Scottish Parliament, 9 February 2023

263 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Women Murdered by Partner or Ex-partner

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

1. To ask the Scottish Government, of the recorded homicide figures in 2021-22, what percentage of women murdered were killed by a partner or ex-partner. (S6O-01892)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The number of homicide victims in 2021-22 reduced from 59 to 53, the lowest recorded number since comparable records began. Despite that overall reduction, the number of female victims increased from 10 to 16, meaning that 30 per cent of victims in 2021-22 were female. Over half—56 per cent—of female victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner.

We are working on developing a multi-agency domestic homicide review model for Scotland through the recently established domestic homicide review task force. The model will aim to learn lessons to help prevent and reduce the number of homicides related to domestic abuse and to give a voice to those who have been killed.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I welcome

the Scottish Government’s commitment to domestic homicide reviews. Can the cabinet secretary give a bit more of an update on progress on that model? Is there scope for widening it or looking at a similar type of process where a victim of domestic abuse who is known to services loses her life prematurely but no charges are brought?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I outlined in my initial reply, we have established a task force that will meet for the second time in March. We will also hold a workshop with key multi-agency partners later this month as part of a deep dive into what a domestic homicide review model for Scotland might look like. That will inevitably include a discussion around scope, as the member has raised, and I am sure that the issues that she has raised will be part of that discussion. I will certainly ensure that the member’s comments are taken into consideration as that work progresses. I am also happy to keep the member informed of the group’s progress.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

The crime of men murdering women is one of the worst crimes that can possibly be committed. My thoughts are with all the loved ones who lost a woman who was close to their heart last year. The perpetrators of these crimes deserve the harshest possible punishment. Therefore, does the cabinet secretary agree that we should have whole-life sentences so that judges have the power to order men who murder women to spend the rest of their lives behind bars?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I believe that the sentences that the courts currently have the powers to hand down are sufficient for the purposes that have been described. I do, however, associate myself with the comments made by the member in relation to the horrendous nature of the crime that is being perpetrated, especially by partners of female victims.

It might be the case that 70 per cent of the victims of homicide are men, but it is men who are committing those crimes, as well as the crimes against women. It is really important to tackle this in a preventative manner, as well as making sure that people are properly sentenced; prevention is about thinking about things such as education, including our equally safe strategy.

All members of the Scottish Parliament go into schools regularly. When I do, I reinforce the message that when stereotypes and entitlement start in schools, that is when misogyny starts, and that is what can end up in these terrible figures. I hope that all members take the opportunity to do that because we all have a part to play in relation to this issue.

Local Governance Review

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish the findings of the local governance review. (S6O-01893)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government remains committed to concluding the local governance review within this session of Parliament, and will continue to work on it in close partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The local governance review is one stream of many feeding into Scotland’s programme to empower communities and deepen local democracy. I welcome the shared approach of the Scottish Government and COSLA to the improved delivery of sustainable public services.

Can the cabinet secretary indicate what progress has been made in that regard?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We are keen to work with local government on key shared mutual priorities: tackling child poverty and transforming the economy to deliver net zero, as well as sustaining our collective focus in the Covid recovery strategy on addressing the systemic inequalities made worse through Covid and the cost of living crisis.

A new deal for local government is at the heart of the approach, which comprises a fiscal framework and an outcomes-focused partnership agreement. Those will ensure that there is a clear link between fiscal empowerment for local government and achieving the outcomes that we jointly want for our communities, and that we work with communities to ensure that we deliver their priorities.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to promote uptake of the education maintenance allowance programme. (S6O-01894)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We remain committed to providing EMA financial support to eligible young people from lower-income households in order to help them to overcome financial barriers to accessing and staying in learning. Our delivery partners are responsible for raising awareness of the programme at a local level and we work closely with them to ensure that the EMA is promoted effectively.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have been contacted by numerous constituents who have yet to receive feedback on applications that they submitted to North Lanarkshire Council in August. I believe that some applicants have left school as a result of not being able to maintain their education due to financial concerns. It concerns me that any young person is left without the vital support of the EMA. Is the cabinet secretary aware of those problems with the administration of the EMA in North Lanarkshire? If so, what action can be taken to address those issues, as we must get it right for every child and young person?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Clare Adamson has raised a concerning issue. Officials are engaging with colleagues in North Lanarkshire Council in order to resolve any issues. I have asked that they report back to me so that I can be reassured that every young person who is eligible for and has applied for the EMA is receiving that key support. I am happy to report back to the member with further details as that engagement continues.

Benefits Devolution and Development

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when it will update the Parliament on the future of benefits devolution and development, including any proposals for industrial injuries benefits. (S6O-01895)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

On Tuesday, I was pleased to set out to the Parliament the timeline for the delivery of the next phase of the Scottish Government’s benefits. As I informed the Parliament, in the next few months I intend to consult on employment injuries assistance and matters regarding the replacement of the current United Kingdom Government’s industrial injuries disablement benefit.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am concerned that the Government seems to be focusing a little too much on what it cannot do on industrial injuries benefits, rather than on what it can do right now. The easiest way is for it to be decided in Scotland who qualifies for the benefit. Does the minister agree that those decisions should be made in Scotland? To that end, will he commit to supporting my colleague Mark Griffin’s proposed Scottish employment injuries advisory council bill and will he work to ensure that the council has the ability to designate new industrial injuries, including brain injuries sustained by footballers who I have been working with?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

As I set out to the Parliament on Tuesday, employment injuries assistance is a complex area. It is important that we work with stakeholders and members to decide the right approach, recognising the limits on our devolved powers in relation to issues such as health and safety and employment law. We also need to recognise the substantial costs and operational requirements of a new benefit, as well as the challenges of moving from an antiquated and entirely paper-based UK benefit. For context, the UK’s scheme was established in 1948 and has undergone only limited reform since its introduction.

I am pleased to say that the Department for Work and Pensions remains committed to working with us to agree an approach that is practical, affordable and in the interests of people, including the current recipients of the benefit.

It is right that we take the appropriate time to consider those issues thoroughly. I have engaged with the proposals that Mark Griffin has put forward and I have met with him and look forward to doing so again, but we also need to be mindful that it is important to consider the establishment of a Scottish advisory council in the round of the consultation activity that I referred to in my first answer, rather than in isolation. With regard to Mr Marra’s point about footballers, I would be happy to receive any correspondence from him on that matter.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Question 5 has not been lodged.

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Discussions)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

6. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and what was discussed. (S6O-01897)

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

I met the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board chair and acting chief officer on 1 February. A range of matters was discussed, including the tragic loss of firefighter Barry Martin; firefighter pay and industrial action; the Fire Brigades Union’s decontamination campaign; finance and SFRS budgets; and fire safety and enforcement.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I associate myself with the minister’s remarks about Barry Martin, who was from Rosyth, and express my sincere condolences to his family and to the fire service.

Will the minister take the opportunity to welcome the FBU’s constructive approach to the collective bargaining process, which has resulted in potential strikes being called off while members are balloted on a new pay offer? What lessons can be learned for the future to ensure fair pay for our heroic firefighters and for control room staff?

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

Like Annabelle Ewing, I very much welcome the fact that progress has been made through established collective bargaining arrangements and that strike action has been averted. I emphasise that the Scottish Government is not part of any negotiations on firefighter pay, which is rightly a matter for the SFRS, as the employer, but I am sure that the SFRS, along with the other fire and rescue employers and the FBU, will look carefully at the process to ensure that lessons are learned for the future.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The loss of Barry Martin reminds us of the dangers that our firefighters face. I support all efforts to establish the facts of the tragedy so that others can be prevented.

Scotland’s most senior fire officer, Martin Blunden, quit his job five months after being suspended from duty, but the public and firefighters have been kept in the dark about what happened. A whistleblower has now contacted me with allegations regarding a culture of cronyism and bullying in the fire service. I wrote to the minister today to set out in detail what is alleged.

Was the minister aware of those claims? Will she give a commitment to provide a full and transparent response?

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

I thank Russell Findlay for bringing that matter to the chamber and will look at the letter that he has sent me. Staff conduct is a matter for the SFRS board, but I am happy to discuss the issue with Mr Findlay.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I also associate myself with Annabelle Ewing’s comments about the death of Barry Martin, and I place on the record my thanks to the SFRS for its contribution to rescue and relief efforts in Turkey.

Following her meeting last week, will the minister give an update on what steps are under way to address aspects of the FBU’s DECON campaign, particularly the call for health screenings, so that all current and former firefighters can keep themselves safe from the health risks that they face on the job?

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

Like Maggie Chapman, I place on the record my thanks to the firefighters who are in Turkey and Syria at the moment on behalf of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

On 2 February, I met Scottish Fire Brigades Union officials and Professor Anna Stec of the University of Central Lancashire to hear directly about their important campaign and the emerging evidence. I have also arranged a dedicated meeting with the SFRS later this month so that I can be briefed on the steps that it is taking to minimise firefighters’ exposure to harmful contaminants and can more clearly understand the proposals for enhanced health screening. I will carefully consider those proposals when I receive them to ensure that the Scottish Government is playing its part in keeping our firefighters safe.

Outdoor Education (Children and Young People)

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what recent assessment it has made of the value of outdoor education to children and young people. (S6O-01898)

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Outdoor education has a range of benefits, such as connecting young people with the natural world, supporting their wellbeing and developing their skills for life, learning and work. Regarding recent assessments, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education’s thematic inspection of outdoor learning, which was published in February 2022, reiterated those benefits and concluded that

“increasingly, outdoor environments are being used to deliver the curriculum”.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I could not agree more with those comments, but those benefits cannot be reaped if outdoor education centres close. Arran Outdoor Education Centre is a wonderful facility that has been offering services to young people in North Ayrshire for a considerable time but, like many outdoor education centres, it is staring down the barrel of closure due to funding cuts by local councils.

Will the minister give serious consideration to the proposal by my colleague Liz Smith to enshrine in law much-needed access to outdoor education? Is there anything that the Government can do to intervene directly to ensure that the facility on Arran remains open and free to access for young people from across my region?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I thank Mr Greene for those follow-up questions. In relation to Liz Smith’s proposed private member’s bill on residential outdoor education, the Government is currently reviewing the final bill proposal. As with any new legislative proposal, stakeholders’ views must be taken into account, and the full range of consequences, costs and options must be explored. We are reviewing those perspectives, the various costs and the potential impacts before deciding on our position on the bill.

I am aware of the potential closure of Arran Outdoor Education Centre, which is one of a range of options that North Ayrshire Council has consulted on. My understanding is that the council is still in the process of finalising its budget proposals and will not make final decisions until 1 March. As Mr Greene is aware, local authorities are accountable to the public that elects them, and they have the financial freedom to operate independently, taking into account local need. However, I reiterate that the Scottish Government values the many forms of outdoor learning, including the specific role of residential centres.

2032 Affordable Housing Target

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress towards its 2032 affordable housing target. (S6O-01899)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Scotland has led the way in the delivery of affordable housing across the United Kingdom, and I am proud of our record of delivering, since 2007, 115,558 affordable homes, more than 81,000 of which were for social rent. We remain committed to delivering, by 2032, 110,000 affordable homes, of which at least 70 per cent will be available for social rent and 10 per cent will be in our remote, rural and island communities. To the end of September 2022, a total of 4,927 homes, of which 85 per cent are for social rent, have now been delivered.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

What evidence does the Scottish Government have that increased provision of affordable housing is having a positive impact on the wellbeing of Scotland’s citizens? How does that compare with other UK nations?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is well recognised that warm affordable homes can have a positive impact on people’s wellbeing. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, “Poverty in Scotland 2021”, notes that

“Comparatively lower housing costs continue to be the principal reason for lower poverty rates in Scotland compared with England”.

Keeping social rents lower than market rents benefits approximately 110,000 children in poverty each year. Across the four years to 2022, we have delivered 59 per cent more affordable homes per head of population and nine times as many social rented homes per head of population as have been delivered in England. We remain committed to providing affordable housing, with £3.5 billion being made available in this parliamentary session.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time. There will be a brief suspension before we move on to the next item of business.

11:57 Meeting suspended.

12:00 On resuming—

Gender Self-Identification (Rapists)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish National Party Government ordered an urgent review of how double rapist Isla Bryson, formerly Adam Graham, was allowed into a women’s prison. The review was due to be delivered to prison chiefs on Friday, but we have had heard nothing further about it. The case of this double rapist has been a huge scandal, but the public are in the dark about exactly what happened and who was involved. Will the First Minister publish the urgent review, in full, today?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Before I turn to answering Douglas Ross’s question, I take this opportunity to express my sympathy with the people of Turkey and Syria following the devastating earthquake earlier this week. The suffering and loss of life will be felt for generations. We are committed to doing all that we can to help. Members of our emergency services have already been deployed to help with the search and rescue operation on the ground. Yesterday, we confirmed a £500,000 contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal. I know that all parties will help to promote that appeal following First Minister’s question time. Anybody who wishes to donate, and who is able to, can do so at www.dec.org.uk.

I turn to the question. On the review that Douglas Ross referred to, the Scottish Prison Service provided a final report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 8 February. Its chief executive met the justice secretary yesterday, in the course of a regular meeting schedule, to discuss it. The cabinet secretary has already confirmed that he will update the Criminal Justice Committee this week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the SPS are due to attend a meeting of that committee later in February, at which, of course, members of the Parliament will be able to ask questions, so there will be full transparency about the findings of the review, as is right and proper.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I associate myself with the First Minister’s preliminary remarks. She is correct to say that, after this question time, all party leaders and members of the Parliament will join in solidarity to support the DEC Scotland appeal. I welcome the provision of funding by the Scottish Government, and I believe that the United Kingdom

Government is providing significant matched funding on all donations received to support the people in Turkey and Syria who have been affected so terribly.

We are again in the situation where I asked the First Minister a very direct question but I did not get an answer. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice had the report yesterday. The First Minister spoke about there being further discussions with the Criminal Justice Committee, but she failed to commit to publishing the report in full. Will she now do so? Will she confirm that her Government will publish the report in full? It is on the justice secretary’s desk, and I assume that the First Minister will have seen it. The public deserve to see it, because there are still so many unanswered questions.

At the last count, the First Minister had refused 12 times to say whether Isla Bryson is a man or a woman. That is important, because it affects how public bodies treat such criminals when they are released from jail. The First Minister says that she does not have enough information to decide whether this double rapist is a man. He is a rapist. He has a penis. What further information can the First Minister possibly need? When this monster comes out of jail, will the First Minister—[

Interruption

.] I am sorry; if SNP members are grumbling about my calling a double rapist a monster, they should look at themselves. When he comes out of jail, will the First Minister and her Government consider him a man or a woman?

