Scottish Parliament, 2 November 2023

341 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Fire Brigades Union (Dispute)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made towards reaching a resolution to the on-going dispute with the Fire Brigades Union. (S6O-02672)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I will be clear: the Scottish Government is not in dispute with the FBU. The FBU campaigns on behalf of its members, as all trade unions do, and we share the aim of having an effective Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to keep our communities safe. I meet the FBU regularly and am next scheduled to meet it this month.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, John McKenzie, is on record as saying that the union is in consultation with its members on industrial action, but it is extremely important to note that that action is a result of the deep impact of cuts on the safe running of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and that firefighters are considering taking that unprecedented action because they are firmly of the view that lives are being put at risk. With that in mind, what will the Scottish Government do to avert strike action and ensure safer communities?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The £36 million savings figure for 2026-27 that has been quoted by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s chief officer is based on various assumptions about inflation, pay increases and future funding levels, all of which can change over time. The resource spending review provides long-term indicative spending plans for the Scottish Government, based on the challenging financial situation that we currently find ourselves in. Although it is appropriate for the SFRS to assess its long-term planning up to 2026-27 on that basis, that assessment does not replace the annual budget that is presented to the Parliament. The amount that is allocated to the SFRS in the annual budget will be based on a robust assessment of need—as was the case for 2023-24, when we gave it an extra £14.4 million.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Our fire service is in crisis, according to the Fire Brigades Union. The on-going dispute, if unresolved, threatens to have a further detrimental impact on response times in rural communities in my region. Why should rural communities suffer due to the Scottish National Party Government’s failure to resolve long-standing issues within the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Since 2017-18, there have been substantial year-on-year increases in funding to support the SFRS to create a modern and effective fire and rescue service. The annual budget for the SFRS for 2023-24 is more than £55.3 million higher than it was in 2017-18. I highlight to Sharon Dowey that, during First Minister’s question time on 26 October, the First Minister made it clear that

“We continue to invest in our fire service. I want to thank and pay tribute to the FBU and to our firefighters on the ground. I will continue to promise them that we will, as long as we are in Government, continue to ensure that they get the investment that they need to keep”

the community

“safe.”—[

Official Report

, 26 October 2023; c 16.]

Fire Brigades Union (Report)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Fire Brigades Union’s report “Firestorm”, which reportedly warns that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is in “crisis”. (S6O-02673)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I recognise the role that the Fire Brigades Union plays in highlighting the concerns of its members, including in the publication of its “Firestorm” report. I agree with many points in that report—including that our firefighters should be paid a fair wage for the work that they do and should be properly trained and equipped to deal with the wide range of emergency incidents that they attend.

As I said in my previous answer, the more than £368 million that we are providing to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service this year is an increase of £14.4 million on last year. The Scottish Government will continue to support the SFRS to prioritise public safety.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On Tuesday, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s publication of new statistics indicated a rise in fatal fire incidents and an increase in non-fatal fire casualties, which amount to just under 1,000 in one year. The data illustrates the dangerous consequences of having an underfunded fire brigade. How much worse does the situation need to get before the Government looks at the statistics and provides the resource that the fire brigade deserves to support it?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The number of fatal fire casualties per million of population has been on a long-term downward trend in each nation since the early 2000s. In the early 2010s, that trend levelled off, but the different demographics and urban and rural profiles of each nation are the likely factors that explain the different rates for fires.

The Scottish Government will continue to work with the FBU and the SFRS to ensure that they have the money that they need to keep communities safe.

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

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is highly valued for

its unwavering dedication to saving lives and protecting communities. It embodies the highest levels of service and public safety. The “Firestorm” report says that 96 per cent of respondents who were surveyed agreed that

“Increased investment in training and facilities would positively impact the skills and preparedness of firefighters”.

Given the concerns that have been raised about training, will the minister consider the report’s recommendation for an independent audit of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s training provisions?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Ensuring that our firefighters are properly trained and equipped is a ministerial priority in the “Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2022”. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has an assistant chief officer with dedicated responsibility for training, to properly address that strategic priority. Some aspects of training fell behind as a result of the Covid restrictions, but the service is addressing that backlog as a priority.

His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland carries out independent inspections of fire service activity, and training is examined as part of the HMFSI service delivery area inspection programme. The “Inspection of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service: East Service Delivery Area” report was published on 19 October, and the service will be taking forward all the recommendations that that report contains.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the “Firestorm” report makes alarming reading and that not providing safe systems to enable firefighters to decontaminate is a failure of the employers to fulfil their duty of care to their workforce?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Firefighters’ safety and wellbeing are a priority for the Scottish Government and the fire service. The SFRS continues to make progress with its contamination working group, and I was pleased that we were recently able to contribute £56,000 to allow Scottish firefighters to be part of the current health screening trials.

HMP Kilmarnock (Public Ownership)

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the transition of HMP Kilmarnock into public ownership. (S6O-02674)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

When I visited HMP Kilmarnock in August, I saw at first hand that work on its transition into public ownership and operation is progressing well and that the prison is on track for handover to the Scottish Prison Service on 17 March next year. The Scottish Prison Service has been working closely with Kilmarnock Prison Services Ltd and Serco, which is the private operator, to deliver a smooth transition that not only supports staff and those who are in custody but maintains the high standards that are already set in the prison.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

When I visited the prison last week, I asked the staff whether they backed the transfer. None did. I asked whether they knew why it was happening. None of them did. I asked whether they knew how it would happen. None of them did.

Humza Yousaf is transferring HMP Kilmarnock for blindly ideological reasons. He does not care that it is an effective, efficient and well-run prison. The Scottish National Party’s transfer will even result in staff losing the protection of body-worn cameras, which will be sent to English prisons. Will the cabinet secretary reverse that dangerous decision and commit to providing cameras to all prison officers across Scotland?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The contract with Serco was due to end. The Government has always believed that our prisons should be owned and operated in the public sector, in the interests of public safety and not those of private profit.

When we look at the facts and information, we see a lower level of assaults in the Scottish Prison Service than in our private prisons and a lower level per population of drug-taking incidents in the public sector. I would have thought that Mr Findlay would take such matters seriously.

I reassure the member that the Scottish Prison Service is finalising its arrangements for a pilot on body-worn cameras to be carried out in collaboration with our trade union partners, and that the cameras that are currently in HMP Kilmarnock belong to Serco and not to the Scottish Prison Service. I further assure him that efforts are being made, and will be made, to progress work on the important matter of body-worn cameras.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

Mr Findlay’s comments are completely at odds with what I have heard from the project director and the staff at Kilmarnock prison over many years. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that arrangements for transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 for all the staff and prison officers are well under way and that the overall impact of their transferring to the SPS will be beneficial?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The transfer will take place following the well-established process under the TUPE regulations that have existed since 2006. The Scottish Prison Service has written to Serco to inform staff groups about the measures that will be taken. Plans have been developed in partnership with recognised trade unions, and the Scottish Prison Service is actively planning one-to-one meetings. It is also important to recognise that the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service has chaired four engagement sessions to date.

The Presiding Officer

We move to question 4. Let us keep our questions and responses concise, please.

Transitions to Adulthood Strategy

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its national transitions to adulthood strategy, following its statement of intent on 28 September. (S6O-02675)

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

We will introduce Scotland’s first national transitions to adulthood strategy in this parliamentary session, to ensure that all disabled young people can experience a supported and positive transition to adult life. We are currently engaging with more young people, parent carers and others with a role or interest in transitions to seek feedback on the statement of intent. Following that phase of engagement, we will analyse and publish a summary of the responses to show what people have said, which will then be used to develop the strategy.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the minister for that answer, but the Government mentioned a strategy on transitions as far back as 2016, in its manifesto. That is seven years ago, and there is still no strategy. A young person who entered high school then will have left by now. They have not seen a strategy and their chances have been affected as a result. The Government knows that transitions are not working. On what date will the Government publish a national transitions strategy, and will it include a legal right to a plan that gives all young disabled people a fighting chance for the future?

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

As I said in my previous answer, we are currently seeking feedback on the statement of intent through the online questionnaire and a host of engagement events, including the Glasgow Disability Alliance’s transitions event for young people, the Scottish Youth Parliament and the forthcoming carers parliament. That is an important step to sense check what we have heard so far. We want to get this right. Findings from that phase of engagement will be used to develop the strategy for the future, on which we will aim to consult more widely in spring 2024.

The Presiding Officer

Question 5 has been withdrawn, for

reasons that will be apparent.

