled away and when there were strong welfare and ethical arguments for a ban. We have reached the same point today with greyhound racing. Instead of asking whether we should ban greyhound racing, the question to ask is really this: who wants to keep it alive?

Is greyhound racing one of the biggest issues facing Scotland today, of all days? No—it is not. However, if we can spare an hour in the chamber, even in the hardest of times, to give a voice to animals who are voiceless, that speaks volumes of our compassionate values as a Parliament. With that thought, I look forward to members’ contributions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to the open debate.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing cross-party support for his motion—support from all parties is, indeed, a fine thing—to allow the debate to go ahead. I recognise all the work that he does for animal welfare and for greyhounds, in particular.

It is a pleasure to make a brief contribution, and I am happy to speak in support of the motion. I agree with the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s view that greyhound racing at unlicensed tracks should end, and I welcome its consideration of the situation for licensed tracks.

I was introduced to the topic by my constituent Emily Rimicans when I met her and Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation in Irvine a number of years ago. I had no real prior knowledge of the subject and, perhaps like many people, I assumed that the dogs were well looked after. On reflection, perhaps I was a little naive in thinking that running and chasing were natural behaviours and that it was therefore all right.

Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation has held weekly protests outside Scotland’s remaining greyhound track. It has been campaigning since 2017 for an end to the exploitation of greyhounds. I joined the group at a protest in Buchanan Street in Glasgow, where its placards powerfully illustrated to the many passers-by the reality of greyhound racing for the animals. I commend that organisation on its awareness-raising work.

Many of those who were protesting had rescued greyhounds, so they knew at first hand how these wonderful animals are treated by the racing industry. Greyhounds are treated like commodities—they are dumped and discarded when they are deemed no longer useful.

The reported animal welfare concerns that are linked with greyhound racing are, frankly, jaw dropping. They include neglect, malnutrition, doping with class A substances, a lack of adequate healthcare provision and severe and fatal injuries. Substances found in samples that were taken from dogs that ran at Shawfield included cocaine, amphetamine, steroids, beta-blockers and prohormones. All of them can have harmful side effects, some of which are severe.

The fact that there is no testing at Thornton, Scotland’s unlicensed track, should raise grave concerns about the level of drugs that are used there. A comprehensive internal review, which was conducted by Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and Blue Cross, highlighted serious concerns at every stage of a racing greyhound’s life, including inadequate welfare standards in kennelling and transporting of the dogs. Some of the dogs that were used in racing were kept in poor, barren conditions, with little—if any—enrichment, and they were fed a very poor diet. The review also highlighted concerns around the general health of the dogs, including the number and severity of injuries that were sustained during racing. There were also serious issues around the racing of greyhounds in extreme weather and around the number of puppies that were unaccounted for between birth and racing registrations, which the sector often refers to as “wastage”.

Greyhound racing is inherently dangerous for the dogs that are involved. Running at speed around oval tracks causes significant injury to many dogs and, in some cases, the injuries are so severe that it is necessary to euthanise the dogs. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain is a self-regulating organisation that covers licensed greyhound racing in Great Britain. In my opinion, one death of an animal for the so-called entertainment of humans is too many, but the latest reported data that was released by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain concludes that there were more than 1,000 deaths at its tracks in the five years between 2017 and 2021. There is no similar data for unlicensed tracks, where no official regulatory body is present to ensure that animal welfare standards are met.

I commend all the campaigners and rescue organisations for their on-going rehoming and awareness-raising work. When I am out walking my dog, Rudi, she particularly enjoys meeting greyhounds on the beach and always makes a valiant attempt at racing them. She is a miniature dachshund, so “valiant” is putting it lightly.

I will close by mentioning again all the people who rehome these wonderful dogs and give them the life and love that they deserve.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Ms Maguire. I am sure that my sister will graciously accept those plaudits.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the future of greyhound racing in Scotland, and I thank Mark Ruskell for bringing the motion before the chamber.

Dogs, in all shapes and sizes, are loving members of our families, not only in Scotland, but across the globe, so protecting their safety and overall welfare is vital.

It is clear that greyhound racing in Scotland has been in decline for years. As the dog-racing industry boomed across the west of Scotland throughout the early to mid-20th century, thousands of Scots flocked to packed stadiums each week to spectate at the races under the floodlights. It became a core leisure activity for many communities across the country, because it offered escapism, a night out with friends and the chance to win some money.

However, that was then, and this is now. Today, since the popularity of greyhound racing has faded, as we have heard, only two tracks remain. One of them is Shawfield stadium, in my parliamentary region, and the other, which is what is known as a flapper track, is at Thornton, where regulations are pretty loose.

In collaboration with animal welfare charities across the country, I acknowledge the positive work that is undertaken by people in the industry, such as the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, to improve conditions for racing dogs. However, despite those efforts, glaring issues remain—in particular, the scope and robustness of the regulation that is in place to protect the welfare of dogs on and off the track. Data shows that, from 2017 to the present, more than 22,000 injuries to racing dogs have been recorded in the UK. That is a staggering number. Like many people, I have seen at first hand the awful injuries that these graceful dogs have suffered, including limbs that are so badly injured that vets are left with no option but to amputate. Heartbreakingly, over the same period, at least 1,000 dogs lost their lives through racing.

W

ith the industry in decline, leading animal welfare groups, such as Blue Cross and Dogs Trust, have called for a phased end to greyhound racing in Scotland and the UK. As we discuss whether the industry has a future in 21st century Scotland, we cannot lose sight of the important matters that need to be considered—not least how to support the livelihoods of people who are engaged in the sector.

However, one thing is clear: the safety and welfare of greyhounds are paramount. On that note, I pay tribute to the fantastic work that Scotland’s rescue centres do in caring for and rehoming retired racing dogs. Dedicated volunteers across the country play a vital role in safeguarding the welfare of thousands of retired greyhounds, many of which have spent years on the race track. I know this at first hand because a member of my parliamentary staff adopted a particularly cheeky and playful greyhound named Todd, who, when he stands on his back legs, is way taller than I am. Most dogs are—even Ruth Maguire’s dachshund would probably be taller than me. Todd quickly became a much-loved and cherished part of the family.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I appeal to people who are considering getting a pet. By adopting a greyhound, not only would they be bringing a special and gentle dog into their family, but they would be giving a retired greyhound a home—a place where the dog will be loved and cared for, not because of how fast it can run, but for who it is. [

Applause

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I know that this is an issue about which people feel passionately, but I encourage people in the public gallery not to participate, which includes clapping. Thank you.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate. I am aware that much of my contribution might repeat what others have said, but I do not care.

I thank OneKind, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for their briefings. They all support a complete ban on greyhound racing in Scotland.

