Scottish Parliament, 22 June 2023

338 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Question 1 was not lodged.

Public Money (Transparency)

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has in place to ensure that there is full transparency when it comes to the use of public money. (S6O-02417)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government is committed to a transparent Scottish budget and has robust controls in place for approving financial expenditure and investment. We comply with all Scottish Parliament and Audit Scotland financial auditing and reporting requirements, having provided unqualified accounts since 2007, and work with Parliament and its committees to improve budgets. The Scottish budget and any end year revisions are scrutinised by the Parliament, with a minimum of two budget updates being published each year. To support improved transparency, significantly enhanced budget revision information is now provided to assist the Finance and Public Administration Committee.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have seen huge amounts of public money flow from the Government to the Scottish National Investment Bank and then invested by it. Some of that, as we learned at yesterday’s meeting of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, is now lost.

When the legislation establishing the bank was passed, it mandated that ministers establish an advisory group to oversee the bank’s objectives, conduct and performance. Was that group ever created? If not, why not? If it has not been created, is the bank operating illegally?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

First, I want to recognise the excellent work that the Scottish National Investment Bank has been undertaking since its establishment in supporting a range of businesses and economic activity right across Scotland.

Of course, like all public bodies, the Scottish Government is committed to the highest standards. I am happy to come back to the member in writing on the specific points that he raises. However, as I say, we are committed to high standards of transparency in all matters pertaining to the use of public money.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the minister agree that it really is farcical for a member of the Conservative Party to stand up in any chamber in these islands and ask about transparency relating to the use of public money when that member’s London bosses wasted billions during the Covid pandemic and hand out peerages in return for donations?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Mr McMillan makes an important point. Fundamentally, the issue with the Conservatives—this is unsurprising—is a complete lack of self-awareness. However, if one is a member of a party that has inflicted austerity on so many people, that inflicts the rape clause on so many people and that applies an appalling policy towards migrants in small boats, then perhaps a lack of self-awareness and a detachment from reality is the only way that one can live with oneself.

The Presiding Officer

Before I take the next question, I say to the member who has just asked a question that he should in future bear in mind the need for questions to relate to matters for which the Scottish Government has general responsibility.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The truth is that both Governments operate on the basis of appearing to be secretive and lacking in transparency. Papers from NHS Highland suggest that there is a projected overspend of £1 billion in the Scottish Government’s health budget, but ministers remain in a state of denial. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to follow that movement of money. So, will the minister publish a detailed financial explanation of how those pressures have arisen and what action will be taken?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I sat in Parliament last week and reported on the provisional outturn; I have appeared on numerous occasions before the Finance and Public Administration Committee on budget-revision matters; and we publish full consolidated accounts, which have received unqualified audits for every year that we have had an SNP-led Government in Scotland. We provide an abundance of information to ensure the utmost transparency on matters of public finance. Of course, as I have said previously, I am committed to continued engagement with the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and any member who happens to be interested in these matters, to ensure that we can improve and enhance the transparency of public finances in Scotland.

Police Scotland (Visual Recorded Interviews Pilot)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the visual recorded interviews pilot, which involves Police Scotland recording the witness statements of adult and 16 and 17-year-old complainers involving allegations of rape and attempted rape, including any learning from the cases involved as they progressed through the courts. (S6O-02418)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The two-year pilot that was funded by the Scottish Government concluded in May 2022. The aim of the pilot was for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to use the interviews as a complainer’s evidence, where appropriate, should the case proceed to trial and to make an associated application to facilitate the cross-examination of the complainer by means of an evidence by commissioner hearing. We are carrying out an interim review of the pilot. When sufficient numbers of cases involved in the pilot progress to trial, we will complete a full and meaningful evaluation.

Ash Regan

I think that everyone would agree that there are very clear benefits to complainers in not being retraumatised by the continual retelling of their story over and over again. For those who might be interested in the issue, that is illustrated very well by the television true crime series “Unbelievable”, which shows the compassionate and not-so-compassionate treatment of victims of such crimes.

That type of video-recorded evidence is now standard in many other jurisdictions, and I am pleased that the minister said that there will be an interim report on progress. I am keen to know what the timetable for the interim report is and what progress there is on the potential roll-out of the policy across the rest of the country, as it is a key part of improving evidence gathering and lessening the impact on victims.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I am in complete agreement with Ash Regan. As only a small number of cases have progressed to trial to date, it is too early for an evaluation to make a meaningful assessment. It has therefore been agreed that justice analytical services will undertake an interim review of the pilot. Although the pilot has formally concluded, VRI still operates in the areas that form part of the pilot approach, with training continuing to be rolled out by Police Scotland. An internal evaluation of the pilot has been undertaken, and it will be signed off once the assessment has been completed by COPFS. I will get back to Ash Regan on the timescales.

Rights Respecting Schools Awards (Support in 2023-24)

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what support it will give in the academic year 2023-24 for the rights respecting schools awards programme. (S6O-02419)

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

In May 2022, the Scottish Government awarded UNICEF UK a three-year grant to offer its rights respecting schools award to all state primary, secondary and special education needs schools in Scotland. During that period, the costs of participating in the programme are met at a national level rather than by individual schools or local authorities. That has removed local financial barriers to participation and secured an offer for all schools, with significant public sector efficiency savings. In the 2023-24 financial year, UNICEF UK will receive £300,000 from the Scottish Government for that purpose.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The scheme has reached out to 57 per cent of schools, 563 of our institutions have silver or gold stage awards, and registration will remain free until March 2025. However, some of the lesson plans and equipment that are needed come at a cost of £175 or more, and those costs need to be met by the schools themselves. A child in Scotland understanding their rights is fundamental to their understanding their place here. Does the minister agree that the learning of those rights is somewhat challenged by the position with regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, in that children are unable to pursue some of their rights? When will we see a change in that?

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

My colleagues and I have affirmed our commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill on multiple occasions. The delay to that bill need not and should not prevent schools from building a rights respecting culture.

As well as the rights respecting schools awards, we are aware of other great practices under way in schools, including through the dignity in school programme, which is delivered by the Children’s Parliament. Education Scotland has also developed a professional learning module that aims to raise awareness and develops knowledge and understanding of the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It helps establishments to self-evaluate their practice in light of the UNCRC and supports improvement planning in them.

Childminding Development Officers

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether childminding development officers have a significant role to play in supporting and assisting childminders in their professional development. (S6O-02420)

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

The Scottish Government recognises and values the unique role that childminders play in delivering early learning and childcare to families across Scotland and is of course keen to see our childminders supported in their professional capacity. I am therefore supportive of any additional support and assistance that is made available to our ELC professionals at local levels to aid their professional development.

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

I thank the minister for her answer and I share her views on the valuable contribution of childminders.

I refer to written answer S6W-19156, dated 21 June this year, which advises that the Scottish Borders have a childminding development officer contracted through the Scottish Childminding Association to Scottish Borders Council. Unfortunately, local childminders have advised me that the position is not to be renewed and that causes them and me concern. Does the minister agree?

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

As the childminding development officers or SCMA employees are contracted to work with local authorities, any employment or contracting decisions regarding those roles would be a matter for the relevant local authority and the SCMA to determine. However, childminders are a hugely valued part of our ELC sector and I encourage local authorities, as commissioners of services, to continuously consider what support is available for them at the local level.

For its part, the Scottish Government is working closely with the SCMA to promote childminding. We have supported a successful childminder recruitment pilot, which aims to recruit and train 100 new childminders in remote and rural communities, with a second phase now trialling the recruitment model in urban communities. We are also piloting activity with the SCMA across six local authorities to support childminders with streamlining, thereby reducing the administrative burdens that are associated with their practice, and we will continue to work with sector representatives.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The problem is not with professional development but with encouraging people to enter and stay in the childcare profession. The Scottish Childminding Association said that 34 per cent of childminders had quit since funding was increased for early education and childcare in 2016. That figure is expected to rise to 64 per cent by 2026. I know that the minister shares my passion for early years learning, so will she update Parliament on any progress that her Government has made to tackle those worrying statistics?

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

The Scottish Government is working to increase the number of childminders who are operating across Scotland. That work includes supporting the innovative SCMA-led Scottish rural childminding partnership recruitment model and its extension into urban areas. The pilot makes a package of fully funded support and training available to successful applicants, providing everything that is needed to establish a new childminding business from home.

As I have said, childminders are a hugely valuable part of our ELC sector, not only because of their involvement in funded ELC, but because they have a vital role to play as we deliver our programme for government commitments to extend funded early learning and build that system of school-age childcare. We will continue to work with the SCMA, other sector representatives and statutory bodies to address the issues that affect recruitment and retention, including by reducing administrative burdens.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The loss of funding for the SCMA childminding support officer in the Scottish Borders is deeply regrettable, but is it not also an example of Scottish National Party council cuts? Will the minister therefore now agree to look again at the support that the Government gives councils to discharge their 1,140 hours plan through childminding and nursery provision?

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

I think that I have been clear about my support for childminders who, as I have said, are a hugely valuable part of our ELC sector. I am always happy to consider any proposals that would aid the delivery of the Scottish Government’s policy on early learning and childcare. However, the posts that the member has referred to support delivery in local areas and I want to see local authorities, as commissioners of services, consider priority in their areas in the first instance.

The Presiding Officer

Question 6 was not lodged.

Employee-owned and Co-operative Businesses

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it is promoting and encouraging an increase in employee-owned and co-operative models of businesses as part of the shift to a wellbeing economy. (S6O-02422)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I must first declare an interest as a Co-operative member.

As we approach tomorrow’s employee ownership day, I thank Claire Baker for highlighting the importance of Scotland’s thriving co-operative and employee-owned businesses. Co-operative and inclusive business models play a critical role in economic recovery by supporting the Scottish Government’s aim of creating a fairer, stronger and more democratic wellbeing economy.

Co-operative Development Scotland, funded through Scottish Enterprise, continues to work to raise awareness of the value of co-operative and employee ownership models and provides specialist advice and support to businesses and community groups that want to adopt those models.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In March 2022, there were 195 employee-owned businesses operating in Scotland compared with around 100 in 2018. At that pace, it will take at least another 12 years to meet the target of 500, rather than the seven years that the Government has left to meet the 2030 deadline. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the review of how to significantly increase employee-owned businesses, which the Government committed to in its programme for government, and what related action will take place this year to kickstart the significant increase that we all want to see?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am happy to provide an update. As we set out in the national strategy for economic transformation and in the programme for government 2022-23, which Claire Baker refers to, a review will be conducted on how to support Scotland’s social enterprise co-operative and employee-owned business sectors to grow. The review will commence this autumn. An initial pre-review stakeholder discussion will be held this month. That initial meeting will be chaired by my colleague, the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As the cabinet secretary has rightly identified, tomorrow is employee ownership day, when thousands of employee-owners, employee-owned businesses and supporters of employee ownership from across Scotland and the United Kingdom come together to raise awareness of the benefits and impact of employee-owned businesses. I have been delighted this week to host an exhibition by Scotland for Employee Ownership, Co-operative Development Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and the Employee Ownership Association in the garden lobby of the Parliament and I would commend the stand to members.

What is the Scottish Government doing to celebrate and promote employee ownership day?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Ivan McKee for supporting this week’s exhibition and the work that he did in his previous role to support the sector. I join him in commending the exhibition to all members.

The Minister for

Community Wealth and Public Finance, Tom Arthur, as co-chair of Scotland for Employee Ownership, met fellow board members yesterday, including the Employee Ownership Association. As well as supporting this week’s exhibition, the board discussed plans for further events later in the year.

Food Waste

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of whether its target for a one third reduction in food waste by 2025 will be met. (S6O-02423)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government’s commitment to reduce food waste will deliver waste reduction while maximising carbon savings.