The First Minister

First, I really think that Douglas Ross is clutching at straws in his follow-up question. I made it very clear that the findings of the report will be published. The cabinet secretary confirmed—I believe that he did so in the chamber—that he will update the Criminal Justice Committee this week.

Today, Parliament rises for a week. Both the cabinet secretary and the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, will attend a meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee on 22 February, following the Parliament’s recess week. Members of that committee will be able to ask questions about the review then. I am therefore not sure how anybody can suggest that there will not be full transparency around the review, but I am grateful for the opportunity to set that out again for Mr Ross.

On the subsequent parts of his question, the individual whom we are talking about identifies as a woman. However, it is really important, I think, to very calmly set out that any rights that are associated with that are not a result of any legislation that has been passed by this Parliament; indeed, they would not be a result of that legislation even if it were in force. They are a result of the Equality Act that was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament in 2004, which is, and has always been, effectively based on self-identification. However, that act does not give any individual an automatic right to be treated in a certain way in the prison estate. This case actually demonstrates that, because the individual is in a male prison.

What is relevant here, and is the reason why I have focused on it, is the crime and the nature of the risk that is posed. In this case, the individual is a double rapist. In terms of decisions about how they are dealt with in the prison estate, that is the relevant factor.

Finally, in any group, a small minority of individuals will commit crimes. In no other circumstances do we accept the stigmatisation and denial of rights to the whole group, and we should not do that here.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To go back to the first point about the report, the First Minister claims that I am clutching at straws. It seems that she is clutching on to the report, because she is not willing to issue it in full today. The report findings, we are told, will be published at some point, but why not today? Why not publish the findings and the full report that her Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans has had for over 24 hours?

For the 13th time, Nicola Sturgeon has been unable to say whether Isla Bryson is a man or a woman. She says that it does not matter, because what matters is how they are dealt with in the prison estate. My question was very specifically about how they are dealt with when they leave prison. The First Minister has tied herself up in knots over this issue, unable to answer that basic question because she cannot admit the truth: her Government is going to consider this double rapist a woman. Nicola Sturgeon has brought in a policy that states that everybody who claims to be a woman must be considered a woman, even if they are a dishonest sex offender with a history of violence. Therefore, Isla Bryson will be considered a woman by this Government. That is why the First Minister is refusing to answer questions about this double rapist.

Let me ask her about another offender who is serving time now—not a rapist, but a dangerous criminal with a history of brutal violence. Tiffany Scott, who was formerly known as Andrew Burns, claims to be a woman. Does the First Minister believe that that criminal is a woman?

The First Minister

I think that Douglas Ross is demonstrating a lack of understanding of the law. [

Interruption

.] Any rights that any individual who identifies as a woman have do not flow from any decisions of this Government or this Parliament. They flow from the protected characteristics provisions in the Equality Act 2004, which is UK-wide legislation and which is and has always been based on self-identification. Of course, the law that was passed by this Parliament is not yet in force. A gender recognition certificate simply enables somebody to change their birth certificate; it does not give trans people any additional rights. That is important.

How individuals are treated within the Prison Service, as I have said, is based on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Both of the cases that Douglas Ross has cited today demonstrate that point in terms of the prisons that those individuals are in.

In terms of how prisoners are treated when they leave prison, there are well-established procedures for sex offenders, including those under the multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA. Again, they are based on an assessment of the nature of risk.

These are important issues; they are sensitive issues, not least for the trans community. As I said last week and have said before, the overwhelming majority of them only want to get on with living their lives and never commit any offences of any nature.

I do not think that Douglas Ross does any service to anybody in the way that he approaches the matter. I am struck by something that his predecessor as Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has said:

“Trying to do gotcha questions about who is a woman, who is a man, I’m not sure that helps, particularly for people in the trans community who are looking at the way this is reported”.

Perhaps Douglas Ross could take some guidance from his predecessor on the matter. That might serve the whole debate better than he is doing right now.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This is not a “gotcha” question; it is a very basic—[

Interruption

.] I am sorry that there is dissent from the Scottish National Party. It is a very basic question. It is not just me. Journalists are asking it repeatedly of the First Minister, and I would not stand here asking the questions if, at any point in the 13 previous attempts, I had ever got a straight answer from Nicola Sturgeon. Maybe we should focus not on the question but on the deficiency of the answer. She said that I have raised two different cases, and they are very different cases; the similarity is the First Minister’s point-blank refusal to give an answer. I think that she has to look at that.

The First Minister accused me of a basic misunderstanding of legislation. I would have to say that she is guilty of either a basic or a deliberate misunderstanding of her own policy, because it is quite clear that Tiffany Scott—that dangerous criminal—is treated as a woman in a man’s jail.

We have spoken to a former prison officer, who told us this:

“All officers dealing with this individual were ordered to refer to Tiffany Scott as ‘she’ and threatened with disciplinary measures if we didn’t.”

They said that Scott

“has used gender recognition as a tool to create as much chaos as possible within the prison system.”

They continued:

“This is a classic example of devious, dangerous individuals who are exploiting this ridiculous situation.”

Those are the words of a retired prison officer who has dealt with that person.

We also know that female prison officers have been ordered to carry out intimate strip searches of Tiffany Scott. Reports quote officers who say that

“nothing else about Scott has changed physically”,

and the officers say that their rights have gone “out the window”. Does the First Minister agree that that is completely unacceptable, and will she intervene today to stop women prison officers being forced to strip search the likes of Tiffany Scott?

The First Minister

Let me take those issues in turn. First, let me reiterate that the law that this Parliament passed before Christmas, backed by two thirds of MSPs across the chamber, including members of Douglas Ross’s party, is not yet in force. It would not have the impact that Douglas Ross says it would, even if it was in force, but it is not in force, so, by definition, it cannot have that impact.

The policies of this Government on the issues are guided by the Equality Act—I think I said the Equality Act 2004 earlier, but of course it is the Equality Act 2010—and governed by that act, which is a United Kingdom-wide piece of legislation. The rights and protections that trans people have flow from that legislation, and it is important to set that out.

Those in the prison estate are dealt with depending on the nature of the crime and the nature of the risk posed. Again, it is important, for reasons of public assurance, to underline that as well. That is demonstrated by the two cases that have been cited in the media in recent days and here, again, today.

When it comes to searches in the prison estate, the Scottish Prison Service has been dealing with transgender prisoners—although they are very small in number—for many years now. It has been doing that safely and effectively and it is experienced in managing those situations. However, it is also the case that the SPS has the ability to use technology to search individuals without the need for officers to conduct any physical search.

The SPS has a trauma-informed approach to the management of those in custody, and an approach that supports staff as well as the inmates who are in their care.

The SPS is experienced in these matters and I trust its handling of them. It is important that we continue to ensure that they are handled appropriately, which is what the Government, in association with the Scottish Prison Service, will continue to do.

Local Government (Budgets)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. We are all devastated by the scenes of the horrific earthquake in Turkey and Syria, with a death toll that now sits at—[Interruption.]

12:15 Meeting suspended.

12:17 On resuming—

I question disruption at any time, but to disrupt when we are talking about the lives that were lost in Turkey and Syria is frankly disgusting. [

Applause

.]

The death toll has now reached more than 16,000 people and, as Douglas Ross and Nicola Sturgeon have done, I send my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one in Turkey and Syria. I think of all those families who live in Scotland and have a connection with Turkey and Syria. I welcome the announcements that the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government have made with regard to money and resources to support the relief effort.

I appeal to people across the country. I know that times are really difficult with family budgets, but anything that you can give to support the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal will make a huge difference to families who are suffering in Turkey and Syria. [

Applause

.]

The Scottish National Party Government is leaving councils the length and breadth of Scotland in a dire position. Despite what Nicola Sturgeon claims, independent analysis shows that the budgets over which councils have control have been cut by £304 million in real terms, which has devastating consequences for vital services. Will the First Minister finally admit that she is cutting local government budgets?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Government is increasing local government budgets. The resources that are available to local government—if Parliament passes next year’s budget—will increase by £570 million.

Of course, inflation is sky high right now—that is not a result of this Government’s policies—and that is affecting the Government’s budget. It is absolutely the case that local government is struggling with those financial constraints, as are all parts of the public sector and, as Anas Sarwar has just said, households. That is why it is important that we continue to support local government as much as we can.

Obviously, the budgetary process is still under way and will conclude following the February recess of Parliament. We will continue to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities ways in which we can help local authorities mitigate the difficult situation in which they find themselves.

Of course, last week, I invited Anas Sarwar to point to other parts of the draft budget from which he thought we could take resources if he wants us to give more money to local government. He might have sent those to my office—I do not know—in which case I will look at them, but I suspect that he has not come up with any reasonable, realistic or credible proposals in order for us to do that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister knows that we published a document showing £3 billion of waste under this Scottish National Party Government—that would be a good place to start.

The First Minister wants to deny reality. The Fraser of Allander Institute, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Scottish Parliament information centre and Scotland’s councils, including SNP-led councils, are all saying that there is a real-terms cut to

local government budgets. That is a truth that the First Minister is not willing to accept.

There is no way for councils to balance their books without further destroying local services. All of Scotland’s 32 councils are united in opposition to the Government’s cuts. A presentation to council leaders last week said that cuts have

“already fallen disproportionately on other council services—libraries, culture and leisure, sports facilities, youth work, waste, roads, parks.”

Those are cuts that have already happened in previous years.

The presentation concludes by saying that the Government’s plans are

“increasingly unrealistic, not sustainable, risk non-delivery of other statutory duties”

and that they put

“the financial viability of local government at risk.”

Councillors of every political party, including the First Minister’s, are angry and warning her of the dire consequences, but Nicola Sturgeon is not listening. As usual, she is right and everyone else is wrong. Why can the First Minister not see the damage that her decisions are doing to our communities?

The First Minister

I think that Anas Sarwar demonstrated the lack of any credible proposals from Labour in the first part of that question.

Anas Sarwar mentioned the IFS, and it is important to underline that IFS analysis confirms that council funding has increased since 2013-14. It has gone up by £2.2 billion, which is 22.9 per cent higher in cash terms. However, it is the case that inflation is high. Anas Sarwar is shouting at me from a sedentary position, “What about real terms?”—yes, inflation is high right now, which is affecting all parts of the public sector, and that is down to the decisions and economic mismanagement of the Conservatives in Westminster.

We come back to the central point. All of us can accept that these are really difficult times for local councils. We will continue to work with and support them as much as we can. However, the draft budget that is before the Parliament right now has allocated all the resources that are at our disposal, including revenue from asking people who earn the most to pay a bit more in tax.

I understand why members make the argument that we should give more money to local government, but any who do so have the duty and responsibility to point to the lines in the draft budget where they think that that money should come from. Should it be from the national health service, the police budget or social security? These are legitimate debates. However, if members want to be credible in such debates, they cannot argue only one side; they have to do both bits. That is what governing is all about.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We can have an honest debate only if we get an honest answer from the First Minister. This is a real-terms cut to local government budgets, and the First Minister is out of touch with reality.

Let us look at what is on the table and the options that councils are being forced to consider.

Aberdeen is considering outsourcing all social work and children’s services. Falkirk is considering selling off more than 100 council buildings, including swimming pools and theatres. Glasgow is considering slashing care placements for children, which officials warn will compromise children’s safety and increase the risk of abuse and neglect.

Enough is enough. Members need to get off their backs and speak out against this First Minister, because, across the country, we are facing a future in which children’s music lessons are cut, libraries are closed and bins are collected only once a month. The blame for all that lies with Nicola Sturgeon and her Government. Wherever we look, we see that the Government is losing its grip.

People used to say that the First Minister was competent; now, they are saying that she is out of control—and that is just people in her own political party. After 15 years of SNP Government, local government is in crisis, teachers are on strike and the NHS is on its knees. Will she finally admit that this is an SNP budget for cuts, closures and strikes?

The First Minister

No matter how much Anas Sarwar raises his voice and shouts, it does not cover up the fact that he has not brought forward a single proposal, in relation to a budget that is fully allocated, for putting a single extra penny into local government budgets. He shouts because there is absolutely zero substance in anything that he says. “All sound and fury and no substance” is a good summary of Anas Sarwar.

Let me address some of Anas Sarwar’s points. He has asked about the real-terms position. The £570 million increase that I have spoken about is a real-terms increase of £160.6 million or 1.3 per cent.

Secondly, Anas Sarwar raised the issue of the proposals that councils are looking at. At this time every year, councils look at a range of proposals. This morning, I have seen proposals from Glasgow City Council. The point is made that those are options and that no decisions have been taken. I remember claims being made at this time of year a few years ago that 15,000 jobs would be cut across local government. Since then, the number of jobs in local government has increased by 19,000.

Yes, these are difficult times for local government, but if you want to propose that more money be allocated to local government within a draft budget that is fully allocated, to have any credibility, you also have to say where that resource should come from. In the absence of Anas Sarwar being clear about that, I can only assume that he wants us to take money from national health service or police budgets and give it to local government—or perhaps he wants us to take it from social security, such as from the Scottish child payment.

If Anas Sarwar wants to be taken seriously, he must bring some substance to what is a very difficult debate and a very difficult situation for local councils across the country.

Alcohol Advertising (Hospitality and Tourism)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential impact on the hospitality and tourism sectors of a ban on advertising alcohol products. (S6F-01795)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, the consultation on alcohol advertising and promotion is on-going—it is open until 9 March—so I make it clear that no decisions have been taken on scope or on the type of restrictions that might be taken forward in future. The point of the consultation is to get a range of views on the most appropriate next steps in reducing alcohol-related harm, which I hope we can all recognise is one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face.

Considering restriction on the promotion of alcohol is not unique to Scotland. For example, five years ago, Ireland passed legislation to bring in a number of restrictions, which were focused on reducing the exposure of children to alcohol promotion. I think that reducing the exposure of children to that is key.

Ministers have met a range of stakeholders, including representatives of the alcohol and advertising industries, during the consultation period to hear directly from them. Of course, we will take seriously and consider properly all representations that are made.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister will know that the whisky tourism sector is worth some £84 million annually to the Scottish economy and that it supports jobs in rural and remote communities where there are few other opportunities. As the sector’s leaders have made clear, the sector is concerned about the threat of a ban on all alcohol advertising.

