Scottish Parliament, 12 January 2023

332 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The first item of business is general question time.

Primary Care Services

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect primary care services in light of reports showing the workforce and demand pressures on general practice. (S6O-01764)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am immensely grateful to general practitioners and GP practice staff up and down the country, who are doing an incredible job during a period of significant challenge. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that being a GP remains an attractive career choice with a manageable workload.

Despite the pandemic, we have recruited 3,220 whole-time-equivalent healthcare professionals to provide support to GPs, underpinned by an investment commitment of more than £500 million since 2018. We have a record number of GPs working in Scotland, and we are committed to having 800 additional GPs by the end of 2027.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his response, but he should know that statistics for 2022 show that the WTE number of GPs has fallen to 3,493. That is

81 fewer than in 2017, when the Scottish National Party announced its intention to boost GP numbers.

Dr Andrew Buist of the British Medical Association has said:

“the SNP government’s failure to boost GP numbers and provide sufficient funding has locked primary care into a ‘vicious circle’ of rising workloads forcing GPs out of the profession.”

Does the cabinet secretary agree?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am sure that Jackie Baillie knows—it was probably just an oversight—that our target for the period between 2017 and 2027 was based on headcount. Of course, the overall GP headcount has increased by 291 from 4,918 to 5,209, so there has been an increase in the GP headcount and we are making good progress towards the 800 figure.

On the whole-time equivalent issue that Jackie Baillie raises, we are engaging with Dr Andrew Buist, who I meet very regularly, and the Royal College of General Practitioners on what more we can do in relation to retention. However, it should be recognised that having more flexible working patterns is a good thing; it helps with work-life balance, which we hope will help with GP retention.

I commend the RCGP report that was released just before Christmas, which focuses on a number of initiatives that the Government might want to explore in relation to the retention of GPs. We will continue to engage with the BMA and the RCGP on those important issues.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Announcing total funding hides the fact that the Scottish Government may make cuts this year to GPs and primary care. The pressure on GPs will only increase, given that we have 23 fewer GPs than last year. Yesterday, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde announced that it is pausing non-urgent elective surgery and going on to an emergency footing—despite the money—which will increase the pressure on primary care.

On BBC Radio Scotland today, we heard from many people who are suffering from long Covid and who say that the service is failing them. A nurse who we cheered and clapped for during the pandemic says that she will lose her job and her home because of long Covid. If patients are saying that they cannot get help from hospitals, they will go to their GP and increase the pressure. What more is the cabinet secretary willing to do to help long Covid patients?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Dr Sandesh Gulhane is right: we had to make some really difficult choices around our budget this year, including the reprofiling of funding for primary care. We did that because his party completely mismanaged the economy of the United Kingdom, and high inflation costs meant that our budget in the health and social care portfolio was worth £650 million less than when we set it in December last year. Difficult decisions had to be made because we do not have the full fiscal levers in our hands.

We will continue to invest in multidisciplinary teams, which will help to spread the workload from GPs to other members of staff. We will also continue to invest in NHS 24, for example, from which people get really excellent advice.

I announced the additional recruitment of 200 staff for long Covid, and Sandesh Gulhane knows that we have committed £10 million over three financial years. We will continue to invest that funding to help long Covid sufferers as well as anybody else who is suffering from any condition at a time of great pressure on our national health service.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This week, a Shetland GP surgery posted on social media that

“Due to high demand and staff availability, we are currently dealing with clinically urgent requests only. If your request is of a non-urgent nature, please consider contacting us next week.”

What can the Scottish Government say to people who are seeking medical help and the staff who are under pressure in our island NHS services?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The period over the past few weeks has been and continues to be one of the most difficult periods that the NHS has faced in its existence. We know that that is a result of the cumulative impact of the pandemic, the rise in Covid cases—Beatrice Wishart will know that, on Friday, when the Office for National Statistics released the most recent data, the figure was one in 25—and the fact that flu cases are higher than they have been in many years, together with the rise in cases of Strep A and other viral infections. All of that was combined with the festive period and a snap of cold weather. The combination of those factors has made it a really difficult period for the NHS and social care up and down the country.

What are we doing? On Tuesday, I gave Parliament some detail on what we are doing to provide support, which includes helping with the issues around discharge and investing further in the NHS 24 service that is available up and down the country.

Difficult decisions will have to be made at a local level, whether in the NHS Shetland area or elsewhere, but I hope that those difficult decisions will be time limited. As the additional support that we have provided kicks in and as the flu and Covid cases begin to abate, as, in time, I hope they will, that will help the health service through what has been a really difficult time. I again express my gratitude to every member of the NHS and social care workforce, who are working so hard during these difficult times.

Scottish Government (Meetings)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (S6O-01765)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have not yet met with the current chancellor and I did not have the opportunity to meet with either of his two predecessors. I last met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 November, after the United Kingdom autumn statement.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Forecasts compiled by Consensus Economics show that the UK faces the worst and longest recession in the G7. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that we are facing the biggest fall in living standards since records began, due to inflation, and more than three quarters of members of the British Chambers of Commerce say that the UK Tory Brexit deal is not helping them to increase sales or grow their business. What economic levers does the Scottish Government need in order to escape a future of Westminster failure, to build on Scotland’s economic strengths and to become as successful as comparable independent European countries?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

With all the available evidence, the extent of the economic damage that is being done by the Brexit that was imposed on Scotland by the United Kingdom Conservative Government is becoming very clear. Among the specific areas in which we are suffering is that of free trade with the European Union. Companies are suffering in that regard, so it would be an advantage for Scotland to be an independent country with the ability to rejoin the EU.

Given the failures in the energy market, the ability to redesign the energy market would be an important attribute for Scotland to have. The ability to use employment laws to ensure fairer work would be an advantage, as would the ability to have a migration policy that was designed to boost our working-age population. That can come only with Scottish independence, given the UK Government’s hostility to such approaches.

Mr MacDonald correctly highlights the severe economic damage that is being caused by Brexit and the opportunities that Scottish independence would give to create much more fiscal flexibility for the Government in Scotland.

Emissions Reduction (Reports)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its response to the Climate Change Committee’s reports “Progress in reducing emissions in Scotland—2022 Report to Parliament” and “Scottish Emissions Targets—first five-yearly review”. (S6O-01766)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish ministers will take the appropriate time to consider the recommendations in the Climate Change Committee’s advice and will respond in the spring. We will work closely with the Climate Change Committee, as part of our continuous review of policy, to ensure that we benefit fully from the committee’s expertise while progressing delivery and considering possible new actions. The committee’s advice will also support the development of the next climate change plan, which will be published in full later this year.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Climate Change Committee said that the Scottish National Party targets were not “accompanied by deep thinking” about policies, and it accused ministers of “magical thinking”. Clearly, this portfolio must be prioritised, but I have discovered that the Scottish Government has only six people working on its climate justice fund, while just four are dealing with the loss and damage fund that was announced at the 27th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP27. If we compare that with the 25 civil servants who are working on an independence prospectus costing £1.5 million a year, the Government’s skewed priorities are very clear.

Will the cabinet secretary be taking steps to realign Government resources away from the manufacture of grievance and division and instead direct them towards delivering practical priorities to address the climate emergency?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We always deploy staff in the civil service to take forward our areas of policy priority. That is why Scotland’s emissions are down by well over 50 per cent on the 1990 baseline, which takes us more than halfway to our target and has us ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom in addressing climate change.

I assure the member that we will continue to take forward a range of policies to tackle the issue of climate change and ensure that we do so in a fair and just way. I gently point out to the member that we certainly will not tackle climate change effectively if we are opening up new coal mines.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The Climate Change Committee’s report recognises key policy areas, such as industry and electricity supply sectors, that are reserved to the UK Government. To what extent is meeting our net zero targets here in Scotland reliant on decisions that are taken by the UK Government, and how is the Scottish Government working with the UK Government to ensure that our ambitions in Scotland are matched by the rest of the UK?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We take seriously the range of areas that are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and we pursue policies to make sure that we deliver on our statutory climate change targets. However, there are also areas that are reserved to the UK Government that have a direct impact on climate change policy in Scotland. For example, in the energy sector, negative emissions technologies play an extremely important part in helping us to meet our climate change targets both in Scotland and across the whole of the UK. That is why taking forward carbon capture and the Acorn project are mission critical not only to Scotland’s climate change targets but to the UK’s. Any further delay in making a decision about supporting carbon capture, use and storage and the Acorn project just creates uncertainty, risk around employment and a lack of investment in key areas, and it places a greater burden on other policy areas. That is why we need the UK Government to step up to the plate, show leadership in this area and give the go-ahead to the Acorn project in Scotland.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

If we are to meet our national target of reducing car mileage by 20 per cent by 2030, reliable, affordable and readily available public transport will be key. One of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations for achieving that is to invest in sustainable forms of transport, yet the Scottish Government is proposing widespread service cuts to Scotland’s railway. Will the minister think again and rule out service reductions to demonstrate his Government’s commitment to Scotland’s railway, to protect jobs and to reduce transport emissions?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise that access to good public transport is an important part of getting people out of their cars and on to public transport, which is why we have been making significant investment in our railways in order to decarbonise them. We are now at the point at which more than 75 per cent of all journeys on Scotland’s railways are on electrified routes that have been decarbonised as a result of the investment that the Government has made. We have also made significant investment in decarbonising the bus system, through grant schemes that support the electrification of the bus network with electric buses, which are now being rolled out.

I am sure that the member will also recognise that almost 50 per cent of people in Scotland travel free on our bus network as a result of the concessionary travel schemes for those who are over 60 or under 22. I am sure that the member welcomes that as an example of showing leadership in encouraging people on to our public transport network.

The Presiding Officer

I would appreciate concise questions and responses.

Bladder Cancer Deaths

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what steps are being taken to reduce bladder cancer deaths. (S6O-01767)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Bladder cancer mortality reduced by 14 per cent over the period 2010 to 2020 and we are committed to continuing to improve that. As outlined in our “Endoscopy and Urology Diagnostic Recovery and Renewal Plan”, we will refresh and implement once for Scotland clinical pathways to prioritise demand for cystoscopy, including for bladder cancers. We have also introduced six urology hubs in Scotland, which provide rapid access to diagnostic procedures to enable earlier cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Bladder cancer has one of the highest mortality rates of all cancers. The rate is currently around 50 per cent. It also has a high rate of recurrence, making it one of the most expensive cancers to treat fully, and Scotland’s ageing population will likely result in longer-term, more complex treatments. To that end, will the minister confirm what funding has been made available specifically for research into bladder cancer, including treatment of the disease and data gathering to enable correlative research?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The funding schemes that are supported by the Scottish Government’s chief scientist office provide opportunities for applied health research across a range of health challenges including bladder cancer. Applications are assessed through independent expert review with funding decisions being based on the recommendations of independent expert committees. They would be very happy to consider any applications for research into bladder cancer.

The CSO also contributes financially to a range of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence research funding schemes, which are open to applications from researchers in Scotland. In addition, the CSO invests through NHS Research Scotland in a cancer research network to support the delivery of studies in the area.

Finally—

The Presiding Officer

Please be brief, minister.

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

—our national cancer quality programme has developed quality performance indicators for bladder cancer, which were first published in November 2021, and it is encouraging that targets relating to 30 and 90-day mortality rates indicate a good performance.

Young People’s Mental Health Services

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what it is doing to support young people’s mental health services, including in colleges and universities. (S6O-01768)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The

Scottish Government continues to provide record funding for mental health services to ensure that all children and young people have access to the right mental health support at the right time. That includes continued investment in improving child and adolescent mental health services; funding for 230 new and enhanced community supports and services for children, young people and their families; and provision of access to counselling services for all secondary school pupils.