Based on robust waste compositional analysis, we aim to publish an estimate on food waste levels in Scotland in the coming months. That will help to inform our understanding of progress against our 2025 target. It will also inform proposals in the upcoming waste route map and refreshed food waste reduction action plan, which are both due for publication this year.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer. However, earlier this week, the cabinet secretary was unable to say how much the average food waste reduction has been each year since 2016, when the target was set. It needs to be approximately 33,000 tonnes per year. When setting the target, the Scottish Government would clearly know that. Can the minister—this is a very easy question—actually tell members in the chamber what the figure is today?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

One of the reports that gives an indication of our achievements in reducing food waste is the Scottish waste from all sources report from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which reported that food waste has fallen to record low levels. However, the Scottish Government is committed to improving the consistency of food waste data to better inform our reduction efforts. Members will know that the cyberattack on SEPA in 2020 significantly impacted food waste recycling data collection. Also, obtaining frequent and accurate food waste data takes time and can be expensive, so we are working to secure accurate food waste data through obtaining a waste compositional analysis, led by Zero Waste Scotland and SEPA. That analysis will inform the food waste reduction action plan review that is due this year.

The Presiding Officer

We will have a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Motion of No Confidence

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. This week, the veteran Scottish National Party MSP Fergus Ewing voted against his own Government when he refused to support Humza Yousaf’s decision to back Green minister Lorna Slater in a vote of no confidence. There are reports that Humza Yousaf is going to sack Fergus Ewing because of that. Is he going to do that?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will not go into matters that are for our group, and I will take no lectures on leadership from Douglas Ross—the leader of the Scottish Conservatives who could not muster his own Scottish Tory MPs this week to vote to sanction Boris Johnson—[

Interruption

.]

Douglas Ross says that they did, but the soon to be Lord Jack did not. Let us be honest—the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is not Douglas Ross but the Cabinet’s man in Scotland, Alister Jack.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Let us start with a number of areas. This is a Government issue, because it was a Government vote on a motion of no confidence in a Government minister. Surely, Humza Yousaf can be honest with people across Scotland if he takes it seriously that one of his own MSPs refused to support him.

On the day when farmers and crofters from all over Scotland come to Edinburgh for the start of the Royal Highland Show, the First Minister is reported to be considering sacrificing a former cabinet secretary for rural affairs and one of the longest-serving SNP MSPs for a Green minister who has failed time and time again—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you!

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Fergus Ewing backed a Scottish Conservative motion of no confidence in the Green minister Lorna Slater because of her dreadful performance in post and especially because of the disastrous handling of the deposit return scheme, which has cost businesses time and money and has completely flopped. For Green support, the First Minister is sacrificing Fergus Ewing—the son of Winnie Ewing, one of the SNP’s most famous representatives—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members, let us have orderly

conduct, please.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We have gone from, “Stop the world—the SNP wants to get on,” to, “Stop the SNP—Fergus Ewing is getting off.” Why is the First Minister considering losing a party stalwart, who is standing up for Scottish businesses, while keeping an incompetent Green minister who has lost businesses’ confidence?

The First Minister

I remind Douglas Ross that the Parliament voted to back Lorna Slater and the Government in the vote of no confidence. I will tell members why that was. The Parliament did that because the deposit return scheme was sabotaged—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, First Minister—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

What are—

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Hoy. I ask all members who feel compelled to intervene any time that a member is asking or responding to a question to cease. We will conduct our proceedings in an orderly manner, as is required by our standing orders.

The First Minister

Conservative members

do not want to hear this because the blame lies squarely with the United Kingdom Government for sabotaging the deposit return scheme. This Parliament backed the Scottish Government and Lorna Slater in the vote of no confidence because members know that it was the UK Government’s 11th-hour intervention that completely torpedoed the scheme.

What have we seen from the UK Government? What have we seen from Douglas Ross? We have seen more flip-flopping from him on the scheme. He stood on not one manifesto but two manifestos to include glass in the scheme, but, when Alister Jack gets involved, Douglas Ross suddenly changes his tune.

How dare Douglas Ross talk about the impact on farmers when it is the hard Brexit that the UK Government imposed that has caused such damage to our farmers up and down the country. Members do not have to take my word for it—they can take NFU Scotland’s word for it. Its president, Martin Kennedy, said:

“The Brexit dividend ... certainly hasn't come about at all. And all the things that we were concerned about, the whole reason that we backed remain at the time, they’ve all come to fruition.”—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

If Douglas Ross does not want to listen to me, perhaps he should listen to the farmers of this country.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I would love to listen to Humza Yousaf actually give an answer to a question. There are serious questions raised about the conduct of one of his MSPs, who has voted against his Government in a vote of no confidence. If he says that it was the right decision to back Lorna Slater, what does that say about Fergus Ewing? It looks as though Humza Yousaf, the First Minister who will not suspend Nicola Sturgeon, who is under police investigation, will suspend Fergus Ewing for challenging Green incompetence.

The First Minister has also said that the deal with the Greens is worth its weight in gold, but then he quoted NFU Scotland. So, let me do the same. At 10.50 this morning, from the Royal Highland Show, the National Farmers Union Scotland highlighted its concerns about the nationalist pact with the Greens. It warns—and this is a quotation from NFU president Martin Kennedy—that a

“hardening of the green agenda ... is giving cause for serious concern not only for rural businesses but for the Scottish economy as a whole.

Those are not my words but the words of the NFU president in Scotland. He went on to say that the NFUS doubts very much that solutions to key rural issues will be possible while the Bute house agreement continues. In the week of the Royal Highland Show, Scotland’s biggest agricultural event, does that not show that the SNP has abandoned rural Scotland?

The First Minister

The SNP represents most of rural Scotland, so let us leave that to the verdict of the Scottish—[

Interruption.

]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, members.

The First Minister

We were talking about a recycling scheme a moment ago. Thank goodness that brass can be recycled, because there is plenty of brass neck from Douglas Ross when he talks about the conduct of parliamentarians. For the leader of the Scottish Conservatives to talk about the conduct of parliamentarians after Boris Johnson has just been sanctioned—[

Interruption

.]—this very week shows an incredible level—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

First Minister—

The First Minister

—of hypocrisy—

The Presiding Officer

Members, you will be aware of the requirement to conduct yourselves in an orderly manner. I will be grateful if members reflect on how they are behaving at this moment. People have gathered here to listen to questions and responses.

The First Minister

They do not want to listen. Listen to how they bark in defence of Boris Johnson whenever he is mentioned. It is simply a fact that the Conservatives have completely betrayed rural Scotland by imposing a hard Brexit on it. That is why the Conservatives will not back, for example, our sensible plans for a rural visa pilot scheme. That would help our agriculture community, our sector and our farmers up and down this country, who are suffering because of the hard Brexit that has been imposed by Douglas Ross’s Conservatives.

With regard to assisting rural Scotland as best we can, we know that rural Scotland is also suffering the consequences of the Tory cost of living crisis. High energy costs and high inflation have hit agricultural Scotland hard. That is why we provided support for community-led development, including £11.6 million in 2022-23 to more than 300 community-led projects, strengthening the resilience and sustainability of grass-roots rural community groups.

I will continue to show leadership not just of my party but of this country, to protect it from the harm, misery and, frankly, the cruelty of Conservative UK Governments.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is all just deflection and spin from this useless First Minister. Questions about—[

Interruption

.]—Fergus Ewing are answered—

The Presiding Officer

Mr Ross—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—

with answers about Boris Johnson—

The Presiding Officer

Mr Ross!

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Questions about—

The Presiding Officer

Mr Ross, let us conduct our business with courtesy and respect.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Well, I think that it is perfectly respectful. I think—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, members.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Anyone viewing the three attempted answers by the First Minister will reach the same conclusion as I have. Questions about Fergus Ewing and an SNP MSP are responded to with answers about Boris Johnson, and the First Minister then stands up to quote the president of NFU Scotland, not realising what he said at the Royal Highland Show this morning and the damning assessment of his Government and the SNP-Green coalition Government that was made by Martin Kennedy, from Scotland’s farmers and crofters.

When the First Minister visits the Royal Highland Show this week, I hope that he will listen to Scotland’s farming representatives and what they think about his Government.

It is clearer than ever before that the Green tail is wagging the SNP dog. The extremist Greens in Government seem to be calling an awful lot of the shots of this SNP Government. Their influence is having a damaging effect on every policy area. On the deposit return scheme, they are risking jobs and businesses. On farming, they are risking rural livelihoods. On gender reform, they are risking women’s rights. On fishing, they are risking the very future of the industry. On oil and gas, they are risking Scotland’s energy security.

The SNP is so out of touch with mainstream Scotland because it is being dragged that way by the Scottish Greens. Just why is Humza Yousaf, in the words of one of his MSPs, dancing to the tune of an extremist party?

The First Minister

I am being accused of being out of touch by the leader of the third party in Scotland. Of course, when Douglas Ross took over the mantle of leadership, his party was in second place. He has managed to lead it into third place. I am hardly going to take any lectures whatsoever on leadership from Douglas Ross. [

Interruption

.]

Let me talk to—

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, First Minister.

We will hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

Let me talk to some of the issues that Douglas Ross mentioned. He mentioned the deposit return scheme and the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Of course, in a number of areas, including those two, the Conservatives have done nothing but allow their colleagues at Westminster to undermine this Parliament and devolution. That is hardly a surprise from the party that opposed the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the first place.

Douglas Ross asks why we are in a co-operation agreement with the Greens. We are in that agreement because I think that people want different political parties—yes, the SNP and the Greens have differences—coming together to work in the national interest. [

Interruption

.] But why else is that co-operation agreement so important? It is because the number 1 issue facing not only Scotland but the entire planet is the climate emergency, which threatens the sustainability of our planet.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

You failed to meet your targets. You failed.

The Presiding Officer

Mr Ross!

The First Minister

T

ime and time again, when we bring forward actions to tackle that climate emergency, where are the Conservatives? They oppose every single measure. Why do they oppose every single measure? Because, frankly, they are morphing into climate change deniers.

Labour Energy Mission

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. On Monday, Labour launched our mission to make Scotland and the United Kingdom a clean energy superpower. It is an ambitious and far-reaching plan with four objectives. It will deliver lower bills—[

Interruption.

] Your constituents will get lower bills. It will deliver more jobs and greater energy security, and it will make the UK and Scotland a global climate leader. It is backed up by Great British Energy, a new publicly owned energy company that will be headquartered here in Scotland. Does the First Minister welcome this significant and transformative investment?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am delighted that Anas Sarwar has been able to clarify Scottish Labour’s position, because Labour has had about five different positions on this in about five different weeks.

I often say to Anas Sarwar that he is far more style than substance, so it was good to hear a little bit of substance from Scottish Labour today. The problem is, of course, that the substance was panned by those in the industry, panned by climate change activists, panned by the trade unions and, of course, panned by members of his own party. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

When we finally get Anas Sarwar talking about some substance, he manages to fluff it.

I say to Anas Sarwar very clearly that, when it comes to Scotland’s renewable energy, why on earth should the people of Scotland trust a Labour Party that, just a couple of weeks ago, scrapped its £28 billion green prosperity fund? Why on earth should they trust a Labour Party that has been part of successive UK Governments that have taken £350 billion from the north-east?

Anas Sarwar thinks that we should be thankful for the fact that Labour is going to base a little bit of a Government department here in Scotland. I will tell him what the people of Scotland want: they want full powers—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

—over our renewable energy so that it cannot simply be squandered by a UK Government, whether it is Tory or Labour.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Dearie, dearie me—that was a terrible answer from the First Minister. I am not sure whether this is the week that the First Minister should be talking about divisions in a political party.