I agree with the First Minister that we need to look at sensible measures to tackle alcohol abuse, but does she agree that it would be absurd if whisky distilleries, which are so important to our economy, had to cover up all their signage, close their shops and stop promoting tours, and the likes of the Johnnie Walker experience in Edinburgh, which is a tremendous tourism draw, had to rebrand itself and board up its windows? That is what people are concerned about.

The First Minister

Yes—to be clear, I do agree with Murdo Fraser on that. I will perhaps come back to that in a moment.

The whisky tourism sector is extremely important to Scotland’s reputation, as well as to its economy. The Johnnie Walker experience centre here in Edinburgh is a prime example of that. In relation to the suggestion that we have heard in recent weeks that painted signs on distilleries or visitor centres would be the target, I make it very clear that those are not in our current thinking. In my initial answer, I mentioned the exposure of children to alcohol advertising. There is a world of difference between a billboard outside or in the vicinity of a school and, for example, a Johnnie Walker baseball cap.

We must look at the issue pragmatically and seriously. I am glad that Murdo Fraser recognised that we have a public health issue—a problem—with alcohol misuse. As countries such as Ireland have done, we need to look at how we sensibly restrict promotion and advertising to try to deal with the problem. We need to do that properly and pragmatically. I hope that my answer reassures those who are in the whisky tourism sector about some of the supposed things that we have heard about in recent days and weeks.

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

As the consultation on restricting alcohol advertising is still live and no final proposals have been lodged, does the First Minister agree that any potential harm is still hypothetical at this stage, whereas the real harms that the hospitality and tourism sectors are experiencing because of Brexit are being felt right now? The Tories should be pressing their Westminster leaders to address that.

The First Minister

Natalie Don is so right to talk—[

Interruption

.] The Conservatives do not like it, but there is a difference between hypothetical harm—I understand the concerns that the whisky tourism sector, for example, has expressed and I hope that what I have said today will allay those concerns—and the very real harm that is being done today, right now, by Brexit. The loss of free movement is harming our hospitality and tourism sectors, for example, as well as the wider economy.

In relation to the issue, we will continue to listen to the hospitality sector, the tourism sector and the whisky tourism sector in particular. We will take on board the reasonable points that they make—if only the United Kingdom Government would adopt a similar posture on the concern that those industries have expressed about the real impact of Brexit and the real harm that it is doing to them right now.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the First Minister join me in congratulating East Lothian publican Patrick Cairney, who has recently stepped in to prevent two local pubs—the Prestoungrange Gothenburg in Prestonpans and the Tower Inn in Tranent—from closing permanently? Does she recognise that hundreds of pubs around Scotland are likely to close their doors for good this winter?

To prevent last orders from being called across Scotland’s hospitality sector, will the First Minister remove pubs, restaurants and cafes from the chaotic deposit return scheme, replicate the UK Government’s 75 per cent rates relief for hospitality businesses and halt the alcohol advertising and sponsorship review, which will inevitably put further pressure on Scotland’s hard-pressed publicans?

The First Minister

I echo the congratulations that Craig Hoy extended. Like many businesses, pubs are struggling right now with high inflation and high energy costs. We will come shortly to a question about DRS, so I will save my substantive comments on it for that question.

Such businesses benefit from the Scottish Government’s approach to business rates. We have the most competitive business rates regime, including reliefs for businesses from business rates, of any country in the UK. We will continue to do everything that we can to support businesses in these very difficult times. Much of that is down to economic mismanagement by the Conservative Government at Westminster.

Deposit Return Scheme (Impact on Drinks Producers)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that 600 drinks producers are concerned about the impact on their businesses, and the survival of them, in relation to the deposit return scheme. (S6F-01796)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will continue to listen to and, where possible, address concerns that have been raised. In direct response to industry feedback, the Scottish Government has worked with Circularity Scotland—the scheme administrator—to reduce costs to producers, including a reduction in producer fees of up to 40 per cent and a two-thirds reduction in day 1 payments for producers that use United Kingdom-wide barcodes. We continue to work with industry to ensure pragmatic approaches to implementation and we will do so right up to the point of implementation.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Many of the 600 businesses that I referred to are in a state of fear and even despair. Some will close, some will fail and others will no longer sell their produce in their own country of Scotland.

Unless it is halted now, the scheme—most businesses believe it to be fatally flawed—will damage Scotland’s reputation as a place to do business. Will the First Minister therefore instruct a pause of this disaster of a scheme before it becomes a catastrophe, and will she order a thorough and independent review of how better to achieve its aims and exclude glass from the scope, as the top six nations in the world on glass recycling have done?

The First Minister

We will continue to listen to and engage with businesses. It is important to say that the steps that we have already taken, which I have set out, demonstrate that. In fact, Scotland Food & Drink recognised that approach when it said in recent weeks:

“These changes mean that some of our key requests have been accommodated, which is positive and means our collective effort has materially improved the implications ... for many businesses.”

Forty-four countries and territories operate deposit return schemes, and only four of them do not include glass. It is, of course, the case that there are strong environmental reasons for including glass. However, on all these issues, we will continue to listen. One of the issues that I am particularly concerned to consider further is whether there is yet more that we can do to reduce any impact on small producers, because some of the concerns that have been raised there are not unreasonable.

We will continue to take a responsible approach, listen to the concerns of business, and respond responsibly in the face of those.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Drinks producers have until the end of this month to sign up for the deposit return scheme. Those who do so will be financially liable for any delays and will have to fork out up to £1.5 million per month. To make matters worse, they are being asked to sign up with key information still missing. If they do not sign up, they cannot sell their products. One leading Scottish brewer described that as “extortion tactics”. Does the First Minister agree that the deadline for such registration should be extended until the full operational, commercial and financial implications of the scheme are provided?

The First Minister

I am struck by the fact that, when we announced an extension to the go-live date for the scheme back in December 2021, I think, to give industry additional time to prepare, that was criticised at the time by the Conservatives among others in the chamber.

The regulations require producers to register ahead of the launch. Registration is now open. However, we continue to work—this is important—with Circularity Scotland and businesses as they finalise their operational delivery plans. The scheme is industry led, and the industry needs to work with the scheme administrator on a joined-up approach to delivering it.

We have already made changes, which I have set out. We will continue to engage with businesses on any further changes that can sensibly be made to take account of some of the issues that they raise.

Energy Costs (Prepayment Meters)

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister, in light of reports of people being forced on to prepayment meters, what steps the Scottish Government is taking to support vulnerable people in Scotland with rising energy costs. (S6F-01802)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First of all, the Scottish Government opposes the forced installation of prepayment meters, because that is only more likely to increase debt or leave people unable to heat their homes.

We continue to call on the United Kingdom Government to provide the necessary additional support for those who are struggling with energy bills, and we are doing everything that we can with the powers that are available to us. That includes doubling the fuel insecurity fund to £20 million and providing an additional £1.2 million to help advice services to meet the increasing demand that they are dealing with.

I chaired two energy summits last year. As a result of those, we continue to work with partners to see what more we can do by working together to support and protect Scottish consumers in these times.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The oil and gas giants BP and Shell are reporting record profits on the sale of energy while millions of people are struggling to heat their homes. However, the extortion does not stop there. I have received reports from the Dundee Pensioners Forum that its elderly members are receiving alarming letters demanding payment from their energy suppliers. Those are payments to accounts that are not only not in arrears but in significant credit. When those vulnerable people are unable to pay what they do not even owe, they are threatened with forced installation of prepayment meters.

Although I appreciate that much of energy policy is reserved, the First Minister meets energy providers regularly and has their ear, so will she condemn any use of such bullying and strong-arm tactics, and will she commit to ending the granting of warrants by courts in Scotland for the forced installation of prepayment meters?

The First Minister

I have not seen the letters that Mercedes Villalba referred to, but I, of course, condemn any behaviour that seeks to bully consumers or individuals in any way.

Two issues, both of which are important, were raised in the course of that question: first, the taxation of oil and gas companies and, secondly, regulation. Both are reserved to the UK Government. I wish that that was not the case and that we had those powers here in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps the member will, in the future, support our calls for such powers.

As First Minister, I cannot instruct the courts; every member understands that. However, within the powers that are available to us—on energy, as the member recognises, those powers are very limited—the Parliament and the Government will and should look at what more we can do to help.

However, on this as on so many other issues, if we did not always have to look to the UK Government—if we held those powers here in the Scottish Parliament—we would be able to do much more than we can do right now.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In addition, we know, from the Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report on energy price rises, that customers who move into properties that have expensive prepayment meters have to pay for the privilege of having them removed. Will the First Minister confirm whether, as was recommended in last summer’s committee report, her Government has raised with the UK Government the issue of a legal right, in appropriate circumstances, to have a prepayment meter removed free of charge?

The First Minister

Fiona Hyslop has raised another important issue, and I absolutely agree that consumers should be entitled to have a prepayment meter removed from their home at no cost to them. Last autumn, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport wrote to the UK Government on a number of issues, including protections and flexibility for consumers on prepayment meters. Given the recent developments surrounding such meters, I confirm that that is one of a number of issues that we will be raising urgently with both the UK Government and the regulator.

Just Transition

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether oil and gas companies are investing enough of their profits to support a just transition in Scotland. (S6F-01815)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I certainly think that more could be done. The energy profit levy investment allowance does not do enough to future proof energy supplies and promote green energy. Energy companies should reinvest their profits—which, right now, are very significant—in industries of the future.

The “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan”, which was published last month, sets out a clear vision to capitalise on the enormous opportunities that a net zero energy system offers the industry, our economy and our climate. It highlights the importance of accelerating the transition to renewable energy sources. We have clearly and repeatedly set out the actions that the United Kingdom Government should and must now take to ensure a fair and just transition for our energy sector in what will be a decisive decade for action.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Despite the utterly obscene profits of oil and gas companies, investment in transition is not being made at anything like the pace that is needed to keep 1.5°C alive. Over the past week, I have met Shell and ExxonMobil, which operate the Mossmorran complex in Fife—the third-largest climate polluter in Scotland. Does the First Minister agree that we cannot meet Scotland’s climate targets without slashing Mossmorran’s emissions, and will she call on the operators and the UK Government to commit to investment in a just transition plan for the Mossmorran complex?

The First Minister

First, I reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to a just transition that meets our climate targets, supports good green jobs for our highly skilled workforce and allows industry to retain international competitiveness. Mark Ruskell is right to say that the decarbonisation of industry plays a vital role in achieving all of that.

Operators, including those at Mossmorran, have much to gain from being at the forefront of a just transition, and I urge them to make sure that that is exactly where they are. Currently, we are developing a just transition plan for Scotland’s largest industrial site, Grangemouth. On completion of that, we will evaluate and consider what learnings can be replicated across other sites, such as Mossmorran.

The “Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan” makes it clear that the UK Government, too, must take action across a number of areas, and we continue to urge it to commit to a concrete timeline and processes to ensure that that is the case.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.

National Care Service (Scotland) Bill

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The First Minister has been sent a letter by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and Common Weal, setting out their serious concerns about the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and asking for the bill to be paused. They are joined by GMB Scotland, Unison Scotland, Unite the union, the Scottish Pensioners Forum, Who Cares? Scotland, Parkinson’s UK, respected professor of public policy James Mitchell, the Scottish National Party Trade Union Group and more besides.

That follows significant criticism of the bill by no less than four committees of this Parliament, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a host of care providers and those receiving care. There is nothing to prevent the SNP from delivering improvements to social care now, such as fair pay and ending non-residential care charges, but the sector is concerned that it is not listening to their concerns and is intent on bulldozing the bill through.

Will the First Minister pause the bill and take the time required to get it right?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will, of course, take the time required to get it right. There was, in the letter that Jackie Baillie referred to, a line that she did not read out, so I will. It states:

“We want to emphasise that we share the Scottish Government’s desire to create a National Care Service.”

Several committees of this Parliament are scrutinising the bill at stage 1. When we have all the reports and feedback, we will take time to consider all the issues that have been raised. At that stage, we will set out the timescale for the rest of the legislative process.

In the interim, we are taking steps to improve social care. Let us remember what a national care service is about. It is about ending the postcode lottery in care provision and better rewarding those who work in the sector. In the year ahead, we are taking action to boost social care workers’ pay and getting the initial organisational arrangements in place. We will continue to proceed in that responsible way and, as we do so, we will listen to the views of all the organisations that are signatories to the letter and, I am sure, many others besides.

Abortion Services

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

The First Minister, along with the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport, convened a further summit on abortion services earlier this week, which was hugely useful in exploring further themes for my member’s bill. I am very grateful for the Scottish Government’s support.

Will the First Minister update the chamber on next steps and what she sees as the most important steps that we can take to protect and further abortion rights in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I

was very pleased to convene, with Maree Todd, the second abortion summit on Tuesday. I thank members from across the parties who attended it.

We had a very constructive discussion on the outcomes of the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment on Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Bill and on the further issues that we must consider for Scottish legislation. The discussion underlined the continuing need for national legislation on that matter—I reiterate the Government’s commitment to that—and provided useful insights. The Government continues to work with Gillian Mackay to develop a bill that is robust and effective. I know that we want to see that bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible.

In addition, we were all clear that the commitments to progressing abortion care and ensuring that women have access to high-quality abortion care in Scotland, which are outlined in the women’s health plan, are a priority and will be taken forward.

Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The BBC documentary “Beneath the Magic Circle Affair” cast light on a very dark and distressing subject. Senior members of Scotland’s legal establishment sexually abused children for decades. Susie Henderson’s childhood was destroyed at the hands of her untouchable QC father and his vile associates, and yet the Government’s child abuse inquiry will not hear evidence about that. Other survivors, including young footballers, have called for the inquiry to broaden its scope. I ask Nicola Sturgeon whether that will happen.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I say that

the content of the BBC documentary was extremely distressing and disturbing. I think that all of us want to ensure that those matters are properly investigated in the appropriate way. Obviously, any criminal investigations are for the Crown, and it would be deeply inappropriate for me or anybody else to comment on that.

On the Scottish child abuse inquiry, I absolutely hear the points that the member is making, but as he is aware, under the Inquiries Act 2005, the remit and conduct of a public inquiry is entirely for the inquiry, and the chair of the inquiry, and ministers cannot intervene in that. However, it is really important that all of the matters raised are properly scrutinised, probed and investigated in whatever way is necessary. I think that that is something that all of us want to ensure is the case.