Yesterday, in discussion about the debate with another member, I was asked whether I have ever attended a greyhound racing meeting. In fact, I have, although it was many moons ago. It was at Powderhall stadium in Edinburgh, which has long since been demolished and redeveloped for housing. The floodlights gave it glamour; the dogs charged out after the rabbit decoy and it was all very exciting. However, that was a long time ago and life, times and the way in which we look at the value and worth of our animals have moved on. These days, we are aware of the toll that racing takes on the dogs, and not all owners and tracks put the welfare of the dogs at the centre. Despite the work of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, too many dogs have been drugged, injured or put down. As has been mentioned, there are particular concerns about unlicensed tracks.

The cross-party group on animal welfare, which I chair, has had the chief executive of the GBGB before it, and the issue of welfare of greyhounds was raised with him. Although he appeared genuinely to want to tighten up on the welfare of greyhounds, there are still too many deaths and injuries. I have read the GBGB 2022 strategy. It claims that greyhound racing is “a welfare-centric sport”, and talks about a “long-term strategy” for the dogs, a “lifelong commitment” to their wellbeing and maximisation of rehoming. However, it is too late and out of time.

The GBGB reported that across the UK, between 2017 and 2020, more than 1,000 dogs died or were euthanised and there were 1,800 injuries. As others have said, at Shawfield, which is the only Scottish licensed track, during the same period there were 197 injuries and 15 deaths. That is too many injuries and too many deaths. There should not have been any.

According to the GBGB, in 2021, in excess of 18,000 licensed greyhounds were eligible for its licensed tracks, with additional greyhound racing on so-called independent tracks, for which there are no recorded figures. I think that many people who are listening to this debate will be surprised—to put it mildly—that there are unlicensed tracks. The only one in Scotland is in Thornton in Fife. It is unregulated and there is no record of veterinary facilities at the site. Incidentally, the only available data that I could dig out for Thornton race track is from the owner, who commented that only one in 10 dogs is injured. That is a 10 per cent injury rate, so the use of the word “only” is hardly appropriate. In addition to the injuries, there is evidence of doping, poor welfare conditions and there being no vet in attendance.

As for a dog’s destiny at the end of its career—if I can use the word “career”—it can be varied. According to the GBGB, some are unsuitable for rehoming and are euthanised—which means that they are put to death. Others might be rehomed. I have seen a few round Holyrood park, so somebody must be organising rehoming here, which I commend.

I also once saw for myself, when driving down the A7 just past Gorebridge, a confused and terrified greyhound loose at the side of the road. I reported it to the SSPCA, as did others who had seen it. My hunch was that it had been dumped and left to its fate, either to be killed by a car or, perhaps, to be lucky enough to be reported by someone. Leaving it there was callous and indefensible behaviour.

Once greyhound racing was a working man’s sport that was favoured particularly in mining communities, but we have moved on in respect of the way that we view animals. We have regard for their sentience, therefore we have a deeper responsibility for our demands on them—as pets, or for so-called sport or entertainment. I therefore support the banning of greyhound racing in Scotland, but in a phased manner, with the caveat that we must protect the animals that are already being bred or used for racing, so that they are given better lives.

Again, I commend the member for bringing the debate to the chamber. I hope that the Scottish Welfare Commission moves a step further and bans not just unlicensed tracks, but the one remaining licensed track, which fortunately, for the time being, is de facto not in use. Presiding Officer, you have been very tolerant.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am pleased to be speaking in today’s important debate and I thank Mark Ruskell for bringing it to the chamber. Like Christine Grahame, I will not apologise for repeating some things that have already been said, because they are so important.

I am not going to mince my words: greyhound racing is barbaric. It is the exploitation of beautiful dogs purely to make money, and I absolutely abhor it. Animals are not products or commodities to be used for human entertainment. How anyone can find terrified dogs racing round a track entertaining is beyond me.

At least 1,026 deaths were recorded at tracks by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain in the past five years. Nearly 18,000 injuries were recorded in the UK between 2018 and 2021. The board reported that, during that period, 197 injuries were reported at Shawfield stadium in Glasgow, with 15 deaths. It is absolutely sickening. Thankfully, Shawfield stadium has not reopened since March 2020.

As we have heard, there is one track left in Scotland, at Thornton in Fife, which is unlicensed and therefore completely unregulated. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has stated that it recommends that Thornton be closed immediately. I sincerely hope that it is. We will never know how many animals will die or are injured and suffering at that facility, and it should close immediately.

Animal welfare charities such as Blue Cross, the SSPCA and Dogs Trust have for years tried to work with the governing bodies on the welfare of greyhounds, including on what happens when their racing days end. Now they have had enough. They want the so-called sport of greyhound racing to be banned. Great work by campaigners has highlighted serious welfare concerns for racing greyhounds, including a restrictive existence, a culture of drugging dogs, a poor diet and an uncertain fate—which is often euthanasia, once their “career” is over.

These beautiful gentle dogs spend most of their time in often dank and dirty kennels, and suffer from untreated wounds and injuries. They can also be constantly muzzled, which is unbearably stressful for them. There are also serious issues around racing of greyhounds in extreme weather. During this year’s hot summer, dogs have been forced to race in 32°C heat. That is downright cruelty.

Incredibly, the number of puppies that are unaccounted for between birth and racing registration are often referred to by the sector as “the wastage”. That is sickening. Dogs are not being regarded as sentient beings; they are merely “wastage”.

The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has been required to publish the data on deaths and injuries only since 2017, so I fear that the figures that have been released are just the tip of the iceberg. There is no independent validation of the data. The figures could be—in my opinion, they are likely to be—even higher.

Internal policy reviews that have been conducted by Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Blue Cross found disjointed and ineffective regulation of the sector, a lack of transparency regarding industry practices, and concerns around enforcement of regulatory standards.

There is no doubt that a culture of drugging dogs to enhance or impair performance—in effect, to rig races—is widespread. Substances that have been found in samples that were taken from dogs running at Shawfield include cocaine, amphetamines, steroids, beta blockers and prohormones. All those can have harmful side effects, some of which are severe, and all lead to the extreme suffering of dogs.

In addition, the fate of dogs, once their career is over, is unknown. However, I have seen quite horrific pictures of decapitated greyhounds lying in a ditch.

I hope that we are seeing the beginning of the end for greyhound racing in Scotland. The abuse of these beautiful and gentle dogs must end now. Like others, I thank for their determined and great efforts local campaign groups including one in my Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency, Blue Cross, the Scottish SPCA, Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation, the RSPCA, OneKind, the League Against Cruel Sports and others, for their tireless campaigning to stop this barbaric practice.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the League Against Cruel Sports.

I thank Mark Ruskell for lodging his timely motion on ending greyhound racing in Scotland. I say “timely”, but the reality is that a ban on greyhound racing in Scotland is long overdue.

I do not believe that all those who have gone to a greyhound track over the years, had a bet on a race or even trained or raced greyhounds do not care about the dogs who are racing. Of course, many of them do care, but the reality is that racing a dog around an oval track at speeds in excess of 40mph, with the inevitable collisions and accidents with other dogs, rails and advertising boards, is undeniably cruel.