This is a serious plan and a serious issue but, sadly, we do not have a serious First Minister, because Humza Yousaf cannot even bring himself to welcome these plans. This is billions of investment for Scotland, more jobs for Scotland, lower bills for Scotland and greater energy security for Scotland, but he would rather side with the Tories and—in his own words—“make life ... difficult for” Labour—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Let us look at what Humza Yousaf is opposing. He talks about substance, so let us look at the substance of what he is opposing: investment to make Scotland a leader in carbon capture and storage, onshore wind, offshore wind and hydrogen; 50,000 clean power jobs in Scotland; 17,000 jobs upgrading homes to make them energy efficient; 1.4 million homes upgraded; 1,000 local power projects, and GBE, a publicly owned energy company for the UK, headquartered here in Scotland. But no—Mr no style, no substance cannot support any of them.

Is the First Minister so blinded by his opposition to a Labour Government that he cannot accept what is good for Scotland?

The First Minister

Of course a GB energy company would be based in Scotland, because we have the majority of the renewables and natural resources

here.

Anas Sarwar says that we should be thanking our London masters for the crumbs off the table—well, forgive me if I have far more ambition for our country than this leader of the Scottish Labour Party.

Anas Sarwar—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Thank you!

The First Minister

Anas Sarwar says that he does not want to hear from me. I will tell him my thoughts clearly, but let us listen to what Barney Crockett, the former Labour leader of Aberdeen City Council, who quit following Labour’s green energy plan, said. He stated that Anas Sarwar should listen—[

Interruption

.]

Anas Sarwar asks whether we are siding with him. I am quoting a Labour councillor, for goodness’ sake, so why does Anas Sarwar not listen to what Barney Crockett had to say?

He said:

“Margaret Thatcher never delivered a more brutal put down of an industry than that delivered by Keir Starmer in Edinburgh”—

Members

Oh!

The First Minister

Oh, there is more to come.

Barney Crockett went on to say:

“Moreover, he avoided answering any direct question about Aberdeen. Rather, he deflected to Anas Sarwar who made no specific response about the city”,

because, not for the first time, Anas Sarwar and the Scottish Labour Party are prepared to completely abandon every single worker in the north-east.

We simply will not do that. When it comes to a just transition, we have put our money where our mouth is: a £500 million just transition fund. Scottish Labour will put the workers of the north-east on the scrap heap, and we will not be prepared to do that.

The Presiding Officer

I call Anas Sarwar. Mr Sarwar, I would be grateful if you could avoid the use of nicknames in future questions.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer,

I was responding to a criticism that the First Minister made of me—I was not using any nicknames to the First Minister—[

Interruption.

] I was clarifying that I was not using any nicknames.

It is really important to say that these plans will ensure that we do not make the same mistakes that Margaret Thatcher made, and the sleepwalking by this Government is what would repeat those mistakes.

This Scottish National Party Government has had 16 years to deliver for Scotland, and it has failed. In 2017, the SNP promised a public energy company—and then scrapped it. Alex Salmond told us that Scotland would be the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”. The SNP promised 130,000 green jobs, and failed to deliver. Nicola Sturgeon could have taken a public stake in ScotWind, but she chose to sell it off on the cheap.

After 16 years of the SNP in government, people across our country are looking for action, and Labour has a plan for more jobs, lower bills, greater energy security and climate leadership.

There is going to be a global leader in the clean energy revolution. The difference is that Keir Starmer and I believe that that global leader will be Scotland and the UK. Why do Humza Yousaf and the Tories not believe that?

The First Minister

I remind Labour—because it seems that Anas Sarwar does not know—what its policy is. Time and again, UK Labour politicians have said that they want to use Scotland’s natural resources to give a council tax freeze to people in England. Once again, Anas Sarwar and the UK Labour Party view our north-east as a cash cow; they want to take money from the north-east in order to be able to fund a council tax freeze for the rest of the UK.

The difference between Anas Sarwar and me is that I want to keep the profit that is made and invest it in communities here in Scotland while he wants to squander it, as successive UK Governments have continued to do. When it comes to investing in our renewables and our north-east, how on earth does Anas Sarwar square that with the fact that his party has just dumped its £28 billion flagship green prosperity fund? [

Interruption

.]

Anas Sarwar does not want to hear from me and he does not want to hear from his own councillor—somebody who was a Labour councillor before quitting the party in protest at Anas Sarwar’s plans—so why does he not listen to the trade union movement? The GMB union’s Gary Smith has warned of the dangers of “cliff-edge policies” for North Sea oil and gas. [

Interruption

.] I will quote him directly: he said:

“The inconvenient truth for some is that the UK is still going to need oil and gas until 2050 and ... beyond, and a ban on new licences ignores this reality”.

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

Let me say to Anas Sarwar, to end on a point of consensus, that neither he nor I see the future of Scotland being in unlimited extraction of oil and gas. The difference between Anas Sarwar and me is that he believes that turning off the taps today will be good for the north-east and good for Scotland, while I believe in a just transition that means that we will not leave a single worker in the north-east on the scrap heap. It is a shame that UK Labour does not feel the same way.

Climate Emergency (Leadership)

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will recommit to the leadership needed to tackle the climate emergency. (S6F-02266)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

This Government absolutely will lead on that. As set out in the policy prospectus, I am absolutely committed to tackling the climate emergency, urgently and fairly. This week, we published our response to the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee’s annual report, accepting 98 of its 99 recommendations, with the other one being on a fully reserved matter.

Although it is, of course, disappointing that we have missed the 2021 greenhouse gas emission targets, so narrowly, that demonstrates that we are not far behind where those world-leading targets dictate that we should be. Our draft climate change plan, which will be published in November this year, will lay out how we will reduce emissions to meet future targets.

We will also deepen our global leadership on international climate justice, pushing for bold action across the world, advocating the human rights of those most impacted by climate change and supporting vulnerable communities through our climate justice fund.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the First Minister for that considered answer. There is, of course, a consensus for deeper and more far-reaching action on the climate emergency. Scientists, campaigners and communities on the front line are demanding it, and the public mood is shifting. Most MSPs in the chamber—apart, of course, from the extremist and increasingly climate-denying Tories—know what must be done yet, too often, when action is proposed it gets drowned out by naysayers, defenders of business as usual and those who are content with watching the planet burn. Time is running out, so will the First Minister commit to a climate conversation later this year—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear Mr Ruskell.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

—bringing together those focused on action to speed up the journey to a greener, fairer future?

The First Minister

We are committed to doing more than that. I am more than happy to take away consideration of the idea of a climate conversation or convention to bring together the appropriate stakeholders, because we know that, for the good of our planet, we have to go faster and put more urgency and pace behind the action that we are taking. That is why the Scottish Government has an enviable track record on making sure that we invest in our just transition and why we have an enviable record when it comes to ensuring that we unleash the potential of the green economy.

Mark Ruskell is absolutely right that, every time the Scottish Government brings forward proposals to tackle the climate emergency, there are far too many—across the chamber but particularly in the Conservative Party—who oppose our actions time and time again. We will continue with our commitment to that just transition to net zero and that unwavering £500 million fund, and I am more than happy to commit to a meeting, conversation or convention ahead of COP28—the 28th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—to discuss what more we can do to meet our climate ambitions. However, it is so important that we do not just talk the talk—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

—

but that, when the Scottish Government brings forward important interventions, they are not opposed time and time again by the climate-denying Conservative Party.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Given the cost of living crisis that is hitting both renters and home owners, and the urgent need to decarbonise our homes to meet our climate targets, how many homes will the Scottish Government’s funding help to retrofit this year? What lessons have been learned from last year’s failure to spend the allocated £133 million on refitting our homes to make them energy efficient and affordable to heat?

The First Minister

I do not have the exact figures to hand, but I am happy for the appropriate minister to write to Sarah Boyack with the detail that she is requesting. It is so important that we reduce the emissions that come from heat in buildings, which is why the new standard was recently published, as we know that around 20 per cent of our emissions come from heat in buildings.

As well as investing in new buildings, we are committed to investing in retrofitting, which is an important issue. Of course, the issue does not just affect Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom; the whole world will have to look at putting serious investment, both public and private, into retrofitting both residential and non-residential buildings.

We take the retrofitting issue seriously. The member will be aware of our heat in buildings bill, which we will introduce shortly. I ask all political parties to engage in it in the spirit of collaboration, because we know that, when it comes to tackling the climate emergency, we will all have to come together, particularly on issues around heat in buildings, in order to tackle the biggest threat that the planet faces.

Sexual Health Advice

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve access to sexual health advice. (S6F-02259)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Access to sexual health advice and services continues to be one of the Scottish Government’s priorities, which is why we are currently revising the sexual health and blood-borne virus framework. Sexual health is also a key priority in our women’s health plan, which looks to improve access to contraception services.

T

he NHS Inform women’s health platform is being developed, which provides easy access to information, including on contraception and sexual health. We have ambitious targets to eliminate hepatitis C as a public health threat by March 2025 and to eliminate HIV transmission by 2030. The framework will set out priorities for sexual health and BBV, and we will make an announcement on its publication shortly.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

According to Public Health Scotland, cases of gonorrhoea were steadily increasing prior to the Covid pandemic but have increased rapidly since the end of 2021 and are now almost 50 per cent higher than in 2019.

Does the First Minister agree that those figures speak to the need to, first, redouble our efforts to encourage people of all ages and at all stages of life to practise safe sex and, secondly, to end the stigma around seeking medical assistance in cases of sexually transmitted infections?

The First Minister

I agree whole-heartedly with Clare Adamson. The emphasis that she puts on people of all ages is really important. Although a lot of outreach work and awareness-raising campaigns on STIs are targeted at young people, they can of course affect people of all ages. We know that, following the pandemic, sexual health services especially have been working hard to try to reduce the backlog in contraception provision and to recover to pre-Covid levels of services.

There are simple and painless tests for gonorrhoea, which can be cured and harm-limited if antibiotics are given at an early stage.

To add to my earlier point, Professor Nicola Steedman, who is the deputy chief medical officer, has written to national health service boards to highlight the importance of early diagnosis of gonorrhoea. The Government will do everything that it can to raise awareness of that important issue and to ensure that the campaign is not just targeted towards one specific demographic. Given that people of all ages can be affected by STIs, including gonorrhoea, we will ensure that we take a broad-brush approach in that respect.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

As an NHS general practitioner, I see those patients all the time. Unfortunately, they keep coming back to see me to say that they are unable to access sexual health clinics. What would the First Minister say to my patients?

The First Minister

I would just say what I said a moment ago: that backlogs are being worked on. I understand that there might be slightly longer waits than any of us would like, which is why funding is being provided to NHS boards annually through our outcomes framework to deliver on a range of those strategic priorities.

For example, £800,000 of funding will shortly be allocated to projects that support progress to improve sexual health and blood-borne virus outcomes. We have received a large number of high-quality bids and will be confirming the successful ones in the coming weeks. We have also provided £500,000 to support the development of an online STI testing service, which is a pilot project that is currently under way in NHS Lothian.

I am not denying the points that Sandesh Gulhane has made. There are still challenges as we recover all our NHS and social care services following the pandemic. The Government is putting the appropriate and requisite funding in place to try to alleviate the backlogs and ensure that people get the services that they need in a timely manner.

Road Safety and Condition

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on whether the Scottish Government is fully committed to improving the safety and condition of all of Scotland’s major roads. (S6F-02273)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We are fully committed to improving road safety. As such, we continue to invest in the safety and condition of our motorway and trunk road network. For example, we are currently progressing or have recently completed key improvements on the A9, A96, A92, A90, A77, A737, A720, A83 and A82. Our future investment priorities are set out in the second strategic transport projects review, which was published in December 2022 and has a focus on improving safety, climate change adaptation and resilience of the road network.