Energy Prices

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

A new report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research warns that households in my constituency and across the United Kingdom could face a £4,000 financial hit from the cost of living crisis this year. What can the Scottish Government do to urge the United Kingdom Government to reverse its plans to allow energy bills to rise again this spring, which will only heap more misery on those who are already suffering?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Paul McLennan is right to raise the impact on households in his constituency and across Scotland. We have consistently called on the UK Government to provide additional support for vulnerable households with their energy costs. Prior to the introduction of the energy price guarantee last October, we called for the energy price cap to be frozen, and now we need the UK Government to urgently consider cancelling its proposed rise along with the reduction in support for domestic consumers.

We continue to take the action that we can to support households, including, as I said earlier, the doubling of the fuel insecurity fund. However, the key levers lie with the UK Government, and we must press it to use those levers in the interests of households and businesses across the country.

A9 Dualling

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister has betrayed communities in the north of Scotland with her broken promise to dual the A9. It is clear that the work required to fulfil that promise has never been done, and her Government seeks to blame events that should never have impacted the timetable.

Will she now give us a date for completion of the dualling of the A9, or is she really telling us that the Greens are running her Government?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Let me be very clear: the Scottish Government is firmly committed to completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you.

The First Minister

That is a £3 billion investment. Already, more than £430 million has been invested in it, and road users are benefiting from some stretches that are already dualled.

On the issue that was covered in Parliament yesterday, we have carefully reviewed the submitted tender for that stretch and concluded, after a very difficult and complex procurement procedure, that the award of that contract at this time would not represent best value for the taxpayer. The price of that tender was significantly higher than expected, even allowing for the impacts of inflation and a volatile economy. If we had gone ahead with that, I am sure that, down the line, Opposition members would have criticised us for doing so because it was not best value for the taxpayer.

As the transport secretary set out yesterday, steps will now be taken by Transport Scotland on the necessary preparatory steps for the urgent retendering, with the aim of achieving a contract award before the end of this year, and a new timetable will be set out as quickly as possible.

It is also important to point out that the design work is progressing on the rest of the programme, with ministerial decisions to complete the statutory process confirmed for seven of the remaining eight schemes.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Emma Roddick. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

12:53 Meeting suspended.

12:54 On resuming—

United Kingdom Income Inequality

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask those leaving the gallery and, indeed, those members leaving the chamber, to do so as quickly and as quietly as possible.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-07249, in the name of Emma Roddick, on United Kingdom income inequality. The debate will be concluded without any question being put, and I invite those members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes with alarm a recent Financial Times analysis, which shows the scale of income inequality in the UK relative to other countries in Europe; records its concern over the implications for people across Scotland, including rural and island constituents in the Highlands and Islands, amid what it considers an unprecedented cost of living crisis; recognises that, according to the analysis, the average Slovenian household is set to be better off than its British counterpart by 2024, and that the richest will get richer; believes that this analysis has reinforced the findings of the Scottish Government’s Building a New Scotland papers, which, it considers, demonstrate how independent European countries comparable to Scotland are wealthier and fairer than the UK, and considers that it is important to learn from comparator countries and create a fairer Scotland, combining economic dynamism with social solidarity.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful to those who supported my motion so that it could be debated, giving us the opportunity to discuss the

Financial Times

analysis, which covers such an important issue that is not given enough attention.

In the hustle and bustle of everyday politics and the headlines, we often forget to step back and look at the big picture. I hope that folk will do that—putting aside Covid, Brexit and strikes just for a moment—to look at the UK as a whole and how it is functioning. We are living in a country whose Governments have long made public policy designed to help the rich get richer and to promote endless private economic growth at the expense of looking after its citizens.

We are living in an extremely unequal society, where the richest can enjoy a good life and the worst-off are in dire poverty, more likely to experience serious health issues and have significant support needs. It is perhaps harder to see because those in the public eye—celebrities, high earners and members of Parliament with fortunate backgrounds—can seem to represent the UK in more than just television interviews, but they do not.

The

Financial Times

analysis last year described the UK more accurately as a poor society

“with some very rich people”

in it.

Another accurate description can be found in Dick Gaughan’s lyrics:

“They make the laws

To serve them well”

and to

“feed the rich

While poor men starve”.

That is the hard truth: half of the people in this country account for 9 per cent of the wealth, and Conservative Governments do their best to ensure that that gap keeps getting bigger. That is normal to us, but it is not normal. The same

Financial Times

analysis found that the poorest Irish household has a standard of living that is almost 63 per cent higher than the poorest in the UK. Other younger nations such as Slovenia are also likely to have a higher average standard of living than us from next year.

The message that I want to get out there is that there are better ways forward than the way that we are used to, that there are alternative economic ideologies to Conservatism and that we can redistribute wealth so that nobody has to experience extreme poverty. There are examples of alternatives across Europe, and a clear alternative is presented in the Scottish Government’s “Building a New Scotland” papers. We could be more like European neighbours such as Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Denmark, which use their full powers to achieve a fairer society as well as economic success.

Being taken out of the European Union against the wishes of the Scottish electorate has led my Highlands and Islands region to lose out on funding that we previously relied on for projects that improved the economy of rural and island communities as well as the lives of the people living in them. The replacement funding that we have seen so far has fallen far short of what we used to get and far short of what Whitehall promised.

We are taught a big lie—that the huge gap between the richest and the poorest in our society is a necessary side effect of having a healthy economy. First, I would argue that that is not a worthwhile sacrifice in the first place, but, secondly, it is not even true. Conservative, capitalist policies have resulted in an unequal society and in the UK being the only country in the G7 forecast to have negative growth—and worse than that of Russia, which has been facing international sanctions for almost a year.

I have always found that people will try to put off those of us who did not grow up learning about stocks and shares and did not study philosophy, politics and economics at Oxbridge from debating financial policy, using buzzwords and talking about the businesses that they have run and their investment funds—using frames of reference that are so far removed from what most of us will ever experience that it seems as though there is no room in the debate for those on the left, but there is.

Even if someone believes that a more socialist approach to public spending would crash the economy, I have to ask at this point: what have they got to lose? Conservative and neo-liberal capitalist economics have just crashed the economy, so let us give something else a try.

Successive Tory UK Governments have historically fixed—or more accurately, covered up—cash-flow issues, which they like to pretend do not exist under Conservatism, by selling off public services. The problem with that is that, once Royal Mail has been sold off, it cannot be sold off again. All that that has done is gift future Governments the issue of having to deal with private interests running roughshod over workers’ rights, with ministers no longer able to force changes to pay and conditions and having nobody but their own institution to blame. People deserve a Government that will do better than that, which will acknowledge issues and tackle them, rather than pretend that they are not happening.

Most people, whether they are personally managing or not, do not want to live in a country where kids grow up hungry and in poverty when there is no need for it. Most people want public services to be run in the interests of the public, not private shareholders. Most are happy to pay their share to make sure that they do not live in that kind of country, which is what we have to remember when we make decisions on taxes, just as the Scottish Government has done this year by asking people who are on the highest income to pay 1p more on their top rate of tax.

Taxes are not like giving to charity. Living in a civilised society where opportunity is available to everyone is not—or certainly should not be—a charity case. I do not want to go out and ask rich folk to consider giving money to the cause of people not being left destitute because they need to access what should be a public service that is free at the point of need. That is why taxes are not optional; they are the price of living in a country that provides people with security and public services. Personally, I am happy to pay a lot more in tax than someone who is earning what I used to earn three years ago for the sake of the Scottish Government being able to pay money to kids who are growing up in poverty.

The Scottish Government is doing more than any other Administration in the UK to help the people who need it most and to reduce inequality by introducing measures such as the Scottish child payment, which is unique in the four nations, and working on proposals for a minimum income guarantee.

Imagine what more we could do with the powers of independence. We have everything that it takes to become a successful, fair, internationalist nation— apart from not being tied to a Westminster that has brought us Brexit, cost of living crises and austerity. The UK’s economy is not strong and stable; it does not have broad shoulders—it is failing the people of Scotland. The Opposition will continue to criticise us for highlighting those facts, but people need to know—they deserve to know—why the promises of prosperity and opportunity never appear, and they need to know how much fairer other countries that are doing what the Scottish National Party wants to do are. If other countries in Europe can tackle inequality through independence in Europe, why not Scotland?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Emma Roddick for securing the debate. I found a lot of what she said to be quite interesting. The cost of living crisis that she has referred to is something that we all have to live with, and no one should be under any illusions that the crisis has been driven mainly by Russia’s illegal invasion into Ukraine. It has driven up the prices of electricity; it has driven up the cost of power; and it has driven up the costs of fertiliser and the production costs of all the basic foods that we require.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

rose

—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will give way to the member when I am a little further on.

I accept that there is more to do, which is why I believe that we need to drive down inflation to half of its current rate, grow the economy, reduce national debt and build our public services, which is something that we should all be concentrating on.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I appreciate the member’s point about electricity costing more. However, should it not be the case that, if people are having to pay so much for electricity that they have no money left or that they are pushed into debt, it is the job of the UK Government to step in and use its powers to regulate the market?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The problem is that the UK Government regulating the UK market does not resolve the energy problems or the cost of energy, as energy is driven by a world market. We can help, and I will tell you some of the ways that the UK Government is doing that.

I was interested in the article that Emma Roddick quoted from. I underlined the final paragraph, which says:

“Our leaders are, of course, right to target economic growth”.

That is what we should be doing: growing the economy. We know that doing that will help everyone to have a better standard of living.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

rose

—

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I

will take the member’s intervention in a moment.

To my mind, that would not come about with independence, where we would be building walls that would cut off 60 per cent of our market.

The member has suggested that we need to build a new Scotland. In the papers that made the case for independence, if they were going to be anything other than fantasy economics, I wanted to see a discussion about who would pay for pensions, what the currency would be and what the border barriers would be. We did not have that. Indeed, we know that we are not even doing some of the things that we said that we would do in those papers, such as handling benefits payments. We have asked the UK Government to continue to manage that, because the Scottish Government could not.

One of the things that we are not clear about is the cost of independence. In 2014, it was put down as £200 million, yet we are probably talking about billions and billions of pounds, because we know that £200 million does not go far—it does not even build two ferries.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

You mention all the things that you think are causing problems for the UK economy. Tory Prime Minister John Major told the Westminster Parliament that the UK’s exit from the European Union was a colossal mistake”, yet your party never—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please speak through the chair, Mr Fairlie.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

Sorry; okay. Your party never accepts that, so what would you say about the damage that Brexit has caused?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please speak through the chair, Mr Fairlie.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Presiding Officer, I say, through the chair, that the decision about Brexit was taken in a referendum. That decision was made by a majority vote and we should therefore respect the result. It is not something that I campaigned for, but it is not something that the Scottish Government really campaigned against: it actually spent more money campaigning in Orkney than it did on campaigning against Brexit. That is a fact.

Let us look at some of the things that we could do better. I think that I am running out of time, Presiding Officer, as I have taken some interventions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you a bit of time to compensate you for that.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

What concentrates the minds of people in the Highlands, as far as I can see, is an issue that we discussed this morning: when the A9 will be dualled. At the rate that the Government is going, Calum’s Road on Raasay will turn out to be a better investment than the A9 and it will have been built quicker—just one man built one and a half miles of road in 10 years.

The A96 still has not been built. We are all desperate for the national treatment centre, because 3,200 people in the Highlands alone are waiting for treatment and they have been told that they might have a seven-year wait. We are waiting for ferries, which are six years late. We are waiting for HMP Highland, which is six years late, and we are waiting for broadband that we were promised in 2021.

Those are the issues that concentrate the minds of people in the Highlands. Those are the issues that we should be talking about, not the points that Emma Roddick makes, which are all based on her belief that independence is the only solution. It is not. There are problems that we must deal with. Let us get on with dealing with them.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Emma Roddick for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I welcome her contribution. The idea that stood out in it and that has motivated me for my entire life is that we live in a poor society with some very rich people in it.

The wealth divide across the UK, including in Scotland, is absolutely shocking.

Emma Roddick is right to highlight the scale of income inequality in the UK relative to that in other countries in Europe. That has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the Tory-made cost of living crisis, which has made the poor poorer while multimillionaires record eye-watering profits. We cannot get away from that. There are eye-watering profits to be made and there is money in the system. We hear about that every day, and it is something that we must challenge. Wealth can and should be redistributed, and there are acknowledged fair, just and green ways to do that.

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

I agree with the member’s comments. Earlier today, I attended an event with the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, at which there was some discussion of the gap between the richest and poorest in Scotland and of the opportunity for Scotland to nurture purposeful businesses that make a positive difference to our wellbeing, among other things, rather than putting profits in the pockets of shareholders. Does the member agree that that is a good thing for Scotland and that we should embrace it?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Ms Mochan.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The member may know that I attended the same event, which gave us some excellent food for thought about how we might move the economy forward and how we might encourage people and communities to be part of what we might describe as business, but which, through community wealth building, lets them be in charge of their own areas. Members will know that I am extremely positive about those ideas. The example was given of North Ayrshire Council leader Joe Cullinane. He has taken steps that I view as bold, but, in his view, he is just being fair about how we should run the economy for communities.

Where Emma Roddick and I disagree is that, in my view, leaving the UK is not the way to reduce income inequality. I suggest that delivering a Labour Government at Westminster—which would repeal anti-trade-union legislation, invest in services and communities and offer fairer jobs to people—would be a better way to achieve solidarity in how we run communities in the UK. Those jobs would be well-paid jobs in which workers, unlike under the current Scottish and UK Governments, would be treated with the respect that they deserve.

Indeed, before the cost of living crisis, the cost of living in more rural communities was already substantially higher than it was in their urban counterparts, yet the Scottish Government has continued to do little for those communities. Yesterday, Emma Roddick and Fergus Ewing highlighted that the Highlands have been deprived of transport links that they were promised in relation to connectivity around the A9.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way on that point?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is just about to conclude.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

In my view, the Scottish Government has not shown the necessary determination. We have had delays in land reform, poor industrial relations with teachers and a lack of movement on regressive forms of taxation such as the council tax. We know that 20 families in Scotland own as much wealth as 30 per cent of the rest of the population, and that is unacceptable.

I do not believe that the Scottish Government has shown enough will. It has done things around the edges, and that is what we talk about in this Parliament. However, I hope that I can get some solidarity around the work that we need to do, to make sure that the Scottish Parliament does everything that it can. Emma Roddick and other members know that my point is that, if we believe that that gap is unjust, the Scottish Parliament must do everything that it can to fight for a better economic structure out there in the wider UK and world.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Emma Roddick for bringing forward this important debate this afternoon.

“Where would you rather live? A society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor, or one where the rich are merely very well off but even those on the lowest incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living?”