What little is left of this largely unregulated so-called sport in Scotland is rife with not just injuries and deaths but the drugging of dogs and the casting aside of greyhounds when they are no longer deemed fit to race and therefore have no economic value. All of that is overseen by an industry that has consistently failed to bring about meaningful improvements. Its time is up and so, too, is greyhound racing. It is time to phase it out; it is time for a ban.

I know that some people will argue that, with just two tracks in Scotland—Shawfield, which has not opened since 2020, and the unregulated, unlicensed Thornton—greyhound racing is in decline and will soon come to a natural end. That might be true, but how many more injuries, how many more deaths and how much more cruelty will there be before that happens?

Although the Greyhound Board of Great Britain has had to publish data only since 2017, we know that at least 22,767 injuries and 1,206 deaths have been reported at registered greyhound tracks across the UK up to 2020. There were dozens at Shawfield before it closed, even though it operated just one night per week, and we do not know how many there were at Thornton because it is not required to record or publish that most basic data or even to have a vet present at a race.

There is also no requirement for any drug testing at Thornton, but we know that, even with drug testing taking place at 2 per cent of races at Shawfield before racing was halted, there were 13 positive cases from 2018 to 2019 alone. Those involved steroids, beta blockers, prohormones and, shockingly, in five cases, cocaine. Despite that, no criminal proceedings appear to have been pursued for drugging, abuse cases, injuries or deaths at Shawfield. It is clear that regulation simply does not work.

What about after the racing has stopped? That, too, is unregulated, often unknown and certainly unacceptable. The GBGB does not share microchip records, which would allow individual dogs to be traced, but we know that 668 of the dog deaths from 2017 to 2019 were of dogs who were killed due to the cost of treatment to rehabilitate them following an injury.

However, thankfully, many dogs find new homes due to the outstanding work of many charities. In my South Scotland region, there was a greyhound track at Gretna until 2017. It is no coincidence that, in 2001, Dumfriesshire Greyhound Rescue, which now also covers Cumbria, was founded by Graham and Margaret Hill to rehome retired racing greyhounds. The Gretna track might have gone, but their outstanding work in rehoming those animals continues. Twenty years on, they have rehomed more than 1,860 dogs and have provided continuous care for up to 15 dogs at a time as they look for new homes. We owe them and all the charities that pick up the pieces of greyhound racing a real debt of gratitude.

I also thank those who have—over many years, often in dark times when no one appeared to be listening—been vocal in their support of a ban on greyhound racing. They include my constituent Gill Don, from the abolish all greyhound racing campaign, who has raised the issue with me almost from the day I was elected, and Gill Docherty and Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation, whose petition to Parliament is slowly but surely making progress. It has been signed by more than 13,000 people, making it the fifth most-signed petition in Parliament’s history.

In calling for a ban, charities such as OneKind and the League Against Cruel Sports have now been joined, significantly, by the RSPCA, the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust and Blue Cross, which spent years trying to work with the industry to bring about improvements but have now simply lost patience. As we have heard, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has already backed an end to unlicensed tracks, and I have no doubt that it will soon back an end to licensed tracks.

It is time for the Scottish Government to follow those organisations, listen to public opinion and make it clear that it will introduce legislation to end this cruelty and phase out greyhound racing once and for all. I can give the minister this assurance: she need not worry about doing that, because charities such as Dumfriesshire and Cumbria Greyhound Rescue, the SSPCA and many others will ensure that the dogs that are left find good, loving homes to enjoy in their retirement, free from abuse and cruelty.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank Mark Ruskell for securing it. I am also happy to support his motion. I associate myself with his comments, and I thank all the groups that he has mentioned for the action that they have taken.

Greyhound racing is legal in just seven countries in the world. As many speakers have mentioned, only two tracks now remain in Scotland: Shawfield, in Rutherglen, which has not been operational since 2020; and Thornton, in Fife. Colin Smyth has just mentioned Halcrow stadium in Gretna, which is in my South Scotland region. It closed in 2018, and housing has since been built on the site.

The number of greyhounds intended for racing is currently at its lowest in Scotland and, as the Scottish SPCA has highlighted, if implemented in a phased manner, with full communication with all involved, a ban at this time would place the smallest possible burden on rescue organisations in relation to ensuring that all dogs currently racing can be rehomed responsibly.

Ultimately, I agree that we need legislative change to ban racing in our country in order to tackle the high number of injuries, deaths and positive drug tests that are reported in the industry and to reflect the lack of public support for this unsavoury use of animals for human entertainment and gambling profit.

The regulatory body for greyhound racing, the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, has been required to publish injury and death statistics since 2017. In 2018, the board introduced a greyhound commitment, with the aim of improving welfare and reducing injuries. Despite that, according to the board’s injury retirement data for 2018, across the UK, just short of 5,000 dogs were injured—an increase on the previous year. The figures also state that more than 2,000 dogs died or were killed in the racing industry in 2018-19. The GBGB also reported nine positive drug tests in dogs at Shawfield in 2018 alone, as reported in various issues of its

Calendar

publication. Information that is published by the GBGB demonstrates that there continued to be positive drug tests with class A drugs in 2019. Those tests show that dogs were drugged with cocaine, methamphetamine and other drugs, as Ruth Maguire and Rona Mackay have described. In reality, the rates of drugging are likely to be much higher, as only about 3 per cent of dogs who are running are tested.

There have been 119 entries and 15 deaths at Shawfield alone. As the Scottish SPCA reports, we do not have the numbers for the unlicensed Thornton track. Those numbers speak volumes and demonstrate the need for a ban.

Anyone who has a greyhound will know that they love comfort and attention. As a dog owner, and as a proponent of dog-friendly policies, I know how much love our four-legged companions bring. As Colin Smyth described, great rehoming work is being done by Dumfriesshire and Cumbria Greyhound Rescue, which has a shop in Lockerbie. I commended it for its rehoming work.

It is absolutely not right that those dogs are forced to run in a practice that is simply for human entertainment and monetary gain, and I absolutely agree that there must be a ban. A Scottish animal welfare charity, the Scottish SPCA, has reported that greyhound racing is a significant animal welfare issue, and one that needs to be stopped.

The question is not whether there should be a ban but when the ban should happen. Again, I thank Mark Ruskell for his motion.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I begin the Government’s response to the debate, which I thank Mark Ruskell for introducing and members for taking part in, by being very clear that greyhounds are intelligent, affectionate and gentle animals, that the mistreatment of animals in Scotland is completely unacceptable and that we expect people who are found guilty of mistreatment to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The Scottish Government is committed to the highest standard of animal welfare, and we welcome views from stakeholders such as the Scottish SPCA, Dogs Trust, OneKind and others who have recently contributed to discussions. We work closely with those organisations and, as Mr Ruskell does in his motion and members across the chamber have done, I give the Government’s thanks to those organisation, campaigners and rescue groups for their work campaigning for and rehoming greyhounds.