Accident and Emergency Admissions (Winter Falls)

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

6. To ask the Scottish Government what data it has on rates of winter admissions to accident and emergency as a result of winter falls since October 2020. (S6O-02677)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Public Health Scotland publishes quarterly data on emergency hospital admissions resulting from falls. Total figures for falls admissions across the two winter quarters ending in December and March show a slight downward trend, with the highest number, 18,508, having been seen in the winter of 2020-21 and the lowest number, 17,892, in the winter of 2022-23.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for his detailed answer. I advise him that both Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Council in my constituency have on their websites information as to where salt bins are located, which is good. However, does he agree that the more that can be done by simply increasing the number of salt bins available for clearing winter pavements, the greater the likelihood that there will be even fewer falls and so less pressure on already hard-pressed accident and emergency services?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I encourage councils to continue to take the action that I know that they already take when there is adverse weather that can result in slippery pavements, which can have a knock-on effect on demand on our A and E departments. Local authorities will consider applications from local communities that are looking for salt bins to be located in their area—that is something that I have undertaken to do on behalf of my constituents, and I encourage the member to do so on behalf of her constituents, where it is felt that that would be appropriate.

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (Support for Evacuated Residents)

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what support is available to residents who have been required to evacuate their properties due to deteriorating reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. (S6O-02678)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Where residents are evacuated from their homes under local authority dangerous-building powers, it is for the local authority to determine what support is available to the individuals affected. For Mark Ruskell’s constituents who have been decanted in Tillicoultry, that has involved providing temporary housing, as well as support and advice to find alternative accommodation while detailed investigations take place.

My thoughts are with the families who are currently in those circumstances. The impact on those households has been significant, but I know that Clackmannanshire Council is working hard to minimise disruption while keeping people safe.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response and note her awareness of the situation in Tillicoultry. I understand that Clackmannanshire Council suspects that more than 100 other residences in the same area could also be seriously affected. What engagement has there been between Clackmannanshire Council and the Scottish Government? Has there been correspondence about the dire situation that some residents are in at the moment? How is the Scottish Government preventing affected residents across Scotland from remaining in temporary accommodation indefinitely while they await the outcome of building assessments and potential remedial works?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Government is in contact with all councils on the issue and with the Scottish Housing Regulator, and it has been involved in the issue in Tillicoultry since it was first identified. My understanding is that 29 households across three housing blocks have been affected. The local authority is conducting further survey work to determine next steps, but it has not identified other blocks with unsafe RAAC.

An important point of reassurance is that the Institution of Structural Engineers notes that statements about RAAC having a 30-year lifespan are misleading and that there is no specific data supporting that. The institution notes that, if manufactured and installed correctly and maintained appropriately, RAAC should perform comparably with similar materials. Of course, it also stresses the importance of inspecting RAAC installations to determine their condition, which is my understanding of what the council is doing.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The response to a freedom of information request that I submitted to the City of Edinburgh Council identified two developments comprising 43 homes that contain RAAC. Can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament whether ministers now know how many social rented properties and private properties across Scotland could contain RAAC?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As I highlighted in my original answer, this is an issue for the councils concerned, but we are working with the Scottish Housing Regulator to undertake a data-gathering exercise on the presence of RAAC across all social housing providers. The initial responses to that request were due by 31 October and are now being collated. It is important to ensure that the Scottish Government continues to work with local councils to support communities where they are affected.

Violence and Bullying in Schools

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it can take in response to the reported rise in violence and bullying in schools. (S6O-02679)

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

In June, I convened the first meeting of the headteacher task force, which is focused on school exclusions. In September and October, I hosted two events as part of the Scottish Government’s summit on relationships and behaviour in schools. A third event will take place later this month to discuss the behaviour in Scottish schools research, which will provide a robust national picture of what is happening in our schools across the country on a wide range of behaviours. My aim for the summit process is to work with teachers and other stakeholders to identify practical actions that we need to take to make progress.

Finally, we have started a review of our national anti-bullying guidance, “Respect for All: The National Approach to Anti-Bullying for Scotland’s Children and Young People”. The outputs from the summit and behaviour research will inform that work.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is important to work with teachers, pupils and schools, but the fact is that we will not build a world-class education system while so many pupils are worried in schools. We need to put discipline and behaviour back on the top of the agenda as a condition of being in school. Will the cabinet secretary bring forward a detailed proposal that sets out the types of resources and the plan that we are going to use to address the problem, which is affecting schools up and down Scotland?

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

I very much recognise Mr Rowley’s interest in the matter, and I agree that we need to work with the profession on how we can support it to best respond to some of those challenges.

Mr Rowley talked about behaviour and discipline. I am conscious that we have a cohort of young people moving through our education system who have experienced disruption to their education from industrial action or Covid impacts. We need to be mindful that all of that plays into changed behaviour and relationships in our schools. That said, Mr Rowley has raised an important point.

There is already national guidance in relation to what we as the Scottish Government provide. The national policy that already exists is the “Included, Engaged and Involved” policy document. However, I have made it very clear that my intention through the summit process is that we look to gather national evidence from those who work on the front line—our teachers and, of course, those who work as learning support assistants, who play a hugely important role in relation to our schools.

We use the findings from the summit process and the behaviour in Scottish schools research, which gives us the national picture, to help to inform the national action plan. Subject to the agreement of Parliament, I intend to bring forward a statement later this year to that end.

Covid Pandemic (Message Retention)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. In June 2021, the Scottish Government was told to retain messages relevant to its handling of the Covid pandemic. However, five months later, the Scottish National Party introduced a policy of destroying WhatsApp messages. That is the digital equivalent of building a bonfire to torch the evidence. Why did the SNP bring in a policy of deleting messages after it had been told to keep them?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

First of all, the policy that Douglas Ross refers to is a general policy on mobile messaging, including informal messaging, such as on WhatsApp. What is key is that, when we got the advisory notices, particularly from the Scottish inquiry but also when we received information from the United Kingdom Government in relation to the UK inquiry, it was made very clear to officials, civil servants, ministers and cabinet secretaries that any information that was relevant or potentially relevant to the inquiries should be retained and, of course, appropriately recorded in our record management system. That is why 14,000 WhatsApp messages are in the process of being handed over now that we have the section 21 order. That is why 19,000 documents have already been submitted. That is why, when I submit my final statement, unredacted WhatsApp messages will be handed over to the inquiry.

I should say that that is in stark contrast to the approach of the Prime Minister, who tried to take the public inquiry to court and lost, of course, and is still refusing to hand over his

WhatsApp messages.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

People who are viewing this are listening for the First Minister to tell us what the Scottish Government is doing. It is not up to Humza Yousaf or any current or former SNP minister to decide what is relevant to the inquiry and to pick and choose which messages are going to be handed over.

It is absolutely clear that the SNP brought in an auto-delete policy not just after being told not to do so by the UK Covid inquiry but after Nicola Sturgeon had set up a separate Scottish inquiry. That policy was introduced two months later. Nicola Sturgeon went on television to say that she could not withhold messages even if she wanted to. However, this week, it was reported that she has deleted her

WhatsApp messages.

We know that destroying or withholding evidence from an inquiry is illegal. Does

Humza Yousaf accept that, if

Nicola Sturgeon or any Government minister has destroyed

WhatsApp messages that are relevant to the inquiry, they would be breaking the law?

The First Minister

As Douglas Ross has mentioned the former First Minister, let me remind him and, indeed, the chamber, that, in terms of accountability and transparency,

Nicola Sturgeon stood up day after day—virtually every single day—and did 250 media briefings—[

Interruption

.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

The First Minister

She made 70 parliamentary statements. There was full accountability and full transparency in answering questions. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

First Minister—

The First Minister

The Conservatives do not want to hear that, Presiding Officer, because, of course, that refutes their allegations—

The Presiding Officer

First Minister, take your seat for a moment.

We are not going to continue this session in this vein. Members are required to conduct themselves in an orderly manner. Let us treat one another with courtesy and respect, and members should not decide to contribute from their seats.

The First Minister

I remind the Opposition, particularly the Conservatives, that when the former First Minister stood up and did those daily media briefings, spoke to the public and took questions from the media, it was the Opposition that wanted to stop that happening in the first place.

Let me be absolutely clear, because this is such an important issue—[

Interruption

.]

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What are you hiding?

The Presiding Officer

Mr Kerr, I must ask you to cease shouting from your seat. I would be very grateful if you could comply.

The First Minister

It is important that Opposition members do not shout from a sedentary position, because there are family members who have been bereaved by Covid who want assurances.

I reiterate what the Deputy First Minister said a couple of days ago in the chamber. The Government apologises to those families who were bereaved by Covid for any anxiety or distress that we have caused them; it was certainly not our intention.

We received clarification from the Covid inquiry last week of its expectations. It has provided us with a section 21 order, and we are in the process of providing 14,000 WhatsApp messages. On top of that, I will give my WhatsApp messages—unredacted—to the Covid inquiry, because we set up that inquiry for one reason only: to get to the truth and to ensure that there are answers for those families who suffered the most during Covid.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot believe that Humza Yousaf has just stood up and, in the strongest possible way, defended Nicola Sturgeon, who has been accused of deleting vital WhatsApp messages. He did not answer the question, “Would she have broken the law if she had done so?” but the law is clear: deleting evidence that is required by an inquiry is a criminal offence.