It is also worth noting that Scotland’s 32 local authorities are responsible for the operation and maintenance of their respective local road network.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that update. Rightly, much has been said in the chamber about the dismal progress on improving the A9 and the A96. However, right across Scotland, the reality is that there are far too many roads that are not just crumbling but costing lives, including, in the south and west of Scotland—my area—the A75, A77, A737, A84, A85 and A8, and the M8, which is in permanent gridlock. I could go on and on. Far too many single-carriageway roads are accident hotspots, and, over the past three years, we have, sadly, lost more than 450 lives—each one a tragedy. It should not be a discussion about whether those roads will receive upgrade investment; it should be a conversation about when they will receive upgrade investment.

I have a specific question to ask the First Minister. Are there any major and vital road-building projects or upgrades that were promised and pledged by the Scottish National Party Government that will no longer go ahead as a direct result of the Bute house agreement?

The First Minister

Of course, what makes our job more difficult when it comes to capital infrastructure projects are the continued cuts to our capital budget by the United Kingdom Government over the years. We therefore have a limited pot to invest in capital infrastructure—not just road-building projects but other capital infrastructure projects that are crucial to the people of Scotland up and down the country.

We have a strong record when it comes to investing in our trunk road network. Jamie Greene mentioned a few of the roads that we have invested in. For example, £430 million has gone into the dualling of the A9, and we are fully committed to ensuring the A9 dualling between Perth and Inverness. Jamie Greene mentioned the A77, and this Government is proud to have invested in the A77 Maybole bypass. He mentioned the A75, on which we have made improvements, and Transport Scotland has submitted an A75 business case to the UK Department for Transport for development funding following its union connectivity review. We are hoping that that will get backing from the Scottish Conservatives and the UK Government.

We have a strong track record of investing in our trunk road network, but that job would be far easier if the UK Government did not continue to cut our capital budget.

Industrial Action (Further and Higher Education)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

6. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is responding to the on-going industrial disputes in further and higher education. (S6F-02272)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Although the Scottish Government has no direct role in resolving industrial disputes in the further and higher education sectors, we are clear that we expect trade unions and employers to work together to resolve issues around pay and terms and conditions. The Minister for Higher and Further Education has met college and university employers and trade unions in recent weeks, urging them to engage in constructive and meaningful dialogue in pursuit of a resolution to the disputes.

I recognise that students are being adversely affected by the industrial action, and I expect colleges and universities to have appropriate mitigations in place to minimise disruption, including from the impact of marking and assessment boycotts.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The chamber might be aware of the news that has broken in the past few minutes that the young man on the Titan submersible is a student in Glasgow. I am sure that all members will join me in sharing our thoughts with him and his family at this unprecedented and difficult time.

I am afraid that the First Minister’s answer is unacceptable and is evidence of a further lack of leadership. I and my Labour colleagues support the staff and trade unions and their right to strike, and we stand with them in their decision to do so. We know that it has been one that they have not taken lightly; they have been pushed to the brink.

The First Minister must accept that that industrial action is a result of the Scottish Government’s lack of leadership and complete inaction in the further and higher education sectors, and a consequence of years of real-terms budget cuts that have left staff and students paying the price. Will he intervene and end that inaction, or will he allow students to walk across the stage at their graduation ceremonies with a blank piece of paper?

The First Minister

First and foremost, let me associate myself with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s remarks about the young man on the Titan submersible. I was not aware of that news and, of course, my thoughts are with everyone—the families, the loved ones and the communities—who will be affected by it.

With regard to our leadership in the higher and further education sectors, Pam Duncan-Glancy is wrong to characterise the situation by saying that we have not appropriately funded those sectors. Over the past decade, since 2012-13, the college sector’s resource budget has increased by more than £168 million, or 33 per cent, in cash terms. In the same timeframe, between 2012-13 and 2019-20, the resource budget of the university sector increased by £23 million. Therefore, we are providing appropriate funding.

Of course, there will always be calls for us to fund those sectors more. As I said when I met trade unions earlier this week—the University and College Union was present—this Government will continue to call for employers to get round the table and enter into meaningful discussions with our trade unions, because we know that industrial action is not wanted by anyone. We know that trade unions do not want to go on strike. Employers are, of course, severely affected but, importantly, the most adverse impact is on our students, so I urge everyone who is involved to get back round the table to ensure that a fair funding settlement is achieved.

On the right to strike, Pam Duncan-Glancy was well off the mark when she said that we do not support that. This Government does support people’s right to strike—their right to withdraw labour. It is, of course, Keir Starmer who has told his front bench not to join picket lines up and down the country. I will not say that to any politician. We support any worker, whether they are in higher education or further education, to exercise their right to strike.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

It is important to reiterate that universities and colleges are autonomous institutions and that, as the First Minister said, the Scottish Government has no locus to involve itself in internal disputes.

As we know, it is the people who work in the further and higher education institutions across Scotland who have made those institutions a major international success story. Therefore, it is vitally important that a settlement is based on fair work principles and that the people who run those institutions reach a proper financial settlement, and develop a proper relationship, with the staff as soon as possible.

The First Minister

I could not agree more with that. The whole point of the letter that was sent to the sector by Graeme Dey was to reiterate those very points. That letter, which was sent to all college principals, could not have been stronger on the importance of our commitment to fair work principles.

Bill Kidd is absolutely right. Operational decisions on resourcing and staffing matters are for individual institutions. As ministers, we do not have a direct role in those decisions. However, the fair work principles must be the guiding light when it comes to the settlement of the disputes. I again urge all the employers to engage meaningfully, get round the table and ensure that we get a settlement. That is in the best interests of staff but, more importantly, it is in the best interests of the students who have been affected.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What is so terribly disappointing about the way in which the First Minister is answering these questions is that he is using it as an occasion to engage in political knockabout, when we know that the issue is about young people. Regardless of whether we agree with the lecturers, surely the First Minister recognises that these students have had their education disrupted by Covid restrictions and are now being used as collateral in the current dispute.

Therefore, will the First Minister take the opportunity to send a message from the Parliament that young people should not be treated as collateral in the dispute, and that their work should be properly assessed and properly celebrated?

The First Minister

I am happy to reiterate that point, because that is what I said in response to the questions I was asked just a moment ago. Time and time again, when asked about those disputes, I have said that students, young and not so young, are all being impacted and affected.

When I spoke to the trade unions this week, I got the very strong impression, as I often do, that they have taken industrial action only because they see that as a last resort. I do not doubt that for a minute or a second.

It is important that we in this chamber come together and that I, as First Minister, send a very clear message that we expect employers to get back round the table with the trade unions to come to a settlement that is embedded in our fair work principles.

The Presiding Officer

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Online Harassment (Women)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Last week, I chaired a round-table meeting with media representatives, campaigners and cross-party members on the role of the media in tackling violence against women.

We have agreed to meet again, and the First Minister would, of course, be welcome to attend.

In the meantime, what analysis has the Scottish Government done on the impact that gendered online harassment has on women’s safety?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am grateful to Rona Mackay for raising the issue. I record my admiration for her for having done so on many occasions. Other parliamentarians have also, rightly, done so. If Rona Mackay invites me to have another conversation and I am unable to attend, I will ensure that someone else from the Scottish Government does attend.

We all know that abuse and bullying, online and offline, are totally unacceptable. We continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Government and Ofcom to develop proposals for stronger online safety measures to protect children and young people through the UK Government’s Online Safety Bill. Rona Mackay will be aware that I have written to the UK Government on the back of the

Daily Record’s

excellent and important campaign about violence in our schools, because I believe that our media companies could do far more in that regard.

The Scottish Government is starting work to consider how we can gather greater analysis regarding online harm, building on the reflections of the women’s justice leadership panel.

The Promise (Oversight Board Report)

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister will be aware of the publication today of “The Promise Oversight Board: Report TWO June 2023”. The report says that, due to the current slow pace of change, the

“Board does not believe that delivering the original aims of Plan 21-24 is realistic by next year”

and that a lot more needs to be done to keep the Promise by 2030.

The board also calls for

“explicit leadership and drive from the Scottish Government ... to articulate a clear set of principles, outcomes and milestones that will guarantee the promise is kept so that Scotland’s care experienced young people’s life chances are not defined by the fact they have been in care.”

What will the First Minister do, right now, to ensure that keeping that Promise remains on track?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That issue is of the utmost importance—not only to me as First Minister, and to the Government that I lead but, I am certain, to every single parliamentarian here. I give an absolute guarantee and a cast-iron commitment to every person who has experienced care, whether they are young or at any other stage in life, that we fully intend to keep the Promise.

The oversight board report that Roz McCall has referred to, which was published today, is a reminder and a wake-up call that we must move with more urgency and pace. That report has now been published and we will give it full and due consideration. It is important to note that the oversight board report says that the 2030 target can be met, but that that will require swift and urgent action.

We have already progressed a range of actions. I am happy to ensure that Natalie Don writes to Roz McCall with details of what we have done. I can also absolutely confirm that we will introduce a Promise bill by the end of this session of Parliament to make any further legislative changes that will be required to keep the Promise.

The Yard (Funding)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister will be aware of the calls that have been made by my constituent Lawrence Cowan and his four-year-old daughter Eilish for improved funding for disabled children across Scotland. Eilish has a rare genetic condition, and the Yard in Edinburgh is a place where she is celebrated for who she is and is not defined by her disability.

The Scottish Government’s decision to freeze funding levels since 2016 means that the Yard’s funding has, in effect, reduced from £163 per family to just £39 per family this year. Will the First Minister agree to meet the Yard and its families to discuss how the Scottish Government can work better with them to ensure that no disabled child in Scotland feels alone?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind Claire Baker’s question. I am happy to look at the case in more detail and I will, of course, ensure that the Government meets the families who have been affected by the issue that Claire Baker raises, given the good work that the Yard does. If she will forgive me, I will look at the detail of the work that is done by the Yard and the funding issues that have been raised, and I will ensure that we engage in the way that she has asked.

I say to Claire Baker that there is much that we have done, particularly through Social Security Scotland, to help people with disabilities, but I take her point—especially given that the cost of living crisis has affected the most vulnerable people in our society harder than it has affected everybody else. There is absolutely more that we can do; I am open to exploring what that is. In relation to the work that the Yard is doing and the issues that have been raised by Eilish and her family, I will ensure that the Scottish Government engages to hear more about that good work.

Ferry Bookings

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

My constituents cannot book sailings between Shetland and Aberdeen beyond 30 September because Transport Scotland has not opened up the booking system beyond that date. That appears to be a bureaucratic decision that has little to do with meeting the needs of the people who rely on that lifeline service to the Scottish mainland. It is the third time that islanders have faced a cliff edge for bookings in the past 12 months.

Results from my survey, which had over 1,000 responses, show that 85 per cent of people want to book more than three months in advance. Indeed, Serco NorthLink frequently tells islanders to book early. I have repeatedly been advised that the system will open as soon as possible, but those are hollow-sounding words for my constituents.

Does the First Minister agree that his Glasgow constituents would not put up with such travel restrictions? Can he say why mine should?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Beatrice Wishart raises very important points. I do not think that it is helpful to pit one part of the country against another, because we should all have access to transport services. In the case of Beatrice Wishart’s constituents, they are lifeline services, which are so important.