Like many other people, I am very concerned by the reports detailing injuries and deaths, particularly at Shawfield between 2017 and 2020. The Scottish Government takes those figures very seriously, as well as any other unnecessary injury or welfare concerns that are caused for any animal as a result of human activity, or for entertainment, as a number of members have reflected on.

Against the backdrop of those shocking figures, we note the reported permanent closure of Shawfield stadium, having not reopened following the suspension of race meetings due to the pandemic. As members have reflected on, that leaves only one unlicensed track, in Fife. Despite only one track remaining, the Scottish Government appreciates the depth of feeling that is associated with the sport, and recognises the considerations that have been undertaken as part of public petition PE1758.

In the time that I have today, I will cover the law as it stands before looking to the future and actions that could be taken on the matter. The provisions that are included in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, as amended, ensure that action can be taken where there is evidence that the welfare needs of greyhounds, whether still racing or retired, are not being met.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The minister says that legislation is already in place. Whose responsibility is it to enforce that?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The member raises an important part about enforcement, which I will come on to, if he does not mind waiting.

I was about to point out that part 2 of the act applies to all persons who are responsible for animals, which in this case includes the breeders, trainers and owners of racing greyhounds. We recently moved to amend the 2006 act with the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which means that people who are found guilty of offences can now face up to five years in prison and unlimited fines. Those recent changes are part of the Government’s unwavering conviction that the mistreatment of animals in Scotland is completely unacceptable. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect that those found guilty will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is obvious that the 2006 act has been highly effective in some areas of welfare reform—in ensuring that the welfare of animals is protected and that adequate prosecutions have been brought through—but does the minister believe that there are particular problems with the application of the act to greyhound racing, and that it has not been effective in driving the reforms that we all want to see?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

That intervention, like the previous one, is important. It is a point about the enforcement of the law as it stands. The Scottish Government’s position is that the 2006 act, as it stands, is sufficient, but we are interested in how enforcement, particularly in the case of greyhound racing, can be improved.

The Government has taken significant steps to protect and promote the welfare of all dogs, including via those stronger penalties. In addition, following the granting of legislative consent for the relevant parts of the United Kingdom Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we will continue to work with the other UK Administrations on proposals to tackle the illegal puppy trade, including restricting the number of puppies that can be imported in one vehicle, and preventing the importation of puppies under six months old, heavily pregnant female dogs and dogs that have had their ears cropped or have been subject to other mutilations that would be illegal in the UK.

If those proposals are brought to fruition, they will benefit the lives of thousands of dogs, including puppies that are bred and reared for the greyhound racing industry, in which a large proportion of the greyhounds that are racing in Britain have been bred elsewhere and transported into the country. The Government is directing time and resources to actions that we think can have the widest possible impact on the largest possible number of dogs.

That work is being led largely by my colleague Mairi Gougeon, but it also sits alongside work that I am leading on the protection of wildlife, including ending the chasing and killing of foxes and wild mammals by dogs, reforming grouse moor management, banning glue traps, considering the future of snaring, and reviewing the powers of the Scottish SPCA. The Government is taking all that work forward right now.

That is as it stands, but I will return to the issue at hand. Despite the Scottish Government having a robust legislative framework in place and, as ever, pursuing more impactful change, we recognise that authorities face challenges with enforcement when they collect data and evidence, particularly from unlicensed greyhound racing premises. We know that there is concern regarding suspected instances of malpractice, including doping and a lack of veterinary care, as members have indicated. We are committed to continuing to work with enforcement authorities including the Scottish SPCA and other stakeholders to ensure that the enforcement of our robust laws is operating as it needs to be. In that regard, I encourage anyone who is concerned about the welfare of any animal to report their concerns to local authorities.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am a bit short of time, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will give you the time back.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I will be brief. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, which has been tasked by the Government with dealing with all these issues, has said that it wants a ban on greyhound racing at unlicensed tracks. Does the minister have any timeline for when it might come out with a view on licensed tracks and, therefore, an outright ban?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I would not want to pre-empt the work of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. From the Government’s point of view, all I can say is that we look forward to hearing its comments, as we look forward to hearing the comments of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, and we will take all that into consideration.

In closing, I will look specifically at what we can do right now to improve the situation in greyhound racing, which has much declined in Scotland but is still very concerning. I clarify that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s letter of 23 May to the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee did not call for an outright ban on greyhound racing. Rather, the letter stated that the commission

“does not support the continuation of unlicensed .. . tracks in Scotland.”

The commission considered that, if greyhound racing was to continue, it should be conducted “under specific regulations” to protect the health and welfare of dogs. As I said to Christine Grahame, we will carefully consider recommendations that have been made by the commission and by the RAINE Committee.

However, members will be aware of the programme for government’s commitment to consult stakeholders on extending licensing legislation to animal care services, which could include dog training, walking and grooming services. Government officials have already begun the preliminary stages of that work, which in substance will be taken forward at the earliest opportunity. My colleague Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, is leading on that work, but I am very pleased to be able to confirm that, while we await the views of SAWC and the opinions of the rural affairs committee, we will include the activities of the greyhound industry in that consultation on licensing.

Despite the greyhound racing industry’s decline in Scotland, we are clear that animal welfare is paramount and must be upheld. Cruelty to animals, whether they are domesticated or wild, has no place in modern Scotland.

13:33 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Social Justice, Housing and Local Government

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio questions on social justice, housing and local government. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question or enter R in the chat function.

I make the plea again for succinct questions and answers, in order to get in as many members as possible.

Cost of Living Crisis (Impact on Poverty)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

1. We heard at First Minister’s question time about a report by the University of Glasgow and the Glasgow Centre for Population Health that says that, due to Tory austerity, 20,000 more deaths than expected were recorded in Scotland in an eight-year period. We want to avoid similar excess deaths in the future.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the impact of the cost of living crisis on poverty levels in Scotland. (S6O-01428)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I share the member’s concern—concern was also expressed by the First Minister—about that shocking report.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have made repeated calls for immediate action to support households. Following the UK mini-budget, the Deputy First Minister has again written to the chancellor seeking a reversal of the damage that was inflicted on people who are already bearing the brunt and having to choose between going hungry or being cold.

We will continue to use the limited powers and finite budget that are available to mitigate the impact of actions that undermine our efforts to tackle poverty, and to press the UK Government for targeted support for householders and businesses, increases to social security and greater financial powers and resources.

The report to which Paul McLennan referred obviously looks back to the previous period of austerity. It is frightening that we could see that repeated—and more so—in a new era of austerity, which, of course, we want to avoid.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

There is no doubt that UK Government policies are adding huge pressures on people who are already struggling to stay afloat.

Does the cabinet secretary share my frustration that, although the Scottish Government does all that it can to help people, the reality is that there is a limit to what can be achieved without the full fiscal and borrowing powers that the UK Government has?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I share that frustration. Although the decisions of the UK Government continue to push people into hardship, we have allocated almost £3 billion from our fixed budget—a budget that is worth £1.7 billion less than in December due to inflation.