That is in writing, in the Scottish Covid inquiry’s letter. The SNP Government was told

“to make sure that no material of potential relevance to the inquiry is destroyed, deleted or disposed of”,

as it would be

“an offence under section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005”.

The problem with the SNP’s policy is that the messages are deleted before the inquiry can judge whether they are relevant or not.

Humza Yousaf previously told the chamber:

“any material that is asked for ... will absolutely be handed over to the Covid inquiries and handed over ... in full.”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 15.]

Why has the SNP Government now failed to deliver on that promise by deleting evidence?

The First Minister

Douglas Ross continues to say that we are not handing over WhatsApp messages. That is incorrect. We are in the process of handing over 14,000 messages.

On top of those 14,000 messages, I will, when I submit my final statement, be handing over many messages, not just with cabinet secretaries or with ministers but with UK Government ministers and Opposition politicians across the chamber with whom I communicated.

I will do so unredacted

, because this Government believes in accountability, which is very different from Douglas Ross’s leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is refusing to hand that material over.

I understand why Douglas Ross wants to talk about process as opposed to substance. The reason why, of course, is that—in this week alone—we have seen utterly scathing, damning evidence about the UK Government’s handling, or mishandling, of the Covid pandemic.

I am, and this Government is, absolutely committed to being transparent and accountable, because we want the truth to be heard not just by the public but, in particular, by the families who were bereaved by Covid. We certainly do not have anything to fear from the truth—I suspect that the Conservatives absolutely do.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Humza Yousaf is all over the place with this. He starts by saying that he is going to hand over all the messages—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Now he says that he is going to hand over “many” of them and that he does not hide “from the truth”.

We do not know what the truth is, because messages have been deleted, and they have been deleted because of a policy of the SNP Government. That policy means that that Humza Yousaf can cherry pick the information that the inquiry sees. Crucial discussions may have been destroyed by the SNP’s auto-delete policy, and any uncomfortable information may be lost, never to see the light of day.

That secretive approach treats the Covid inquiry, and grieving families, with contempt.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

No, it doesn’t.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Deputy First Minister is saying, “No, it doesn’t.”

I urge Shona Robison to listen to Margaret Waterton, who lost her mother and—[

Interruption

.] Jenny Gilruth, listen to someone who lost her mother and husband to the virus.

The Presiding Officer

I would be grateful if members would show one another courtesy and respect. When a member is meant to be speaking in the chamber, let us listen to them.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Senior Government ministers in the SNP do not want to hear what grieving families think about their actions. Margaret Waterton, who lost her mother and husband to the virus, said that the news that the Scottish Government has withheld evidence from the Covid inquiry is “frankly shameful”. Jane Morrison, a member of the Scottish Covid bereaved group, said:

“If someone deliberately deleted stuff to avoid us getting to the truth, then morally and ethically, as well as legally, it’s totally in the wrong.”

Does the First Minister regret letting down those families and so many others?

The First Minister

Douglas Ross has every right to ask those questions. We have a responsibility to remember that many people lost loved ones to Covid, including many in the chamber as well in my Government. I reiterate the apology that was made by the Deputy First Minister to the Scottish Covid bereaved group and its representatives that we did not mean to cause them the anxiety that they clearly felt as a result of what was said at the Covid inquiry last week. That is on us and we intend to make that right. That is why we will release the 14,000 messages and I will also release my messages.

The absolute purpose of the inquiry is to get to the truth of the handling of Covid matters and, where mistakes were made, to learn from them. Ultimately, everyone will have an interest in that, from businesses across the country to members of the public—but those with the most acute interest will be the families who have been bereaved by Covid. I will give them an absolute assurance that we are here to co-operate fully with the inquiries.

I remind Douglas Ross of what we already know about his party’s mishandling of Covid. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members.

The First Minister

F

amilies could not say goodbye to their loved ones, and family members had to attend funerals by themselves without their family or friends around them, all while the Conservatives were partying, breaking Covid rules in number 10.

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister

We know that the Conservatives do not believe that the rules apply to them. We have seen that in the evidence that has been given to the inquiry this week.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, First Minister.

The First Minister

I give an absolute commitment that the Scottish Government will fully co-operate with both inquiries.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. During the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic in Scotland, thousands of people died. It is for those people that we should be thinking about our questions and answers today. The Government sent untested and Covid-positive patients into care homes, with devastating consequences, and millions suffered from the effects of lockdown. That is why both the UK and Scottish Covid inquiries are crucial, because we need to understand what happened in order to learn lessons for the future.

The Deputy First Minister and the First Minister have talked a lot about individual responsibility in relation to the inquiry. However, the First Minister is responsible for the conduct of the Scottish Government. Will he take personal responsibility for ensuring that the Government complies in full with all requests from the Covid inquiry?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Of course, it is my responsibility and I will liaise closely, as Anas Sarwar would imagine that I would, with the permanent secretary in order to ensure that the organisation fully complies. I said that to Anas Sarwar previously. We will hand over whatever material has been retained by the Scottish Government; 14,000 WhatsApp messages are in the process of being handed over, on top of the 19,000 documents that we have already submitted. It is appropriate that every member and official in the Government complies.

On Anas Sarwar’s specific point, I am responsible for my witness statement. I do not know what other requests have gone to individual ministers or cabinet secretaries, nor do I know what they have submitted. That is appropriate. Anas Sarwar is mouthing “Why?” The reason is that there are confidentially requirements for any public inquiry that must be adhered to. If I tried to break that, Anas Sarwar would be the first one to drag me over the hot coals and say, “Why on earth are you breaching the confidentiality of an inquiry that could potentially prejudice any said inquiry?”

To make it absolutely clear, my understanding is that the information about the confidentiality of the inquiry has been sent to the Scottish Parliament information centre, but we can make sure that Anas Sarwar gets a copy for his information.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I think that Humza Yousaf is missing the central point. He is the First Minister; he is responsible not only for his own actions as an individual but for the actions of the Scottish Government, ministers and officials.

I do not think he has read last week’s transcript from the Covid inquiry, which is absolutely damning about the actions of this Government and about his own behaviour. In June, I asked the First Minister directly:

“Will the First Minister confirm that all ministers and officials, past and present, have complied with the do not destroy instruction? Will he give a guarantee that all requested emails, texts and WhatsApp messages will be handed over in full to the inquiry?”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 15.]

He gave a direct answer. He said, “Yes, they will.” There was no equivocation and there were no caveats or grey areas, but we now know that messages have been deleted. Crucially, it is for the judge, and not for individual ministers and officials, to decide what is relevant.

Once again, this is about the conduct of the Scottish Government. Can the First Minister tell us how many of the 70 ministers and officials have failed to comply with the do not destroy notice and how many have deleted messages?

The First Minister

Let us be absolutely clear. Anas Sarwar—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

Anas Sarwar is asking me to demand witness statements from individual witnesses so that I can see what they have or have not handed over, because that is the only way that I could know whether former ministers have or have not submitted information—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members, let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

—or what that information is. That would, in my view, be a pretty serious breach of the confidentiality of the inquiry.

Anas Sarwar has also asked me about the organisation. It is absolutely my expectation, and that of the permanent secretary, that potentially relevant information should be kept, recorded in the appropriate way and handed over to the inquiry when that is requested. That is why we are in the process of handing over 14,000 messages. I do not know, because I have not seen the detail, but I suspect that many of those messages—given that they came from WhatsApp groups, as the Deputy First Minister outlined earlier this week—may not be relevant. Anas Sarwar is right that it is for the inquiry to determine that. That is why I, as First Minister, will hand over all my WhatsApp messages in unredacted form.

I return to the point that I made to Douglas Ross: the Scottish inquiry was set up to get to the truth of the matter. That is why, as part of its terms of reference, the inquiry will examine the issue of the discharge of patients, and we will fully co-operate with that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The public, and indeed the inquiry, can see that the First Minister was unequivocal in June but that he is now dodging responsibility in the answers that has given today. It is also clear that the section 21 notice was issued to the Government, not to individual ministers and officials, and that it is the Government that is responsible for collating that evidence and providing it to the inquiry. To abdicate responsibility is frankly shameful, and people right across the country will see that.

The harsh reality is that the First Minister has lost control of his Government. He does not know how many ministers or officials have complied with the “do not destroy” notice, he does not know how many have deleted messages and he claims that the Government’s response to the inquiry is for individuals, rather than for his Government.

The First Minister promised members that he would ensure that all material was handed over to the inquiry in full. We have seen this week how important those messages are. Why does the First Minister believe that his Government should be held to a lower standard than the Tories at Westminster? What is he doing to identify those who did not comply with the “do not destroy” notices? What action is he taking against those who failed to comply, or should we conclude that his word means nothing?

The First Minister

I will again try to clarify some of the issues that Anas Sarwar has raised. It is crucial to say that, when the UK Government inquiry asked us in June for details of the various WhatsApp groups concerning Covid 19, it did not request the messages themselves. The messages were asked for in September, just a matter of weeks ago. The Scottish Government then asked for a section 21 order because of the personal information in some of those messages, and that was received. Now, of course, we will meet the deadline of 6 November to hand over 14,000 messages in unredacted form.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Destroyed!