That is the opening line from a

Financial Times

report, entitled “Britain and the US are poor societies with some very rich people”. Research has consistently shown that, although most people express a desire for some distance between top and bottom, they would rather live in a considerably more equal society than they do at present.

Edward Mountain talked about issues in the here and now. He made some valid points and talked about the invasion of Ukraine, but the debate is about the structural long-term decline of the UK financial model.

Let us look at the position in which the UK finds itself. As Emma Roddick mentioned, on present trends, the average Slovenian household will be better off than its British counterpart by 2024 and the average Polish family will move ahead before the end of the decade. The analysis also found the standard of living of the poorest Irish households was almost 63 per cent higher than that of the poorest in the UK.

In most developed countries, such as neighbouring north-western European states, the distribution of income is relatively equal, with the top 10 per cent earning about three times as much as the bottom 10 per cent. However, as in the US, income distribution in the UK is much less equal, with the top 10 per cent earning almost five times as much as the people at the bottom. That is about long-term structural design, which does not happen overnight and is caused by UK Government policy choices. That is the cost of the union, which fails Scotland.

On Wednesday, we heard Scottish Tories criticise the Scottish Government on social security. While the Scottish Government was introducing the groundbreaking Scottish child payment, the Tories were cutting universal credit. Not one Tory MSP spoke against that—they all sat in silence.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I hope that Paul McLennan understands that we agree on a lot of points. I wonder whether he would accept that, sometimes, some of the back benchers in this Parliament have to stand up to the Government if we really want to get the full benefit of the things that we can do in the Scottish Parliament.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

That is a valid point. Some of the most important work that we do in this Parliament is in committees. We all raise important issues at that point, and SNP members will continue to do so.

Let us look at the position of our European neighbours. For Norway, the picture is consistently rosy. The top 10 per cent rank second for living standards among the top deciles in all countries. The median Norwegian household ranks second among all national averages. All the way down at the other end, people in Norway’s poorest 5 per cent are the most prosperous bottom 5 per cent in the world. Norway is a good place for someone to live regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

Relative to those of its European peers, the UK’s economic model is increasingly outmoded. Despite our wealth, too many households continue to live in poverty because of UK structural inequalities. Healthy life expectancy is too low in the most deprived areas of our country. Tackling the underlying causes of inequality in our society and providing economic opportunity will be vital if we are to improve people’s life chances.

The clear fact is that Scotland’s policy options remain constrained by the current devolution settlement and the embedded features of the prevailing UK market model. That is where Carol Mochan’s views and mine diverge. To a significant extent, the policy decisions of successive UK Governments have determined where we can take our own economic development. Brexit has exacerbated the UK’s long-standing structural problems. Jim Fairlie spoke about that in the context of Mr Major’s thoughts on the situation.

Countries of Scotland’s size have consistently outperformed the UK across a range of economic measures. They have the ability to thrive in our globalised economy because they are agile and can move towards and direct policy choices that are better suited to their own circumstances. Scotland is well positioned to learn from the experience of other nations and use the powers that would accrue through independence to improve economic, social and environmental outcomes significantly. We have strong business sectors in food and drink, financial services, energy and low carbon.

We also have world-class universities. Scotland has more universities per million people in the top 200 when compared with the figures for the rest of the UK, and it ranks third globally, behind Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Having full control over our tax and benefits would help to accelerate progress towards the ambitious targets that have been set by the Scottish Government for reducing child poverty.

The inequality gap across the UK will grow; it is structurally built into its financial model. However, there is another way. We do not to have to accept the UK Government’s mediocrity.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to Emma Roddick for securing the debate. At a time when we see global energy corporations recording obscene profits, we must discuss the inequalities that are ravaging our communities.

The picture of income distribution in Scotland is shaped like an hourglass. Most people earn the minimum wage, or thereabouts, but a small number of people earn fabulously high incomes. Most income is at the bottom and the top of the distribution, with a middle that is narrow—or narrower than it should be. The motion points to the reality that the average British household will soon be caught by Slovenian households when comparing how well off they are. However, the situation is actually worse than that: in 2021, the lowest earning bracket of British households was 20 per cent weaker than that of the equivalent household in Slovenia.

Let us think about where wealth comes from. It has two main sources: natural resources that we should all share, and the labour of workers who add value to such resources. Natural resources such as oil and gas should have benefited us all while we exploited them, so now we must share the fruits of the renewable revolution. It must make us all richer—not just those who are rich enough to own energy companies. Wealth, including income from labour, must be shared as equally as possible so that we can share the endowments that we received from nature with everyone.

As has already been mentioned, John Burn-Murdoch, writing in the

Financial Times

, has called the UK a poor country

“with some very rich people”.

The insight of Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson has made it clear that having unequal societies makes things worse for everyone. Over the past 10 years, we have seen how the interests of the super-rich have warped our politics. We had austerity, which cut vital spending on services. The bond purchases that were associated with quantitative easing increased the wealth of asset holders who, of course, were already in the wealthiest decile. We are now seeing the disastrous impact of 12 years of austerity and underinvestment in public services. However, the UK Government is okay with that, because its wealthy backers have got richer.

Not only did we have austerity; we had a Brexit that owed much to the desire of the wealthy to prevent the UK from being part of Europe-wide measures to reclaim wealth stemming from the labour of workers and the extraction of resources for the common good. Such tax avoidance costs us all dear. Brexit has compounded all the failings of the British economy from the past 15 years. We still have low productivity, skewed wealth distribution and labour shortages.

All that is set against vast evidence from Pickett and Wilkinson that the simplest way to improve the lives of everyone in our country would be to equalise the distribution of wealth and income. Societies that prioritise more equal distribution perform better on all indicators from health and crime to education. We all want to improve the national health service and schools and to make our society safer, but inequality means that we are pushing that stone up an ever-steeper hill.

We know that wealth in the UK is undertaxed. By taxing wealth less, we end up taxing work more, and that is bad for everyone. It is a disincentive to work, and a key driver of inequality. The United Kingdom Government, which controls most of the powers to tax wealth, must act. We need to make the case that equality will be at the heart of an independent Scotland.

We have to find a way to introduce a pay ratio. In 2022, FTSE 100 executive pay increased by 23 per cent, at a time when we were told that most ordinary workers would need to take a real-terms pay cut. We need to taper pay increases so that those on lower incomes catch up with the high earners. We also need genuine action on income in kind.

We need to tax wealth effectively by tackling asset bubbles, radically reforming our local tax system and so much more. Some things should be done now, by the UK Government, to help us deal with the cost of living crisis that we face today. However, most of all, we need to recognise that inequality is not necessary, it is not healthy and it is at the root of many of our society’s problems. Every step that we take to reduce inequality makes our job in creating a better society much easier.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The final speaker in the open debate is Christine Grahame.

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

I am a spontaneous speaker in the debate—I did not intend to speak, but Edward Mountain really got to me. I accept that Putin’s war and Covid have contributed to the cost of living crisis, but why did Edward Mountain sidestep Liz Truss’s disastrous economic policies? What about Brexit, which 62 per cent of Scotland sensibly voted against? There is no doubt that that percentage would be higher now. Practically every economist tells us that Brexit has exacerbated the current situation, including Mark

Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England and hardly a Scottish nationalist.

I say to Carol Mochan that I am a socialist, too, but I have lived through too many Labour Governments, starting with Harold Wilson’s—that is how far I go back. Then there was James Callaghan and the winter of discontent, Tony Blair and an illegal war that cost lives and millions of pounds, and then Gordon Brown and the banks’ collapse. With each of those Governments, I could see no distinction between them and the Conservatives, because the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Then I saw the light, and I decided that Scotland could make a better fist of it itself.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I wonder whether Christine Grahame might mention some of the other things that Labour Governments have done. It is only fair to acknowledge that, in terms of the way in which we treat workers, the fact that we have good terms and conditions is because of what Labour Governments have done. It would only be fair for her to acknowledge that the SNP does not do everything that it commits to.

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

The big difference is that we do not have macroeconomic powers. We have a handout in the form of Barnett consequentials from the United Kingdom Government, and that limits us. However, we mitigate, and we should be mitigating, policies that we do not agree with. While we bring in the Scottish child payment—[

Interruption

.] Does Mr Mountain want to make an intervention?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the member will take an intervention—

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

I am delighted to.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is always nice to acknowledge that you have made mistakes. Do you want to address the ferries and the costs of that? Do you want to address the A9—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Speak through the chair.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Sorry.

Would the member like to address the issue with the ferries? Would she like to address the issues with the A9 and the A96? I would love to hear about her Government’s failures.

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

Some of that did not relate to what I was saying about not having macroeconomic powers, but I will let Mr Mountain bleat on about those issues again.

I say to Carol Mochan that there was more mobility for my generation, after the war, than there is now. On that I agree with her. I started out in a prefab, and then we moved on to a council house. I was the oldest of five children; we were very working class. I became the first girl to stay at my school beyond the age of 15—we were supposed to leave school at 15 and get married early. After that, I was the first to go to university, and so on.

I do not see that mobility in those areas any more. We now have silos where people are trapped by the economic system and warped taxation system that we have. The people who are suffering now from inflation are ordinary people, whether we call them the middle or working class. They are bearing the burden, not the millionaires who can put their money offshore and keep it safe somewhere and who can afford to heat their houses and still eat in posh places.

The only growth industry that I see just now as a result of UK Government policy is food banks. Even some Tory politicians have the temerity to attend and celebrate the opening of a food bank. It is disgraceful. We should not have food banks in Scotland.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Emma Roddick for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank members for their contributions.

As Emma Roddick eloquently highlighted, although we all recognise that we have immediate and pressing priorities—particularly as we face the cost crisis—it is important to lift our heads up and consider the larger picture. I believe that sincerely for a number of reasons, not just because it is a responsibility but because, ultimately, many of the social ills that we must confront are driven by, and reflections of, our underlying economic system.

That point was highlighted eloquently by Paul McLennan in his speech. He was absolutely correct to focus on structure because, when I consider the economic model that we have, I am struck—I had this reflection while listening to members’ contributions—that there is almost an analogy between it and the nature of devolution. We have an economic model that leads to significant negative externalities, to use the jargon, and social and environmental consequences, and those issues must then be addressed through redistribution and mitigation. However, we want an economic system that pre-distributes and brings parity between economic, social and environmental factors—a genuine wellbeing economy—just as we want a constitutional arrangement in which the Scottish Parliament does not have to take the role of mitigating and addressing to the best of its ability the consequences of actions and policy decisions that are taken at Westminster.

It is important to reflect on that point. I am conscious that, sometimes, opponents of independence or constitutional change characterise debates and arguments about the constitution as arcane, recondite, esoteric and not grounded in reality or practical relevance to the people of Scotland. People with longer memories—those who have read their history and people who were there, such as Christine Grahame—will remember a time when that was the charge and criticism levelled at proponents of establishing the Parliament. They said that it was not relevant to the priorities of the people of Scotland and that to debate it was not to focus on the day-to-day, bread and butter issues.

Let us consider the reality. Compared to 2017, the poorest 10 per cent of households in Scotland will see their incomes increase by £580—4.6 per cent—per year compared to the rest of the UK, while the richest 10 per cent will see their incomes fall by just over £2,500. Among the poorest 30 per cent, reforms in Scotland to the income tax and benefit systems are set to raise the incomes of households with children by about £2,000 per year on average. That is the reality of what devolution has been able to do. It has brought about material improvement to the economic circumstances of the individuals whom we are charged with serving and honoured to serve.

My view is that we can go beyond that. Emma Roddick highlighted that point, and we have sought to articulate it through the “Building a New Scotland” series of papers. It is not that independence in and of itself offers a panacea, magic bullet or overnight fix, but it equips us with the tools to fundamentally change how our economy operates in a way that is pragmatic, focused, realistic and done in partnership with public, private and third sector interests and communities.

We are taking action on that where we can. Last week, I launched the Government’s consultation on community wealth building. I welcome members’ references to that, because that is a means to rewire how our local and regional economies operate. I commend the work on that that has taken place under multiple administrations in North Ayrshire and the way in which the community wealth building model has been incorporated within the wider Ayrshire region. I also recognise the excellent work that is going on across the five pilot areas, which the Scottish Government has been supporting. I encourage all members to engage with the community wealth building consultation process.

The reality is that, in this Parliament, we do not currently have the powers to do everything that I would like to do to advance community wealth building, but that should not be a barrier or an impediment to our ambition. We should be bold, and I encourage members to engage—if they have ideas about how we can take community wealth building forward, they can get in touch with me. A community wealth building approach has the means to effect real, lasting reform at the local level, which can aggregate and accumulate to change things at the national level, and it is a practical means of delivering on our aspirations for a wellbeing economy.

We need a situation in which we can make that change permanent and lasting, as long as there is consent for it in Scotland. One of the enduring frustrations that I have experienced as a citizen, an MSP and a minister concerns the reality that political positions on which there is consensus in Scotland cannot be achieved and effected because of the current constitutional arrangements.

Carol Mochan is correct to highlight that Labour Governments—

from Attlee to Wilson, and, indeed, from 1997 onwards—

have delivered progressive policies that have been of benefit to people at UK level. However, we can look at the legacy that Labour would seek to adduce in favour of the argument for a future Labour Government, in relation to investment in the NHS and tackling child poverty, and we can think of what has taken place in the past 13 years since the coming to power of, first, a Conservative and Liberal Government and, then, a majority Conservative Government—a Government for which there has been no democratic consent in Scotland.

I recognise that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, but it is also an ancient nation and a recognised polity. The reality is that, in Scotland, there has not been majority support for the Conservatives in my lifetime. The last time that the Conservatives won a majority of seats in Scotland at a UK general election was in 1955. The last time that they came close to that was in 1959, and that was with a Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, who at one point considered joining the Labour Party—a man who was a one-nation Conservative of a very different variety.

That raises an interesting point about the word “Conservative”. There is much within the Conservative tradition about a pragmatic and considered process of reform, and seeking to preserve the best of what has come before us and bequeath it to the next generation, with which many would agree. However, since 1979, we have had not a Conservative party in the tradition of Macmillan or even Churchill—who was also a Liberal, of course—but a party of the radical right, engrossed by transatlantic neoliberal politics that focus solely on the maximisation of profit and to hell with the consequences, be they social or environmental.

There might not be a consensus in the UK Parliament or in UK politics to address these issues. We might find ourselves in a situation in which the Labour Party, in seeking office in the United Kingdom, constantly finds itself having to triangulate in the hope of attracting Tory voters. We do not have that problem in Scotland. We have majority support for progressive, social democratic politics—we have that broad consensus. With independence, we can move on from having to mitigate to delivering the better future and the wellbeing economy that we all want to see.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate. I encourage some members to spend their lunchtime refreshing their understanding of speaking through the chair, but, for now, I suspend the meeting.