The harsh reality of a fixed budget is that every pound that we spend to help with rising costs has to be funded by reductions elsewhere. That is why it is vital that this Parliament should have the full powers to tackle poverty and the cost of living crisis, and to support those in need.

Cost of Living Crisis (Additional Resources for Third Sector Advice and Support Services)

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to provide additional financial resources for third sector organisations that are on the front line in providing advice and support services as the cost of living crisis continues to deepen. (S6O-01429)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The third sector is hugely diverse and often provides lifeline services to our most vulnerable communities, which is why we have invested around £12.5 million this year to support the provision of free income maximisation services and welfare and debt advice.

Although we will do all that we can, our largely fixed budgets and limited fiscal powers mean that we need the United Kingdom Government to take urgent action to support people in need. We continue to deliver on key commitments to the third sector around fairer funding by providing multiyear funding when we can to provide much-needed stability in these uncertain times.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

In the summer, I met a wide range of third sector organisations across West Scotland, including the Lochwinnoch community larder and starter packs Inverclyde. New research from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has revealed the precarious situation that third sector organisations are facing, with figures showing that 64 per cent of those organisations have reported an increase in demand and 61 per cent have described facing imminent financial challenges. Many are worried about how they will keep their lights on and doors open.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to establishing a new third sector resilience fund, such as that which was put in place at the start of the pandemic, to ensure that third sector organisations can continue to support the most vulnerable, rather than focus on their own survival?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Paul O’Kane raises important points, and he is right to highlight the work of important front-line organisations that are really helping people during the cost of living crisis.

The SCVO has estimated that the public sector as a whole invests around £1.8 billion each year in supporting the work of charities and social enterprises. Around £500 million of that comes from the Scottish Government through a broad range of programmes, including on supporting mental wellbeing, community empowerment, children and families and health and social care.

We are talking to the sector about how we move more to multiyear funding because we know that stability is important, not least to the ability to retain and recruit staff. We will continue to have those discussions and, as we engage in discussions through the emergency budget review and the budget beyond that, we will give consideration to the points that the member raises.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

In the members’ business debate on Tuesday night, the cabinet secretary said that she and her officials meet the SCVO regularly to talk about different issues. Will she commit to meeting the SCVO to talk about three-year funding packages?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As I just said in my answers to Paul O’Kane, we will continue to meet the SCVO and others to talk about multiyear funding. We are already doing that and will continue to have those meetings. However, I make the point to Jeremy Balfour that, if our budgets continue to reduce, either through inflation—there has been a £1.7 billion reduction in the value of existing budgets—or the potential £18 billion-worth of cuts to public services that could come at us from UK Government decisions, that will put at risk funding across the board, including the support that we give to the third sector. I urge him to have the same discussions with his UK counterpart about the importance of maintaining Scottish budgets for those reasons.

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

As a former third sector worker, I recognise how much organisations across Scotland support our communities. It is abundantly clear that additional funding is required from the UK Government to meet the demands of the current cost crisis, especially, as the cabinet secretary outlined, the £1.7 billion reduction in our budget due to inflation. What engagement has the Scottish Government had with other devolved Administrations regarding that issue?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Deputy First Minister spoke with the finance ministers from Wales and Northern Ireland last month. They, of course, are facing similar pressures. The Deputy First Minister and his counterparts wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week to request an urgent meeting and called for additional funding to deal with the crisis. It is really important that that meeting takes place because it is not only the Scottish Government that is voicing such concerns. The same concerns are being voiced by the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive as well.

Bill of Rights Bill

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is regarding the impact on Scotland of the United Kingdom Government’s reported plans to withdraw the Bill of Rights Bill. (S6O-01430)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

It was welcome to hear that the UK Government had postponed its dangerous, ill-conceived Bill of Rights Bill, which was an unwelcome attempt to deprive us all of the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of a modern, democratic society. It would also have undermined the Scottish Parliament and the devolution settlement. Therefore, I was concerned by comments at the weekend from the UK Secretary of State for Justice, who said that he remained committed to reforming the Human Rights Act 1998. I urge the UK Government to instead reverse its plans and focus on making rights real for everyone across the whole UK.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the minister outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure the protection of European Union, international and domestic human rights law in Scotland, as the right-wing UK Government, whether through the Bill of Rights Bill or its general approach to inequalities in the UK, continues to threaten them?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

In contrast to the UK Government’s regressive approach, our priority is to strengthen the domestic legal protection and practical application of international human rights standards. We have already committed to introducing a new, landmark human rights bill during the current session of Parliament. We also remain committed to incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as far as possible within devolved competence and to aligning with European law in devolved areas where that is possible and appropriate. I continue to urge the UK Government to reaffirm its commitment to the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Affordable Housing Supply Programme (Highlands and Islands)

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it will overcome reported significant skills and supply chain shortages in the Highlands and Islands to deliver 11,000 rural and island homes by 2032. (S6O-01431)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government is aware of the global issues that are affecting construction, which are impacting on affordable housing delivery. We are working closely with the construction industry and housing partners to mitigate those where possible and we operate a flexible grant system that can take account of increased costs.

More than 6,000 affordable homes were delivered in rural and island communities over the previous session of Parliament and we are making progress towards our next target. We are aware of the barriers that exist in those areas and we are developing a remote, rural and islands housing action plan to help to deal with them.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Although the housing crisis in the Highlands and Islands is a significant challenge, the opportunities for job creation and investment are significant, too. What work has been done to identify the jobs and skills training programmes that are needed in the Highlands and Islands to tackle the crisis?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

With partners, we have identified the job creation and investment opportunities that Ariane Burgess mentioned. We know that there is a skills shortage, particularly in the construction industry. It is important that, along with Skills Development Scotland and other partners, we encourage young people into those trades and careers, which will have the benefit of keeping those young people living in rural communities. Therefore, the issue is not simply about the provision of housing, although affordable housing is key; it is also about the jobs and other opportunities that go with that.

I will be happy to keep Ariane Burgess updated on the progress that is being made.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As well as skills shortages, another issue that is affecting the delivery of new housing in the islands is the unwillingness of energy supply companies to install meters in new-build properties. Might the cabinet secretary be minded to liaise with her cabinet secretary colleague Michael Matheson on making representations to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets about how that market failure might be addressed, not least through the lifting of the ban on distribution network operators fitting meters while they install the supply in new properties in island communities?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Liam McArthur raises an important point. Of course, that issue affects the ability to get new builds ready for occupation not only in Orkney and the islands, but in other areas, which is very frustrating. I will be happy to speak to colleagues and to come back to Mr McArthur. It is important that we raise such matters as frequently as we can to ensure that progress is made so that the supply of affordable housing is not held up.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

According to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, among several severe unintended consequences of the Scottish National Party’s rent freeze proposals is a negative impact on

“the development of new homes, improvements to existing stock and the pursuit of net zero targets.”

Reduced development of rented homes in the social and private sectors will inevitably reduce availability when supply is already stretched.