The First Minister

I can hear Jackie Baillie shouting, “Destroyed!”, but the 14,000 messages have not been destroyed. We are handing them over, and they include ministers past and present. We do not know which ministers—again, for confidentiality purposes—but we know that they include ministers past and present.

I go back to the point that Anas Sarwar and Douglas Ross have every right to ask about messages being handed over. I give an unequivocal guarantee to those families who have been bereaved by Covid that the messages that we have retained will absolutely be handed over—and handed over in full. As First Minister and the head of the Government, when submitting my statement, I will be handing over my messages in full and unredacted.

Post-cancer Breast Reconstruction Surgery (Waiting Times)

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on waiting times for post-cancer breast reconstruction surgery. (S6F-02497)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We recognise the importance of breast reconstruction surgery. I am aware that there are still unacceptable waits in some specialties, but we are committed to delivering sustained improvements and year-on-year reductions through service redesign and national working.

Waiting times are not published by individual procedure, but the most recent national statistics from June show that almost 7,500 patients are waiting for in-patient day-case treatment in the plastic surgery specialty in Scotland. Breast reconstruction surgery covers a range of procedures, and delays can be caused by a number of factors. We know, of course, the impact that the pandemic has had, but I assure Pam Gosal that we are working hard to reduce those waiting times.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Breast cancer treatment is not just physically demanding—it is emotionally taxing, too. Reconstructive surgery gives women the chance to regain control of their bodies. I have received a response to a freedom of information request that shows that the average wait time for that surgery is nearly 400 days in Greater Glasgow and Clyde. However, I have a constituent for whom it has been more than three and a half years since her mastectomy. She was told that she would have a date for her surgery by 21 October, but that date has come and gone. Does the First Minister accept that that is not good enough? What steps will he take to cut waiting times for that surgery and ensure that patients such as my constituent are not left waiting for years?

The First Minister

I thank Pam Gosal for raising the case of her constituent. Obviously, I do not know the details, but Pam Gosal can write to me if she has not done so already. I am happy to look at the case and the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care will be happy to raise it with the health board.

I agree with Pam Gosal’s premise that waits of that length are unacceptable. She speaks powerfully around the emotional and physical impact of breast cancer, in particular. We have been working towards improvements in waiting times, and we have met the 31-day standard, according to the most recent statistics, but I am afraid that we have fallen short of where we need to be with the 62-day standard.

We will continue to progress work and action to reduce those waiting lists. I will ensure that the cabinet secretary for health writes in detail to Pam Gosal about some of the actions that we are taking. In the meantime, if Pam Gosal provides me with the details of her constituent, we will liaise with the health board to see whether anything further can be done.

Firework Safety (Public Awareness)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

4. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to increase public awareness of firework safety ahead of bonfire night. (S6F-02498)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We have recently launched our annual public awareness campaigns across a range of media platforms. Those campaigns reinforce appropriate messaging around attending organised displays and how to stay safe over the bonfire weekend. I encourage everyone to familiarise themselves with those campaigns and the firework code.

In addition, we have distributed more than 200,000 safety leaflets to retailers, the Scottish Wholesale Association, trading standards teams and third sector partners to increase awareness of firework safety and the law at the point of sale.

It is, of course, illegal to sell or give fireworks to anyone under the age of 18, to use fireworks before 6 pm or after 11 pm—that is extended to midnight on the 5th—and to use fireworks in the street or other public places. Ultimately, that is so that the public—and, crucially, our emergency services—can have a safe bonfire night.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Recent data from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service shows that the number of deliberate fires in the three weeks up to 5 November has fallen by 30 per cent since 2018, to 907 last year. That is very welcome news but, every year, our emergency workers are subjected to immense pressure due to the misuse of fireworks, which is compounded by antisocial behaviour.

Does the First Minister agree that the public can do a real service for our emergency services by taking the decision to attend a public display, which is by far and away the safest and most enjoyable way for a family to spend bonfire night?

The First Minister

I

agree with that. Fireworks can be a great spectacle and enable communities to come together. As injuries are less likely to occur at a public display, we would always encourage people to attend one. I know that many communities, regional and national organisations and local authorities do fantastic work to organise such displays.

As members know, we have strengthened the law around access to the use of fireworks, with the aim of reducing demand on our emergency services. The new law also makes attacks against emergency workers an aggravated offence that can be considered by courts when sentencing offenders. As Clare Adamson has articulated very well, I encourage people to attend those public displays where they are available.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Scottish National Party ministers claim that their new firework control zones will improve public safety around bonfire night, but my party has found that at least 28 of Scotland’s 32 councils have no plans to introduce them. That includes Dundee, where riot police are on the streets to tackle gangs that are using fireworks to inflict chaos and terror.

Will Humza Yousaf explain why his rushed firework law is being ignored by councils that are suffering from severe SNP cuts?

The First Minister

It is

for local authorities to make an application for a control zone. I assume that Conservative-led councils also do not have control zones in place. I do not think that we should blame local authorities or the Government for the actions that we saw in Dundee. We should be very clear that those who misuse fireworks, particularly when they endanger the public and our emergency services, should be held to account for their reckless actions. We should be getting behind our fire service, Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service, which all do a fantastic job in the run-up to bonfire night and on bonfire night itself.

We have introduced legislation, and a number of applications are in for control zones, which will be given due consideration.

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

I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare.

The safety of people, especially children, is obviously paramount, but does the First Minister agree that we should be mindful of the effect of fireworks on our pets and livestock, to keep them safe, too, and that, if in doubt about what to do, people should follow the advice of animal organisations, including NFU Scotland?

The First Minister

Yes, I agree with that. There is excellent guidance from a number of third sector partners, including the NFUS. I know from the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others that some very good guidance is available. Christine Grahame is right that we often focus on members of the public, but we should absolutely include our pets, which we know can suffer during the lead-up to bonfire night and on bonfire night itself.

As Christine Grahame has suggested, I ask those who are unsure about animal welfare and safety during this period to please look at the range of third sector organisations that can provide excellent advice.

National Health Service Dentistry

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that dentists are suitably funded to be able to continue taking on NHS patients, in light of reports that some dentists in Edinburgh are ceasing to accept NHS patients altogether. (S6F-02489)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That is a serious problem, which has been exacerbated by the global pandemic. I am pleased to say that there has been an improving picture in NHS dentistry since the pandemic. Building on that progress is an absolute priority for the Government. We have been working closely with the British Dental Association Scotland and the wider sector on payment reform, which launched just yesterday. That is the most significant change to NHS dentistry in a generation and it provides practitioners with a whole new suite of fees that are designed to provide a full range of care and treatment to NHS patients.

I am confident that reform will provide longer-term sustainability to the dental sector and will encourage dentists to continue to provide NHS care, helping to further mitigate some of the access challenges that we are seeing.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

My constituent Claire was informed that her dentist would be privatised from January and that her family would need to start paying monthly fees or leave the practice. That is not an isolated case; another family in the west of Edinburgh was also informed that their dentist would be privatised. Neither family has been able to find another dentist in their area who will take on NHS patients.

Can the First Minister outline what action the Scottish Government has taken to support dentists and their staff to ensure that their services remain accessible for all?

The First Minister

As I have said, the issue that Foysol Choudhury has raised is extremely important. I hope that, when we can provide him with the details of the payment reform, he will see that we are doing our very best in our work with the sector to incentivise NHS dentistry. For example, a dentist who provides a full set of dentures will now receive £366.80, which is an increase of more than 60 per cent. We have increased the fee for providing surface fillings by almost 45 per cent. We are trying to incentivise NHS dentistry because of the issues that Foysol Choudhury is right to mention.

We are also working with the BDA and others on the recruitment and retention of dentists, particularly in areas where we know that the problem is most acute. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care writes to Foysol Choudhury with a full and detailed response on all the actions that we are taking in that regard.

Public Transport (Affordability)

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government is making public transport more affordable. (S6F-02494)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We are taking a range of actions to deliver an affordable public transport system for people throughout Scotland.

Earlier this week, we announced that £2 million will be made available in next year’s budget to progress free travel for people seeking asylum in Scotland. This week, we announced the expansion of the existing national ferry concessionary travel scheme to all island residents under the age of 22. Right now, passengers throughout Scotland are benefiting from low fares as a result of our decision to pilot the removal of peak fares on ScotRail. In addition, thanks to the most comprehensive concessionary travel scheme in the United Kingdom, more than 2 million people are eligible to benefit from free bus travel, and 3 million such journeys are taking place every single week.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the First Minister for outlining those successes. Free bus travel has been described as life saving for people seeking asylum. When those people, having escaped from persecution, war and suffering, are forced to live on just £6 a day, the very least that we can do is extend a hand of help.