In addition, we have exceeded our commitment to deliver 80 additional counsellors in further and higher education, with 89 additional counsellors now working to support students across institutions.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

If that is the case, I am flummoxed as to why the Government is even considering cutting the very mental health counsellors that the minister has just described in colleges and universities at the end of this academic year. I remind him that two thirds of college students report having low wellbeing and more than half report moderate to severe symptoms of depression. If that is the case, why is it that, when students need their help, the Government is withdrawing the support of the very people that were designed to help them?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

As I said in my previous answer, we have exceeded the 80 counsellors that we planned for, with 89 supporting students. The student mental health plan that is being taken forward by the student mental health and wellbeing working group, which will sit alongside the Scottish Government’s forthcoming mental health and wellbeing strategy, will inform the Scottish Government’s future approach to student mental health and wellbeing. On its publication, in the spring of 2023, it will provide the framework for institutional action on the issue. As part of that, officials will work with the university and college sectors to

move to a position where they fund elements of student mental health support, including counsellors, as part of their core offer to students.

The Presiding Officer

Question 6 has been withdrawn. Question 7 was not lodged.

Caledonian MacBrayne Replacement Booking System

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it expects the replacement booking system for CalMac to be fully operational. (S6O-01771)

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

CalMac’s new booking system, Ar Turas, is expected to go live across all CalMac routes in the spring of 2023. I am extremely disappointed that there has been a delay in the introduction of Ar Turas, which I do not think is acceptable. My officials in Transport Scotland have engaged with CalMac and have been informed that it will be operational by this spring. I will meet CalMac next week to seek further assurances to that end.

The benefits of Ar Turas include better live deck-space management for the use of capacity, better communication about disruption and a standardised accessible digitally enabled service, both online and through apps, as a means to purchase tickets and apply any changes instantly.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that reply, but the problem that the minister has is this. The project started as far back as August 2016. More than five years on, in December 2021, we were told by the Government that it would be completed and operational by February 2022. In July 2022, we were told that it would be completed and operational by November 2022. Just last month, on 8 December, we were told that it would go live in the spring, but 11 days later, on 19 December, we were told that it would not be operational until November 2023. Do Scotland’s islanders, who are dependent on lifeline services and work in fragile economies, not deserve an explanation, urgent action and a lot more honesty from the Government?

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

I will provide Mr Leonard with an honest response, and I hope that he heard in my initial response my own disappointment and my commitment to seek further assurances from CalMac in relation to the repeated delays to the introduction of the system. It is vital for islanders that we get the implementation of the new system right for Scotland’s island communities. CalMac has advised my officials in Transport Scotland that its user acceptance testing has highlighted that a number of issues have been anticipated, given the complexity of the number of routes that CalMac serves. It is important that those issues are addressed before the system is launched and the supplier has been working to address those issues.

The member will also understand that I, as minister, require to have confidence that the new system will work for islanders and visitors to our islands alike. To that end, I will continue to work with CalMac on achieving that cast-iron assurance, to ensure that the new system will deliver the improvements that passengers and islanders need to see.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Cancellation of Procedures)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. Last night, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde cancelled thousands of procedures. We know that the Scottish National Party’s flagship Queen Elizabeth university hospital is already the worst performing in the country, and this morning there are reports of nurses at the hospital working 24-hour shifts. It is disgraceful to put national health service staff in that situation and, despite their incredible efforts, it could be harmful to patients.

A whistleblower has said:

“We are struggling to cope. In short, we’re struggling to provide first world care in what feels like a third world environment.”

Given that, how can the First Minister say that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has done all that he can to support NHS staff and prepare for this crisis?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, in relation to reports in the media this morning about staff in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde being asked to work 24-hour shifts, as I am assured by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and as the board has said publicly, that is not true. Let me just quote NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde:

“there is absolutely no truth to these claims. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde does not ask nursing staff to work a 24-hour shift, and there was no prospect that any staff member would need to work for 24 hours. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and misleading”,

and I would not expect any health board to request any member of staff to do that.

Secondly, staff across the national health service in Scotland—and, indeed, staff across the national health services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—are struggling right now. They are doing an extraordinary and magnificent job, and my heartfelt thanks go to all of them. However, they are struggling in the face of unprecedented pressure on our national health service—pressure from Covid and, even more so, in recent weeks, from flu and other respiratory illnesses. We hope that that pressure will abate in the weeks to come, but in the meantime the Government continues to do everything possible to support NHS boards as they address those pressures.

In relation to the announcement from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde last night, as I said on Monday, we have empowered NHS boards to take action that they think is appropriate to protect critical and life-saving care. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has paused non-urgent elective procedures so that it can prioritise urgent treatment and cancer care, and I would expect that to be for a very short period.

Finally, it insults people’s intelligence to suggest that the problems that are being encountered in the NHS in Scotland, which are the same as the problems that are being encountered elsewhere, are somehow down to the health secretary. Is it, for example, the fault of Humza Yousaf that the kind of action that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde announced last night has also been taken in health services in south London, Surrey, York, Scarborough, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Southampton and Portsmouth? I could probably go on. These are unprecedented pressures, which we continue to support our NHS to address. [

Applause

.]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

H

ow can nationalist MSPs clap such a despicable answer from Scotland’s First Minister, in Scotland’s Parliament, about Scotland’s national health service?

Let us ignore the nationalist MSPs; let us look at what medical professionals are saying. They are damning about this Government’s response to the crisis here in Scotland. On Monday, the First Minister placed some of the blame for the grave situation in A and E departments on, in her own words, “unnecessary attendances”, but Dr Lailah Peel, deputy chair of BMA Scotland, criticised patient-blaming language, saying that it

“shows a lack of understanding of the current crisis.”

We have analysed the figures, and Dr Peel is spot on. There are fewer people in A and E now than there were in the years leading up to the Covid pandemic. The problem is not unnecessary attendances. Fewer people attended A and E in the first week of this year than did in the first weeks of 2020, 2019, 2018 or 2017. Will the First Minister accept that the blame lies with her Government and not the patients?

The First Minister

N

obody, including me—certainly not me—is blaming patients. It is the case—[

Interruption

.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

U

nnecessary visits to accident and emergency units and unnecessary attendances and admissions to hospital are not in the interests of patients. That is why we are working hard to make sure that, where patients can and should be treated elsewhere, that happens.

Let me take Douglas Ross’s points in turn, and let us look in detail at demand, and why the figures that he has quoted are the case. There is absolutely no doubt that demand on our health service right now is higher than it has been for some time. If we look at calls to NHS 24 over the festive period, those showed the highest demand in a decade. If we look at emergency calls to the Scottish Ambulance Service, those were higher in the most recent week than the average of the four weeks before that. The reason that they are not all translating into attendances at accident and emergency units or admissions to hospital is the work that NHS 24 and the Scottish Ambulance Service are doing to avoid that.

NHS 24 now provides advice and, where necessary, treatment to the vast majority of patients during the initial call that they make. Most of the calls to the Ambulance Service are treated through see and treat, so that patients are not taken to hospital. However, because of that, those who do go to hospital tend to be sicker and their length of stay is longer. That is part of the reason why we have pressure on our hospitals.

The waiting times in A and E are a reflection of the fact that occupancy in our hospitals is so high, which is why we have focused on speeding up discharge from hospital, where appropriate.

Finally, we listen very carefully to, engage with and work with health professionals each and every day, and it would be hard for me to find the appropriate words to describe my respect for our health professionals. Elsewhere in the UK this week, we have seen healthcare professionals on strike. They have not been on strike in Scotland, because of the work that this health secretary has done and because of the respect that we have for our healthcare professionals.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I think that those words may come back to haunt the First Minister. Also, if we are judging cabinet secretaries on sectors striking, I would hate to be Shirley-Anne Somerville right now.

We have just heard it: the First Minister is doubling down on her patient-blaming language. The problem is not too many people attending A and E; it is the Government’s handling of the NHS crisis in Scotland. Dr Peel said that

“Exit block is the problem in A&E”,

and the Government has known that to be a huge issue for years.

In her previous answer, the First Minister defended her position by saying that people are getting sicker, but people who are healthy and ready to go home cannot get out of hospital because the First Minister and her Government have not dealt with bed blocking. They were failing to tackle that issue before the Covid pandemic, and now it is worse than ever.

New reports out today state that the number of avoidable deaths occurring in Scotland is now 60 people a week. That is 60 families, across our country, every single week, grieving the loss of a loved one who could have been saved. First Minister, will you confirm those tragic figures?

The First Minister

What I will absolutely confirm is that, when people wait too long for treatment, it has severe consequences, potentially, for patients. That is why we work so hard, and will continue to work so hard, with the health service to reduce long waits for treatment, whether that is at accident and emergency units or for elective care in our national health service.

I was not—to use Douglas Ross’s phrase—“doubling down” on anything. For the avoidance of any doubt, I am certainly not blaming patients for anything. It is in the interest of patients that, where appropriate, they can be treated outside hospital, because it is not in the interest of any patient to end up in an accident and emergency unit or hospital ward just because treatment is not available in the community.

I was trying to explain—because it is obvious from Douglas Ross’s questions that he does not understand this—the flow of patients through our national health service and that the reason why we see longer waits at accident and emergency is overoccupancy in our hospital wards.

Finally, on the exit block, the significant chunk of what I and the health secretary set out on Monday was about tackling delayed discharges. [

Interruption

.] We understand, from our daily engagement with health boards—

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear from the First Minister, please.

The First Minister

—that the number of delayed discharges has reduced slightly in recent weeks, but there is much more to do. That was the reason for the interventions and the additional funding that I indicated on Monday and that the health secretary set out to the chamber on Tuesday.

We will continue to focus on providing the support and making the interventions that are necessary right now to help the NHS during this period of unprecedented demand. I remind Douglas Ross and other members of the unprecedented demand that is being faced not just in Scotland but all over the UK, and in much of the rest of the world as well.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister can throw insults at me if she wants to. I was quoting—[

Interruption

.] I see that she laughs at this.

You can laugh at it, First Minister, if you want—

The Presiding Officer

Speak through the chair, please.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—but I was quoting a front-line doctor in Scotland’s NHS who happens to be the deputy chair of BMA Scotland.

The First Minister has effectively confirmed that the tragic figures that we heard this morning are correct. That there are 60 avoidable deaths every single week in Scotland’s NHS is confirmed by Scotland’s First Minister.

Scotland’s health secretary is making the situation worse, not better. Here is just one example of what we are experiencing across Scotland. On Hogmanay, a family visited their 80-year-old uncle. He has had major heart surgery and hip operations, and he often struggles to breathe. When they arrived, they discovered that he had fallen and broken his neck. The family dialled 999 seven times, and it took more than 12 and a half hours for the ambulance to arrive. That was seven emergency calls, over 12 and a half hours, for an 80-year-old who had broken their neck. His niece told us:

“The ambulance crews were brilliant, but we are disgusted at what our uncle has been put through.”

That dire situation confirms, yet again, that the health secretary and the Government are not on top of this crisis. His failures are creating risk to lives across the country. First Minister, surely, for the good of Scotland, it is time to sack Humza Yousaf.

The First Minister

If I raised a smile in response to Douglas Ross, it was not directed at any health professional. I suppose that I was raising a smile—in challenging circumstances for everybody right now—about Douglas Ross accusing anybody else of throwing insults.

Every single day, the health secretary and I will continue to take the actions that are necessary to support our NHS during these very difficult times. I said earlier that I do not take anything for granted, and I do not intend to sound complacent at all about this: it is because we respect those people who work on the front line of our national health service so highly that we are offering them a much higher pay increase for next year than any other Government in the UK is offering. Thus far, we have avoided industrial action in our national health service. We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that that continues.

We are supporting health boards, too, to address the reasons for long waits in our national health service—whether for an ambulance, in accident and emergency units or to be discharged from hospital—which is why we announced the action that we announced earlier this week. Too many patients are waiting too long for treatment right now, so we will continue to do everything that we can to address that situation while hoping that the pressures that are caused by, in the main, Covid and flu, abate over the weeks to come.

That should not take away from the fact—true in our Ambulance Service, our accident and emergency units, our general practices and across our hospitals and other healthcare settings—that the vast majority of patients in this country, even during these extremely difficult times, get excellent care on our national health service. That is down to the dedication of those people who work in it, which is why they have my grateful thanks every single day.