Beatrice Wishart has raised a very important point. There can be technical reasons why booking systems cannot be opened, but I will look into the issue personally and ensure that the Minister for Transport engages with Beatrice Wishart on the issue. If the booking system can be opened earlier, that would clearly be of great help and use to Shetlanders and the island communities. We will see what can be done in that regard. I will ensure that we update Beatrice Wishart as soon as we can.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Point of Order

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

In an answer to Anas Sarwar, the First Minister said:

“Of course a GB energy company would be based in Scotland, because we have the majority of the renewables here”.

If he was over his brief, he would know that, at the year end 2022, Scotland had 21 per cent of total UK renewables installed capacity and 26 per cent of renewable electricity generated. As he has not corrected the record from the last time I pointed out his error, can you guide him as to how he can rectify his latest gaffe?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Liam Kerr will be aware that the content of members’ contributions is not generally a matter for the chair. He will also be aware that a mechanism exists by which members can correct any inaccuracy. Thank you.

I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow the gallery to clear and members to leave the chamber.

12:48 Meeting suspended.

12:50 On resuming—

Deconcentrating Land Ownership

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-09174, in the name of Mercedes Villalba, on deconcentrating land ownership. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament understands that, in 2013, just 432 landowners owned 50% of all Scotland’s privately-owned rural land; notes that feudal tenure in Scotland was only formally abolished through the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000; supports the expansion to community rights to buy under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015; understands that continuing concentration of ownership remains a significant barrier to communities exercising their rights; considers that land represents a huge reserve of unearned wealth in Scotland, including in the North East Scotland region; notes the view that there is a need for stronger action to disrupt the concentration of land ownership in Scotland; further notes the view that a clearly defined, legally enforced, public interest test is needed to ensure that land holdings work for the benefit of the people of Scotland, and notes the calls for Scotland’s land to be owned by, and managed for the benefit of, Scotland’s communities.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I begin by thanking all the members who signed my motion, which allowed it to be debated today. It is no surprise that not a single Tory MSP signed the motion, so it will come as no surprise to them that I will not be taking interventions from the landed Tory gentry on those benches.

It could not be a more important time for Parliament to have this debate. The high concentration of so much land in the hands of so few is central to the inequality that has blighted Scotland for centuries. Land, and who owns it, are at the heart of the crises that we face. From food security and climate resilience to housing and energy, land ownership shapes modern Scotland, as it has done for centuries. To tackle those crises, we must tackle the injustice of current land ownership.

Since devolution, there has been much talk about tackling the high concentration of land ownership, but there has been far too little progress. Although Scotland officially abolished feudal tenure in 2000, the system of land tenure is still overwhelmingly feudal in nature. In many communities, the relationship of landholder and tenant remains deeply unequal.

In 2013, it was reported that just 432 landowners own half of all Scotland’s privately owned land and, since then, there has been no indication of any significant change, because Scotland’s land market is almost completely unregulated. Provided that their bank balance is big enough, anyone can buy whatever land they want with no questions asked. A multibillionaire has become Scotland’s largest landowner in around a decade, buying estate after estate with no barriers.

In fact, ownership of Scotland’s land is so concentrated that the Scottish Land Commission likens the situation to monopolies in banking, supermarkets and energy, except those industries are all subject to legal regulation to prevent monopolies, whereas land ownership is not. While many of our constituents struggle to cover the basics such as food, housing and energy, a small number of individuals are free to buy up more land than they could possibly ever need, denying the public our fair share. However, it does not have to be this way—

inequality is not inevitable. Land is a public good and a precious natural resource, and it can and should serve our common interest.

That is why I am currently consulting on a proposed member’s bill to address the centuries-old concentrated pattern of land ownership in Scotland in order to strengthen the regulation of Scotland’s land market, subject large landholdings to a public-interest test and, yes, to introduce a presumed limit of 500 hectares on the amount of land that any person can own.??The 3,000 hectare limit that the Scottish Government proposes—equivalent to 30 square kilometres—is so vast and would affect so few landowners that it would do little to address the issue.

I am not alone in that view. The Scottish Government’s recent consultation analysis found that most respondents who suggested an alternative threshold called for a lower figure. I hope, therefore, that, in responding to today’s debate, the minister will update us on the Scottish Government’s thinking around that threshold.

More than 20 years after devolution, our landlords still lag far behind those of other European countries when it comes to protecting that public interest. That is why we need a community-informed public interest test—a test that would consider whether it is in the public interest for a landholding to remain at such a large scale, and a test that accounts for the public interest in sustainable food, affordable housing, climate resilience and energy security. For too long, the public interest has been ignored, communities have been sidelined and the environment has been trashed.

The issue of land reform has dogged Scottish politics for decades. We have had years of discussing and debating, of consulting and reviewing, but now is the time to act. Now is the time to redress the balance. Now is the time to put the public interest first. Now is the time for land justice. So, I urge everyone who hears this to complete the consultation, to share it as widely as possible and to join the movement for land justice. I am proud to move the motion in my name.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank Mercedes Villalba for bringing forward this debate. I was certainly happy to support the motion and I very much agree with its direction of travel. How can it be that so few owners own so much of our land? I accept that large areas of Scotland are not that fertile and have never been great for farming or even forestry, but there are still many fertile parts that used to support people and no longer do so, and I believe that some of them could do so again.

Members might know that I enjoy visiting islands. A few years ago, I visited both Eigg and Muck. There was quite a different feel to those two neighbouring islands, and that is linked to their ownership. There was a clear feeling on Muck that people had to keep in with the landowner, who could decide whether someone lived on the island or not. By contrast, Eigg is community owned and had a much more welcoming and relaxed feel about it.

I visited Ulva about the time when community ownership was being considered. It seemed clear that the previous owner was deliberately clearing the island of people. There was accommodation in Ulva, but it was sitting empty as no one was allowed to move and live there. Thankfully, that has now changed, not least because of the Scottish land fund and ownership by the North West Mull Community Woodland Company.

I strongly believe, too, that there is a moral angle to land ownership, and I would like to refer to some of the Bible’s teaching on that, which is perhaps a slightly different angle from others that we will hear in the debate.

First, when the people of Israel entered the promised land after God had delivered them out of Egypt, the land was divided up into tribes, and then families, by Joshua and other leaders at the time. One of the main rules that God gave them in relation to the land was that it could never be permanently transferred outwith that family. Inevitably, as in all societies, some people would become richer and some would become poorer over time, and, as a result, some people might be forced to sell their land out of hardship and necessity. However, every 50 years—the year of jubilee—the land would revert back to the original family. If someone had been forced to sell their land, or had chosen to do so, that sale was effective only until the next year of jubilee, and the price reflected that, depending on how long there was to go.

Secondly, we have an example of one of the worst kings of Israel, whose name was Ahab. He wanted to get hold of land owned by a guy called Naboth, and Naboth rightly refused to sell, citing God’s law. Ahab got Naboth murdered, and then he took over the land. However, he was challenged by Elijah the prophet, and, in due course, he was punished for that, with his dynasty coming to an end.

I accept that we live in a different kind of society nowadays, with most of us in cities, and that most of us are less directly dependent on the land for our food and livelihood. A person can be wealthy nowadays without owning a lot of land. However, there is still a strong link between wealth and land. We cannot disregard lessons on that from history.

A few people owning most of the land is an economic issue, with wealth being concentrated in a few hands. It is also a housing issue if ordinary local people cannot afford a home. It is an agricultural issue if good land is lying empty instead of being used as a farm or a croft. It is also an environmental issue if deforested areas are not being replanted with trees. However, ultimately, for me, it is mainly a moral issue. If some people in our society have more and more while other people have less and less, that is wrong, and we as a Parliament have a duty to do something about it.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

There is a lineage that runs through the aristocracy, who own much of the land in Scotland—it is a hereditary principle—but there is a lineage, too, of land reformers. We have our own inheritance. We are the heirs of our tradition, which dates back to the Highland Land League and the Crofters Party of the 19th century; to the Scottish Labour Party, James Keir Hardie, the Independent Labour Party and Tom Johnston in the 20th century; and over the last half century to the committed socialist John McEwen and the first generation of MSPs, notably the late Donald Dewar, and, in more recent times, to Andy Wightman—

all attacking the land question from a socialistic viewpoint, even when their party badge was not always red.

It is in light of all of that history of where we have come from that I believe that, Mercedes Villalba, by leading this debate in Parliament today, is reigniting the flame of that radical tradition. That is why I believe that her proposed member’s bill to cap land ownership would extend democratic principles and methods into a realm that they have been excluded from for far too long.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I

always enjoy Mr Leonard’s enthusiasm on such issues. Transparency on who owns the land is really important. I am very interested to know what Labour’s position is on an amendment to the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill that Jeremy Balfour has lodged, which will be debated next week. The amendment would restrict the obligation on churches and religious groups to declare the land that they own. Will Labour support the Scottish Government in voting against that amendment, which would be a retrograde step?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Richard Leonard, I can give you the time back.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Thank you.

I am in favour of full transparency, and I am a long-standing supporter of a comprehensive land registry. That is really important. We need to have the facts before us.

Earth was made to be a common treasury. That is what the Levellers said. Land is our most valuable asset, but its value rests on how it is used and, in turn, who owns it and so who controls it, and in whose interests it is controlled.

I have listened to Conservative voices asking of Mercedes Villalba’s proposed bill: which problem is it trying to solve? Self-evidently, it seeks to tackle the overconcentration of land ownership in the hands of the old privileged aristocracy of Scotland. That is the problem that it is trying to solve: Scotland’s hereditary curse. Other Conservative voices, echoing Oscar Wilde’s definition of a cynic, ask “How much will this cost?”, and in so doing, they betray a retreat not only from particular political principles but from the very idea that political principles exist at all.

So, of course the Parliament should be debating the land question. The pattern of land ownership tells us a lot about Scotland. It is a very painful reminder of a very different history compared even to that of our near neighbours. It points to a very different distribution of wealth that is still with us and is emblematic of the great inequality of power that persists in Scotland today: riches in abundance and idleness in luxury on the one hand, and ever-rising, wretched working poverty for the toiling millions on the other. In so doing, it points to a class-based society, to a class system that leads to the excesses of the grouse moors and the degeneracy of the shooting estates, all with the quite intentional consequence of the denial of fundamental democratic and community rights.

That is why this is no time for timidity, why this is a time for socialist courage and a time to defend and put into practice our enduring ideas and our unflinching principles that speak to us across the centuries. This is about democracy and, down the years, the fight for democracy has always been about converting privileges into rights. This is about justice, about taking on absentee landlordism and challenging local land monopolies, whether the land is owned by ancient lairds or their new offshore corporations. We cannot have a serious and meaningful agenda for social, economic and environmental reform that does not include land reform.

Finally, I tell you that the questions of power and power relations are not theoretical and abstract; they are part of the everyday experience of a people and their class. The current rigged system of land ownership in Scotland smells strongly of decay. The time has come for it to be swept away. It is time for radical, decisive change.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Wow. I thank Mercedes Villalba for bringing the motion to the chamber. I would like to bring a little bit of reality to the debate.

Land reform is one of the Scottish Parliament’s favourite subjects. We only have to look at how much legislation we have passed on it in the 24 years since devolution compared to what was passed in the previous 200 or so years to know that. Most, if not all, of what we have done has been for the better, including strengthening land management regulations, protecting the environment and giving crofters, tenant farmers and communities greater rights. More recently, as Ms Villalba’s motion highlights, the focus in land reform has been shifting and I am concerned that, as that focus shifts, it also blurs the lines between evidence-based policy and policy that, as we have just heard, has as its first intention the application of a particular political ideology.

In looking at this, or at any other issue, I am first minded to ask what is the problem that we are trying to solve. Mercedes Villalba and other members might answer that by citing examples of poor environmental management by large landowners or a conflict between a large landowner and a community, and use that as justification for arguing that big landowners equal bad landowners. I disagree.