Does the First Minister agree that it is our responsibility to use the full extent of our powers to welcome those who are forced to flee their homes? Does he agree that, by extending free bus travel to people seeking asylum, we are showing that we are a country and a Parliament that are proud to protect all those who seek safety here?

The First Minister

That is absolutely well said by Mark Ruskell, and I agree with every single word of it. We have long campaigned—often with other political parties, including the Greens—against the UK Government’s inhumane asylum processes. Those processes have left many asylum seekers, who are not allowed to work, almost at the point of destitution—in fact, many of them are in destitution.

Mark Ruskell is right to challenge the Scottish Government on what more we can do to assist them. That is why I am pleased that we have announced that £2 million will be made available in next year’s budget to progress free bus travel for people seeking asylum. It is an issue that our Green colleagues have been keen to pursue with urgency and pace. The announcement is the next step in ensuring that our transport system and our country are fair and accessible to all.

I could not agree more with Mark Ruskell that, when people are seeking sanctuary from war, persecution, extreme poverty and hatred, we all have a responsibility to step up to ensure that we help them as best we possibly can.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am sure that the First Minister agrees that the UK Government’s £2 bus fare cap scheme is a very positive initiative. It has made a real difference for thousands of people and has encouraged more people to use the buses. When can we expect to see something similar in Scotland?

The First Minister

The lacklustre response to that question from the member’s own colleagues is probably quite merited, because we have, of course, the most comprehensive—it is very comprehensive—concessionary travel scheme in the UK, and we have just expanded it, as I mentioned in my response to Mark Ruskell.

The point that Mark Ruskell made, which I agree with entirely, is that we are having to step in here because asylum seekers—the origin, of course, of this question—are suffering so badly because of the inhumane laws of the UK Government. Because of those inhumane laws and because of the fact that the UK Government is inflicting destitution on many asylum seekers, we have to step in. We are proud to do that, but we should not have to step in. We should not have to continually mitigate the worst excesses of the UK Government. It would be far better if we had the powers in our own hands.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The origin of the question was how we can make bus travel more affordable. The fact is that, while we have a good and comprehensive policy in place for those who are aged up to 22 and those who are over 60, people in the middle are finding it very difficult. It is people who are on low pay, with low incomes, who are asking the question. When Andy Burnham introduced the £2 fares in Greater Manchester, usage went up by 10 per cent in a month. When are we going to look seriously at helping that group of people—the low paid, who are struggling the most and are finding bus travel unaffordable?

The First Minister

We can compare concessionary travel schemes across the UK. I go back to the point that we have the most comprehensive concessionary travel scheme in the UK. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

Young people, those with disabilities and older people are all being assisted through our concessionary travel scheme. That ensures that millions of journeys are made every week, which in turn helps the bus companies, particularly in the face of the challenges that they struggled with in the course of the pandemic.

I say to Alex Rowley that we also have our fair fares review to ensure that a sustainable and integrated approach is taken to public transport fares. I am sure that he and others will take a great interest in that when it is published. However, wherever we can act, whether that is on our buses, in removing peak rail fares, or on our ferries when it comes to the expansion of the concessionary scheme, we will act where we have the power to do so.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

For those living in the smaller isles in my constituency, ferries to and from the Orkney Mainland perform the same role as bus transport elsewhere in the country. Can the First Minister confirm that young islanders who rely on those lifeline routes will also be included in any future free ferry fares scheme?

The First Minister

I will, of course, consider the very important point that Liam McArthur raises. He raises the crucial point that those links are lifelines. They are important to young people on islands just as rail and bus services are on the mainland. We will give further details in due course, but that point will be given serious consideration.

The Presiding Officer

We move to general and constituency supplementaries. If members are concise, we will be able to get more members in.

Emergency Access Naloxone Scheme

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I am sure that members across the chamber will join me in welcoming the emergency access naloxone scheme that is beginning this week. It will see access to potentially life-saving naloxone kits, which can reverse the effects of opioid overdose, being expanded to include community pharmacies right across Scotland. Can the First Minister say any more about how that will complement the Scottish Government’s on-going work to widen access to naloxone as part of the national mission to reduce drug deaths?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am very pleased that access to naloxone is being expanded to community pharmacies right across Scotland through our national mission to reduce drug deaths and drug harm. We have already invested more than £3 million in widening access to naloxone, including through our emergency services Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service.

However, we are now going further, and the new nationwide service that was launched on Monday is a welcome addition to existing services. It has been backed by £300,000 of Scottish Government funding and will ensure that every community pharmacy will now hold at least two life-saving naloxone kits. I am very grateful to all the people in community pharmacies who are supporting our £250 million national mission to reduce drug deaths.

Eljamel Public Inquiry (Chair)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When will the chair of the Eljamel independent public inquiry be in post?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Liz Smith will be aware that we have to consult the Lord President on that issue. It will be for the Lord President to nominate an appropriate senior judge for the inquiry. Those discussions are very much under way.

I completely understand the desire of the people who suffered so badly at the hands of Professor Eljamel for pace and urgency, so there is no dither or delay at all from the Government: we simply have to go through the appropriate processes. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to write to Liz Smith with further details, but I reiterate that nomination of an appropriate judge lies with the Lord President.

Housing Supply (Edinburgh)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

It is expected that, this afternoon, the City of Edinburgh Council will declare a housing emergency, following a call from Shelter Scotland. Will the Scottish Government now accept that there is a housing emergency in our capital city, and will the First Minister look at targeted solutions and investment to increase housing supply in Edinburgh?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We will, of course, watch proceedings at City of Edinburgh Council very closely. There is simply no getting away from the real challenge that City of Edinburgh Council faces in relation to housing. That is why the Government has a very good track record of not just building houses, but building socially affordable houses. From April 2007 to the end of June 2023, we delivered more than 123,000 affordable homes, more than 87,000 of which are for social rent, including 22,994 council homes. We are the party that also ended the right to buy, which has protected an estimated 15,500 social homes. Sarah Boyack will also be aware of the measures that the Government has taken to control rent.

We will continue to liaise with City of Edinburgh Council, as we would with other local authorities, to see what assistance we can provide to deal with the real and significant challenges that it faces in relation to housing.

Medical Evacuation from Gaza

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the First Minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government on any plans for the medical evacuation of injured civilians from Gaza in the light of his commitment to treat injured civilians in Scottish hospitals in the event that there is a medical evacuation?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will make the point that I have made in the chamber before. The people of Palestine and Gaza are very proud people. They should not have to leave their land, but many of them have been forced to leave—in particular, those who have been moved from north Gaza to south Gaza.

Many people are lying injured and dying in hospitals, which are running out of fuel and medical supplies. When we can bring those injured people for treatment in Scotland and the UK, Scotland is certainly prepared for that. Our officials are in regular contact with their counterparts at the UK Department of Health and Social Care. No request has been made for the UK to receive medical evacuations from Gaza, but we hope that, if that request comes, the UK and Scotland will be ready to play their parts.

I reiterate the calls that I have been making for many weeks now: for an immediate ceasefire to allow the humanitarian corridor to open; to allow supplies, including fuel, to come into Gaza; and, of course, to stop the bombing and killing. We have seen horrendous scenes during the past week, let alone the past three and a half weeks—in particular, the sickening bombing of Jabalia refugee camp, which must be condemned in the strongest possible manner.

Police Funding Cuts

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

On Tuesday night, in the Kirkton area of Dundee, large gangs caused chaos by damaging property, setting fires and blocking roads into a housing estate, which prompted the intervention of riot police. That behaviour is unacceptable and Kirkton’s residents deserve better. The police force is stretched because of funding constraints, which are making it increasingly challenging for it to handle large-scale incidents such as that one. Will the First Minister get behind the police and reverse police funding cuts?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let me just say very clearly that there was a very efficient response by Police Scotland. We should thank our police officers for what they do every single day, putting themselves in harm’s way in order to protect the public.

On funding for Police Scotland, I have said in the chamber on many occasions in recent weeks that we have provided an increase to Police Scotland’s revenue budget in this financial year.

I am very grateful to not just Police Scotland but the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and other partners for their swift attendance and efficiency in dealing with that damaging and reckless behaviour. There is an open police investigation under way, so I urge anyone who has information about the disorder to contact Police Scotland.

School Meals Debt (Cancellation)

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Aberlour has called for the cancellation of school meals debt. Through its research, it has identified that

“income thresholds for free school meal eligibility have barely risen in the last twenty years.”

Delays to the extension of free school meals mean that some parents and families are now feeling the impact of the Government’s inaction. Will the First Minister back calls for the cancellation of school meals debt? Will he consider an immediate uprating of the income thresholds to give working families some much-needed relief and further reduce the likelihood of hunger in schools?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We will, of course, consider any suggestions—not just from trusted third sector partners such as Aberlour, but from members right across the chamber, as we head into the budget process. We have a very generous free school meals offer and, as per my programme for government, we will seek to expand that.