National Health Service

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Yesterday, Jackie Baillie and I hosted a health summit with front-line national health service staff, representatives of organisations and experts who work across our NHS. They told us that our NHS is broken and that the system is failing; that they are being asked to do the impossible; and that, every day, that crisis puts patient lives at risk. They were united in telling us that the cause of that crisis is not Covid, the flu, Strep A or winter pressures; they said that it is a crisis that has been 10 years in the making. However, the First Minister does not agree. Why does she think that front-line NHS staff are wrong?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I do not think that front-line health service staff are wrong in what they say. I do not know why it took until yesterday for Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie to meet with health service professionals; the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care meets with them regularly, and I have engagements with them as well—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, members.

The First Minister

What health service professionals say to us—I am sure that they said this to Anas Sarwar yesterday, too—is that challenges existed in our national health service before Covid. We have been taking action to address those challenges. On funding our national health service, front-line health funding has more than doubled under this Government—it is higher per head of population than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. Almost 30,000 more people work in our NHS today than when this Government took office, and there are more healthcare professionals—doctors, qualified nurses or professionals across a range of groups—per head of population than there are in other parts of the UK. We will continue to work with front-line healthcare professionals to deal with those challenges.

I take issue with Anas Sarwar on his point that it is somehow not the case that Covid and flu are having a significant impact on those pressures. Right now, there are more than 1,200 patients with Covid in our hospitals, and anybody who says that that is not having an impact on what we are dealing with right now is, frankly, not dealing with reality. In the couple of weeks that led up to Christmas and over the Christmas period, 1,000 patients a week were admitted to our hospitals with flu, and anybody who says that that is not a significant factor in what we are dealing with right now is, frankly, not dealing with reality. I direct that comment at Anas Sarwar, not at healthcare professionals, who are dealing with those issues every day.

Whether on NHS pay—

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister

—record investment or record staffing numbers, we will continue to support the NHS in these difficult times, as we always have done.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

It is clear from that answer who is not dealing with reality, and it is Nicola Sturgeon and her Scottish National Party Government.

Nicola Sturgeon might not want to listen to me, but she should listen to the organisations. The Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Glasgow Local Medical Committee, the British Medical Association in Scotland, Unison, the GMB and Unite the union are all saying that they have heard the excuses before and do not believe them, and that they think that the First Minister is not doing enough.

The sticking-plaster approach will not solve the problem. We heard directly from staff about the impact that this crisis is having on them. They told us that it is causing them, in their words, “moral injury”—that is, personal distress and trauma, because they cannot provide the care that they know that their patients need. It is causing our NHS staff psychological and mental trauma. One of them said that the conditions that they are working in mean no dignity, no respect and no safety for patients.

The BMA and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine have both said that the crisis is leading to avoidable deaths—they predict that that could be as many as 60 avoidable deaths a week. The experts tell us that what was announced this week will not be enough to address the problem, so why can the First Minister not see that her sticking-plaster approach is not working?

The First Minister

We will continue to take a range of actions. What we announced this week was in addition to the actions that are already being taken and, of course, the record investment that we are putting into our national health service. In the next financial year, supported by the tax decisions that we are taking—asking those who can most afford it to pay a bit more in tax—an additional £1 billion will go into our NHS. We will support investment and, where it is appropriate and in the interest of patients, we will support reform in care and patient pathways in our NHS.

Nothing that Anas Sarwar has said to me has not already been said directly to Government by healthcare professionals, because we engage with them day in and day out. They are dealing with unprecedented pressures right now. Some of that necessitates longer-term reform of our NHS, but some of that is also absolutely being caused by the winter pressures that have been at their peak in recent weeks. I hope that, over the coming weeks—very soon—we will start to see flu levels reduce significantly, and that will start to reduce some of that pressure on our hospitals, although the situation with Covid remains more unpredictable and volatile, given the new variants that are circulating. I hope that we will see some of that pressure abate, but that will still leave a challenging situation in our health service, which is why the investment, the increase in staffing and the reforms continue to be important.

No Government anywhere has a single solution to the issues right now, but this Government remains focused on taking the actions that are necessary, which is why I think that we continue to have the trust of the people of Scotland as we do so.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister is just not listening, and the approach is not working. This is not just a crisis in winter; it is a year-round crisis. Nicola Sturgeon

’s excuses will not wash. The crisis in our NHS is not because of Covid, it is not because of flu, it is not because of Strep A and it is not because of winter pressures; it is a crisis that has been 15 years in the making. The result is that we have the longest-ever NHS waiting lists, with 750,000 Scots waiting; the worst ever accident and emergency waiting times, with 2,000 people a week waiting more than 12 hours; and record levels of delayed discharge, with 58,501 NHS bed days lost a month.

After 15 years of the SNP, our NHS is broken and the system is failing. Staff are being asked to do the impossible, patients are being asked to accept the unacceptable and lives are being lost. Is it not the case that the people who caused the problem cannot be the ones to fix the problem?

The First Minister

On the latter point, it is, of course, up to the people of Scotland to decide who they trust to be in government to lead the country through challenges.

Of course, there were challenges in the NHS before Covid—I have never sought to suggest otherwise—and the actions that we are taking around investment, staffing and reforms to patient pathways are designed to address that. There are record numbers of staff in our health service right now—almost 30,000 more than when this Government took office—and, of course, more staff per head of population than anywhere else in the UK. That is the reality.

People watching at home—including the one in 25 people in the Scottish population who have Covid and the many people suffering from flu and other respiratory illnesses—who hear Anas Sarwar say that the fact that we have 1,200 Covid patients in our hospitals and the fact that, in recent times, 1,000 patients with flu have been admitted to our hospitals every week have nothing to do with the pressures in our NHS will wonder what on earth he is talking about.

We will continue to work with and listen to those on the front line of our national health service as we continue to strive to give them fair pay increases and as we continue to support them to deliver excellent care, which, even during these tough times, they continue to do for the vast majority of patients across our country.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

3. To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-01684)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Tuesday.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

My Opposition colleagues are quite right to raise the crisis in our national health service. Liberal Democrat research has quantified just how bad things are. Last year, we discovered that one in six people who could not get a general practitioner appointment carried out a medical procedure on themselves or got somebody else to do it.

Maria is 22 years old. She is a Ukrainian refugee who has been living in Scotland since the summer. She suffers from a hormonal thyroid condition that requires regular testing and treatment. However, when she presented to her new GP, she was faced with an unexpected dilemma. The wait was so long that it made more sense for her to risk travelling back to a war zone to see her doctor in Kyiv—so she did so. The air raid sirens, drone strikes and cruise missile attacks in the Ukrainian capital were less daunting to Maria than the wait for treatment in Scotland’s NHS. That is appalling.

Those are the risks that people are taking for the sake of their own health—and all for the want of basic access to primary care. Is the First Minister embarrassed by that?

The First Minister

I do not know the circumstances of that case beyond what Alex Cole-Hamilton has narrated, and it would be wrong for me to comment on an individual case.

What I do know that is that we continue to support general practice. There are more GPs per head of population in Scotland than there are anywhere else in the United Kingdom—there are 83 GPs per 100,000 people here, compared with 63 per 100,000 in England, 63 per 100,000 in Wales and 75 per 100,000 in Northern Ireland. We have a target, of course, and right now we are working towards the delivery of increased numbers of GPs. I think that we have recruited more than 3,000 members of the wider multidisciplinary teams in general practice and primary care.

Like access to other parts of the health service right now, access to GPs is challenging—and very challenging for some patients. We continue to work to address that, and we will continue to do that with record investment and record support for recruitment, in partnership with those who are working so hard across our health service.

Record Temperatures

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

4. To ask the First Minister what the implications for Scotland and the Scottish Government are following Met Office reports that temperatures in Scotland and the United Kingdom reached the highest on record in 2022. (S6F-01689)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Met Office figures underline that we are already experiencing climate change impacts in Scotland. We must adapt to those changes and prepare for further impacts of global climate change, which are, of course, already locked in.

We are currently preparing the third climate change adaptation programme for publication next year to succeed the current programme. Those programmes respond to the United Kingdom climate change risk assessments, which present the best available evidence and climate projections from organisations across the UK, including, of course, the Met Office.

The Climate Change Committee has urged that risks from higher temperatures be prioritised in the upcoming programme. We are working across Government and with public bodies to ensure improved preparedness for a projected increase in hotter years in the future.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The figures are, indeed, alarming. Across the world—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

We will have a brief suspension.

12:28 Meeting suspended.

12:29 On resuming—

I call Fiona Hyslop.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The record temperature figures are, indeed, alarming. Across the world, we are seeing more extreme weather experiences, with increased flooding and extreme heat at home. Every Government bears acute responsibilities for tackling the climate emergency. With the Scottish Government’s draft energy strategy that was published this week and the Climate Change Committee’s critical report that was published in December, does the First Minister acknowledge that the Government now needs to accelerate delivery on housing and transport emission reductions and a just transition to renewable energy? Will she ensure that the Government’s budget is sufficient and that public bodies ramp up on delivery, given that, on current trends, we will not meet our ambitious net zero targets?

The First Minister

I absolutely agree with Fiona Hyslop on all those points. It is worth pointing out that the energy strategy that was published this week, with the just transition vision alongside it, is, in part, about how we accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable and low-carbon sources of energy in a fair and just manner. That is really important.

We must remain 100 per cent focused on delivering our policy programme, which includes transport and the heating of homes, across the whole of society. As I have just said, we have to decarbonise the energy system, and the draft energy strategy goes into detail about how we do that. We must make sure that the climate change plan reflects all of that. A draft of that plan will be published later this year, alongside sectoral just transition plans, to set out a clear path for emissions reductions. Of course, we also need to make sure that investment is in place to back up all of that.

The Government remains focused on the issue. We often talk about it in terms of a challenge, and much of it is challenging, but there are also massive opportunities for Scotland in all of this, which we must seize.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

By 2050, there could be well over 100 heat-related deaths a year, according to the UK Climate Change Committee. Adapting buildings for cooling will be key to avoiding a worst-case scenario, and I welcome the joint work with the UK Government on that.

Can the First Minister confirm when an assessment will be ready of the cooling systems that will be required for the current housing stock?

The First Minister

I will come back to the member with a precise answer on when an assessment will be ready, but I absolutely agree with him that that is an important strand of work.

How we decarbonise the heating and cooling of our buildings is incredibly important as part of the overall delivery of our climate change objectives, so we will continue to work in partnership with the UK Government where necessary, because some of the levers and powers lie with the UK Government. I will be seeing the Prime Minister this evening, and I am sure that these issues will be among the many issues that we will touch on.

I am sure that we will debate the detail of all these important issues robustly in the chamber, but I hope that there will be a lot that unites us as we live up to the responsibility on our shoulders to help to combat the climate emergency.

Islay Ferries

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister for what reason two ferries that will serve Islay are being built in Turkey. (S6F-01680)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In line with relevant procurement legislation, the contract for the ferries that are currently being built for service on the Islay routes was awarded following a full and open tendering process, led by Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd—CMAL—which is the procuring authority. The bid that was received from that yard represented the best value for money in terms of quality and price.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that answer, but the Climate Change Committee’s report last month was not just critical but devastating in exposing the Government’s failures on the environment and emissions.

Is the First Minister comfortable that the steel for those two ferries is coming not from a Scottish steel mill—there is one about 40 miles from here, for example—but, rather, from China, the world’s largest polluter, whose steel sector is the second largest contributor to its emissions?

The First Minister

First, on the procurement decisions, over recent weeks, the leader of the member’s party has rightly questioned me in the chamber and has seemed to suggest that, somehow, we did not follow proper procurement policies in the award of other ferry contracts. Therefore, it is really important to stress that, in all these matters, we have complied with the relevant procurement legislation.