What analysis has the Scottish Government done on the impacts of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill on housing availability in rural and island areas?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have a good track record of delivering affordable housing, whether in urban Scotland or in rural and island communities. The most recent figures, which came out on Tuesday, show that we have delivered nearly 113,000 affordable homes since 2007, more than 79,000 of which were for social rent. That means that 62 per cent more affordable homes have been delivered in Scotland per head of population than in England. The context for our affordable housing supply programme is important.

Over the past two days, we have debated the detail of the emergency measures that we are taking to support tenants and avoid them losing their homes and not being able to afford their rents. We have spoken to the SFHA in detail about working in partnership on an agreement that can be put in place that will ensure that investment in social housing, whether in rural Scotland or urban Scotland, continues to be made.

The point has been made not just by the SFHA but by the Scottish Association of Landlords that the key problem for landlords at the moment is interest rates, which are putting their costs up. Perhaps the member should pay more attention to that. [

Interruption

.]

It is well seen what side the Tory party is on when it comes to supporting tenants. Perhaps that is why they are where they are in the polls that have been published this week.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next question comes from Colin Beattie, who is joining us remotely.

“A New Deal for Tenants” (Mobile Home Residents)

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how the needs of mobile home residents will be incorporated in the final version of the strategy, “A New Deal for Tenants”. (S6O-01432)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The consultation on our new deal sought views on how we can improve accessibility, standards and affordability across the whole rented sector. The focus of the question on mobile homes was on the issues for people who have standard tenancies on mobile homes that are owned by landlords. It also committed us to a post-implementation review of the mobile home site licensing scheme.

We are now considering our response to the consultation about the issues for renters of mobile homes, to identify potential gaps in protections. That will inform our housing bill.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

The draft new deal for tenants underlined that the Scottish Government intends to carry out a post-implementation review of the residential mobile homes site licensing scheme before the end of this session of Parliament. Although that is welcome news to my constituents who live in mobile and park homes, many of them worry that issues concerning enforcement of the licensing scheme are not being addressed quickly enough.

Will the cabinet secretary give an assurance that the needs of mobile home residents will be considered with the same urgency as the needs of those living in other types of residence?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am committed to ensuring that people living permanently in mobile homes have appropriate protection. The licensing system for residential mobile home sites was introduced in May 2017 and came fully into force in May 2019. It provides local authorities with a range of powers to help them issue, manage and revoke site licences, and to ensure that sites meet modern standards, which includes the behaviour of site owners. Although the review will seek to make improvements in the licensing framework, local authorities remain responsible for enforcing licensing conditions in the meantime. I will be happy to update the member on progress.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Pitch fees for my Cunninghame South constituents who live on mobile sites rise by a maximum of the retail prices index annually. The gap between RPI and the consumer prices index is increasing, with the cost of pitch fees growing faster than pension incomes. Will the Scottish Government address that by basing uprating on CPI?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Mobile home pitch fee increases are regulated under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. That act contains a presumption that pitch fees will rise by a maximum of RPI annually. As the member says, there are concerns that the gap between RPI and CPI is growing, with the result that pitch fees are growing faster than pension incomes. We will therefore undertake the required consultation on moving the basis of uprating from RPI to CPI in time for the coming housing bill. That would slow the rate of pitch fee increases in future. I will be happy to update the member on that.

Isolation and Loneliness (Rural Areas)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle rural isolation and loneliness, particularly in the approach to the winter period. (S6O-01433)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

We recognise that challenges relating to isolation may be increasing in rural communities due to the pandemic and cost crisis.

We support the National Rural Mental Health Forum, which helps people to maintain good mental wellbeing by developing connections between rural communities. Our communities mental health and wellbeing fund has provided £36 million to community groups tackling isolation, loneliness and mental health inequalities, including to 468 projects supporting people who are disadvantaged by geographical location. Our forthcoming social isolation and loneliness plan will outline a range of actions across the Scottish Government that impact positively on social isolation and loneliness.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Tory-made cost of living crisis will do nothing other than exacerbate social isolation and loneliness, particularly for those living in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders. People are being forced to choose between eating and heating, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has stated that 19 per cent of people in Scotland currently say that they cannot afford social outings.

Will the minister outline what further action the Scottish Government is taking to support people’s wellbeing this winter? Does she agree with me that, ultimately, Scotland must have independence to be free from constantly mitigating the harms that the United Kingdom Government creates?

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

We are taking action within our devolved powers and fixed budget that will help those who are facing the combined effects of higher energy bills, rising inflation and the impact of the UK Government’s policies. Just last week, we launched a new cost of living website so that people can find out about the help and support that is available to them.

The Scottish Government has continually urged the UK Government to focus its efforts on those who are impacted the most, but it has prioritised tax cuts and bankers’ bonuses rather than help for those who need it the most.

I very much agree that only through independence will we have the freedom to make the fiscal decisions that are required to ensure that Scotland prospers and that those who need financial support the most get it and are not forgotten.

The address of the website that I mentioned is www.gov.scot/costoflivingsupport. I urge everybody to have a look at it.

Affordable Housing (University Students)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it is ensuring the availability of affordable housing, including for students at Scottish universities. (S6O-01434)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Scotland has led the way in the delivery of affordable housing across the United Kingdom. Almost 113,000 affordable homes have been delivered since 2007, over 79,000 of which are for social rent, including nearly 20,000 council homes. The Scottish Government’s per capita spending on affordable housing is more than three times higher than the UK Government’s.

We are also committed to delivering a student accommodation strategy for Scotland, which will be informed in part by a review of purpose-built student accommodation. The review will look at a number of issues including affordability and supply.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In my region, students at the University of St Andrews are being housed in Dundee due to a lack of local affordable housing, and we have heard about students being advised to defer courses if they cannot find somewhere to live.

The Scottish Government is not directly involved in student housing, but it works with universities. The majority of students are in social or private housing, and although the coming rent freeze is welcome, there will still be a housing crisis in Scotland, with more families becoming homeless and housing completions still being below pre-Covid levels.

When will the housing bill be introduced? Is it still intended that it will be introduced next year? How will it ensure that there will be increased provision of quality affordable housing?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Yes, the timeframe for the housing bill is the same.

The member mentioned pre-Covid levels. It is important to note that things have lagged because of the pause in construction and that trying to get things back on track has been challenging.

As the member recognised, the Scottish Government has no direct role in the placement of students in accommodation, but we are working with impacted institutions to better understand the issues and to help to seek urgent resolutions. Further meetings are scheduled to take place over the coming weeks. In our discussions with institutions, they have cited a number of challenges. However, institutions have sought to provide reassurance on the steps that they have taken to expand the availability of accommodation to students.

Our affordable housing supply programme continues to expand with projects coming in from all parts of Scotland. We want to encourage that, but we will work with institutions in the shorter term to see whether anything more can be done.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the cabinet secretary outline how the emergency cost of living legislation that is progressing through Parliament this week will support students in college or university halls of residence and other types of purpose-built accommodation?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

If it is approved by Parliament, the emergency legislation will ensure that student tenants in the mainstream private rented sector and those in student accommodation—both university and college halls of residence and purpose-built student accommodation—do not see their rents rise. It will ensure that they can remain in their homes. The legislation will be in place until 31 March next year.