However, we know that we still have significant challenges around poverty in Scotland. It is due to the Scottish Government’s actions, including the game-changing Scottish child payment, that an estimated 90,000 children will be lifted out of poverty this year. Instead of our having to continually mitigate the harm from Westminster—such as from the two-child limit, the benefits cap and the rape clause, some of which we can mitigate and some of which, I am afraid, we simply cannot mitigate—would not it be much better to have the full powers in our own hands, so that we could not only reduce poverty but eradicate it altogether?

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s questions.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

In the First Minister’s answers this afternoon, he said of the request for messages from the Scottish Government that

“The messages were asked for in September, just a matter of weeks ago.”

However, commenting on that, at the UK Covid inquiry, Jamie Dawson KC said:

“requests have sought not only information, but also access to potentially relevant messages ... requests for such information and such messages were issued in late 2022”.

Can the First Minister confirm that counsel to the inquiry is correct? If so, will he revise the statement that he made to Parliament?

The Presiding Officer

The point that Mr Ross raises is not a point of order. Mr Ross’s comments are now on the record, and there might or might not be a response. However, the content of a member’s contributions are a matter for the member.

12:48 Meeting suspended.

12:49 On resuming—

Nuclear Weapons

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-10712, in the name of Bill Kidd, on a nuclear weapons-free Europe. [

Interruption

.] I ask those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quietly as possible, please.

The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament welcomes what it sees as the continuing progress being made towards implementing the aims of the United Nations Agenda for Disarmament, as outlined in the 2018 document, Securing Our Common Future, and in particular towards the establishment of more nuclear weapon-free zones (NWFZs), which were reportedly described by the UN secretary general as “landmark instruments that represent an excellent example of the synergy between regional and global efforts towards a world free of nuclear weapons”; recognises the work of the secretary general and the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs in their efforts with UN member states to strengthen and consolidate NWFZs, including, it understands, by facilitating enhanced cooperation and consultation between existing zones, encouraging nuclear weapon states to adhere to the relevant protocols to the treaties establishing such zones, and supporting the further establishment of such zones, including in the Middle East; understands that the process of establishing NWFZs is a complex, difficult endeavour, but, despite this, considers that examples such as the ongoing progress in exploring the establishment of a NWFZ through the work of the Middle East Treaty Organisation (METO) and others demonstrates that anything is possible; applauds the work of METO and everyone working for a nuclear-weapon-free world, including the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) and the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND); understands that, through the endeavours of such organisations, including those operating in Glasgow, it is estimated that 39% of the world’s population, 56% of the Earth’s land area and 60% of its countries are currently within NWFZs; notes the expression of regret that the establishment of a NWFZ across the European continent has not yet been possible, and further notes the belief that the time to comprehensively explore the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free Europe is now, in order to see what is possible and how it is possible, and to make it possible.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I know that people in the gallery are excited about seeing me speak—that is just the way it is.

We are here today in the shadow of the on-going Israel-Gaza conflict and the continuing war in Ukraine. Our thoughts go out to all those who are affected. We are reminded of man’s inhumanity to man and to where such inhumanity can lead.

This August, we commemorated the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Parliament noted that, in Nagasaki, which experienced a more powerful and even more deadly detonation than the previous one in Hiroshima three days earlier, everything within a mile of ground zero was annihilated and more than 40,000 human beings were killed by the initial detonation.

It is said that we need to learn from history to avoid repeating past errors, but, today as much as ever, the risk of escalation under the dark shadow of nuclear confrontation is ever present. Even though we are under that shadow, we need to look for the light, fight for what is right and hope for a better tomorrow.

After the tragedies 78 years ago, hopes for a nuclear weapons-free world were seen as naive. Few would have believed that, today, almost half of the world’s population, more than half of its land area and almost two thirds of its countries would be included in nuclear weapons-free zones.

That truly remarkable achievement has been possible only through the passion and perseverance of trailblazing individuals, civic organisations and like-minded nations. I am referring to pioneers such as Alva Myrdal, born in Sweden in 1902, who dedicated her life to the welfare of others and rose to become the chair of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s social science section. She was the first woman to hold such a prominent position in the United Nations.

Myrdal went on to be elected to the Riksdag and, in 1962, she was sent as the Swedish delegate to the UN disarmament conference in Geneva. She continued to perform that role until 1973. In 1982, she was awarded the Nobel peace prize for her work on disarmament and, until her passing in 1986, she continued to advocate for global nuclear disarmament.

Today, that torch is carried on through the work of international organisations such as Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, the Global Security Institute, the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy and, of course, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons—which, coincidently, this August announced the appointment of Melissa Parke, a former United Nations legal expert and Australian Government minister, to the position of executive director. Melissa is here today, and it is an honour to welcome her to the Scottish Parliament—[

Applause

.]

There is more to say, though. We wish Melissa every success in her position, in which she will, I am certain, prove to be as much of a trailblazer as those who have come before her.

We have other trailblazers with us here today. I would like to honour Gari Donn of UN House Scotland and the indomitable Rebecca Johnson and Janet Fenton from Scottish CND, whose tireless work has served to further the cause of nuclear disarmament here, in Scotland, and beyond.

Many said that encouraging the establishment of the Middle East Treaty Organization to further the aim of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region was naive—impossible, even—yet I remember a meeting taking place here in Edinburgh, which was made possible only through the work of Janet and others, to aid the fledgling idea. That idea is now firmly established and acknowledged in the region as one with real potential to rid the middle east of all weapons of mass destruction as a gateway towards regional security and peace. At a recent meeting, METO founder and executive director Sharon Dolev, alongside director Emad Kiyaei, spoke of the incredible progress that they were making and of their gratitude to those involved in that pivotal meeting in Scotland.

That reminded me of the respect and regard in which Scotland is held across the globe through its historical and contemporary contributions to international development and discourse. As such, Scotland is uniquely placed to play a central and crucial role in furthering the work that has already been done to rid our planet of the threat of nuclear weapons and to promote global security. To that end, the time is right to begin serious discussion on the framework for establishing a nuclear weapons-free Europe—a discussion that has Scotland at its centre.

I ask members to remember that, in Europe, to this day, wild boar in Germany have caesium in their bodies as a result of nuclear weapons tests that were carried out in the atmosphere. In addition, we must all be aware of the damage that would have resulted in Scotland if, in the 1950s, the Westminster Government had carried through its plans to use Caithness as its nuclear weapons test site. That did not happen, not because of the damage to our people and environment that would have resulted from the radioactivity following the nuclear explosions, but because the very wet weather there was damaging to the delicate electrical equipment that was to be used.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Bill Kidd mentioned

that Caithness was not allowed to be a nuclear weapon test zone. Will he acknowledge that many of our constituents were on Christmas Island, that they and their families have suffered since then and that the United Kingdom Government has ignored them?

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

That point

is extremely important. The truth is that, wherever in the world nuclear weapons are used, they damage human beings and the environment. The people who have suffered from that deserve our strongest support and to be recognised.

This Saturday, Glasgow welcomes Scotland’s first festival for survival, which has been organised by Scottish CND to explore the link between nuclear weapons and climate change and will include speakers from across the political spectrum and civic society. The festival will also examine the role that we can play in an era of global crisis by showing how campaigns, progressive foreign policy and the expertise that is based in Scotland can take forward the agenda for peace, disarmament and climate justice.

For me, part of that agenda is about starting the process of establishing a nuclear weapons-free Europe. It is my wish that today’s debate, the ideas of others and the response of the Government can come together to inform and shape where we go from here in order to make that wish a reality. [

Applause

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before we move to the open debate, I give a gentle reminder to those in the public gallery that they should not participate in our proceedings. That includes applauding, however tempting that might be.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing his motion to the chamber. It will come as a surprise to no one that I am not a unilateral disarmer. I believe in multilateral disarmament. I say politely to Bill Kidd that my policy outlook is framed by the real world situation. We cannot disinvent nuclear weapons, so, while some states have them, it is right that Britain retains its nuclear deterrent.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

According to the logic of Stephen Kerr’s argument, given that he thinks that a deterrent—as he calls it—is necessary, he is not in favour of multilateral disarmament, never mind unilateral disarmament.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Recent history shows that it is possible for nuclear arsenals to be downscaled, given the nature of the power of nuclear weapons. I therefore do not accept the premise of Richard Leonard’s intervention.

I believe firmly that the first duty of any Government is to protect this country. At its core, that means protecting our country from attack by another country—that is what the nuclear deterrent is all about. It is the ultimate defence insurance policy. Being pro-nuclear deterrent does not by any means make me in any way pro-war. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am pro-nuclear deterrent because I am anti-war. War—as we have seen, tragically and all too evidently, in the past few months in Ukraine—causes enormous destruction and loss of life. I have been thinking a lot about Ukraine in relation to the motion.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Stephen Kerr refers to nuclear weapons as deterrents, but does he accept that it is equally the case that they could be targets in the event of a war?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Let me focus on the deterrent aspect, because I have been thinking a lot about Ukraine. We have to go all the way back to December 1994—to the Budapest memorandum—when the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom committed themselves to a memorandum that stated that they would

“respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

We all know what has happened since 2014 and, more dramatically, since last year. I ask members this very simple question, as unpalatable as it is: would Ukraine have been exposed to the aggression and brutality of, and the invasion by, Vladimir Putin’s Russia if it had retained its nuclear weapons? The Budapest memorandum paved the way for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons.