In relation to steel, that is a matter for the company that has the contract. The contract that has been awarded is a standard international shipbuilding contract, and, as such, decisions regarding materials and equipment lie with the shipyard. I understand that the shipyard might have originally intended to source steel from Ukraine, but, for obvious reasons, it has had to look elsewhere. The shipyard will take those decisions, and I sure that it will apply all necessary objectives to the decisions that it reaches.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The two new ferries will each be able to carry up to 450 passengers and 100 cars or 14 commercial vehicles, which will provide a combined 40 per cent increase in vehicle and freight capacity on the Islay route. That will represent an improvement for islanders and businesses, and it underlines the Scottish Government’s commitment to our island communities and the ferry network.

Does the First Minister share my view that questions such as the one that we have just heard reiterate the fact that the Tories are interested in politicking, and not people, when it comes to the ferry network?

The First Minister

On Jenni Minto’s last point, she is absolutely right. More importantly, people the length and breadth of Scotland, including our island communities, will draw their own conclusions from the approach that the Conservatives take on such issues.

Jenni Minto, who, in the Parliament, represents a number of islands, is right: the award of the contracts is good news for islanders and island communities, which is why it is important that they are progressing well. I understand that there will be an update on steel cutting and keel laying, which we expect in the coming days. We will continue to take decisions that are in the interests of people who live in our island communities, and that includes the decision that we are talking about.

Bus Fare Capping

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister, in the light of the extension of bus fare caps in England, whether the Scottish Government supports capping bus fares in Scotland for those aged between 22 and 60. (S6F-01697)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I point out that Scotland already has the most generous concessionary fare scheme in the United Kingdom. More than 2.3 million people in Scotland are eligible not for capped bus fares, but for free bus travel. We continue to develop and assess options to create a fairer and more transparent system of fares in order to maintain and increase affordability for people who need it, which is why we are progressing the fair fares review. That review is considering the cost and availability of services and the range of discounts and concessionary schemes that are available on all modes of transport, which includes bus, rail and ferry.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The maximum cost of a single bus fare in London is £1.65. In Edinburgh, it is £1.85. In Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire, where Labour mayors have taken control of transport, it is £2. It is £2 in Cardiff, and now it will be £2 in every part of England for the next few months. However, in greater Glasgow, it can be as much as £2.65 for a 2-mile journey. We really do not need a fares fair review to tell us that that is not fair. It is time to cap fares, for greater public control of buses, and for there to be a bit of urgency. In a cost of living crisis, why are people in Scotland paying among the highest bus fares in the UK?

The First Minister

Neil Bibby has omitted to say that people who are over 60 do not pay anything at all for bus travel, which is replicated in other parts of the UK, and that in Scotland, no one who is under the age of 22 pays for bus travel either. Fares are not capped for them; their bus travel is free

. Across our country, 2.3 million people are eligible for completely free bus travel.

On the question of capping costs for people who do pay, it is right that we progress any such proposal through the fair fares review so that we properly consider the cost and availability of services and the whole range of discounts and concessionary schemes that are already available. That is exactly what we will continue to do. I will say this yet again, because I think that it is a fantastic statistic: the reality is that 2.3 million people in Scotland do not pay anything at all. They do not pay a single penny to travel by bus in Scotland.

The Presiding Officer

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.

Influenza (Vaccination Uptake)

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

I refer to the exchanges on the pressures that are on the national health service. I understand that some 2 million people have accessed the flu vaccine—90 per cent or so did that when getting their winter Covid booster—but can more be done to ensure access for those who are eligible? Flu is very serious indeed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Uptake levels for the Covid and flu vaccines are high, which is welcome. We will continue to promote vaccine uptake for those who are eligible but have not yet been vaccinated.

We will, of course, think most carefully about those who are in the most vulnerable groups. Figures for, I think, the first week of January show that almost 90 per cent of older care home residents in Scotland are vaccinated, which is higher than the figures for England and Wales, and that 77 per cent of over-50s in Scotland are vaccinated, which is again higher than figures for other parts of the United Kingdom. We will continue to work hard to encourage everybody who is eligible for a vaccine to take that up.

NHS Fife (Major Incident Criteria)

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister is more than aware of the crisis that the NHS faces. Last week, a whistleblower from the accident and emergency department at Victoria hospital in Kirkcaldy contacted me to express their concerns that patients were waiting for more than nine hours to be seen and that patient examinations were being conducted in ambulances that were in the hospital’s grounds. Staff in that department believed that the major incident criteria were being met but they were “not allowed” to call or declare the situation as such.

Will the First Minister confirm that no political direction was given to NHS Fife—or any other health board, for that matter—to ensure that a major incident was not called? Will she agree to investigate why staff were “not allowed” to follow standard protocol?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I said on Monday, and the health secretary confirmed in writing to health boards this week, that although health boards can seek advice and guidance from the Government when they think that that is appropriate, it is up to them to take whatever decisions they think might be appropriate to prioritise critical and life-saving care. Douglas Ross started his questioning to me today by criticising the fact that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has, in effect, done that by pausing non-urgent care in Glasgow—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, First Minister. Members must treat one another with courtesy and respect. I would appreciate it if there were no interruptions at the moment. Continue, First Minister.

The First Minister

The point that I am making is that the action that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde announced last night demonstrates that health boards have the flexibility to take such action when they feel that it is necessary, which is right and proper.

Cameron House Hotel (Fatal Accident Inquiry)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The fatal accident inquiry into the tragic fire at Cameron House hotel more than five years ago reported yesterday. I thank the sheriff and the Lord Advocate for their assistance in getting to this point. The report includes a range of recommendations that are designed to prevent such a fire from happening again.

Will the First Minister give a commitment today that all the recommendations will be implemented as a matter of the utmost urgency? Will she also consider whether the fire brigade requires further enforcement powers, given that, before the Cameron House fire and the more recent fire at the New County hotel in Perth, people appear to have been warned of fire risks but to have done nothing about them?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In relation to the FAI report that was published yesterday, I, too, thank the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service for its work on this extremely important FAI and for publishing the report. I thank again the emergency services for their response on the night of the fire, and I give my condolences again to those who were bereaved in the incident.

Of course, we will thoroughly consider all the sheriff’s recommendations and I expect that, yes, we will accept all the recommendations. However, we must go through a process of considering them properly. We require to respond in due course, and we will do that.

In the light of the Cameron House fire and the more recent incident in Perth—my condolences go to the bereaved in that incident, too—it is right to look at enforcement provisions. Under the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is appointed as the enforcing authority for fire and, as part of that, it produces all the relevant enforcement procedures, while applying the principles that are contained in the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice. As the enforcing authority, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service works with duty holders in relevant premises to achieve compliance in fire safety, through providing advice and support and taking enforcement action when necessary.

Those systems are set out very clearly, but, of course, as part of our consideration of the recommendations of the sheriff, we will ensure that all appropriate aspects of that are looked at in an appropriate way.

Trade Union Legislation

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Tory UK Government continues to show contempt for workers with its proposed anti-trade union legislation. Does the First Minister share my concern about the impact that those plans could have on the rights of people who are working in devolved public services? Will she join me in condemning and opposing that brazen attack on trade union rights?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is a really important issue. It is important to make the point that the UK Government already has the most anti-trade union laws in western Europe, and the proposed bill threatens to undermine and weaken the rights of workers even further. We strongly oppose any bill that undermines legitimate trade union activity and does not respect fair work principles.

As Governments, we should be working with the public sector and trade unions to reach fair and reasonable settlements that respect the legitimate interests of workers, rather than pouring fuel on fires or taking away workers’ democratic rights. I will make those points very strongly when I see the Prime Minister this evening.

Gorgie City Farm (Closure)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Gorgie city farm, which gives volunteering opportunities to disadvantaged young people and adults and provides a wonderful green play and learning space in one of the most urban parts of the capital, is due to close on Monday. The First Minister will be aware of the incredible value that that community facility provides, because she has visited the farm, which is one of Scotland’s last urban farms. What emergency support could be made available to help keep the farm going in an interim period? Will ministers also agree to meet me, the council and local campaigners to discuss a way forward to save the farm?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have visited Gorgie

city f

arm, so I am well aware of the excellent work that it does and its real value to the community and to Scotland as a whole. Of course, if there are any reasonable steps that the Government could take to support a way forward, we would certainly consider doing so. I will ask the relevant minister to meet with Miles Briggs, the council and representatives of the farm, if that would be helpful and appropriate, to consider options for the future. I will ask that that be taken forward with all due haste.

University of Edinburgh Admissions (Scottish Students)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

A mother in my constituency has provided me with data that shows that, this year, for many courses at the University of Edinburgh—outside the very welcome widening access places—zero Scots were admitted. For Scottish pupils from ordinary families and an average school, the doors are closed, no matter their mind or endeavour. For 440 years, the University of Edinburgh has admitted among the best and brightest of Scotland, including Walter Scott, Katherine Grainger, Stuart McDonald, Robert Louis Stevenson and Joanna Cherry—all great minds who worked hard and gained entry to study law here, in our capital city. With funding frozen for 13 years and the Scottish National Party’s cap on Scottish students, the historical promise of a Scottish education is broken. After five centuries, how has it come to this?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Forgive me if this is not parliamentary language, but, for reasons that I will come to, I am actually quite gobsmacked that that question has been put in that way by a Labour member of Parliament.

Let me first give these facts: a record number of young people secured places at university in this latest Universities and Colleges Admissions Service cycle, and a record number of 18-year-old Scots have secured a university place. That number has gone up by 20 per cent since 2019, the most recent year when there were exams.

The data provides a really positive story for those who are applying from deprived areas. The number of 18-year-olds from the most deprived areas who secure places has increased by 31 per cent since the 2019 cycle, and acceptances for people of all ages from the most deprived areas are up by 4 per cent.

This is where I take issue with Michael Marra. In my earlier days as First Minister, I used to be regularly criticised for the fact that too few young people from deprived communities were going to university. Now, I appear to be being criticised for the fact that too many of them are going to university.

I do not come from a deprived background. I come from a working-class background and went to a state school, and, when I studied law at Glasgow university, I was very much in the minority. Within a context of a record number of young Scots at university, I think that it is really good news that we are seeing more people from the most deprived areas actually going to our universities.

St Fittick’s Community Park (Rezoning)

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that people from Torry and other Aberdeen campaigners are at the Parliament today. They are angry that they face losing their community’s last remaining green space, St Fittick’s community park. Torry contains the most concentrated area of multiple deprivation in the north of Scotland. Losing St Fittick’s will be detrimental to residents’ health and wellbeing and bad for wider social and environmental justice. Will the First Minister support the calls of Torry residents and others to save the park for current and future generations by using powers under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to ensure that St Fittick’s is not rezoned for development?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I know that there is strong feeling on the issue. However, Aberdeen City Council has notified ministers of its intention to adopt the local development plan. Ministers will now consider that and, as part of their scrutiny, will consider previous Scottish Government recommendations and check whether reporters’ modifications have been fully translated into the modified plan. Of course, ministers will set out a decision in due course.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I note that, when the First Minister spoke about the current delayed hospital discharge situation, she referenced live data. As far as I am aware, that live data is not public. The Office for Statistics Regulation has made it clear that, when information is used to publicly inform Parliament, it should be published in an accessible form. Will you seek from the First Minister a commitment to publish that data as soon as possible?

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Burnett. That is not a matter for the chair, but your comments are on the record.

There will be a brief suspension before we move on to members’ business.

12:51 Meeting suspended.

12:53 On resuming—

Caledonian Sleeper Service

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-07156, in the name of Richard Leonard, on the Caledonian sleeper service. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes that ScotRail Services transferred into public ownership on 1 April 2022 and that Scotland’s rail passenger services are operated by Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd, a company owned and controlled by the Scottish Government; notes that the sleeper service between Scotland and England is approaching its 150th anniversary; recognises what it sees as the significant social, economic and environmental values of the Caledonian Sleeper service, including for the Central Scotland region; notes that the current franchise is due to end in June 2023, following the Scottish Government’s decision not to rebase the franchise; further notes that the Scottish Government has not yet confirmed how sleeper services will be operated from June 2023 onwards; notes the view that this is the ideal opportunity to bring the Caledonian Sleeper Service into public ownership via established structures and reintegrate the sleeper service with ScotRail and that, in so doing, the public purse would not be expected to fund profits for a private operator of the service, and further notes the calls on the Scottish Government to confirm that it will not give Serco a further contract for the Caledonian Sleeper service and that it will instead use a Scottish Government-owned company to run the service from June 2023.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I begin by referring members to my voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests. I thank members who signed the motion enabling the debate. In so doing, they have honoured a commitment not just to all those who care about our railways, but to all those who care about parliamentary democracy and open government.