13:33 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Point of Order

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance and help on an important matter, which I believe lies at the heart of the business of Parliament. It cannot be said too often that it is fundamental that members of Parliament have opportunities to ask questions and to receive appropriate and timely answers from ministers. I know how keenly you, as Deputy Presiding Officer, and the Presiding Officer guard the public reputation of Parliament and the rights of its members, including the right to carry out the business of the people of Scotland who seek support and help from them.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Anne Somerville, on 1 December to seek her advice and help in respect of a burning concern that is shared by several of my constituents, all of whom contacted me separately to intercede on their behalf. The concern that they have relates to the level of support for children with autism or additional support needs in Falkirk schools.

I will limit my description of those cases in order to preserve the anonymity of those who are involved. Put simply, and to stress the urgency of the need for help from the cabinet secretary, those children are getting little to no support in their schooling. Their parents are doing the very best they can to help. Each case is, of course, unique, and there is complexity, but there is a problem with the provision of an appropriate level of support from Falkirk Council, which is causing immeasurable stress and upset. On top of that, the children and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—waiting times in Forth Valley make getting a formal diagnosis of autism very difficult.

That those children have identified and diagnosed support needs highlights how clear cut their cases are and the extent to which that support is needed. There are clearly insufficient resources in place to meet those needs in the education system in Falkirk, so the children who are going into that system are being failed—badly so—which will have painful and long-lasting impacts on the children and their families.

I wrote to the cabinet secretary to request that an urgent investigation be undertaken to understand the reasons for that resource deficiency and to ensure that commensurate steps be taken with equal immediacy to rectify the situation. I have not had an answer. I was given a reference number—202200333763. There is a problem in Falkirk for pupils with severe needs, which needs sorted out quickly.

I wrote again over two weeks ago to the cabinet secretary and still have had no answer. Can you please help me with the concerns of my constituents? What more can or should I do to receive an answer to my inquiries from the cabinet secretary?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Kerr, for your contribution—[

Interruption

.] Can I be the one who decides things? I am in the chair; I am the referee. Thank you.

I thank you for your contribution, Mr Kerr. I hear what you are saying. Obviously, what you have said is now on the record. You will know from your reading of the standing orders of Parliament that the time within which the Government responds or otherwise to correspondence from members does not engage those standing orders, and hence does not engage me as chair. However, the member will, I am sure, be aware of other potential ways in which to pursue those important matters—for example, through written questions, with respect to which timed deadlines are set forth in the standing orders of Parliament.

I hope that that is helpful.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is portfolio questions on net zero, energy and transport. Question 1 was not lodged.

Recycling Facilities (Glasgow)

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help modernise recycling facilities in Glasgow. (S6O-01885)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I recently awarded Glasgow City Council more than £21 million from the recycling improvement fund to improve recycling in the city. The investment will support the introduction of a new twin-stream kerbside service for the separate collection of recyclable materials, making it easier for households to recycle and improving the quality and quantity of recycling. The council’s investment in a new material recovery facility will also mean that more materials will be reprocessed rather than thrown away.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

I thank the minister for her response and welcome it. It would also be helpful if the minister would outline what other steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve recycling across the country, as it will be an essential tool in the fight against the climate crisis.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The recycling improvement fund is one important part of our overall efforts to improve recycling. It is already making a big impact across Scotland, with 17 councils benefiting from an award. We will soon publish a circular economy bill for the Parliament to scrutinise, as well as the final version of our waste route map.

Together, those will support and empower local authorities to drive forward the modernisation and improvement of recycling facilities across Scotland and to cut the overall amount of waste that is produced through, for example, incentivising reuse over disposal products. That will help to cut emissions, tackling the climate emergency, and it will mean that everyone benefits from less litter and better public services.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Although efforts to modernise recycling facilities across Scotland are welcome, there are some items, such as disposable vapes, that simply should not be clogging up our waste management systems in the first place. The Scottish Government has announced a review into those items, which is welcome, but we cannot afford to wait for action. Does the minister support the proposal in Dundee for a pilot ban of disposable vapes to help to inform national policy?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is a bit wide of the question, which concerns modernising recycling facilities in Glasgow.

West Coast Main Line (Network Rail Discussions)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has held with Network Rail regarding passenger services on the west coast main line, including services calling at Lockerbie. (S6O-01886)

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

Transport Scotland has regular meetings with Network Rail and train operating companies regarding passenger services at railway stations on the west coast main line in Scotland.

Lockerbie services are provided by TransPennine Express and Avanti West Coast, which are train operating companies that are specified and funded by the United Kingdom Government. I discussed TransPennine services when I met the UK Government rail minister recently. TransPennine services at Lockerbie have been affected by an unacceptable level of cancellation and delay, which has been compounded by industrial action.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The TransPennine service at Lockerbie is in a complete fankle. Trains are consistently cancelled or delayed with no notice, no replacement bus and no alternative options. That has a major impact on my constituents who rely on the service to travel to the central belt and south of the border. Currently, only 43 per cent of TransPennine services run on time, with CrossCountry, Avanti and LNER occasionally picking up the slack by making unplanned stops at Lockerbie. Will the minister agree to make representations to TransPennine regarding how unacceptable the situation is, and will she commit to facilitating a meeting with me and Network Rail regarding the contract for the service?

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

As I have previously outlined, TransPennine is a cross-border rail operator, so the contract is run and managed by the UK Government Department for Transport. It is, ultimately, a matter for the UK Government to resolve and, as I alluded to in my response to Emma Harper’s initial question, I have very recently raised her concerns with the UK Government rail minister directly.

Huw Merriman acknowledged the poor performance of

TransPennine

, and I am advised that the DFT is working closely with it to improve performance levels.

Separately, I have written to the previous minister for rail, Kevin Foster, on the matter of cross-border performance in relation to the Avanti contract, which is managed by the DFT, too. The member may recall that Mr Foster provided Avanti with a contract extension last year, despite Avanti’s poor performance. I am happy to make the direct representation that Emma Harper has asked me for, and I will ask my officials to facilitate the meeting with Network Rail that she has requested.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

The situation is worse than “a fankle”—there is nothing to get tied up or tangled. Will the minister consider a solution that is closer to home? Given that ScotRail is now in public ownership, will she take forward discussions about running a passenger service that actually calls at Lockerbie?

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

I recognise Mr Mundell’s frustration. We have heard similar frustration from Emma Harper about the service. However, ultimately, the service is a contract that is managed by the DFT, so I urge the UK Government to help TransPennine to resolve the issues. I raised the matter with the rail minister only a few weeks ago, but I am more than happy to make further representations. If Mr Mundell is able to persuade his colleagues down south—because, as I said, the contract is managed by the DFT—to give the necessary focus to resolving the situation, I am sure that his constituents would welcome that.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I hope that, in her representations, the minister will back my calls for TransPennine Express and Avanti West Coast to lose that franchise, which, frankly, is a failed one.

Last month, I asked the minister whether the plans to remove peak fares would cover all routes in Scotland. She said yes. Lockerbie might be a ScotRail station but, as we know, the services are provided by TransPennine and Avanti. Is the minister raising that issue in the discussions that she is having with those companies to ensure that passengers who go from one Scottish station to another, irrespective of who delivers those services, also benefit from the removal of peak fares? Passengers from Lockerbie should not be treated as second class just because, at the moment, ScotRail chooses not to run services from there.

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

I recognise Colin Smyth’s observations. The peak fares promotion that will be forthcoming in the coming months will apply to ScotRail services. I do not have responsibility for the services in question, which sit outwith the Scottish Government’s control. I am more than happy to raise such matters directly with the train operating companies, as I mentioned in my response to Ms Harper, and directly with the UK Government.

Railway Industry in Scotland (Transport Scotland Discussions)

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Transport Scotland about the future of the railway industry, including its supply chain in Scotland. (S6O-01887)

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

I have regular discussions with my officials in Transport Scotland about a wide range of rail matters affecting the Scottish railway industry.

At the end of last year, I spoke at the Railway Industry Association conference, which considered the supply chain in the rail industry in Scotland. Last month, I met the railway unions to discuss the issue, particularly in the context of public ownership of ScotRail.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport will be aware of the Caley railway works in Springburn, which was forced to close in 2019, despite being profitable, having a highly skilled workforce and being of strategic importance to Scotland’s railway infrastructure. Since that closure, ScotRail trains are routinely sent to England and Wales for maintenance, repair and overhaul, due to a lack of capacity to do that work in Scotland.

There is interest in returning the Caley works to use as a railway engineering and maintenance site, but it is likely that intervention from the Government and its agencies will be required to make that happen. Will the minister agree to meet me and representatives of the trade unions, alongside Scottish Government agencies such as Scottish Enterprise, to find a workable and viable solution that will bring long-term benefits to Scotland’s economy through the reopening of the Caley railway works?

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

I suspect that Paul Sweeney’s question probably cuts across the responsibilities of different ministerial portfolios and, as he will appreciate, I was not in post at the time of the closure of the Springburn works.

However, I recognise the need to encourage our having Scottish jobs in Scotland to support the rail industry, particularly as we move forward with our decarbonisation agenda. I have discussed that at length with the railway unions in recent times, and I would be more than happy to meet the member and, more broadly, other ministers who might also have responsibilities in this space to look at what more we might be able to do to sustain jobs in Scotland, as the member has asked us to do.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The Railway Industry Association, which represents the supply chain in the sector, has welcomed the publication of the high-level output specification and statement of funds available for Scotland’s railway infrastructure for control period 7.

The Scottish Government’s vision for our railway is one of an attractive, environmentally friendly mode of transport, and a wholly publicly owned, fully integrated rail network. Does the minister agree that, if Labour shares those aspirations, it is time that it backed the calls for the full devolution of rail powers, to bring track and train together and ensure that Scotland has the levers that it needs to create a sustainable rail service in the future?

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

Yes, I do. Earlier this week, the third UK Secretary of State for Transport in my time as Minister for Transport presented a vision for the railways of Britain that sits fundamentally at odds with the approach that we have taken in Scotland. Mark Harper wants to use more private sector investment in our railways, whereas we want there to be less private sector investment in our railways. That is why, last April, we took ScotRail into public ownership.

It is worth saying that the Scottish Government has consistently presented a clear case for the full devolution of rail powers. The Conservative UK Government’s plans for rail will not deliver that. Public ownership of ScotRail means that our railway should work for the people who own it, not for shareholders, and that is exactly why powers over train and track must be fully devolved to Scotland.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister mentioned the UK transport secretary’s vision. We have yet to hear her vision for ScotRail. Perhaps it could include lower fares and a simpler ticketing system. Would she agree?

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

I did not quite catch the end of Mr Simpson’s question but, of course, Scotland has lower rail fares than other parts of the UK do. I think that, on average, rail tickets in Scotland are about 15 per cent cheaper than they are in other parts of the UK.

It is worth pointing out that we have an offer coming forward in relation to the removal of peak fares, which another member asked about. I absolutely want to drive the provision of a more accessible and affordable railway for the people of Scotland, which is what public ownership should be about. That is the vision for Scotland’s railways.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have long been promised investment at Longannet by the rail industry. We have the right infrastructure sitting there to provide thousands of green jobs and reopen an important freight and passenger route on the back of any potential investment. Does the minister agree that regeneration at Longannet remains key to the future of Scotland’s railways and the supply chain that is based in Scotland?

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

Yes, I agree with the sentiment of the member’s question, and I strongly support attracting railway industry suppliers to the strategic Longannet site. At the time, I thought that it was deeply disappointing that Talgo was unsuccessful in securing the rolling stock order for high speed 2 from the UK Government. That would have allowed Talgo to quickly confirm its plans for a manufacturing facility on the site, so it was a real missed opportunity.

More broadly, my officials, working alongside Scottish Enterprise, remain available to discuss relocation opportunities with rail industry suppliers that are looking for a strategic development site, particularly in relation to Longannet.

Coastal Erosion (North East Scotland)

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to address coastal erosion in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-01888)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Through our dynamic coast project, we have worked closely with local authorities to help them plan for coastal adaptation, and in our programme for government 2020 we announced a new £11.7 million capital budget over four years for coastal change adaptation, which starts in 2022-23.

In the north-east, in 2023-24, Aberdeen and Angus will each receive £150,000 and Aberdeenshire will receive £206,000 for coastal change adaptation, making a total commitment of more than £500,000. In addition, the Montrose dune and beach replenishment project has also received £350,000 from our nature restoration fund.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Thank you, minister. It is really good to hear that some money is on its way. It would be good to see that actually delivered. The reality is that councils have never had the money to make multimillion-pound investments to turn the tide. Now that the revenue position has worsened, the people of Montrose are telling us that there are scant years left in the dune system and the historic golf course. A few fairways have already been lost to the sea, and there are huge implications with regard to flooding. When will the Scottish Government grasp the nettle and decide whether it will support a sand motor at Montrose?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am absolutely aware of the serious erosion issues with the sand dunes in Montrose and the impact that that can have on residents in terms of flooding. I completely understand their concern about flooding. Equally, I understand how important the golf course itself is to the people of Montrose. I have narrated exactly how the Scottish Government is responding to that, not least through a research programme, dynamic coast, which maps risk. Working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we have agreed to assign money directly to those risks as they are identified.

Officials in Marine Scotland’s licensing team are working with the port authority to investigate whether it could be beneficial to use dredged material to shore up the situation there. Angus Council has also worked on a flood risk management plan that seeks to address erosion and flooding in a co-ordinated way. In all those ways, we are seeking to rise to the undoubted challenge of movement in our coastlines.

Clean Air and Net Zero (UK100 Report)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is, regarding any impact in Scotland, to the new report by UK100, which highlights the benefits of clean air and net zero approaches. (S6O-01889)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Our cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy recognises the significant benefits of aligning approaches to address climate change and improve air quality, particularly in areas such as transport, agriculture and industrial emissions. Our strategy sets out an explicit commitment to ensure that the policies that we pursue to reduce climate change also deliver co-benefits for air quality. We have done much work in that regard, not least on our low-emission zones, and a lot of work to decarbonise public transport. It is paying off because, for the first time outside recent lockdown periods, no monitoring sites are exceeding air quality objectives.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the minister for that response. In respect of CANZ, the environmental organisation UK100 has said that

“wider progress is being hampered by the government’s lack of a coherent national strategy, disjointed short-term funding and a refusal to recognise the importance of CANZ.”