Politicians from all parties have a duty to avoid conflict and war. I think about our own national motto, “nemo me impune lacessit”—forgive my schoolboy Latin—which means “no-one provokes me with impunity”. The United Kingdom, our country, is not a warmonger. We are not an aggressive country. We do not try to impose our will on others by using hard power; we are a nation of pragmatists. We appreciate that we have to defend what we have and that the best route to peace is through strength. That pragmatism calls on us to be pragmatic in the context of reality—we have to deal with the world as it is, not the one that we would like.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Will the member give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please be brief.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Peace is obviously more than the absence of war; it is about justice and safety. Would the money that is spent on these weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate killing not be better invested in things that truly make people safe in this country?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I would be grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, if you would give me some latitude with my speech, because I think that I will be the only speaker in the debate who will take a position different from that in the motion.

I agree with Ruth Maguire, funnily enough; she is, of course, right. However, again, we are moving away from the reality that we have to deal with towards a world that we would perhaps like to deal with—we have to deal with the reality as it is. In the spirit of the pragmatism that I have been describing, that means that we have to be pragmatic about the need to retain, upgrade, modernise and keep relevant our nuclear deterrent.

The simple message that we need to send—it is one that, I am afraid, we will continue to need to send—is one of deterrence: deterring aggressor nations from thinking that we can ever be intimidated or blackmailed by them in the way that Russia has attempted to do with Ukraine.

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for allowing me a little bit of latitude, since mine will be the only voice saying something different during the debate. I reiterate that Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his detestation of our country and of the west. We have seen the lengths to which he is prepared to go to undermine the west and to undermine Ukraine by attempting to obliterate it as a sovereign nation. We, in the United Kingdom, must never put ourselves in a position in which we are defenceless. Our insurance—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You need to conclude, Mr Kerr.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

—through the nuclear deterrent is based on reality, not some desirable fantasy.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The latitude was granted for the interventions rather than for any other reason.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It will be

no surprise to anyone that I disagree with every word that we have just heard Stephen Kerr say.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Every word?

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Practically every word.

I thank Bill Kidd for bringing the debate to the chamber. I fully support his motion and commend him for his unwavering commitment to getting rid of the obscenity of nuclear weapons. In fact, I would even call him a trailblazer. I completely endorse my colleague’s wish for a nuclear weapons-free Europe. I welcome to the gallery the United Nations legal expert and executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Melissa Parke. I hope that she enjoys the debate and can see how much support she has in the Scottish Parliament.

Nuclear weapons are wrong at every level—strategically, morally and financially. Even before I became involved in politics, decades ago, I instinctively knew that they were abhorrent. I am delighted that the Scottish Government has set out how, after independence, Scotland could adopt a written constitution that would protect and enhance all our human rights and get rid of those weapons from the shores of our beautiful country. The First Minister’s proposals for new constitutional rights for an independent Scotland include a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons being based in this country. Westminster’s commitment to nuclear weapons leaves other aspects of our defence weakened, and the outdated argument—some of which we have just heard from the previous speaker—that they have kept the peace and are a deterrent is palpable nonsense as the world is witnessing the tragic and heartbreaking wars that are happening at the present time.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will ask the member a very straightforward question. Does she not accept the premise that the war in Ukraine might have never happened if Ukraine had still had nuclear weapons? The reality is that it was the perceived weakness of the position of Ukraine that led Vladimir Putin to do what he did, recklessly, over a year ago.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Ms Mackay.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I do not agree with that premise, which was woven into Mr Kerr’s own speech. I do not think that such weapons will ever be a deterrent, and they never have been.

The UK Government’s irresponsible obsession with nuclear weapons has led to immoral and ruinous expense. The current estimate is that the nuclear deterrent costs us around £2.7 billion a year. Just think how that money could be spent on new hospitals, schools and uplifting armed forces’ pay. The Scottish Government supports long-term investment in Faslane as a conventional military base. Our position on nuclear weapons is clear. After independence, the SNP would use Scotland’s new sovereign powers to remove them from Scottish territory as soon as that could safely be undertaken.

Bill Kidd has already mentioned this, but it is worth repeating repeat that, on Saturday, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will hold a festival for survival, which promises to be an inspiring and landmark event. It will take place in two venues in Glasgow and will bring together campaigners, civic voices, think tanks and academics—everyone who is interested in moving forward the case for removing such weapons from Scotland and the world. The festival will include a range of workshops and cultural exhibits to bring hundreds of people together to discuss and debate the issue. The focus will be on the twin threats to our planet—nuclear calamity and catastrophic climate change—because the two are interlinked. The CND’s statement on its website says that those twin issues

“fuse together to threaten the very habitat we rely on. Today’s nuclear bombs are many times more destructive than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of the nuclear states including India and China are developing new weapons while the non-nuclear powers create new pressure towards disarmament through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In Scotland, we have a special responsibility to rise to that challenge. Removal of nuclear warheads from Faslane and Coulport would dismantle the British nuclear weapons system and prove that nuclear states can be disarmed.”

We share the deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and recognise the consequent need to eliminate these inhumane and abhorrent weapons. The abolition of nuclear weapons would be a global good of the highest order and an essential step to promoting the security and wellbeing of all people.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The dream of a nuclear-free world is one that sustains those who have been committed to peace and justice for decades, yet we still seem very far away from that ideal. To Mr Kerr, I say that reality will change only if we change it, and we must play our part in doing so. Our job is to build peace, not war. I am happy to make any small contribution that I can as part of that effort, and I am sure that many in the chamber are, too.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is Carol Mochan saying that it is the position of the Labour Party that we would unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons? We already have an example of a nuclear state that—despite what we heard earlier—was attacked because it gave up its nuclear weapons. That was true in the case of Ukraine. Is she advocating that we should do exactly the same and leave ourselves vulnerable to the sort of blackmail and aggression that Ukraine has now suffered?

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I do not believe that the world is a safer place with nuclear weapons, so we disagree on that point.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Is that Labour’s position?

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

This is a members’ business debate, and I am entitled to put forward my view on the idea that we should have a nuclear weapons-free world.

During a time when horrendous war and inhumanity are on our screens day after day, it has really felt appropriate that we strive to work on the issue that we are discussing today. I thank Bill Kidd for his continuing work on this vital issue, and I am clear in my support for the aims that are addressed and recognised in the motion. We need more activity in the Parliament that is dedicated to peace and more parliamentarians speaking boldly in favour of that.

The motion notes that 60 per cent of the world’s countries are now nuclear weapons-free zones, which is promising. Although the pace is gradual, we are slowly decreasing the threat of nuclear weapons globally. However, it remains the case that a small concentration of countries continue to put the entire globe at risk, and I am ashamed to say that our own is included in that number.

Striving to make Europe a nuclear weapons-free zone is a noble and worthwhile pursuit that this Parliament can contribute to constructively with partners across the continent, many of whom will have a clear interest in Scotland, due to its significance as one of the few areas in Europe to house nuclear weapons. Adding our voice to that orchestra has a definite impact, and it is wise of us to do so. People want to hear from Scotland on this issue, so let us speak to the world about it. Speaking to the world on this issue is something that we perhaps do not do often enough.

Although there are differences of opinion on this issue across the chamber, and even within parties, Scotland and the UK more widely have played an important role in the anti-nuclear weapons movement for decades by being proactive and constructive and having our communities speak out about the issue. There is no reason for us to slow that down.

I understand that there is no quick fix to the mistakes of the past that brought these horrible weapons into reality, but I am confident that, in time, the idea that we once had nuclear warheads capable of mass death and destruction on our doorstep will seem completely ridiculous. That might not be in my lifetime, but I hope that it is in my children’s lifetime. Here today, in this building, we can come together and make a difference. We can have a nuclear weapons-free Europe. I do not want generations to suffer because of the mistakes that we made and because we did not speak out. That is a key responsibility for all elected representatives. Let us work together in the knowledge that we can make Europe a beacon to the rest of the world and have a nuclear weapons-free Europe.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I am very grateful to Bill Kidd for securing this important debate, and I congratulate him on achieving cross-party support for his motion. The issue has been at the forefront of his campaigning for many years, and I commend his tireless efforts.

It is an honour and a solemn responsibility to speak in this debate, in a country that stands for peace and one that seeks the abolishment of the threats that loom large over our collective futures as we stand on the precipice. Global affairs in the past few weeks have demonstrated that a state of safety and security is not one that we can take for granted. Last week, Russia’s Parliament backed the withdrawal of Moscow’s ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, which is one of the most consequential international agreements for global security. In these turbulent times, the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones—or NWFZs—stands as a beacon of hope for the present and future generations and the international community as a whole.