Next month marks 150 years of an overnight rail sleeper service running from Scotland to London, but this is a service that cannot merely be consigned to its glorious past; it demands active support in the present to secure a bright future as an integral part of a wider and longer-term plan for our public transport system—a plan that means that, instead of closing down booking offices and cutting jobs, we invest in our railway and cut fares. If we are really serious about climate change, we should be getting people out of their cars and on to public transport and, when it comes to cross-border travel, we should be getting people out of their airline seats and into railway carriages.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Richard Leonard for the points that he has made. Does he accept that, if passengers are not returning to the railways in the numbers that used them previously, and if there is therefore a shortfall of money, we cannot just keep increasing the subsidy?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is not a subsidy; it is an investment. If we are serious about climate change, we need to get people out of their cars and on to public transport.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Will Richard Leonard take an intervention?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

No, I need to press on.

That is why not only this Parliament but the workforce, the trade unions, the travelling public and the people deserve some straight answers from the minister this afternoon.

The position is this: on 5 October last year—the eve of the Scottish National Party conference in Aberdeen—instead of making a ministerial statement or speech in the Parliament, the Minister for Transport issued a press release based on a carefully crafted reply to a Government-initiated question, announcing that Serco was being stripped of the sleeper contract and issued with a notice of termination. Then, exactly two months later, after the SNP conference was all done and dusted, in reply to a series of written questions that I lodged, the minister was forced to reveal, with a smoking gun in her hand, that an

“appropriate assessment of a direct award to Serco Caledonian Sleepers Ltd is being made”.—[

Written Answers

, 5 December 2022; S6W-12362.]

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

Does Richard Leonard understand that I am somewhat constrained by United Kingdom legislation that, as a Scottish minister, I have no power over? It requires me to look at a direct award and, if that is ruled out, the operator of last resort arrangements that we have in place in Scotland. Does he understand the process that I have to go through as a Scottish minister?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Yes, I understand the process and I will come on to that.

Jenny Gilruth is guided by not only the

Railways Act 1993 but the Scotland Act 2016, which devolved rail services to Scotland. The truth of the matter is that the company that runs the Caledonian sleeper called for more public money to run the service. That request was assessed and rejected, then, 60 days later, the minister was forced to admit that the Government was lining up a direct award to the self-same company.

Let me be clear: this is not just another run-of-the-mill ministerial U-turn; it is a governmental betrayal of the highest order. It goes well beyond the simple question of a train contract to the very values that define the Government. Let me remind Parliament and the minister that this is the same Serco that presided over a culture of bullying and harassment of its own staff on the Caledonian sleeper service. It is the same Serco that boosted its profits by 64 per cent in 2021 and hiked up the pay and bonus of its chief executive officer by shamelessly exploiting the deadly Covid-19 pandemic as a money-making opportunity. It is the same Serco that, for more than a year, conducted a reign of terror, night after night, among asylum seekers in Glasgow with its hostile lock-change programme and forced eviction policy. That is who we are dealing with.

I say to the minister that it is not too late to do the right thing and bring this service into democratic public ownership. It is not too late to make a direct award to Scottish Rail Holdings, because there is a clear legal basis for bringing in a public sector operator under section 25 of the Railways Act 1993.

The burning question is this: has Scottish Rail Holdings been asked to be prepared to operate the Caledonian sleeper service? If not, why not? If not, will the minister instruct it to do so today?

Finally, there are some who will accuse me of making this demand out of some kind of rigid, dogmatic, socialist ideology.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

No.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Well, I have to confess that I do stand here this afternoon guilty of the charge of standing up for an ideal. I stand guilty of the charge of holding the firm conviction that this natural private monopoly run for profit should be a natural public service run for passengers. I plead guilty to the charge of believing that public ownership of the railway is economically rational, socially responsible, environmentally sustainable and democratically unanswerable.

I do plead guilty, but I also make a plea. This decision rests in the hands of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government alone. It is both legally competent and morally correct. So, this afternoon, I hope that the minister is not only listening but hearing, and that she is prepared to act, and to act decisively, to take this public transport service back where it belongs—into public ownership.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Richard Leonard for bringing the subject of the sleeper service to the chamber for debate.

I am enthusiastic about rail and use the train as often as I can. However, I have to say that the sleeper service is extremely expensive, which is why I have not used it since the new rolling stock was introduced. The most basic return fare, including a bed, is meant to be about £280, but when I looked at dates in the near future, I found that the cost of a classic ticket was more like £400 for a return. By contrast, the last time I travelled to London, which was in July, I travelled by West Coast daytime train and the cost was £77 for a return.

All rail travel is heavily subsidised—or invested in, for those who like that term—and rightly so, normally by around 50 per cent. It has been reported that the average subsidy on the sleeper is £164 per single ticket. Broadly speaking, I am in favour of public ownership in many sectors, especially when it is a public service and is virtually a monopoly. All the trains run on the same track and use the same stations, just as all our electricity runs through the same wires and all our water runs through the same pipes, so the idea of competition in the rail sector or the electricity sector will always be a bit artificial.

Of course, it must be said at this point that the Scottish Government is bound by relevant Westminster legislation, which I think is principally the Railways Act 1993. Therefore, we do not have complete freedom to act in the way that we might want to if all rail powers were fully devolved.

Richard Leonard’s motion mentions

“profits for a private operator”.

It may be the case that a private operator makes profits but, equally, a private operator can make losses. I think that that has happened to Abellio with the ScotRail contract and to Serco with the sleeper. Therefore, public ownership is not without risks and, if there is a loss, it is the public purse that has to foot the bill.

There has sometimes been the illusion that, with nationalisation, all the financial pressures would somehow magically disappear. People talked as though bringing ScotRail into public ownership would automatically mean lower fares, higher pay for the staff and more frequent and improved services, but the reality is that income and expenditure still have to match, whoever owns and operates our railways. We can do all the things that I mentioned—have low fares, pay staff well and all the rest of it—but that still comes at a cost, whether the owner is in the public sector or the private sector.

We could increase the subsidy, but would that be the right thing to do at a time when the national health service and other public services are so under pressure? Let us be realistic: only a tiny number of people use the sleeper service. Unless they are using the seated coaches, they generally need to be fairly well off or have their employer pay for it.

Serco has fingers in a lot of pies. Although some of its work for the public sector might be of high quality and provide value for money, as Richard Leonard said, those of us in Glasgow will not quickly forget how Serco was involved with the Home Office in threatening asylum seekers with eviction just a few years ago.

My final point is on a sensitive subject. There is a balance to be struck between the needs of passengers—or “customers”, as they seem to be called these days—and the needs of the staff who work on the railways. We must all be clear that the passengers must come first, but that has not always been the case. Those of us who are older remember—years ago, in the days of nationalised British Rail—the awful sandwiches, which were a standing joke throughout Scotland, England and Wales. Certainly, at that time, it seemed that the railways were often run for the staff, and the passengers were a bit of an afterthought. Therefore, by all means let us take the sleeper into public ownership, but if we are to do so, let us also make the commitment that the passengers must come first and remember that we, as politicians, together with the railway staff, are here to serve the paying public.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I, too, thank Richard Leonard for securing the debate, not least because it is always good fun to hear him speak and wind the clock back several decades. That aside, this is an important topic to debate—because it is a debate and we are not all going to agree. It is also an opportunity to hear from the minister, as we have yet to discover what she intends to do about the sleeper service.

We need to know that, because it is an important and iconic service. Six mornings a week, a little piece of Scotland rolls into London, full of people who are ready to start their day. The background to the debate was the announcement last year by the Scottish Government that the sleeper contract with Serco would be terminated halfway through this June. That was after the company wanted to discuss finances in the wake of the pandemic, so it seemed a very sudden decision.

When ScotRail became NatRail on April fools’ day last year, with the obligatory plaque unveiling by the First Minister, it followed years of negative publicity for Abellio. However, that is not the background here. Since Serco started running the sleeper service, it has invested in new fleet—there have been 75 new carriages in less than four years. Revenue was falling when the contract was awarded but, since then, Serco has grown revenue by 48 per cent, with 2022, incredibly, being its best-ever year. This coming year looks set to be even better.

Customers must like what Serco does—it has scored its highest-ever customer satisfaction scores, with full trains. Employee satisfaction is also up, despite what the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers might say. Against that background, it seems strange for even Richard Leonard to be arguing for change, although for him, as he confirmed, it is ideological.

Serco is clearly doing something right. I have not yet travelled on the sleeper, but I hope to do so soon on a trip to London, because on a one-way trip, it offers great value for money when compared with other options.

There are a range of ways to travel on the sleeper: passengers can just take a seat, or there is a choice of cabin options, too. There is

lots of Scottish produce on board—even the mattresses are from Aberdeen.

The minister has to make up her mind, and she has three options: the sleeper service could rejoin ScotRail; she could bring in an operator of last resort; or she could offer a direct contract award, which might be the best option in terms of value for money. I have spoken to Serco and I hope that the minister will do so, too. It is keen to discuss a direct contract award, which would mean ministers having complete control of the contract. That must surely appeal to the Government. Last month, Jenny Gilruth said that she was assessing that option. Has she now done so?

A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the sleeper service, which is unfair to staff. I have outlined some of the options for the minister. She needs to say what she intends to do and why, and she should set out the business case for that decision. How would taking the service off Serco help passengers and the taxpayer? With the current contract ending in June, we are running out of track.

The Government never said why taking ownership of ScotRail would be better and it never had a plan for making it so. I hope that the minister does not repeat that mistake with the iconic Caledonian sleeper.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Richard Leonard for securing this important and timely debate.

The Caledonian sleeper is 150 years old this year. From the Victorian era up to the present day, it has been a vital and valued link between Scotland and London for travellers of all kinds. Now more than ever, the sleeper has a potentially vital role to play as a means of low-carbon travel.

The two most-used domestic flight routes are between London and Glasgow and between London and Edinburgh. There is clearly significant potential for modal shift from domestic flights to rail, and a reliable, affordable and comfortable sleeper service can play a key part in that shift. It can and should play an important role in getting people back on to our railways and in meeting Scotland’s and the UK’s climate commitments. It is also vital for our tourism sector.

For the sleeper to play that role, however, we need to have a world-class service and value for money for passengers and taxpayers. Under the Serco franchise since 2015, we have had neither. Not only has Serco failed on its franchise commitments, but its running of the sleeper service has not been a particularly happy experience for either passengers or staff. A 2021 survey of Caledonian sleeper staff by the RMT found that nearly 60 per cent of those surveyed had felt harassed by management at work, and nearly half had felt bullied.

Meanwhile, price hikes mean that the cost of a standard bed on the service is now up to £190 one way. That is out of reach for many people in Scotland. I believe that many people would far rather take the train to London but, at prices like that, it is no wonder that many people have to opt to take a cheaper flight.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Given that the current subsidy is, as I understand it, £164 per ticket, how on earth—I refer back to John Mason’s speech—could the ticket price be made any cheaper without huge funds being ploughed in from the public purse?

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Clearly, there is a need for investment and subsidy in the railways. There always has been and there always will be. However, we want a publicly owned railway that reinvests the profits from those private companies into services. If we have that, we can make rail travel more affordable.

As Richard Leonard said, despite significant cost and revenue risk being transferred to the Scottish Government for a number of years, Serco has received fees for running the service. Indeed, this week—I say this to Mr Kerr—Serco reported an operating profit of £11.2 million. However, the public pay the price. As Richard Leonard’s motion says, money from the public purse is being used to fund the profits of a private operator.