It is my view that the CANZ approach aligns with much of what we are seeking to do in Scotland, but recent exchanges with Westminster demonstrate that that is not a view that the Tories share. Does the minister therefore share my concern that that is, regrettably, another example of where the UK Government’s obstinacy regarding net zero might hold Scotland back?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely agree with the sentiment of Michelle Thomson’s question. We need

faster action and higher ambition from the UK Government on delivering net zero and doing so justly.

The Scottish Government has repeatedly called on the UK Government to act, and we will continue to do so. It must take the necessary actions.

Better still, we want Scotland to be an independent country with powers over our own resources so that we can tackle climate change and, at the same time, build the clean, green and prosperous economy of the future that we know that Scotland can have.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

L

iam Kerr, who is joining us remotely, has a supplementary question.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Strangely, Michelle Thomson failed to mention the report’s second recommendation, which mentions local authorities getting to net zero needing longer-term dedicated funding commitments to allow proper planning and implementation. A report in

The Press and Journal

last week showed that, as Transport Scotland no longer subsidises the repair and maintenance of the public electric vehicle charge point network in the Highland Council area, it will be cheaper to run a petrol car than it will be to run an electric car. Does the minister think that Transport Scotland is demonstrating exactly the sort of short-termist and short-sighted thinking that the report counsels against? Have similar cuts been made in any other Scottish local authorities?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I do not agree with that whatsoever. In fact, I know that our EV infrastructure coverage is among the best in the UK. I think that we have among the most coverage per head of population outside London.

The 2023-24 draft budget prioritises the Government’s commitment to a just transition to net zero, climate-resilient and biodiverse Scotland. It does that backed by, I think, some £2.2 billion of funding.

Deposit Return Scheme

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress towards the launch of the deposit return scheme. (S6O-01890)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Scotland’s deposit return scheme will be a major part of our efforts to reduce littering, cut emissions and build a more circular economy. It is a bold, complex and transformational scheme that is in line with the scale of the climate emergency that we face, and it will mean a significant change for everyone in Scotland.

I am pleased that industry has made significant progress towards implementation. That finding is echoed in our recent independent review.

This week, I am writing to all MSPs to provide a detailed update on progress and to highlight the additional actions taken by the Scottish Government and the scheme administrator, Circularity Scotland, to provide support for businesses to get ready for the DRS. The momentum that is under way is a testament to the efforts that are being made by businesses, Circularity Scotland and the Scottish Government to ensure that there are pragmatic approaches to launch. I will continue to engage closely with industry to ensure that the transformational scheme is a success.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I sense that, with less than six months to go, the minister is still woefully complacent about the impact of the deposit return scheme.

The owner of Broughton brewery in the Scottish Borders has said that it will pose real challenges to the business. They said that the brewery competes

“with other small brewers based across the UK and the different system will leave small Scottish brewers at an economic disadvantage.”

They added:

“We will have to invest in producer fees, revised packaging and an increase in our stockholding, which impacts on our cash flow and our ability to innovate and protect jobs.”

Will the minister now act in light of the voice of small brewers by postponing the introduction of the DRS for small producers and putting in place a permanent low-volume exemption scheme, or will she push small producers to the brink and wilfully carry on regardless?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am very aware of the concerns of small producers. We have worked closely with Circularity Scotland, and we have already published new producer fees that are lower than originally planned for the scheme and that reduce the overall cost. Day 1 payments for producers using United Kingdom-wide barcodes will be reduced by two thirds, from 2.4 months of fees to three weeks of fees. There will be no registration fee for producers with an annual turnover of less than £85,000 and for producers that only fill and sell single-use drink containers at the point of sale. For all other producers, the registration fee will be £365.

I am keen for the scheme to work properly for small producers, and I will meet small producers tomorrow morning to find out what more we can do to support them to fully participate in it.

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

I share Craig Hoy’s concerns about Broughton brewery, which is in my constituency.

Dryden Aqua, which is a very profitable company and is also in my constituency, recycles glass for innovative water filtration systems. The proposed DRS, as it stands, puts that business at risk. Will the minister meet that company to discuss its concerns?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Including glass in our scheme will save more than 1.2 megatonnes of CO2

over 25 years and will significantly increase the quantity and quality of glass recyclate. Like similar schemes around the world, our scheme in Scotland is being delivered and funded by industry, so the materials that are generated by the scheme, and their disposition, are matters for industry—that is, for Circularity Scotland—not the Scottish Government.

However—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, could we have less sedentary chat?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am always happy and interested to meet companies that work in my portfolio area, and I will contact Christine Grahame to make arrangements.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I feel a real need to stand up and plead with the minister to listen not only to members of her own party who are making the case for businesses but to businesses themselves.

As, I am sure, many other members are, I am deluged with correspondence from producers, retailers and the hospitality sector saying that they fear the scheme. They want the details, but they fear the calamitous impact that the scheme will have on their businesses. They fear going out of business. Will the minister therefore, please, listen to her colleagues and to people in the industry, who know what they are talking about, and will she assure us that she is open to change, so that the calamity that they fear can be averted?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am very aware of the concerns of industry, and I regularly meet large retailers, small retailers, large producers and small producers. I am particularly aware of the concerns of small producers. As I have said, I plan to meet them again tomorrow to find out what else we can do.

Through listening to the concerns of industry, we have adapted and are adapting the scheme. The extension to the go-live date to this year, which was announced last December, gave industry additional time to prepare. On 27 January, Circularity Scotland announced an increase in the return handling fees for retailers in order to support them to collect the materials. I have already listed the reduced fees for producers to help them to participate in the scheme. I have also set out that I am meeting producers to find out what else we can do to help them to participate fully in the scheme. I am keen for all Scottish businesses that are affected to be able to participate successfully in the scheme.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

At First Minister’s question time, we heard about the 600 producers who have raised concerns. Some of them are from my Orkney Islands constituency, where the logistical challenges of the DRS are even greater. Over the past year, I have worked with many local stakeholders to try to get answers to their questions about how the scheme will work in practice. Now that it is clear that those questions cannot be answered in the timeframe that has been set, I urge the minister to think about pausing the scheme in order to avoid damaging businesses, public confidence and even the case for the DRS itself.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The scheme in Scotland will go live on 16 August this year. The extension to the go-live date, which was put back to this year, was announced in December 2021 in order to give industry more time to prepare.

As with similar successful schemes around the world, our scheme is being delivered and funded by industry. Those organisational matters are for industry to resolve. I am working very hard to facilitate the ability of industry to have the answers to that organisational blueprint, so that we can move forward with a successful scheme. Much progress has been made to deliver the scheme, and we are building momentum towards the go-live date of 16 August.

Energy Affordability (Support)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

8. To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to support that it can provide for households in Scotland, what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding energy affordability. (S6O-01891)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have urged the UK Government to ensure that the interests of Scottish consumers are represented in the decision making around future support with energy costs, and we have called repeatedly for support to be targeted towards those who need it most.

Last year, the First Minister chaired two energy summits, which were attended by energy suppliers, advice agencies and third sector representatives. We continue to build on those and subsequent discussions with stakeholders and to identify further actions that we can take, within our devolved powers, to mitigate the impacts of high energy costs on Scottish consumers.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It has been reported in the past week that, while most people are struggling to heat their homes, big energy companies are making record profits. Given that energy pricing is reserved, will the cabinet secretary urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax share buy-backs, expand the windfall tax and scrap plans to raise the energy bill cap by a further £500 in April?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

In relation to the member’s final point, yes, I would ask the chancellor to revisit the price cap, which is due to be increased in the next couple of months.

Given that consumers face hikes in their energy costs, it is galling to households right across the country to see major energy providers making record profits. I cannot think of a better example of the sheer failure of the UK Government to regulate and manage our energy sector than the example that we have seen in the past week. It is a clear example of systemic failure by successive UK Governments to manage the energy markets in a way that reflects the needs of consumers.

The situation is made all the worse for consumers here in Scotland given that our energy costs are greater than those in any other part of the UK. As a result of that systemic failure by the present UK Government on the issue, even more households in Scotland find themselves in fuel poverty or extreme fuel poverty. That is why the UK Government should take urgent action to extend the windfall tax on companies that are making record profits off the back of households throughout the country that face extensive price increases as a result of Westminster Government failure over many years.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

T

hat concludes portfolio question time.

International Day of Women and Girls in Science

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The

next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-07852, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on international day of women and girls in science.

I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

In

2015, the United Nations adopted a resolution to designate 11 February as the international day of women and girls in science. Since then, that day has become an annual celebration of their achievements in science.

However, the day also serves as a reminder that women and girls remain underrepresented in many areas of science. We should commend the many organisations across Scotland that are playing a part in seeking to address that issue. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics—STEM—has traditionally been a male-dominated sector. Although women have made tremendous progress in that area, sadly, a significant gender gap still exists. For that reason, the drive by the United Nations to establish an annual day dedicated to recognising the incredible contributions that women make in the STEM sector was, in itself, an important milestone.

Since then, on 11 February every year, countries around the world, including Scotland, mark this important day. That is the reason for the debate, and I look forward to hearing members’ insights during the afternoon.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister

is making a very valid point about the disproportionate underrepresentation of women in certain career and sector areas. Has any analysis been done on the representation of women in apprenticeships in the sectors that the minister has in mind?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Yes,

there has been analysis of that. I do not have the figures to hand right now, but I would be happy to write to the member to provide those details. Sadly, we see the gender segregation in colleges, universities and the wider labour market replicated in the apprenticeship frameworks. There has been progress, and I am sure that Stephen Kerr, like other members, would welcome that. Activity is under way. An equalities action plan is in place through Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish apprenticeship advisory board has made a series of recommendations specifically on gender. Those recommendations were provided at the end of last year and we are currently considering how to respond. As I said, I would be happy to write to Stephen Kerr with more information.

I will reflect on some of Scotland’s pioneers in the STEM sector. For more than a century, Scottish women have not only played influential roles in the industry itself but helped to provide the funding and infrastructure that is necessary to allow other women to progress.

On her death in 1872, the mathematician, astronomer and scientist Mary Somerville was dubbed

“The Queen of 19th Century Science”.

Her books were bestsellers, and such was her standing that hers was the first signature on John Stuart Mill’s petition to Parliament calling for votes for women. Mary Somerville holds the distinction of being the first female scientist featured on a British bank note, following a public vote.

In the field of medicine, the Edinburgh seven were trailblazers, as the first group of matriculated undergraduate female students not only at any Scottish university but at any British university. They began studying medicine at the University of Edinburgh in 1869, and although, scandalously, they were ultimately prevented from graduating and qualifying as doctors, the campaign that they fought gained national attention and won them many supporters. That campaign led to a change in legislation in 1876 that ensured that women could be licensed to practise medicine and to legislation that would ensure that women could study at university. From 1894, women were allowed to graduate from the University of Edinburgh, with the first female doctors graduating in 1896.

Victoria Drummond of Perthshire was the first woman marine engineer in the United Kingdom and the first woman member of the Institute of Marine Engineers. In the second world war, she served at sea as an engineering officer in the Merchant Navy and was recognised for bravery at sea under enemy fire. She was inducted into the Scottish Engineering Hall of Fame in 2018.

It is important that we recognise, mark and celebrate that lineage, but just as important—perhaps more important, lest we fall foul of thinking of Scotland’s scientific achievements and endeavours only in the past tense—we must recognise and celebrate what is happening today. Scotland has some incredible women who are making groundbreaking discoveries here and now. There are many examples that I could give—I hope to hear many today—but I will highlight just a few.

Professor Elham Kashefi was appointed as National Quantum Computing Centre chief scientist in November 2022, and leads the University of Edinburgh’s quantum software lab.

In May 2021, Professor Catherine Heymans of the University of Edinburgh became the first woman to be appointed as Scotland’s astronomer royal. She is best known for her work on using the technique of cosmic weak gravitational lensing to learn more about the universe.

Professor Sheila Rowan of the University of Glasgow became the president of the UK Institute of Physics in October 2021. She is part of the international research collaboration that first detected the existence of gravitational waves, opening up new ways to understand our universe. She was also chief scientific adviser for Scotland from 2016 to 2021.

Professor Rebecca Goss at the University of St Andrews is making great strides in the field of chemical synthesis using biotechnology. In 2022, she spun out X-Genix, a biotech start-up with the goal of enabling discovery of better drugs for better health globally. It received £2 million of investment to translate the technology and was recognised through winning first place in Converge 2022, which is Scotland’s top spin-out competition, with a prize of £69,000.

In the Scottish Government, Professor Julie Fitzpatrick is Scotland’s chief scientific adviser. A veterinary surgeon by training, Julie champions putting science and evidence at the heart of Government policy making and she is spearheading a range of activities in support of that. As the minister for science, she is an invaluable source of support to me.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Does the minister agree that women and girls from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community are underrepresented among the names that he has listed? Is there any data around that?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Yes, we will have that information. In the same vein as my response to Stephen Kerr,

if we look at apprenticeships specifically, gender is only one of the characteristics on which we know that we need to make progress through the equalities action plan that Skills Development Scotland is working to.

We will have that information, and I am happy to provide the detail to the member.

For all the outstanding achievements that we will—rightly—recognise today, as has been alluded to, we know there is much more to be done. Many of our learned institutions are carrying out important work to understand the issues, including the Institute of Physics and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I take the opportunity to recognise the role of the RSC’s first female president, Professor Lesley Yellowlees of the University of Edinburgh, who was appointed in 2012, in championing that. They have produced a number of reports over the past few years to highlight the issues involved, including recruitment, retention and promotion, research culture, and pay and reward. Crucially, they also suggest ways to address the underrepresentation of women in science, some of which involve tackling deep-seated problems around inequalities.

For many years now, Scotland has championed the importance of women in the STEM sector as part of our wider efforts to address the issue of gender inequality, which sits at the heart of our vision for an equal Scotland. Tackling gender inequality across different areas of the education and learning landscape is fundamental to changing perceptions about STEM and challenging assumptions about who does what in relation to gender and wider inequalities. At the same time, STEM is integral to Scotland’s future economic and social development, and the Scottish Government wants everyone in Scotland to build a strong foundation of STEM skills and knowledge.

Bringing that together, the developing the young workforce strategy includes specific actions around promoting career options to different protected groups, designing senior phase vocational pathways to improve gender balance, reducing occupational segregation in modern apprenticeships and embedding equality across the curriculum for excellence, recognising that assumptions about which gender undertakes which subject matter or pursues which career starts early.