We recognise that tenancies in halls of residence and purpose-built student accommodation are structured differently from other types of tenancies, but we are committed to parity of protection.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

International evidence demonstrates that, for many universities in different countries, such as Ireland, the introduction of rent controls has resulted in students being further away from being able to access private rented accommodation. Has the Government done any work to look at what impact rent controls will have in Scotland?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The impact that it will have in Scotland is to ensure that rents are affordable, that people are not evicted during the winter period and that they can remain in their homes. It astonishes me that, yet again, the Tories are on the wrong side of the argument. They are never on the side of the people who are most impacted by the cost of living crisis. Perhaps that is why they are where they are in terms of public support.

We will continue to support universities, many of which have had those issues for quite some time—well before any discussion was had about the emergency legislation. We will continue to work with those institutions to help them to resolve some of those issues, and will get on with our work to continue to expand the affordable housing supply programme.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can squeeze in question 8, if question and answer are succinct.

Zero Carbon Heating Systems

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government how its housing strategy will support action to deliver the target of 1 million homes to be retrofitted with zero carbon heating systems by 2030. (S6O-01435)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Our “Housing to 2040” and heat in buildings strategies work together to deliver our statutory targets for climate change and fuel poverty.

Commitments such as the aim that all new homes that are delivered for social rent are zero emission by 2026 provide a strong foundation for our heat in buildings programme, as we continue to retrofit all homes by 2045.

We have also committed to introducing a new housing standard by 2025.

We will explore how the proposed housing standard and the heat in buildings strategy can be aligned to achieve fair and just implementation.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

ECO4 is a United Kingdom Government scheme to the value of £1 billion, which councils can apply for. It is designed to improve the energy efficiency of low-income and vulnerable households. What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage all Scottish councils to take full advantage of the scheme?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will get the Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights to write to the member on the specific point about the scheme.

For Scotland alone, we are allocating at least £1.8 billion over the parliamentary session to accelerate the deployment of efficiency measures for heat and energy and to support those who are least able to pay. We have also set up the green heat finance task force to recommend ways of increasing individual and private sector investment.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.

Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 of the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 18A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the debate. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or type R in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is entitled “Registered social landlords: assessment of financial impact”. Amendment 1, in the name of Mark Griffin, is the only amendment in the group.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as the owner of a private rented property in the North Lanarkshire Council area.

All week, through the various stages of the bill, I have outlined substantial concerns about the rent cap and how it impacts on the social rented sector’s ability to continue its plan to build new affordable housing that directly tackles Scotland’s housing crisis, as well as the sector’s ability to maintain and upgrade its existing properties. The sector has clearly rung that alarm bell and we should listen to it. I am seeking to make sure that tenants do not suffer unintended consequences and that providers in the sector—social landlords that invest in sustainable affordable housing—continue to provide the housing that we so badly need in the vast quantity that we urgently need.

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government said that my amendment 80 was not necessary because

“The statement of reasons will be much more comprehensive than that, because we will include all relevant information.”—[

Official Report

, 5 October 2022; c 139.]

Amendment 1 therefore labours a point from yesterday, but is seeking to put into the legislation the safeguard of consultation of registered social landlords and details of how they will be adequately resourced if they suffer detriment.

As I have said previously, the situation risks tenants being affected as much as landlords. Abronhill Housing Association in my region would have to suspend all its investment programmes well into 2024.

The regulator puts the cost to the sector; we have to remember that the cost is cumulative with every year. £50 million of income lost next year could reach £230 million of income lost to the sector by 2027. According to Scottish Parliament information centre modelling, because seven out of 10 social tenants receive housing benefit or universal credit, it would be the Treasury that would be better off—not social landlords or social tenants—if the freeze were to continue past March next year.

The finances of housing associations have been a key issue at various stages of the debate. The issue has been raised not only by members from every Opposition party but by members on the Government’s own back benches. There is the risk that the action that we have called for—freezing of rents, which is action that we have welcomed being taken for the short term—will impact the finances of the people whom we expect to build the social housing that we desperately need. That is at odds with the long-term ambition to grow the social housing stock to get us out of the emergency that we are in.

I gently say that if what I propose will be included in the review, I do not see any harm in supporting my amendment 1. It would give social landlords the assurance that their finances would be considered at the point of the review and would, I think, give assurance to Parliament, as well.

As I said, it has been raised by members across the parties, including members on the Government’s back benches, that we need to seriously consider the financial impact on the social housing sector and give comfort to Parliament as well as to registered social landlords.

I move amendment 1.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

As members know, we are working closely with the social sector and have established an official-led short-life task-and-finish group to consider the best approach to take from 1 April.

That work includes consideration of the impact of measures in the short-term and long-term business plans of the sector.

We have lodged Government amendment 2, which is in the next group, to bring greater certainty to the social sector by enhancing the Scottish ministers’ reporting requirement under section 8 of the bill. That will require us, in the first half of January, to outline what will happen with any social sector cap—whether the current rent cap will expire, or be extended, suspended or increased.

We are working very closely with the sector to agree appropriate action and the enhanced reporting requirements. That engagement will secure certainty and the comfort that Mr Griffin is asking for well in advance of 1 April. I will describe what the Government’s amendment 2 will do in a little bit more detail when I move the amendment in the next group.

It is worth noting that section 8 already requires us to review the appropriateness, necessity and proportionality of the rent cap overall, going forward. That said, I will not be able to support amendment 1. I invite Mr Griffin not to press it.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

I appreciate what the minister has said and Scottish Labour will support amendment 2, which will be debated in group 2. However, he has not given a commitment that the finances of registered social landlords, or the impact on the affordable housing supply programme, will be taken into account i

n the bill.

Amendment 1 is supported by Shelter Scotland and by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. This morning, Shelter sent an email to all members, in which it said:

“The measures in this bill should not impact on the delivery of new social homes, given that this is a structural solution to the housing emergency, to address the need for secure and affordable housing. Specifically, the social housing rent freeze or cap measures must be fully funded. Any reduction in rent revenues which are required to deliver the new social homes to reduce housing need must be provided by the Scottish Government to ensure that homes can still be delivered.”

Shelter is absolutely right about that. Amendment 1 would enable the Government to show that it was carrying out such a financial assessment. I will therefore press amendment 1.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division, I suspend proceedings for around five minutes to enable members to access the digital voting system.

14:36 Meeting suspended.

14:41 On resuming—

Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is now closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app froze, but I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had issues with my app, too. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 45, Against 63, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 disagreed to.

Group 2 is on reporting. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that amendment 2 will go some way towards allaying some of the concerns that were expressed in relation to the previous group.