There is a better way. I believe that there is a clear case for the Caledonian sleeper being taken into public ownership in June 2023. Such a step would mark an important move away from the inefficient and costly fragmentation of our railways and it would stop public money going to fund private profits. Instead, it would see those profits channelled back into the network to the benefit of passengers and the public.

What is more, we have a pre-established structure and model for doing that. Following ScotRail being brought into public ownership after the failure of Abellio, the structures are there to run the sleeper in the public sector alongside ScotRail.

My question to the minister, though, is this: what is the Government’s policy intention? As Richard Leonard said, before the minister’s party conference, she appeared to be talking about public ownership. Recently, however, there seems to be talk of a direct award to Serco. I hope that, today, she will deliver some good news to rail users, staff and taxpayers by confirming that her policy intention is that the Caledonian sleeper will be brought into public ownership and run for the benefit of passengers, not for private profits.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the future of the Caledonian sleeper service. I thank Richard Leonard for securing the slot.

Fundamentally, I do not think that we can deliver a people’s ScotRail without a sleeper service that is fully integrated, operated in the national interest and run by a public company. Like many members, I am uncomfortable that a company that is better known for running detention centres and evicting people who are seeking asylum is currently the operator of a national rail service. I am pretty sure that that on its own is not a valid reason to pull Serco out of the running of the franchise, but I would certainly get a better night’s sleep on the train knowing that it was being run by an operator that reinvested its profits back into the national interest.

A nationalised sleeper service should not just be at the heart of the Government’s vision for rail; it should also be at the heart of its vision for aviation, because there is no credible way to meet our climate targets without a reduction in unnecessary air miles. The number of short-haul flights within the UK and to continental Europe can and should be reduced, and the sleeper service should play its full part in that.

We have already seen rail overtake flying as the most popular mode of transport between Edinburgh and London. Rail’s share of that market rose from 35 per cent before Covid to 57 per cent last year. Rail operators have been smart; they have understood the market well on the east coast and have geared their marketing and pricing to what people now need and can afford following Covid.

There is the opportunity to replicate that success with the sleeper service, but better integration is needed, and that must start with better ticketing and fair fares. With single ticket prices in the hundreds, the sleeper is simply not an affordable service at the moment, so we need to do all that we can to ensure that the sleeper—nationalised or not—is a low-cost option that is competitive with aviation.

Since the Eurostar terminal shifted to St Pancras, there has been the opportunity for seamless connections with Europe for rail passengers coming to and from Scotland. For example, a passenger getting on a sleeper at Inverness has only one platform change to get to Paris, Brussels or now Amsterdam by the morning of the next day, but the lack of an integrated and affordable ticket remains the biggest stumbling block. Therefore, we need to think big. The Irish Taoiseach and the French President have already announced that, starting this year, there will be a combined ferry and train ticket to link the two countries. A big discount for young people should also be a feature.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does Mark Ruskell not accept that the sleeper service is, in fact, incredibly popular and that the trains often run full?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not think that that is the case on every journey. Operators on the east coast have been very smart in how they structure their fare prices and in the offerings that they create. I think that more could be done with the sleeper service, particularly on integrated ticketing, which I want to return to.

It is not just France and Ireland that are planning to ditch air travel. A new European sleeper train from Belgium to Berlin will be launched in May, with plans to expand the route to Prague. New direct rail services between Paris, Madrid and Italy are also getting ready to be launched next year, and our German Green Party colleagues have already been promoting a plan at the European Parliament for a fully integrated European sleeper service, which would include our Caley sleeper as a vital part of Europe’s rail network.

Scotland should not be left out of the rail renaissance that is happening across Europe. Brexit has left us isolated and, at times, locked up in a 10-mile tailback outside Dover. We need to be better connected. Of course, most European rail services are run by nationalised rail companies that have the vision and backing of their Governments at their heart. We need a Caley sleeper that is run in the public interest and integrated with the rest of Europe’s national rail services. I welcome that vision and look forward to that day coming soon.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I want to make a short contribution to the debate as someone who used to use the sleeper. I used to commute to and from London on the sleeper, and I still take it reasonably often. I readily recognise Richard Leonard’s claim of

“the significant social, economic and environmental”

contribution that the sleeper makes, having experienced at first hand the excellent upgrades to the rolling stock and the use of local produce in the buffet car, and having seen the economic and net zero benefits to the north-east, in particular, of bringing people in and taking them to London.

However, it is that experience that causes me great disquiet in relation to the calls for nationalisation of the service. Richard Leonard first suggests that he is persuaded of that model by making an analogy with ScotRail, yet for anyone who uses ScotRail—as I do but often cannot, with Aberdeen having been cut off for much of last week, for example—that claim is extraordinary.

That leads me to the fundamental question that has not been answered: would nationalisation, in itself, improve the service? After all, as Graham Simpson said, it has not helped ScotRail. Indeed, last February, Richard Leonard said in a debate that we must encourage people back on to the railway in volumes that signal a modal shift. That is absolutely right. He went on to say that that cannot be done in the context of ticket office cuts and closures, service reductions and increases in fares.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

There is a difference between supporting public ownership and the SNP’s management of the railways. We would take different decisions from those that the SNP Government has taken in the past years.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I readily acknowledge the appalling decisions that have been taken by the SNP Government—Neil Bibby makes a good point. However, the fact is that we have all seen cuts since nationalisation. My point is that public ownership of the sleeper service will not, in itself, improve passenger or staff experience or any other aspect of the service. It cannot.

The motion demands that

“the public purse would not be expected to fund profits for a private operator of the service”,

but Richard Leonard clearly did not bother to take even a cursory glance at the publicly available figures, which show that Serco has lost more than £60 million running the sleeper since it took up the franchise.

I remind Mr Leonard that the transport minister told me last year that ScotRail’s rail passenger services, which cost £266 million in 2016, were expected to cost £407 million by the end of 2022. I will be putting in a parliamentary question after this debate to see what that figure actually was.

If Richard Leonard had done his homework, he would know that the rise in working from home has cut fare income on the railways from £11 billion to £9 billion, which means that the only way to drive improvement in our nationalised railway—

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Will the member accept an intervention?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not think that I have time.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can allow a wee bit of latitude with time, should the member wish to take the intervention.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I would be grateful if the member could be very quick.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

If all of this is caused by people working from home, why are the motorways and roads into our major city centres as congested as they are? We need to get people out of their cars and on to the railway.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We absolutely do. That is why, when Richard Leonard talks about the need to deliver investment in the railway and cut fares, he must appreciate that there are only three ways to drive people away from their cars and make the modal shift that he and other members have rightly mentioned. One is to increase taxes on the people of Scotland—even those who never use the railway and are already subsidising every sleeper journey to the tune of £164—and hypothecate any increased tax take to the railway. Another is to generate more money to invest in the sleeper by cannibalising other portfolios such as health or education, which, quite rightly, no Government will ever do. That leaves cannibalising the railway budget from within as the only option, which the Scottish Government has done with ScotRail. Railway funds could be reprofiled by cutting ticket office hours, staff or services, or by ramping up fares to squeeze more money from a smaller passenger base.

There is absolutely no analysis that suggests that nationalisation could deliver a better service for passengers, staff or Scotland’s taxpayers. I return to Richard Leonard’s comments about the need for a modal shift. I absolutely support him on that, not least as it is a way of achieving our net zero ambitions. However, in the context of the Climate Change Committee telling the Government that it is guilty of magical thinking with its net zero plans, I fear that there is more of that thinking in Mr Leonard’s motion. He must be careful about what he dreams of, because, if we were ever to nationalise the sleeper, he would find that rapidly turning into his worst nightmare.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank my comrade Richard Leonard for bringing the debate to the Parliament. As we have heard from members across the chamber, this is an important issue.

The Caledonian sleeper service is one of the jewels of Scotland’s rail infrastructure and represents a transport offering to the public that few other parts of the UK can enjoy. The sleeper has been in operation since 1873, making it 150 years old this year. It holds great memories for many—even Opposition members have mentioned that. It connects Scotland to the rest of the UK and remains in demand to this day, despite what has been said about its present affordability.

Graham Simpson said that bringing this subject to the chamber takes us back in time, but the debate has been about the way in which we sustain transport and bring people back on to our railways as part of properly looking at our carbon footprint.

I associate myself with the comments that Richard Leonard made about the fact that public ownership brings huge benefits to staff and customers, to bring in John Mason’s point. It is important that staff and customers are both seen as being part of the equation.

We should not hand the service back to Serco in June under any circumstances. Now is the right time to bring the sleeper back under public control through a Government-owned company. We have heard in the debate that we can do that. What better way is there to reward the staff of the sleeper service than to bring the service back into a long-term future in public hands? That would be popular.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Let us say that that happened. How would we generate the money to pay for all the benefits that were being brought in by nationalisation?

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Conservative members have to understand that it is necessary for us to nationalise the sleeper. Neil Bibby mentioned that we have always subsidised our railways, and rightly so. As Mark Ruskell said, we want to integrate ourselves into Europe and be part of that service. There is an opportunity for us to do that and we can do it. The privatisation of the railways has been a disaster in the UK and throughout Europe. Other European countries have done much better, having retained public ownership.

The current operator, Serco, is paid by us to run the service while, at the end of the day, we take the risk that is associated with that anyway. It is an incredible situation in which private enterprise can extract fees to run public assets and, if anything goes wrong, just send them back to the public sector anyway.

When the railways across Britain were privatised, we were told that it would increase competition and drive down costs for the consumer. However, there is zero competition and zero risk to the companies while customers are paying increasingly high prices and shouldering the long-term financial burden. That cannot go on.

The sleeper is a fantastic service that should be in public hands. If the Government is serious, it will soon take it back into public hands in the way that has been described.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests and congratulate Richard Leonard on securing this important debate, which is part of a wider discussion about public transport, the climate challenge and how we get people to move from cars and planes to rail, in particular, as the greenest form of transport.

We need to compare where we are in Scotland and the rest of the UK with other European countries. In Germany, it is possible to travel by train throughout the country for €9. In Spain, most train travel will now be free for another year. France has recently obtained permission from the European Commission to ban domestic flights on routes where the train is available. I listened to Liam Kerr’s speech and it is clear that we need big decisions to be made by the UK Government as well as the Scottish Government.

Serco has operated the Caledonian sleeper franchise since March 2015. Prior to that, it was integrated into the ScotRail franchise and, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the sleeper was transferred on what is called an emergency measures agreement—now a temporary measures agreement—so that all cost and revenue risk was transferred to the Scottish Government and Serco received a fee for running the service.

Therefore, the risk is already with the Scottish Government, and Serco is eligible to receive fees, which it has been doing. This debate is to encourage the Scottish Government to take the Caledonian sleeper back into public ownership.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Can the member tell me—I have not yet heard this from anyone—what Serco has done wrong with the Caledonian sleeper service? One member said that it has been running a very good service.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I suspect that the member has not spoken to as many Caledonian sleeper employees as I have. We could have a debate in its own right on some of the practices that have been operated in the Caledonian sleeper service. We have already heard from Richard Leonard about some of the alleged bullying that has been taking place, but some of us have a dossier on some of the problems with the way that the service is operated.

The Green Party member who spoke has already talked about some of Serco’s behaviour in relation to people seeking asylum and bespoke accommodation. We also know about its track record on the test and trace system. Therefore, there are some issues of principle with regard to the kinds of organisations to which the Government awards contracts, but there are some very specific issues with regard to how Serco has operated sleeper services. It is discredited and it is not fit to receive public money from the Scottish Government, but that is a wider debate that we could focus on in detail.

The issue before us today is whether that is the best way for a public service to be operated. I do not think that we have the specific figures, but we believe that nearly £2 million in fees has been given to Serco as part of the current contract. I ask the Scottish Government to confirm how much money Serco is receiving. I hope that, over the coming months, as the minister makes decisions, she will take into account the very strong support that she has from the Scottish Labour Party in particular to bring the sleeper service back into public ownership.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call minister Jenny Gilruth to respond to the debate.