The motion that we are debating today opens with one of the selection of statistics that is often trotted out to somehow symbolise inequality:

“in 2013, just 432 landowners owned 50% of all Scotland's privately-owned rural land”.

It goes on:

“notes that feudal tenure in Scotland was only formally abolished through the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000”.

I have to say that my immediate response to those points is, “So what?” I am far from convinced that most people are at all bothered by the first point, never mind perceiving it as a burning injustice. Moreover, it is a statistic of little value as I doubt that even Mercedes Villalba could tell me what number of landowners would be acceptable to her in that context.

Similarly, feudal tenure was not about knights and serfs. It was a legal means by which conditions could be attached to the sale of land and enforced, and as she points out, it was abolished more than 20 years ago.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the member think that land is just a commodity like milk, butter, cheese or anything else and that anyone can just buy any amount of it?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does the member own a house? What level of land ownership are we talking about? We are talking about 500 hectares but I do not think that that is the endgame. If we all own a bit of land, how we use that land is important; I will talk about that a bit later.

Given some of the proposals in Ms Villalba’s member’s bill, I am surprised that she is not more familiar with the legislation as she is proposing to empower the Scottish Land Commission with similar powers. Why does Mercedes Villalba propose a 500-hectare limit on the ownership or transfer of land in her consultation and then, the next day, ask a parliamentary question about the number of transfers of that scale?

Does she always do her research after her proposals?

I should be clear here, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I am not saying that I or the Scottish Conservatives have any fundamental opposition to giving more people in communities the opportunity to take ownership of land. Large-scale landowners can, like any landowner, fail to live up to what is expected of them.

However, what this motion and Mercedes Villalba’s bill both fail to do is to recognise the considerable efforts being made by what she would define as large-scale landowners, whether that is in agriculture, nature restoration, tree-planting or improving biodiversity. Such landowners are making a substantial contribution to both their local economies and our environment, with the added benefit that they are able to carry out these activities at scale from day 1. If the member and the Scottish Government are intent on the deconcentration of land ownership, they need to be a lot clearer on why they are doing it. If they believe that the simple act of deconcentration is the solution, they have wilfully or otherwise misunderstood the problem. Deconcentration is no guarantee of success. Community bodies regularly fail to meet the objectives; nor are they necessarily the best entity to manage land interests. What happens if they secure land and they cannot deliver on their aims? How fragmented can we make land ownership in a given area before we hold back the economy and limit the ability to implement environmental actions at scale?

Ultimately, Mercedes Villalba’s motion suffers from the same issue as her proposed bill—it fails to explain what the specific problems are and how simply breaking landholding will help.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is just winding up.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—and if Mercedes Villalba wanted to make an intervention, she should have allowed one from me.

If this Parliament is serious about further land reform that actually makes a difference, we should be spending far more time talking about how we improve its management, regardless of the size of ownership.

In closing, I come back to where I started: what is the problem that we are trying to solve? If the central problem is that large landowning offends certain people’s politics, it is the wrong problem.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Mr Sweeney.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

It is a pleasure to rise—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Sweeney, could you resume your seat for a second? Mr Whittle.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Mr Sweeney again.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

It is a pleasure to rise in support of my friend Ms Villalba, who is a member for North East Scotland, and her motion for members’ business, which was a pleasure to sign, as indeed it was to support her proposed member’s bill, which challenges this persistent, invidious and pernicious problem at the heart of Scotland’s economy.

The Conservative spokesman asked why we were debating the topic and for what purpose. It actually runs as a thread through every aspect of public policy in this country. We often come here and debate the inadequacy of the public finances, our incapacity to generate sufficient public resources to address the population’s needs and to ensure that everyone can have a good, dignified quality of life.

This is a wealthy country. The question is not the extent of the wealth but its distribution, and at the heart of that is this debate, because the elephant in the room of this country’s economy is the concentration of ownership and wealth that is vested in the land of this nation. That is fundamentally at the root of it. So much of our public treasury is derived from taxes that are levied on income that is generated from waged employment and from profits that are generated from economically advantageous and productive activity. What is not levied is the unproductive rent extraction that is rampant across the Scottish economy, and that is something that must be addressed; it has never been addressed in a century, despite repeated attempts.

Indeed, we could go back to 1909, when William Bellinger Northrop drew a polemic map of London with an octopus on it, with the tentacles wrapped around all the different aspects of the land of London owned by the various aristocrats. At that time, over a century ago, the text on the map characterised the octopus as an “absorbent parasite”, leaching £20 million of rent out of the common wealth of people at that time. It has extended its grip; it has extended the rent extracted exponentially since that time. It has only ever got worse. The decoupling of the value of wealth vested in land from that in wages has been extraordinary—certainly, over the past 30 years—and it is at the heart of the problem that we face in this country today.

My friend’s motion focuses on rural land ownership concentration, but the issue is prevalent in our urban environments, too, where 91 per cent of Scotland’s people live. Urban areas account for only 2.3 per cent of Scotland’s land, but I will take Glasgow city centre as an example, as I have looked at it recently. Glasgow has 2.3 million square feet of vacant commercial floor space—that is equivalent to the space in the Empire State Building—and it is largely owned by remote owners in tax havens, whose position is opaque. Those owners pay not a penny towards the city’s improvement or maintenance, but they extract rents and free ride on business rates not being charged on buildings that are listed and of value to the city’s heritage.

Since 2005, Glasgow has pretty consistently had about 5,000 empty homes. Vast amounts of potential are locked away from people by remote ownership and uninterested owners. Since 2019, only 52 compulsory purchase orders have been issued in Glasgow. The rate of recycling of such properties is insufficient, and I hope that the minister will reflect on the state’s capacity to bring such properties back into fundamental public ownership.

On every front, we see an attack on community ownership in Scotland. Community-run housing associations are being railroaded into asset-stripping mergers with large national groups. We need to take cognisance of such things to improve justice in Scotland.

At the heart of the issue is the opportunity to unlock our economic potential by removing the parasitic extraction of wealth through rents and unleashing productive economic activity in every possible facet of human endeavour. That reality has been observed for more than a century; it is at the heart of our politics and it is the reason and the mission behind why, for the benefit of the many, we need to unlock the hoarding of land by a remote few.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Mercedes Villalba on her proposed member’s bill and on securing this important debate, which is on a subject that we share an interest in.

Land ownership matters because it is unjust for a tiny percentage of people to own the majority of Scotland’s land and unjust for that tiny percentage to derive all the benefit and power that land ownership brings. It also matters because ownership equals control. Those who own the land decide what it is used for and how it is managed. Decisions over how our land is managed are too important to leave to a tiny minority, given that those decisions affect every one of us.

In this time of climate and nature breakdown, our land—especially our rural land—is a powerful tool that can turn things around, if only we use it better and manage it for the public good, not for private interest and profit.

I welcome the principle of my colleague Mercedes Villalba’s proposal to strengthen regulation of the land market. That is urgently needed, given the rush to invest in Scotland’s natural capital and the consequential skyrocketing of land prices, which is making it harder and harder for our communities to buy local land, despite increases to the Scottish land fund.

Just days ago, I discussed with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands ways to strengthen the regulation of markets in land, carbon and nature and to widen opportunities for community benefit. It is not clear to me why Mercedes Villalba feels the need to introduce her own land reform bill when the process is well under way for a Government bill to be introduced, as set out in the Bute house agreement, which covers the substantive points that she has raised.

The proposed member’s bill uses radical language on limiting the amount of land that one person can own, but it does not propose a cap—it would simply rephrase the language on the trigger for the public interest test, which is in the Government’s proposed bill, by referring to a presumed limit. However, if large land transfers passed the public interest test, as some will, her proposal would not apply a limit—presumed or otherwise.

In truth, the proposed member’s bill would lower the threshold for the public interest test to 500 hectares. That is an absolutely admirable aim that would apply the test to more of Scotland’s land but, unfortunately, it does not appear to be backed up by data or consideration of the impacts.

In early June, my colleague lodged a series of written parliamentary questions indicating that, two days after she had lodged the proposal for her bill, she did not have the figures on the number of landholdings over 500 hectares or on the number of individuals or corporations that own them. My concern is that more groundwork is needed to determine how many additional estates would be subject to the public interest test under the lower threshold, and to weigh the benefit against the disadvantages that would be posed to smaller landholders compared with larger ones, which have more resources, as well as the additional public resource that would be required to administer the test at a lower threshold. The Greens are in discussion with the cabinet secretary on lowering the proposed threshold in the Government bill, and I would encourage the member to do likewise.

The Scottish Greens are helping develop a land reform bill that will be workable, effective and robust against any legal challenge, whether it be from large private landowners who feel a threat to their control, or from an increasingly controlling Westminster Government. We will also continue to make the case for the bill to include truly transformative mechanisms, such as those that would, for example, restore common good lands, as well as improved powers such as compulsory sales orders for public bodies.

I fully agree with the motion’s sentiment that

“Scotland’s land”

should

“be owned by, and managed for the benefit of, Scotland’s communities.”

That is what we will achieve through the upcoming Scottish Government land reform bill.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank my comrade Mercedes Villalba for bringing this debate to the chamber. I know that it is an area of keen interest for the member, and I think that, in her opening remarks, she made an excellent case for change, as others have done. I hope that the Scottish Government will support her efforts.

For me, the final part of the motion is the simplest to understand, as perhaps the member sitting opposite will agree. It is also one of the most important parts. After all,

“Scotland’s land”

should

“be owned by ... managed for the benefit of”

and belong to

“Scotland’s communities.”

The deconcentration of land ownership and redistribution of it to our communities will put people, not profit, at the centre of land ownership.

As has been mentioned and as we know only too well, 98 per cent of Scotland’s land mass is rural, and it is a matter of concern that community land ownership accounts for only around 3 per cent of the total land area. In my South Scotland region, there are vast rural areas, and it is important that, in our efforts to deconcentrate ownership, we deliver for people and our communities. In a country where young people are not inclined to move to urban areas by default, they should be able to start a career locally, in traditional or different sectors, and make their mark in their own home town without feeling that they have to move away. This is about more than land ownership; it is about equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. It is about equality and fairness, and it is something that we in this Parliament ought to recognise.

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the figures that are outlined in today’s motion and which have been quoted by others. In 2013, 50 per cent of all Scotland’s privately owned rural land was owned by just 432 landowners. We cannot accept that the outcome from such a situation will benefit our communities—it is not acceptable or sustainable. I therefore hope that the minister will be supportive of the proposal in the motion; indeed, I note that some of the comments from the Government so far have indicated that it would support moves in this direction.

I note with interest that, in its own community wealth building consultation paper, the Scottish Government has made improved community access to and ownership of land and property one of the five pillars in its efforts to make community wealth building in Scotland a success. I, of course, agree with that, and in that respect, I look to the strong Labour councils in Preston and North Ayrshire, where community wealth building has been a success. At every turn, I see investment and trust being placed in our communities and the skills that we know that we have on our doorstep, and I see action being taken that matches the population’s own ambitions. That is why it is important for land to be owned by its people and communities.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s co-operation thus far, but we are far from the finish line. Communities need more investment, and the requirement for legislation that deconcentrates land ownership to the benefit of our population has never been greater, so we need some urgency around that.

I once again thank my colleague Mercedes Villalba for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I thank other members who have spoken in support. It is a consultation, and my friend has been so open in asking for all contributions, so I ask members to please contribute to the consultation process so that we can get this right for our populations and our communities.