As I alluded to a moment ago in relation to amendment 1, I want to ensure that the legislation further reflects the distinctive circumstances of the social rented sector. That acknowledges the concerns that were expressed across the chamber yesterday, and were clearly heard. It is right that tenants in the social rented sector are protected during this time, but we also recognise that there are critical differences in how rents are consulted on and agreed, and in how the sector is funded compared with the private rented sector.

With all that in mind, as I have indicated, we have committed to working closely with the social rented sector through an official-led short-life task and finish group to consider the best approaches from 1 April onwards. On top of that, the cabinet secretary and I have welcomed recent opportunities to discuss the way forward with representatives of registered social landlords and local authorities.

We are keen to develop an agreed way forward, and we are optimistic that that can be done at pace and in a genuine partnership with the sector. Our aim is to ensure the best possible balance between keeping rents affordable and continuing social rented sector investment of rental income in quality homes and appropriate wider support to tenants.

Amendment 2 commits the Government to setting out a decision to provide certainty to the social rented sector by 14 January 2023 at the latest as part of the required three-month reporting requirements in the bill. The amendment requires us to confirm whether we intend to raise the cap, suspend or expire the rent restrictions, or continue with a zero per cent cap for the social sector only. We want all social landlords to be as clear as possible as early as possible, and we look forward to developing an agreed approach that will inform that decision. That is absolutely our preferred way forward.

I want to give the sector a very clear direction of travel as soon as possible, and I trust that the proposed amendment provides clarity on the timeframe for that critical decision being made well ahead of 1 April next year. I can also give a commitment today that we will bring forward any required regulations to underpin that approach, including ensuring that social landlords will be able to practically raise rents from 1 April next year if that is part of the agreement that we come to.

We want to move forward in a collaborative way. We will be looking to set out the principles and process in partnership with the short-life task and finish group to inform social landlords’ consultations with their tenants and ensure that those go ahead in the coming months. Those consultations with tenants will be critical in informing our approach and the decision that we set out in January.

I encourage members to support the amendment.

I move amendment 2.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for taking into account some of the conversations that went on last night, and I am pleased to see that the amendment adds a level of reporting that was not seen before.

Will the minister explain why there is no requirement for the Government to explain in the report the costs of the implications to the Government, the Scottish people and landlords and tenants? There is a big improvement from the report simply having to prove that the proposal was proportionate and required, but will the minister explain why he is ignoring the costs? The financial memorandum says that the costs are somewhere between £3.5 million and £32.5 million. There seems to be rather a large gap of knowledge there.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Obviously, we are not ignoring—not for a moment—the financial aspects, but they are matters for discussion between the Government and the sector as part of the work of the short-life task and finish group. That is the appropriate place for those matters to be considered. I do not believe that they need to be included in the text of the amendment.

I do not have anything to add to what I said in my opening remarks on the amendment. I encourage members to vote for it.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on expiry of section 9. Amendment 3, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is the only amendment in the group.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

This amendment should have been debated yesterday, but it got lost in the rush. I should explain that point, in case the minister thinks that I am raising a new issue at stage 3.

The amendment would have the effect of preventing schedule 3 from coming to an end, and it would allow ministers to set rules by regulation in relation to rent adjudication.

In the consultation on my Fair Rents (Scotland) Bill in the previous parliamentary session, an issue arose about cases in which tenants had applied to the tribunal for a rent reduction and ended up with a substantial rent increase. The tribunal increased rents, because its opinion was that that would reflect the market rent. In some cases, the tribunal has been challenged on what the market rent is and, in my view, it has not got that correct.

My concern is about the disincentive for tenants to apply to the tribunal for a rent reduction. They might accept that losing their case would mean that their rent remained the same, but if they thought that they might end up with a rent increase, why would they take such a risk?

I am probing the issue for discussion when the Government considers wider housing reform. I am a bit concerned about how long that is taking, so I wanted to raise the issue now. I do not wish to press the amendment, which is intended to probe an issue.

I move amendment 3.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment. I welcome the importance that Pauline McNeill attaches to the rent adjudication measures in the bill, which play an important role. We recognise that, once the rent cap ends, a large number of landlords could seek all at once to increase rents. In those circumstances, resetting rents by reference to the open market could result in unmanageable increases for tenants.

It is expected that the existing rent adjudication process will not provide an appropriate mechanism for determining reasonable increases as we transition out of the emergency measures that the bill provides for. It is therefore essential to have a means of amending the adjudication process temporarily, to protect tenants when we move forward—if that is needed—and to ensure that rents do not rise exponentially when we transition out of the application of the rent cap.

We do not intend temporary changes to become permanent. As Pauline McNeill knows, under the new deal for tenants, longer-term work that is on-going will lead to a new housing bill next year. Further work will take place later in the parliamentary session, too. In the programme for government, we reaffirmed our commitment to bring forward long-term rent controls.

Pauline McNeill gave the example of the tribunal deciding to increase rent beyond the level that the landlord had proposed. Within the temporary measures is one form of adjustment that the Government might consider making when we develop proposals.

If Pauline McNeill’s intention is to introduce permanent measures now, I refer her to the response that I gave yesterday to several groups of amendments, which is that emergency legislation is not the place for such measures. We look forward to working collaboratively with members across the Parliament as we develop our longer-term proposals, and I invite Pauline McNeill not to press amendment 3.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for his comprehensive response. I totally acknowledge that the issue would be more appropriately addressed in wider housing reform, but the bill presented a good opportunity for me to make the minister aware that I will pursue the issue with the Government. I am sure that he agrees that, whatever framework we choose for housing reform, we do not want to continue to have legislation that could disincentivise tenants from applying for rent assessments because of the risk of rent increases. Rent controls might well overtake that situation.

On that basis, I am content to seek to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on information that is to be included in a notice of application for a rent increase. Amendment 4, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendment 5.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The amendments concern issues that I raised yesterday at stage 2, when the Government indicated that it would give support if I framed the provisions correctly. That has now been done.

The amendments ensure that a landlord cannot insist on a proposed increase until a rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland has approved the increase. Further to that, in their communication to the tenant, the landlord should make it clear that the new rent will not be payable until the application has been approved or otherwise. That is just to make sure that tenants are aware that an application could be refused by the tribunal.

I hope that ministers will now be satisfied that amendments 4 and 5 are in the correct form and that I can move them when the time comes.

I move amendment 4.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I thank Pauline McNeill for lodging amendments 4 and 5 and for working constructively with us. Like Ms McNeill, we want tenants to have the information that they need in relation to an application by their landlord to raise their rent above the level of the cap, in response to having incurred increased costs related to mortgage interest, landlords insurance or service charges. It is important that tenants understand that, even though their landlord might have made an application, they are not required to pay any increase in rent until the process has been completed and the decision has been taken on whether that increase can be made.

I am happy to support amendments 4 and 5 and I urge members to vote for them.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My system did not load. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My screen did not refresh. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There seems to be an issue with my phone at the moment, because it is still connecting. I would have voted yes.

The Presiding Officer

I confirm that your vote was recorded, Mr Kidd.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 83, Against 29, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Pauline McNeill].

The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.