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

I congratulate Mr Leonard on securing this important debate on the Caledonian sleeper. I am not sure how many MSPs in the chamber have travelled on the sleeper, but I certainly encourage colleagues to take the opportunity to do it. Travelling on the sleeper is a fantastic experience. I undertook it for the very first time in November, and it was really enjoyable.

As, I think, both Mr Leonard and Mr Bibby noted, sleeper rail services have existed in Scotland for almost 150 years, and they give us connectivity from Scotland to other parts of the UK. The Caledonian sleeper is an essential part of the vital mix of rail services that we have in Scotland.

I have listened to the debate with interest, and I want to return to members’ points in turn. It is fair to say that there are some different views in the chamber, which are perhaps split along ideological lines, but, for context, I remind members that it was this Government that brought ScotRail into public ownership. That context is an important point to start from.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

On the issue of ScotRail, delivering better rail services obviously requires real leadership. Chris Gibb is leaving his key post as chief executive of Scottish Rail Holdings after less than a year.

The Scotsman

has reported that political interference was one of the factors in his decision and linked it to the postponement of engineering works in Fife. Will the minister confirm or deny whether that was the case?

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

I do not recognise Mr Bibby’s outline of that individual. That individual’s post came to an end this year, so the issues that the member has highlighted in the chamber are not my understanding of why

Mr Gibb is leaving. If the member would like to speak with Mr Gibb, as I have done, actually, he would be more than welcome to do that, and I am sure that Mr Gibb can give him his own views on that matter. Mr Gibb has made a substantial contribution to the first year of public ownership of ScotRail.

I want to respond to some of the history around the sleeper service. Going back to the beginning of the sleeper service in 1873, train journeys could last in excess of 11 hours. Obviously, things have moved on since that time. In the UK today, there are two sleeper services: the night riviera from London to Cornwall and the Caley sleeper.

The sleeper is really the prominent example of connecting communities in Scotland directly to London. As important as the fact that the Caledonian sleeper opens up travel for people who live in Scotland is the fact that it opens up travel for visitors. We heard about that from members today.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will remember that I wrote to her about some of the employment practices of Serco, especially with regard to staff based in Inverness. Serco was making staff redundant, with no hope of any redeployment and without consultation with the unions. Will she give that some consideration when she makes her decision?

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

I thank the member for that intervention; she made an important point, and I will absolutely consider that. I spent an hour and a half with the rail unions yesterday, and we talked about that issue at length, as the member will understand, so I am more than happy to look at that—particularly in the round of the decision that I will need to make on the future viability of the sleeper service and how it will be delivered.

As I mentioned, there has been a shift in our railway traffic to the tourist end of passenger outputs. Liam Kerr spoke to some of the societal benefits that the sleeper service brings—the economic and social benefits—but, as we have started to recover from the pandemic, tourist services are driving growth in the Caledonian sleeper business. The situation is perhaps different from when Mr Kerr and others might have used the service, when it was more of a commuter service.

As Graham Simpson noted, we have quite high satisfaction levels from customers, and it is important to reflect on that.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister is right in saying that it is important to reflect on that. Carol Mochan described the sleeper, which is being run by Serco, as a “fantastic service”. Does the minister agree with that? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

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

I recognise the member’s point. Serco is running a broadly good service, and I will come on to talk about that in more detail. However, it is important to say that the rationale behind the decision reached on the provision of services was based on value for money. We have spoken at length about the importance of recognising the challenges that the Government faces in relation to the sustainability of public funding and providing that subsidy, and it is important to recognise that.

Graham Simpson noted some of the Scottish products that are available on board. Those are important in helping the service to support local communities, and they give VisitScotland an opportunity to promote Scotland to visitors travelling from London.

The success of the Caley sleeper has surpassed the success of any other train company in the UK, and that is an important point. We have seen, based on passenger satisfaction levels, as I mentioned, that Serco has been running a broadly good service. Its revenues from the past year outstripped pre-pandemic performance and its bookings are stronger than ever. As the franchising authority, it has lifted the Caley sleeper to new levels of success.

Some years ago, Scottish ministers took the decision that the Caledonian sleeper would be operated separately from ScotRail services. That allowed a level of dedicated management for the service, which has been hugely important for how it has progressed. The service has evolved, and with that it has been able to make progress. I recognise that there have been challenges historically, but it is important to put that on record.

The policy decision was made ahead of the resurgence of sleeper services across Europe, which we heard about from Mark Ruskell, and the Caledonian sleeper has established a model that has attracted attention from international sleeper operators. It is important to say that.

The Caledonian sleeper service is now thriving, and that is unique in the current context of rail. It is a testament to not only the quality and attractiveness of the service, but the work of the staff, who continue to help make the service as successful as it currently is. The service is increasingly recognised internationally, and it attracts passengers from all over the world.

Of course, there are challenges, and I recognise that the franchise has had its problems—we heard about some of them from members. The issues around the introduction of new trains are well documented; bringing in a complicated fleet with en suite facilities was ambitious and challenging at the time. However, we can also recognise the success that we have now, with the strong recovery as we move forward from the pandemic.

As we have noted in the debate, I have decided not to accept the rebasing proposal that was received from Serco at the end of last year, so the current franchise agreement will end of 25 June. I need to repeat that the decision not to rebase was in no way a reflection on the quality of the product that has been developed, nor on the commitment of the staff, who deliver the service very well, every day. Instead, it was a question of the terms of the rebase offer and because those terms did not represent value for money anymore.

The decision about the arrangements that will replace the current franchise when it comes to an end in June need to be taken in accordance with existing UK railway legislation. As a Scottish minister, I cannot unpick that legislation—as much as I might like to—and the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to change that legislation, at least not currently. Working within the constraints of that legislation, we are in the process of determining the arrangements to secure the continued provision of the Caledonian sleeper services beyond June.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The minister has referred a few times to section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, but does she accept that section 57 of the Scotland Act 2016 provides her with an opportunity to put the contract out to a tender process, which would allow a public sector bid?

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

I hear what Mr Leonard says, but I do not think that the legislation that he cites recuses me from adhering to the current UK legislation. That is the advice that I took from my civil servants in Transport Scotland. If Mr Leonard has legislative advice that contradicts the advice that I am receiving, I am more than happy to consider it.

Working within the constraints of the current UK legislation, I will move forward. As I noted in my letter to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee back in October, it has been determined that it would not be appropriate to pursue a competition for the re-letting of the franchise at this time, because we do not consider that the prevailing conditions in the current UK rail market would sustain that option. The post-pandemic recovery on rail has created, it is fair to say, substantial uncertainty and risk about future market conditions.

On current railways legislation, the remaining options for successor arrangements are the direct award of a new franchise agreement or the mobilisation of operator-of-last-resort arrangements, as was undertaken for ScotRail. As I mentioned, work is well under way—I note that June is fast approaching—to consider those options in accordance with the current legislation and the Scottish ministers’ franchising policy statement, with the intent to deliver the best service for Caledonian sleeper passengers and the best value for the people of Scotland.

I again congratulate Mr Leonard on securing this debate on the future of the Caledonian sleeper. I have listened with interest to members’ contributions on how those services should be delivered from June, and I commit to updating Parliament in the coming weeks on the new proposed delivery model, which will deliver for passengers and staff alike.

13:41 Meeting suspended.

13:59 On resuming—

Education and Skills

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon, colleagues.

The next item of business is portfolio questions on education and skills.

As ever, any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. As you might expect, there is quite a bit of interest in this item, so I would make the usual plea for brief questions and answers to match.

Question 1, in the name of Stuart McMillan, has been withdrawn.

Open-plan Classrooms (Primary Schools)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what it considers to be the educational impact of open-plan classrooms on primary school children. (S6O-01757)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that the schools in their area, whatever their design, are capable of providing an appropriate environment for effective learning and teaching. Therefore, consideration of the educational merits of open-plan classrooms is a matter for local authorities.

However, as part of our school building programme, we gather feedback from schools and we have heard how pupils and teachers can benefit from the increased connectivity that open-plan environments can offer. It is also important to consider the impact of activities that could be seen or heard between spaces and the positive or disruptive impact that they might have on others.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Open-plan environments are perceived to benefit child social development, but they are much noisier and such an environment impacts adversely on learning. Studies have found that children in the noisiest open-plan classrooms had significantly lower speech perception ability and slower response times than those being taught in traditional classrooms. Open-plan classrooms are therefore not appropriate for young or sensitive children. For teachers, they can mean raised blood pressure, increased stress levels, headaches and fatigue.

What steps are Scottish ministers and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities taking to review the use of open-plan classrooms, or at least to improve the acoustics in classrooms to minimise noise and ensure that adequate learning can take place?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

A

lthough the design and operation of school buildings is managed by local authorities to best suit their individual needs and circumstances—particularly those of their specific pupil cohorts—as I have mentioned, as part of our school building programme, we continue to receive feedback from schools and, importantly, from those who use open-plan classrooms.

Our learning estate strategy, which was produced jointly between the Scottish Government and COSLA, makes it clear that

“Learning environments should support and facilitate excellent joined up learning and teaching to meet the needs of all learners”.

It is important to stress that those facilities need to work for all.

The strategy also emphasises that teaching and learning environments

“should support the wellbeing of all learners”

and

“meet varying needs to support inclusion”.

We will continue to have discussions with young people and with parents and teachers as we move forward our learning estate strategy.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

T

he previous school estate programme was in 2009. The Scottish Government is responsible for the building standards technical handbook for non-domestic buildings, which calls on auditory investigations to take place for new buildings. Is the cabinet secretary confident that acoustic assessments are being undertaking in buildings where children in open-plan classrooms are being exposed to excessive noise?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is very important that

we look into how we are developing our learning estate programme and at the work that goes on between COSLA and the Scottish Government as we develop the design process for that.

As we consider the programme, I would be more than happy to get back to the member specifically on how that works with the wider issue of building standards that he mentioned. If the member will forgive me, I will get back to him on the detail of that.

School Placement Decisions (Appeals)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether parents should have the right to appeal on school placement decisions. (S6O-01758)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, decisions on school placements are the responsibility of the local authority. The views of parents should be taken into account.

Parents should also be informed of the options that are available to them to appeal those decisions. If an agreement cannot be reached, parents and carers have the right to make a placing request to a school of their choice. If a placing request is refused, parents have a right to appeal.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am trying to help a constituent who has been told that her son, who is flourishing in a mainstream primary school, must go to an additional support needs school next year instead of to a mainstream secondary school with his friends and peer group. Will

the cabinet secretary set out what right to appeal parents, carers and pupils have in a situation like that?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Under the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, local authorities have a duty to provide education in a mainstream school unless specific exemptions apply. Authorities are supported in those decisions by our guidance on the presumption of mainstream education.

I set out the routes to appeal in my initial answer. I would urge the member’s constituent to engage with the school and local authority to resolve their concerns. The constituent might also wish to contact Enquire, which is an advice service, to discuss the details of their situation.

If my original answer is not detailed enough to allow Ms Mackay to help her constituent, I would be happy to receive further details from her in writing, so that I can see whether there is additional information that I can give her on the right to appeal in the very specific circumstances of her constituent’s case.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In 2022, there were more than 350 fewer primary school teachers than there were in 2021, and there were fewer teachers from the teacher induction scheme teaching in their post-probation year than at any time since the scheme began.

Key to restoring our education system to its world-class status is reducing class sizes. Why is the Government cutting teacher numbers when school pupils have faced so much disruption over the past three years?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Forgive me, but I am not seeing the relevance of that to the original question; however, I am more than happy to answer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would certainly agree, cabinet secretary. Keep your response brief, on that basis.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Certainly. Recruitment and retention of staff is, of course, a matter for local authorities. The Government has a commitment to ensure that we have 3,500 additional teachers by the end of this parliamentary session. Part of that process has been the provision of further funding of £145 million, which has been baselined to local government, to support the teaching workforce.