We know the challenges faced by our rural communities around fuel poverty, transport links and young people’s understanding of where they see themselves. There are opportunities here for rural areas in particular, so I ask members to support the members’ bill or at least participate in the consultation. I thank members for coming to the chamber.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I invite Gillian Martin to respond to the debate.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for the Government, in my capacity as Minister for Energy and the Environment. I am deputising for the cabinet secretary, Mairi Gougeon, who has responsibility for land reform. As members will imagine, she is at the first day of the Royal Highland Show, so she cannot be here, but I am sure that she will be very interested in hearing how the debate has gone.

There is an awful lot in Miss Villalba’s motion that the Scottish Government supports, as we see community ownership at the forefront of land reform. As somebody who took forward a member’s bill in the first eight months in my tenure as an MSP, I have advice aplenty to give to anyone who is embarking on that process. They should engage fully with as many members on all sides of the chamber as they can, and they should not underestimate the amount of work that is involved.

There was a bit of a heads-up today, in some of contributions in the debate, regarding some of the questions that a bill will pose, not least in the contribution from Ariane Burgess, who was able to point out what the Government’s proposed bill might do and where that might fit in with what Miss Villalba wants to do. The contributions have also highlighted some of the challenges to the threshold that has been suggested, which might have unintended consequences. However, that is the beauty of a member’s bill: you learn, find out and adapt, you respond to the comments that your parliamentary colleagues make, and—hopefully—you get through the process.

I want to talk about to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which brought about the first community right to buy. We think that it was truly groundbreaking, and it has allowed so many communities to own land and take control of how it is used.

Brian Whittle said that we have passed an awful lot of land reform legislation in the Parliament’s history, but that is really because it has been so sorely needed. An awful lot of work had to be done.

As a constituency MSP who is involved in various campaigns in a rural constituency, one thing that has been said to me when I have been speaking to people is that we need to do more on land reform, in particular on allowing more young people to own their own land if they want to work on the land. That is something that is said to me by a lot of young farmers.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

U

ndoubtedly, the community right to buy abandoned, neglected and detrimental land is a positive thing, but there are so many constraints around organisational capacity in communities, in particular deprived communities, where people are not necessarily able to get together because they are so busy working and trying to make ends meet. In addition, there is an issue with simply trying to raise the capital. Is there a way for us to bolster that capacity by resourcing councils, for example, to do it, with the understanding that they can build up that capacity with communities, rather than leaving it to laissez-faire self-organisation?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are a number of things in place. The Government brought forward the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which introduced the right to buy neglected and detrimental land and extended the right to buy it in urban communities. As I have seen in my constituency, however, the wording in that act perhaps sometimes does not filter down into local authorities regarding how they approach people who want to apply to buy land and take it off the books of a local authority when it is not being used. I think that an awful lot more can be done at local level.

I highlight the land fund, which has approved more than 300 funding requests and has brought more than 300 hectares into community ownership. John Mason gave us some significant examples of community ownership on Eigg and Ulva, as well as a short divinity lesson, which I very much enjoyed. We are going to put more money into that fund, as the demand and the applications greatly outstrip what is available.

Ms Gougeon recently announced an increase in the fund by a further £100—sorry, a further £1 million; I was about to give the wrong figure there and get myself into trouble—for this year, and we are committing to doubling the fund by £20 million by 2026.

The Government readily acknowledges that there is an awful lot more to do to address the concentration and transparency aspects of land ownership. That is why we propose to introduce a new bill on land reform. I encourage Ms Villalba, and indeed every other member who has spoken in the debate, to engage in that process, notwithstanding any plans for members’ bills. Our new bill will build on existing land reform measures, complement the existing community right-to-buy mechanisms and further empower communities by providing them with more opportunities to own land and have more say in how land in their areas is used. That is not something to be feared; being able to have such conversations again should be welcomed. Everyone needs to be involved in those if we are to seek what is right, fair and just.

We seek to further improve transparency of land ownership. I intervened on Richard Leonard’s contribution because there are transparency issues regarding other bills that are perhaps being used to make land ownership more opaque. Mr Balfour’s amendment to the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill stems from good intentions, but it could result in certain organisations being exempt from declaring what they own in Scotland. Surely that is not the way that we want to go. I would welcome members reconsidering the matter and perhaps supporting the Government in opposing that amendment.

Instead of moving back, we should be trying to move forward to the next phase of land reform, as Ms Villalba’s motion largely seeks to do. I enjoyed Paul Sweeney’s contribution, in which he described the map with an octopus on it. I am sure that he will be well aware of the work done by the group Led By Donkeys, who go around showing people who owns what in central London. I see a register of controlling interests in land as being like our octopus. I want such a register to be meaningful and comprehensive, so that there will be no secrets there.

We are not content with the status quo. I know that Ms Gougeon will continue to work with stakeholders as we develop the bill. We want to ensure that we introduce a bill that is ambitious and balanced and that will perhaps fill in some of the gaps that past land reform bills did not reach.

Our long-standing land reform objectives for greater diversity of ownership are not incompatible with our net zero and environment ambitions. Carol Mochan’s points about diversity, inclusion and equality were well made, and I largely agree with what she said in that regard.

All landowners—whether they be public, private, community or charitable—are capable of working together on access to land. I do not think that anyone has anything to fear. We need to work to make such access easier, especially for local people, who have previously been at a disadvantage in securing land for their livelihoods and their communities.

I encourage all members to get behind the Government’s bill proposals, which will help to take our nation forward. I also thank Mercedes Villalba for conducting what we might call a soft launch of her member’s bill in today’s debate.

13:32 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Presiding Officer’s Statement

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will all be deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Winnie Ewing, who was an inspiring and hugely influential politician: an MSP, an MP and an MEP and, of course, the first person to chair the reconvened Scottish Parliament, in 1999.

I know that members will wish to join me in conveying our deepest sympathies to our colleagues Annabelle Ewing and Fergus Ewing and to all Winnie Ewing’s family and friends.

I have asked for the flags outside the Parliament to be lowered for today, as a mark of respect.

Adult Disability Payments (Delays)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

1. Presiding Officer, in the light of your news, I wonder whether I could, on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, offer our deepest condolences to Fergus and Annabelle Ewing and all members of the family. There is no doubt that Winnie Ewing’s contribution to Scotland and this Parliament was immense. I well remember listening to her as the very first person to open and speak in this Parliament.

I will now ask my question.

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason there was a delay of more than 80 days in processing 70 per cent of adult disability payments in April 2023. (S6O-02408)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

With your permission, Presiding Officer, I thank Jackie Baillie for her kind words.

Winnie was the first Presiding Officer of this Parliament. She reconvened this Parliament, and much will be said about her role in the SNP and the independence movement. I still have in my office the card that she sent me when I was first elected, and I looked at it before I came down the stairs today—hence, I think, why I am so emotional.

She was a trailblazer for women, particularly in my party, but not just for the SNP. Much will be said about her role in the SNP and the independence movement, as I said, but I hope that, today, the whole Parliament can join me in paying tribute to Winnie. Hers was a life well lived, and her contribution to public life in Scotland is hard for us to measure. On behalf of my party and our members, I pay tribute to Winnie and give our deepest condolences to Fergus, Annabelle, Terry and their families at what is the hardest time for any family, but particularly for those in public life.

I will now answer Jackie Baillie’s question.

Fifty three per cent of decisions on ADP were made in less than four months. However, we know that some people are waiting an unacceptably long time for adult disability payments. Urgent and concerted action is being taken to speed the process up, with every step of the application and decision-making process having been examined.

Social Security Scotland will continue to deliver ADP in a different way to the DWP, supporting people to apply and, where required, collecting supporting information for them. Under the previous system, people had to do that themselves before applying. The agency’s focus is also on getting the decision right the first time, and statistics show that that is working, with only 6 per cent of people asking for a redetermination. People can also be assured that all payments are backdated to the date of application.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The average processing time for applications has, in fact, increased every month since the adult disability payment was launched, from 45 working days in September 2022 to 96 working days in April 2023. The Scottish Government promised a fair and more compassionate social security system in Scotland, but people in Scotland are now having to wait even longer than people in the rest of the UK, which I am sure was not the intention. Disabled Scots need that support during a cost of living crisis, so what specifically will the cabinet secretary do to address those delays and deliver the working social security system that we need as a matter of urgency?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I said in my initial answer to Jackie Baillie, there are a number of differences between what happens with the DWP system and what happens with Social Security Scotland. The most obvious one is the collection of supporting information, which the agency does on behalf of the client. That is very different from what happens in the DWP and it necessarily takes more time to do.

I reassure Jackie Baillie on the issue. Every aspect is being looked at, all the way from the application form, through the information that goes along with the form to how the decisions are made. We are looking at every part of that process seriously. I will give just some examples of that. There are a number of ways in which we have changed how calls are handled in the agency, staff have been redeployed in a different way, and there have already been changes to application forms, particularly in relation to supporting information.

I say to all members in the chamber that, if they have constituency issues or lessons that can be learned, the Government and the agency stand ready to learn in relation to what is still a new system that we are developing. We are determined to do better than we are doing at the moment on processing times.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Presiding Officer, the Conservative members also want to pay our respects to Winnie Ewing and associate ourselves with the comments that you made about her. I had the privilege of meeting her on a few occasions. She was a formidable woman but also sought to encourage everyone who wanted to get involved in public life. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family at this time.

I say to the cabinet secretary that people are experiencing unacceptable delays not just on ADP. The average processing time for funeral support payment was 39 days in March this year. That means that many families are having to wait well over five weeks before they can even start to organise a funeral. Will the cabinet secretary tell members why those delays are happening? Will she commit to investigating ways in which that can be fixed and report back to the Parliament?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Jeremy Balfour for that important question on funeral support payment. With all aspects of Social Security Scotland’s work, there is a great deal of focus on processing times. On funeral support payment, some of the work cannot be completed until the agency has all the information from a client to allow it to process a claim. However, if I can receive further information from Jeremy Balfour in writing, I am more than happy to consider any specific issues—or, with a constituent’s permission, specific cases—to see whether more can be done to learn lessons and speed things up where that is at all possible.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I echo others’ comments about Winnie Ewing. She was certainly a towering figure. She made quite a mark on Scottish politics and I understand why people feel so emotional about her passing. The Liberal Democrats pass on our sympathies to those people who feel this great loss.

One of my constituents has been waiting since last October. He has a degenerative spine condition and his mobility is declining. Even though his complaint was upheld, he has been allocated only the basic rate for mobility, so he has now asked for a redetermination and the wait is even longer because of that.

The trouble is that expectations were incredibly high after the Government promised so much from the new social security system. In addition to the changes that the cabinet secretary outlined, how will she restore confidence among people who are applying to the system, so that they believe that it is worth it and that they will get their benefits on time?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Willie Rennie for that question and the discussions that I have had with him previously on particular issues.

Confidence in the system is important. I was up in Dundee, at the Social Security Scotland offices, to talk to staff and clients who had applied for and received the Scottish child payment and child and adult disability payments. They made it clear to me that, as has been shown in the client surveys that the agency has produced recently, there is still a high degree of confidence in the service that is being provided. People feel that they are believed, trusted and treated with dignity, fairness and respect. That is important. However, we know that there is much to do on the processing times, and I hope that I have given members some reassurance on that.

As I said, a small number of decisions are going to a redetermination. That is a necessary part of the system, and we will, of course, endeavour to ensure that everything is done in the agency to make that process as smooth as possible for people, too.