I was delighted to be at Dundee Science Centre as part of the Dundee science festival, where I met a group of enthusiastic young people from Rosebank primary school; the girls in attendance were engaged in the activities that were under way.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I

hear what the minister is saying about the encouragement of girls, even in primary school. However, to my mind, that could start earlier, by creating specialist teaching materials for nurseries, geared specifically towards girls’ engagement in science. Is that something that he might agree with?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We are always keen to do what we can to ensure that we engage as early as possible with young people, particularly young girls, to make sure that we are tackling these challenges. I know that activity is under way in the early years and learning sector. That is something that I would commend and be keen to see more of.

Other areas of activity that we are supporting include funding for Equate Scotland to support the recruitment, retention, return and success of women in jobs where they are significantly underrepresented. Funding is also provided to Careerwise, which offers female undergraduates paid work placements with STEM employers.

Each college has measures in place to help to reduce gender disparities within STEM subject areas. The ambition is that, by 2030, no college or university subject will have a gender imbalance greater than 75 per cent of one gender.

As the international day of women and girls in science demonstrates, collective action is needed, and I have highlighted some of the activity that is under way. I have framed the motion in terms that I think that we can all unite around, as I note that it is not just Government that has to make this effort; all of us collectively as publicly elected representatives must do that.

I hope that members will support the Government’s motion. We will be supporting both amendments. I look forward to hearing what members have to say.

I move,

That the Parliament commends the International Day of Women and Girls in Science as a celebration of the achievements of generations of female scientists; recognises that female scientists and innovators are integral to Scotland’s world-leading science and research excellence, and addressing the global challenges faced; affirms its commitment to tackle gender inequality across different areas of the education and learning landscape, and commends the support given by a range of organisations in helping to drive forward the Scottish Government’s commitment to gender equality in science.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am delighted to be opening today’s debate for the Scottish Conservatives. The debate marks the international day of women and girls in science. As shadow minister for higher and further education, youth employment and training, and an advocate for women reaching their full potential, I have proposed an amendment to the motion.

Marie Curie said:

“Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas”.

For a long time, women’s contribution in science was hidden or discredited. That point is well articulated in the University of Glasgow women in STEM blog. Challenges for women in science in the past and present have built a sense of camaraderie among female scientists to ensure that that does not determine the future.

I am extremely impressed by the efforts of many institutions and grass-roots groups across Scotland and around the world to tackle the gender gap and make science an accessible, attractive career for young women. I will name a few that are close to home. I admire the work that is being done by FemEng at the University of Glasgow to encourage girls at school to seriously get involved and consider a future in science. FemEng has collaborated with the University of Rwanda and the University of Malawi to inspire young budding female scientists in schools.

In my region, the University of the West of Scotland has also made tremendous steps in increasing female participation in science. It has had more than 2,000 new female science undergraduates in each of the past three years. Nearly 30 percent of women in science subjects at the university have come from the 20 percent most deprived areas in Scotland and it has supported more than four fifths of women science graduates into employment or further education within the first 18 months of their graduation.

The University of the West of Scotland also boasts some tremendous scientific contributions by female scientists, such as that of Professor Fiona Henriquez, the woman behind the team who developed the world’s first treatment for a devastating eye condition that affects millions of people every year; and Marija Nekrasova, a chemistry student who was enabled by UWS to go to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida to watch her experiment launch into orbit on SpaceX CRS-26.

Recently, I visited the British Heart Foundation’s research excellence centre at the University of Glasgow and was overcome by the work that is being done there. I was introduced to six students, four of whom were young women. It is difficult to put into words the immense impact that their research will have. One excellent example is that of Caitlin Cosgrove, who is trying to identify micro-ribonucleic acid molecules that may be beneficial in strokes, and could in the future be inserted in the brain to target bad cells.

I thank the Royal Society of Chemistry for its briefing, which sets out how addressing the gaps in data, funding and flexibility will help to enable the equal participation of those from underrepresented groups. In addition, increasing accountability and eliminating bias will go a long way to build cultures of belonging.

I am happy to support the Government’s motion, which speaks about the importance of women to Scotland’s world-leading science and research sector. Likewise, the Labour amendment makes some important points about how gender inequality in STEM begins from a young age. However, there are areas where the Government’s motion could have gone further. My amendment sets out the importance of inclusion, and of ensuring that no woman feels unable to enter the STEM sector because of her gender, ethnicity or disability. As we recognise the international day of women and girls in science, it is important that we celebrate the contributions of women in all their diversity. Therefore, I hope that members from across the chamber will support my amendment.

It is clear that there is more to be done to ensure that STEM is accessible to all. That means addressing the root causes of the inequalities that exist at all levels, ensuring that schools are able to tackle inequality from a young age and recognising that unlocking the talents of women in all their diversity is the key to empowering our science sector. Although great work by universities, colleges and grass-roots groups is under way, they cannot do it alone. It is therefore the duty of all members in the chamber to work together, find solutions and work towards eliminating any remaining barriers for good.

I move amendment S6M-07852.2, to insert at end:

“; notes that the Parliament must build on the work being done by a range of organisations to inspire young women and girls to engage in science and STEM subjects from early years education and throughout their education journey; recognises the need to improve diversity and inclusion for women; commits to exploring further pathways to ensure that no woman is denied the ability to enter the science and STEM sector as a result of their gender, ethnicity or disability, and further commits to removing the barriers that are hindering diversity and inclusion in science.”

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Across the long stretch of our written history, the achievements of women in science have been neglected or, worse still, subsumed into the achievements of their male counterparts. Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell is an astrophysicist who is best known for her discovery of radio pulsars in 1967, which was one of the great astronomical discoveries of the 20th

century. However, when the Nobel prize in physics was awarded in 1974 for her discovery, Bell Burnell was not one of the recipients: two men were honoured instead.

Even so, the light of Dame Jocelyn’s brilliance could not be dimmed or kept hidden by cumulative millennia of patriarchy and misogyny. She has since become the first female president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and is now chancellor of the University of Dundee. Progress, wherever that is found, should always be welcomed.

I have been privileged to work under outstanding female academic leaders: Professor Georgina Follett, Professor Dame Sue Black and Professor Niamh Nic Daéid are extraordinary leaders in this country in their fields of design, forensic anthropology and forensic science. There is also a whole new generation of inspiring female academic leaders in Scotland who are transforming our great universities, including Professor Clare Bond in earth science and net zero at the University of Aberdeen, Professor Natalie Coull in cybersecurity at Abertay and many, many more.

However, those examples are of women who have successfully navigated what is termed the “leaky pipeline” of talent. Many women and girls do not continue STEM subjects at university or carry on into STEM careers. Data published by the RSE shows that more than 70 per cent of female STEM graduates leave STEM-related careers. Athena scientific women’s academic network programmes—where they have been adopted and invested in—are helping, but the pandemic has been a further setback to the careers of women who carry the burden of care.

Unfortunately, the loss of girls from STEM begins far earlier. That is reflected in the statistics for subject uptake, which remain woefully unequal. In 2021, only 20 per cent of candidates taking national 5 chemistry were female. Whatever the Scottish Government may tell us, interventions in that area have had no discernible impact. The percentage of female candidates for national 5 chemistry has not changed for years and the figure for those taking national 5 physics has only inched up from 28 per cent to 29 per cent in the past three years. Those statistics are hardly cause for celebration or self-congratulation.

We also know that we have a dire lack of STEM teachers in schools and that the number of those taking STEM subjects to senior level is plummeting.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to Michael Marra for giving way during such an excellent speech.

Part of the problem is the recruitment of STEM teachers. Would Mr Marra be open to considering ways of broadening the routes into STEM teaching in order to encourage a greater uptake in interest, particularly from people who may be further on in their careers and may have much to give back, particularly to young women?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Mr Marra.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Such ideas are certainly worthy of consideration. It is imperative that we look for new and innovative ways of getting people into our STEM classrooms so that we can make good on that shortfall.

Computing science, in particular, is an unfolding disaster, with a curriculum in dire need of revision and schools being priced out of the market for those who might teach it, all at a time when the economy desperately needs more of that knowledge, rather than less of it.

Our job here, as Mr Kerr points out, is not to be commentators but to make change. One important area of STEM that desperately needs more women is our tech industry. The Office for National Statistics has shown that only 23.4 per cent of the tech industry workforce in Scotland is female. Last night, Pauline McNeill and I hosted a round-table meeting in Parliament on violence against women and girls. The proliferation of misogynistic content online, the impact that that is having on our culture and the consequential rising tide of violence against women and girls is abundantly clear.

A better gender balance in the technology workforce, where products are conceived and designed, must be part of that solution. Risks are better understood where gender design can prevent harm and a better culture can be created. Professor Lesley Yellowlees’s advice paper on diversity in STEM for the Royal Society of Edinburgh calls on the Scottish Government to lead the way by using the powers and influence that it has now to shape societal attitudes to gender inequality and parental roles and, crucially, to target key influencers of children and young people to challenge gender stereotypes. That would show leadership, which would be demonstrated by having women in key positions.

Professor Yellowlees’s report also calls for greater investment in STEM-specific data collection, in order to better understand intersectionality and the variations between sectors and regions. I ask the minister to consider those calls in his closing remarks.

Rather than resigning ourselves to being the narrators of events, I urge the Scottish Government to take on all the RSE’s recommendations and to do all that is in its power to implement them.

I move amendment S6M-07852.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that gender inequality in participation in science and other STEM subjects starts at a young age, and considers that Scotland’s schools have a vital role to play in ensuring that STEM subjects are available to young women and encouraging young women to consider careers in science.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

When I was making my choices for fourth year at school, my mother accompanied me to meet Mr Hayward. At that time, I was keen to abandon maths—I was bored with maths and had had enough of it. That probably tells now, because I was in charge of the finances of my party. Nevertheless, I was determined to abandon maths. However, Mr Hayward repeatedly said that maths was a must for boys, and my mother’s face went brighter red the more he said it. Even at that time, she was incandescent about the discrimination that was built into the careers advice at our school. It is very clear that

we saw it before then, and it

has been evident ever since

.

Today, we are told by the Institute of Physics that physics is the fourth most popular subject for boys, but that, for girls, it comes 16th. Therefore, something is still wrong at the heart of our society and, perhaps, within our careers advice.

It is no wonder that sometimes women do not want to choose those subjects. If they are going to be the only girl or woman in the class, why would they choose them? We know that in politics: if you think that you are going to be the only person in the room like you, why would you go in?

If we are going to get change, we need to start that change. Thankfully, the situation is a little better now. According to the RSC, half of the people who sit higher chemistry are female; at advanced higher, the number goes up a little bit, which is good; and at university, when people are studying for a degree in chemistry, the level goes up to 60 per cent. However, then it absolutely plummets—at professor level, the number goes down to 9 per cent. That is a clear indication that there is something wrong with the career path in science. The higher up we go, the less likely it is that there will be women.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Does Willie Rennie believe that parents also have an important role to play in the change that we need to happen? You talked about your mother going red. Do you think that the Government needs to include parents in the programmes that it is working on?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please ask questions through the chair, Ms Gosal.

Mr Rennie, I can give you that time back.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Yes, of course, parents are an important factor. We have had recent discussions about apprenticeships, and this is where Stephen Kerr’s point comes in. Trying to get more people to do apprenticeships rather than go through the university route is a real challenge, and a lot of it is down to the influence of parents and society, and peer pressure.

The same applies to this area. Stephen Kerr asked the minister for some figures. Of those people who take modern apprenticeships, 38 per cent are female, but the level goes down to 8 per cent for engineering and energy apprenticeships. That is a dramatic difference and, again, shows in-built discrimination in the system. We need to change that, and part of the issue is pressure from society, parents and schools.

What do we do? What steps do we take? The Scottish schools education research centre runs good projects with the STEM ambassadors, allowing people such as my wife, who is a scientist, to go into schools and encourage young women and men to take up science. Those projects are important—they are trying to get a million interactions with young people.

However, there is also something that we can do in policy terms. It is of great credit to the Government that the last few chief scientific advisers have been female. Anne Glover was fantastic and a great advocate; she went off to Europe to do the same role there. Julie Fitzpatrick is doing a great job now, too.

We need to call out the discrimination, as Michael Marra did earlier. However, we could use funding to incentivise organisations to have plans in place and take steps to encourage more women into all these subjects. We could have some requirements, just as we do for the likes of Amazon, with regard to apprenticeships, paying tax and paying the living wage. Perhaps we should use funding to incentivise organisations to make that change.

Education Scotland’s improving gender balance and equalities programme, which the minister referred to, is great. Education Scotland is changing, but I hope that the programme will continue, because it is important that, if something is working, it is allowed to continue to do that good work.

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

Today we celebrate the international day of women and girls in science. Women are a pioneering and unique body within the sciences, yet they remain underrepresented.

Earlier this week, I met Professor Linda Lawton of Robert Gordon University to discuss women and girls in STEM, as part of my preparation for a members’ debate. An internationally renowned researcher in the field of toxic cyanobacteria, Professor Lawton perhaps summed up the current position when she said:

“Well it doesn’t help that if you google the word ‘professor’ you get a picture of a man with white hair, wearing glasses.”

She was wrong: I got a compete screen full of men—and only men.

There has been progress in the past decade or so for girls and women in STEM education, but also for women entering the STEM workforce. It is a slow burn, but such progress will be absolutely essential if we are to tackle our climate emergency.

I will highlight two examples of work in the north-east that underpins that trend: one in education and the other led by industry. The Aberdeen computing collaborative is a collaboration between Aberdeen City Council, North East Scotland College, Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen that seeks to improve alignment between the school curriculum and the associated demand for skills created by the next phase in our energy production sector and other growth sectors. I note the reference in Michael Marra’s amendment in that regard.

The collaboration also aims to increase the profile of computing science learning and to attract graduates into computer science, including teaching. That fantastic initiative aligns with the Scottish Government’s STEM education and training strategy, which outlines our ambition to encourage girls and young women to engage with computing science with a view to strengthening Scotland’s future tech sector. It was therefore bitterly disappointing that a recent just transition funding bid to support the collaborative was unsuccessful. I ask the minister to give an assurance that comprehensive feedback and advice will be provided to the collaborative to inform and support its future applications, which I hope will succeed.

Turning to industry, girls in energy is a one-year course delivered by Shell, in partnership with North East Scotland College and Fife College, to senior-phase girls that helps them to rethink preconceptions about the energy sector and hear about the range of careers available in it. Recently, I joined this year’s cohort of around 100 girls in Aberdeen. I was blown away by the way in which they worked together to find innovative solutions to food production, heating and energy-related challenges.