Autism (Support for Children)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what cross-government review it has undertaken of policies supporting children with autism, including any assessment of the links between autism and other conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. (S6O-01759)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

In March

2021, following a review, the Scottish Government published “Learning/Intellectual Disability and Autism: Towards Transformation”. Our plan looks at the actions that are needed to shape supports, services and attitudes to ensure that the human rights of autistic people and people with learning or intellectual disabilities are respected and protected. The plan includes a range of actions across the lifespan, including actions related to education, restraint and seclusion, health, post-diagnostic support, social care and employment.

In September 2021, we published the national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people. It sets out seven standards for service providers to ensure that children and young people who have neurodevelopmental profiles receive the support that they need. Those cover autism and ADHD.

ADHD affects 5 to 7 per cent of the population, and co-occurrence across neurodevelopmental conditions is the norm. We know from research that 50 to 70 per cent of autistic people also present with ADHD, and that 20 to 50 per cent of children with ADHD also meet the criteria for autism.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for that useful answer.

One of my constituents is a mother of two boys who were diagnosed with autism by NHS Lothian some years back. She has told me about how she has watched her boys struggle to function at school and in society for up to six years. She took her boys to get a private assessment for ADHD, after which both were diagnosed and given the necessary support and medication. That has helped to transform their lives.

Will the Scottish Government agree to review pathways and guidance to ensure that health boards across Scotland are taking a holistic approach to the assessment of children? Will the Government also ensure that health boards review cases from over the past five years of children who have been diagnosed with autism to offer them a chance for an assessment for ADHD?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I think that we are straying into territory that is under the portfolio responsibilities of my colleagues in health. I will ask the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care to respond directly to the points that the member raises about health board pathways.

However, I can say that Scottish Government policies take a wide developmental approach that is inclusive of people with a range of conditions, including autism, learning disabilities, ADHD and fetal alcohol syndrome. We fund the national autism implementation team as a key partner, and it supports us with policy development across health and social care, as well as in education.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a couple of supplementaries. They will need to be brief, as will the responses to them.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

It is understood that the impact of changes that occur in adolescence are more difficult for some neurodiverse young people to manage than for their neurotypical peers. What engagement has the minister had with neurodiverse adolescents and their parents to ensure that Scottish Government policies that are intended to support young neurodiverse people reflect the particular difficulties that are associated with that transition?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

In line with the development of all policy that affects those with lived experience, the Scottish Government will engage regularly with service providers, children and young people and their families and carers, and with key stakeholders, in the development of pathways and service provision.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Multiple constituents have approached me, as parents, with their concerns about how schools are treating their child with autism and the impact that that has on their child’s mental health. What action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that children with autism are offered sufficient mental health support in school and that safeguards exist against poor practice?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, minister.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Again, I think that that question strays into the territory of the health portfolio. The “Review of additional support for learning implementation: report”, which was published in 2020, set out a clear direction of how we can continue to build on our progress, and it made recommendations on how to improve the implementation of additional support for learning, which is vital for those young people.

We published our joint action plan with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland in October 2020, which set out the measures that we will take to implement those recommendations.

Last November, we published our second progress report and an updated action plan, which highlights that 24 of the 76 recommendations have been completed and that the rest are under way.

I hope that that gives the member some reassurance about the work that is being done in the education portfolio, but, if he wishes to pick up on other areas that are covered by my colleagues in health, I am more than happy to get them to write to him.

Budget 2023-24 (Impact on Schools)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what impact its draft budget for 2023-24 will have on schools. (S6O-01760)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We have protected councils in the most challenging budget settlement since devolution by providing more than £13.2 billion through the local government settlement, which represents a real-terms increase when compared to 2022-23 and supports the continued delivery of high-quality education for our children

In addition to that, our schools funding will impact the most important areas in relation to education delivery, attainment and tackling child poverty. For example, we are investing a further £200 million for the Scottish attainment challenge to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap.

We are also providing funding to local government to significantly reduce the cost of the school day.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Despite the largest block grant from Westminster in the history of devolution, the Scottish Government’s budget delivers real-terms cuts in funding for local councils, as the Accounts Commission has made clear in its report this morning.

In my region, Perth and Kinross Council is facing a £20 million budget gap in the current year, which could see teacher and child psychologist numbers cut and primary swimming lessons, all school-crossing patrollers, and breakfast clubs for underprivileged children scrapped. How can the cabinet secretary possibly defend a budget settlement that is leading a Scottish National Party-run council to take decisions such as those?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The council budgets are not set yet, and a variety of suggestions might come forward from officials, on which it will be for councillors to take decisions in due course. The numbers that I mentioned in my original answer are correct. We compare—as we do every budget year—the proposed budget to the allocations that Parliament approved in the previous year, and that shows the best like for like comparison of available funding at this stage in the budget cycle.

Murdo Fraser hears this every year: on this matter and on all aspects that relate to the budget, if he wishes more funding to be spent, whether in local government or directly in the education budget, he has to say where in the Scottish Government budget that money would come from, because it will be fully allocated—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Scrap the national care service.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There you go!

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

If the member wishes to see changes rather than continue to talk through my answer, he might start to write down fully costed allocations and propose them to the Deputy First Minister.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are a number of supplementaries to this and subsequent questions. It would be helpful if members limited themselves to asking the questions and listening to the responses.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for her previous assessment. Schools are only one part of the multifaceted infrastructure of Scotland’s education system. Further to her original response, can she say how the 2023-24 budget will protect and enhance our whole education system, from early years through to lifelong learning?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

As briefly as possible, cabinet secretary.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Through the budget, I am continuing to invest in changing the lives of children and young people and learners of all ages. For example, we have the £1 billion of funding each year that is continuing to deliver 1,140 hours of high-quality early learning and childcare; we have agreed that £50 million should be allocated to the whole-family wellbeing fund, including preventative holistic family support; and, of course, we are investing £30 million in activities to keep the Promise to our care-experienced children. Those are just some of many examples that I could give of how we are improving our education system, from early years to lifelong learning.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Michael Marra—briefly.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has warned that the budget will result in significant reductions in teacher numbers across the country. The cabinet secretary is committed to recruiting 3,500 more teachers, despite the fact that 100 were cut in the past year. How many more of those teachers will be delivered this year?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Of course, in the current financial year, the Scottish Government provided £145.5 million that was baselined into local government to ensure that councils could change temporary contracts to permanent contracts. I am exceptionally disappointed that, despite that funding, we saw a reduction in teacher numbers.

I will continue to have discussions with COSLA on that area, but I repeat—very briefly, Presiding Officer—the same point that I made to Mr Fraser: if Mr Marra would like changes to be made and additional funding to be put into this or other areas, he can, of course, suggest where that money should come from.

School Inspections

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that schools are inspected regularly. (S6O-01761)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Each year, His Majesty’s chief inspector of education determines the scale and priorities of the inspection programme, in agreement with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.

Prior to the pandemic, Education Scotland strengthened its scrutiny functions and committed to carrying out 250 school inspections each year. This academic year, Education Scotland will meet that commitment. An estimated 500 school inspections would have been carried out if it had not been for the disruption caused by Covid-19.

As is set out in the programme for government, an education reform bill will be introduced to establish an independent inspectorate. A high-level operating model for the new independent inspectorate is being developed and will be shared with stakeholders and users early this year. That will set out how the inspectorate will operate effectively to provide the independent assurance of quality that our education system needs.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The reality is that those steps have been inadequate. A freedom of information response that was published in September showed that 1,118 state primary and secondary schools in Scotland had not been inspected in a decade. In my local area, the picture is even worse: 10 schools have not been inspected in the past 10 years, and four schools have not been inspected in more than 10 years—indeed, one of them has not been inspected since 2006. In my area, there are three schools that will not have been inspected in the entire lifespan of Education Scotland.

As we look to its successor organisation, can we guarantee parents and pupils that their schools will be inspected at least once in the time that the children attend them?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I set out in my original answer the impact that Covid has had on the carrying out of school inspections. A point that I hope will reassure Daniel Johnson is that inspections are not the only method of scrutiny, as schools and local authorities also have responsibility for evaluating performance. Indeed, as the provision of education is a responsibility of local authorities in Scotland, they have a duty to provide adequate and efficient school education. Under the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000, the local authority is responsible for improving the quality of education in the schools that it manages, with a view to raising standards.

School inspections are exceptionally important. That is exactly why we have the high-level target operating model that is being developed. I welcome any contributions that Daniel Johnson wants to make when we publish the model, but, again, I state that inspections are not the only way in which the Government, its agencies and local authorities can ensure continuous improvement in schools.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Stephen Kerr for a brief supplementary.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That was just more complacency from the cabinet secretary.

The reality is that 1,118 schools—nearly 50 per cent of Scotland’s schools—have not been inspected for 10 years. Are you not embarrassed, cabinet secretary? Tell us one thing that you are going to do now in order to rectify the situation.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Y

ou should speak through the chair, Mr Kerr.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I stated in my original answer to Daniel Johnson’s question, there was, of course, an impact from Covid in the fact that 500 school inspections that we would have expected to see did not happen. Pre-Covid, Education Scotland did a great deal of work to ensure that it strengthened its scrutiny functions and carried out more school inspections each year than it had done in many years before then.

It is important that we take the role of school inspections very seriously. That is exactly why we have a reform process that is leading to an independent inspectorate. I would welcome the constructive views of Mr Kerr and others on how we can ensure that that independent inspectorate is as effective and efficient as it can be.

Closing the Attainment Gap

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its progress in closing the attainment gap. (S6O-01762)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

In December, we published the latest achievement of curriculum for excellence levels statistics, the 2023 national improvement framework and plan, and the stretch aims that each local authority has put in place for closing the attainment gap. Together, those set out the latest evidence on progress and our plans, shared with local government, for substantially eliminating the poverty-related attainment gap by 2026.

There are promising signs that the attainment gap is, once again, beginning to narrow. However, there is more to do. That is why we will invest a further £200 million next year in the Scottish attainment challenge, as part of our £1 billion commitment this parliamentary session.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

In fact, there has been no progress in the past five years.

In the aftermath of the Scottish budget, the general secretary of School Leaders Scotland, Jim Thewliss, said that education cuts will see class sizes increased and subjects removed. How will cutting subjects and increasing class sizes help to eliminate—or “substantially eliminate”; that is the Government’s phrase—the attainment gap by 2026?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

For the sake of brevity, I will point to the previous answers that I gave in response to Murdo Fraser’s questions about the importance—[

Interruption.

] If the member will allow me to answer the question, that is exactly what I will do.

The issue around budgets has been discussed with Murdo Fraser and others. It is important that we look at the investment that is going into not only education but local government. We are taking steps to ensure that we continue to invest in our children and young people, and it is gravely unfair of the member to suggest that there has been no improvement.

For the sake of speed, I will give only one example. The gap between the proportion of primary pupils from the most deprived and least deprived areas who achieve their expected level in literacy narrowed from the previous year. That is important. We saw that in numeracy, as well. For both literacy and numeracy, the figures represent the largest single narrowing of the gap since data collection began in 2016-17.

As in other educational areas across the United Kingdom and further afield, Covid has had an impact. It would be wrong to suggest that that is not the case. However, we are seeing an improving picture within the ACEL statistics, and I would have thought that the member would welcome that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

In fairness, that was not a brief response, cabinet secretary. That means that I am not able to take supplementaries from either of the members who were looking to get in on that question.

We need to move on to question 8, from James Dornan, who is joining us remotely.

Scottish Government Education Priorities 2023

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what its priorities for education will be in 2023. (S6O-01763)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Tackling the poverty-related attainment gap remains the priority for the Scottish Government, and it is at the heart of our ambitious reform programme, which aims to provide learners with the best opportunities to succeed. The priorities for Scottish education are set out in the 2023 national improvement framework, which was published in December 2022. They place the human rights and needs of every child and young person at the centre of education, alongside improving the health and wellbeing of children and young people, closing the attainment gap, improving attainment and skills, and sustained, positive school-leaver destinations for all young people.