The Presiding Officer

Question 2 was not lodged.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-02410)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I will provide an update to Parliament on the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill before the summer recess, which I am confident will provide stakeholders with sufficient reassurance about progress, the reasons for the time that it has taken to bring the bill back to Parliament, how we propose to amend the bill and our continued commitment to incorporation.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

In January, the cabinet secretary said that the Government remains absolutely committed to incorporating the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law as far as it is possible within devolved competence. However, instead of making that a priority, the Scottish National Party Government has chosen to air its constitutional grievances by embarking on a costly legal battle with the United Kingdom Government to defend its flawed Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Why has this Government chosen to prioritise the GRR bill over the UNCRC bill, and when can the Parliament expect to see a draft of the updated UNCRC bill?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Well, if Mr Burnett was not simply reading a pre-prepared second question and had listened to what I said, he would know that he will get more information next week.

I know that we have genuine differences on gender recognition, but the first question was about the incorporation of children’s rights. Perhaps we could just rise above having a dig about gender recognition and recognise the sheer difficulty that we, as a Parliament, have, in that we literally have to pick out supporting children’s rights because of the devolution set-up; unfortunately, that takes time.

I am very sorry that the member conflates those two issues. They are entirely different and separate, and the Government will report back to Parliament on the issue of the UNCRC bill next week.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response, and I look forward to the statement next week.

Is the Scottish Government confident that its guidance on “Decision-making: children and young people’s participation”, which was updated on 20 June, has, in particular regarding the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’s general comment 12 on the involvement of young people, manifested itself in the Government’s outreach work on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child so far?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I hope to be able to say slightly more on that next week, if the member will forgive me, when—with the Parliament’s permission—I will bring forward a statement on it. The member raises an important point about how we continue to involve children and young people in the issues. As I said, if the member will forgive me, I will say more on that next week.

Refugees from Ukraine (Supersponsor Scheme)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on whether it plans to resume the supersponsor scheme for Ukrainian refugees. (S6O-02411)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Since the war against Ukraine began, more than 24,700 people sponsored by an individual or by the Scottish Government have arrived in the United Kingdom. The decision to pause the scheme was difficult—a surge in applications, combined with pressure on short-term accommodation, meant that it was needed to ensure that we could continue to welcome those already with a visa. A review of that decision against an agreed set of criteria is under way, and Parliament will be updated in due course.

In the meantime, people can apply for a visa with an individual sponsor.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The Scottish Government seems to have overstretched its capacity and resources with the supersponsor scheme for Ukrainian refugees, leaving many in a perilous position, unsure of where they will live and when the Government’s short-term housing may run out for them.

What measures, if any, has the cabinet secretary taken to ensure that every sponsored refugee who is taken in by the Scottish Government will be given long-term housing options as soon as the short-term housing option contracts end, given that the scheme was paused in July last year as a result of a lack of availability of housing?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank the member for the question, but I caution against suggesting that people are in “perilous” positions. The people we are speaking about have come to Scotland under circumstances that we cannot even begin to imagine. That is why it is very important that there is a reassurance that the short-term welcome accommodation is there.

Of course, there is a great deal of work going on around long-term accommodation with the private rented sector and with councils, and a number of councils have taken up the opportunity of using the Scottish Government funding to bring back void and other accommodation back into use for our Ukrainian guests. I would be more than happy to provide further information to the member on that if she wishes.

Refugees from Ukraine (MS Victoria)

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

5. To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any implications for refugees from Ukraine, whether it will provide an update on the disembarkation of the MS Victoria, prior to the ship’s planned departure from the port of Leith on 11 July 2023. (S6O-02412)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

There are matching teams on board the MS Victoria supporting all guests to move on to suitable alternative accommodation before the contract ends on July 11. The teams work closely with guests to encourage them to consider a range of housing options including social housing, private rented sector properties, hosted accommodation or alternative welcome accommodation including hotels.

We remain on course to safely disembark the ship ahead of the end of the contract, with the majority of guests who were resident now having already departed or having plans to disembark in the coming weeks.

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

I pay tribute to all those involved in that operation and appreciate and welcome the work that is under way by matching teams on board the MS Victoria to provide assistance and to minimise the inevitable disruption by helping guests to transition successfully to new accommodation through a trauma-informed and person-centred approach, as the cabinet secretary has emphasised.

I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could also provide an update on on-going discussion between the Scottish Government and the private rented sector on helping to remove any remaining barriers to access to suitable accommodation for my constituents, especially regarding the cost of deposits for secure tenancies.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Ben Macpherson for that question and pay tribute to the work that he and Deidre Brock MP have done to support their newest constituents while they have been in Leith.

In addition to providing £1.72 million in grant funding to bring 100 properties in the city back into use, we are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to consider whether we can bolster existing local authority support packages that help people with the cost of deposits and other barriers to accessing private rented properties. Officials and the Minister for Housing have also engaged directly with letting agents, landlords and tenant reference agencies to understand and overcome some of the non-monetary barriers to accessing private rental properties and to ensure that displaced people from Ukraine are able to access information about private tenancies.

If Mr Macpherson has further constituency work, I would be more than happy to work with him, as we have done in the past, alongside my colleague the Minister for Housing.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I associate myself with the words of Ben Macpherson and also take the opportunity to thank those who work in our schools in Edinburgh who have offered a very warm and supportive learning environment to those young people while they have been being educated here in Edinburgh. My question is on maintaining connections between those young people. We know that many of them will now be moving to different parts of the country, but their support network is here in Edinburgh. What support will be provided to ensure that they can continue to keep those relationships going in the future?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I associate myself very much with the remarks that Miles Briggs has made about the warm welcome that has been given within our schools—particularly, but not only, in Edinburgh—to our youngest Ukrainian guests. It is very important that councils are working together on that. The City of Edinburgh Council is not the only one that has been on board the ship; many others have, as well, and the councils in Edinburgh and elsewhere are working exceptionally closely to make sure that we do everything that we can in public agencies and the third sector to maintain connections and make the transition from MS Victoria to other accommodation as seamless and easy for people as possible.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

On Monday, at the cross-party group on mental health, of which I am a co-convener, we heard a presentation from Edinburgh-based charity Feniks on the mental health and integration needs of Ukrainian refugees settling here. The findings from those who responded to its survey suggest that more support is required for refugees in navigating the system and accessing services such as mental health and children’s services. What additional measures can be provided to those who have sought sanctuary in Scotland to ensure that they get all the support that they need, and what can be done to ensure that the support is trauma informed?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Again, that is another very important issue. The fact is that this is not just about housing or, indeed, schooling but about ensuring that we wrap around as much support as possible for Ukrainians as they come to Scotland, for however long that may be.

Scottish Government officials, councils and other public agencies are working closely on the issues around support, whether in the health service or in wider services. If the cross-party group has particular concerns, I would be more than happy to receive further feedback from it, as Emma Roddick and I would be interested to see what we can learn from it.

Social Security Scotland (Support)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what support is being provided to Social Security Scotland, in light of the continued transfer of cases from the Department for Work and Pensions and increase in applications. (S6O-02413)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are working closely with Social Security Scotland and the DWP to safeguard the transition of client awards to the agency, which is a joint delivery programme. We are prioritising the safe and secure transfer of client data.

We are closely monitoring the number of applications for disability benefits against our forecasts and exploring a range of ways to improve our application processes, including taking a comprehensive look at every step in the journey, from people applying for a disability benefit to getting paid.

Good progress is being made on the transfer of awards from the DWP.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Several constituents have contacted me, citing delays to their payments. One constituent advised that they had waited more than four months for their paperwork to process and a decision to be made, during which time they were supporting an ill family member residing in the same household and had to travel to hospital appointments with very little income.

What support can the Scottish Government provide to Social Security Scotland to ensure that it continues to maintain a person-centred approach while implementing its first-come-first-served case management system?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I mentioned to members in previous answers, a great deal of work is going on in Social Security Scotland and the social security directorate in the Scottish Government to ensure that action is being taken at every step of the journey to see what can be done to speed up processing times. I reassure members that progress is being made. More decisions are now made per week than have been made in the past, so we are seeing improvements.

I go back to the fact that the agency collates the supporting information, which is very different from what happened under the DWP, where the client had that responsibility. Both the Government and the agency are carefully considering what more can be done to speed up the process of receiving the supporting information and of the decision then being made.

If Michelle Thomson would like me to look into particular constituent cases, I would be more than happy to do so.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

We know that the Government has spent almost £280 million on an information technology system for the agency, with no end in sight, and that significant challenges exist for people to get a response on the phone or online. What action is being taken immediately to ensure that people can get through and get an answer on those issues?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

That IT system is the one that delivers the Scottish child payment, so there is one end that we already have well in our sights, which is providing support directly to children and families across the country.

Now that I have made that point, I will say that there is an issue around telephony, which is why the agency has considered and will continue to consider what more can be done to improve the call waiting times. Improvements have taken place in that area because of some of the steps that the agency has already taken. Again, I am more than happy to share further detail of those improvements with the member in due course, should he wish to see them.

Child Poverty

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the level of child poverty in Scotland. (S6O-02414)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As our progress report, which was published last week, shows, our focus on tackling child poverty is unequivocal and making a significant difference. However, still too many children live in poverty in Scotland.

Economic modelling that was published last week estimates that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative and absolute poverty this year due to Scottish Government policies, with poverty levels at 9 percentage points lower than they would otherwise have been—that decrease includes the lifting of 50,000 children out of poverty through the Scottish child payment.

We are, however, doing that with one hand tied behind our back, given the United Kingdom Government’s decade of austerity, its mishandling of the economy, and a hard Brexit, which is why we will continue to argue for full powers to tackle poverty to be in the hands of this Parliament.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary is aware of the shocking statistics—she just mentioned them—that show that a third of children in Glasgow are living in poverty and that, in the neighbouring local authority of South Lanarkshire, a quarter of children live in poverty. I agree whole-heartedly that cruel Tory policies such as the two-child cap should be scrapped, but the Scottish Government could and can do more here to eradicate poverty.

One way in which it could do that is through funding local authorities to enable them to continue their summer holiday food programmes, which provide targeted support for families that are in need and ensure that children get at least one hot meal a day. The Government has provided no clarity on the funding that will be available for local authorities to deliver those programmes, and the councils in both Glasgow and South Lanarkshire are crying out for clarity. When will the Government confirm the funding, because schools in Glasgow close for the summer tomorrow and South Lanarkshire schools finish on Tuesday? Thousands of children look set to lose out on that crucial provision simply because of the Government’s indecision.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I will be happy to provide Paul Sweeney with further information about the refocusing of the funds for that issue. I gently say to him that I am really glad that he thinks that some UK welfare policies should be scrapped or changed; it is just a shame that UK Labour does not agree. When there is no change happening at that level among the Scottish Conservatives and their masters down south or in UK Labour, it is deeply disappointing that, once again, we have members coming to the chamber expecting the Scottish Government to mitigate the worst of Tory and, apparently, now Labour welfare policies.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Analysis shows that 90,000 fewer children will live in poverty as a direct result of the actions and decisions that the Scottish Government is taking with its limited powers through the Scottish child payment and mitigating cruel Tory policies such as the bedroom tax and benefit cap. However, as the cabinet secretary has mentioned, we are acting with one hand tied behind our back. Will the cabinet secretary remind members what the impact would be on child poverty levels in Scotland if key UK welfare reforms were reversed?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The UK Government’s welfare reforms have been hugely damaging to people in Scotland and right across the UK. They are driving people into poverty, which is a political choice that the UK Government has made. The reforms mean that some Scottish Government policies simply mitigate the impact of UK Government cuts. Scottish Government analysis that was published last year showed that reversing key UK Government welfare reforms since 2015 would bring an estimated 70,000 people, including 30,000 children, out of poverty in Scotland in 2023-24. We have repeatedly asked the UK Government to reverse the cuts, which are inflicting damage on households right across the country.

Food Banks

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plan, “Cash-First: Towards Ending the Need for Food Banks in Scotland”. (S6O-02415)