We have a duty to our constituents to ensure that Scotland plays a leading role in driving forward the ideas of peace, prosperity and a sustainable future. That is why I join others in supporting the United Nations agenda for disarmament and recognise and commend the relentless efforts to establish more nuclear weapons-free zones across the globe.

Currently, there are five established NWFZs, which cover regions such as Latin America, the Caribbean, the south Pacific, south-east Asia, Africa and central Asia. Those zones cover a staggering 56 per cent of earth’s land area, include 60 per cent of its countries and shelter approximately 39 per cent of the global population from the immediate dangers of nuclear weapons. What makes those NWFZs truly remarkable is that they are not merely symbolic gestures; they come with legally binding obligations, verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

While we celebrate the milestone of achieving progress towards the UN agenda for disarmament, we must also face the undeniable reality of the absence of NWFZs across the continent of Europe. Scotland, with its clear history and stand on nuclear disarmament, has a unique perspective and a role to play. The Scottish Government’s position on the matter is clear, and I am proud to support the commitment to pursuing the safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland. However, our vision of a nuclear-free Scotland has been threatened by changes in the geopolitical landscape in recent years. One of the most alarming repercussions of Brexit is the potential impact of the UK’s nuclear posture. Brexit has weakened our ties with European neighbours, particularly those that champion peace and diplomacy. If the UK Government truly aspires to rebuild and strengthen our relationship with those countries, a greater effort towards to the establishment of NWFZs in Europe would certainly be a bold step in the right direction.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I cannot believe that we have heard no reference at all to the importance of NATO in all of this. NATO is a nuclear alliance. I understand that the Scottish National Party’s policy is that we remain a member of NATO. No acknowledgement of the important role that NATO has played in the peace of Europe for decades seems remiss on the part of the speaker.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give David Torrance the time back.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Many nations in NATO do not have nuclear weapons, but they are part of it.

By establishing those zones, we can take collective ownership of our safety and security, and send a powerful message that security can be based on mutual trust, co-operation and diplomacy.

Most people in Scotland are strongly opposed to nuclear weapons, and it is well established that an independent Scotland will be free of nuclear weapons. However, it is only with independence that Scotland’s interests can be adequately represented on the international stage.

The UK Government has not ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; in fact, it has decided to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons. That is not only hugely disappointing; it is a break in the commitment to the international community.

European history has borne witness to countless wars and conflicts. By establishing NWFZs, we affirm our collective commitment to peace, unity and security. Doing so in Europe would be a powerful signal to the world that it is united in its desire for a safer future for all its inhabitants.

As international security concerns are heightened and global politics continue to change, we need to renew and encourage our global co-operation and diplomacy. The establishment of a NWFZ in Europe is one of many tools to help us to achieve that. That would be not just for strategic or political reasons—it is a moral imperative.

Although the path to nuclear disarmament is undeniably challenging, it is a path that Scotland is leading on with determination. That is demonstrated by cross-party support for the motion, with unity. In the words of Rabbie Burns:

“Now’s the day, and now’s the hour.”

The time to explore the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free Europe is now for Scotland, Europe and the world.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I thank him, along with most other members who are taking part, for their clear stance that nuclear weapons are a moral disgrace.

I am grateful, in particular, that Bill Kidd’s motion highlights the UN document, “Securing Our Common Future: An Agenda for Disarmament”. It is five years since it was produced, but it has had little attention, either in this chamber or elsewhere in UK political debate. That is a shame, because it is a rich and deep piece of work that is at least as relevant now as when it was written, and probably more so. It closes with a quotation about disarmament from the great and visionary Dag Hammarskjöld. He said:

“in this field, as we well know, a standstill does not exist; if you do not go forward, you do go backward”.

The past five years have seen us, as a global community, going backwards in some fundamental and tragic ways. We have seen the relentless rise of inequalities; the normalisation of war; the intensification of climate breakdown; the undermining of norms against nuclear weapon testing; and, in just a few short weeks, thousands of children killed in Gaza. We grieve together, as peace and justice both feel very far away.

Bill Kidd’s motion invites us to recognise, through our deep sadness, some of the quiet work of peace that is carried out by the establishment of nuclear weapons-free zones. It asks us to recognise how much of the world is covered by those zones, and how much is not. The gulf between the hemispheres—between south and north, and between the majority and the minority—is laid bare for us all to see. We acknowledge, especially in these days of pain, the dedication of those who are seeking such a zone in the middle east.

Mr Kerr may be interested to know that there is a central Asian nuclear weapons-free zone that includes Kazakhstan, with its extensive border with Russia, belying some of his earlier comments about Ukraine.

Why, therefore, should we not have such a zone in Europe? In 2016, the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt and others analysed that question. They argued for the value of a European zone, beginning, perhaps, with just a few committed countries, building momentum across civil society, courageous in resisting powerful opposition, and challenging the deadly control of the nuclear status quo. That is a vision that many in Scotland share and that an independent Scotland might take as one of its priorities.

We should not underestimate the work of peace, neither its significance nor its cost. “Securing Our Common Future” reminds us that the casualties of modern war, whether it is nuclear or conventional, are, more and more often, civilians. The document reiterates the connections between peace and the sustainable development goals, those minimum grounds for human flourishing.

The absence of war is not just one goal but an essential foundation for all the goals. It speaks of the gendered impacts both of violent conflicts and of unmet sustainable development goals. Women experience those shortfalls not just as absences but as direct blows to their bodies, their homes, their children and their hope.

It reminds us of the obstacles to peace and disarmament. They are not just the accidental causes of conflict: disputed resources, land and beliefs. There are those for whom the expansion of war, the stockpiling of weapons, arms races and disaster capitalism mean profit and power. We must call them to account as clearly as we do the fossil fuel industry.

Finally, there is a question for us all: what do we mean by security? Why do we support a defence sector, including NATO and its military-industrial complex, without question and yet refuse to fund peace to the same level? Are we content to cower beneath a nuclear umbrella, praying that the wind does not turn it inside out, watching the hard rain fall on our neighbours’ uncovered heads? Or might we be more truly safe alongside them, building a sustainable shelter that we can all share? Surely we must all seek to secure our common future.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I congratulate my colleague Bill Kidd on securing this important debate on a nuclear weapons-free Europe, and I thank him for his commitment to the issue and his work as the convener of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament.

As has been mentioned, Bill will be one of the main speakers at Saturday’s festival of survival. The event will bring together many campaigners for peace and focus on the twin threats of climate destruction and nuclear annihilation. I wish it every success and thank the organisers for their endeavour. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and all others who oppose nuclear weapons across the world.

I am sure that many of us in the chamber and across Scotland saw the global blockbuster “Oppenheimer” over the summer. The film, which was utterly harrowing, brought greater awareness to younger generations of the sheer destruction and death caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it was able to illustrate only some of the horror—the reality was far more gruesome than can be depicted in film.

What was important, though, is that the film drew people’s attention to the real and present danger of nuclear weapons. Scottish CND estimates that there are 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world; their power is even more destructive, and their use will be more catastrophic than ever. That is why we must be passionate about achieving a nuclear-free Scotland, first and foremost in a Europe where nuclear weapons are a thing of the past.

Scotland’s nuclear weapons base at Faslane is only 40 minutes’ drive from my constituency, and I am sure that many of my constituents will agree that it has done nothing to make us feel safer. Instead, it has made us feel more on edge.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Many of the member’s constituents are probably employees who work at Faslane; indeed, the livelihoods of probably tens of thousands of people depend on it. That is the other side of the coin, and it deserves to be displayed as well as the side that the member is talking about.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Ms McNair.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I thank the member for his intervention. I am not quite sure what the figure is, but I think that it is only 500.

Again, many of my constituents will agree that the base has done nothing to make us feel safer; instead, it has made us feel more on edge. Obviously, these weapons are wrong, statistically, morally and financially; they cost billions of pounds, and that money would be much better spent on healthcare, education, housing, welfare and building a better future for our children. It puts the debate about the level of social security in a different context.

Critics might argue that a Europe free of nuclear weapons undermines our security, but the reality is quite the opposite. They do nothing to keep us safe in the current geopolitical landscape; in fact, it is more likely that they put us at risk. When we debate having nuclear weapons in Scotland and across Europe, I think that we must all remember the scale of damage that they can cause. We know that their existence is something that we can unite against. Indeed, it was a proud moment when, by an overwhelming majority in 2015, the Parliament united in opposition to Trident renewal.

Not only would an independent Scotland be a way of seeing nuclear weapons removed from our country, it would be a significant boost towards removing these weapons of mass destruction from the rest of the UK. It is clear that rehousing nuclear weapons elsewhere would be a significant challenge—hopefully, it will prove impossible. By advocating for disarmament in our own country, we send a strong message that we must work collectively to achieve a nuclear weapons-free Europe and world.

A nuclear weapons-free Europe is about the protection of humanity and the provision of a safer world for our children. At its core, it represents a dedication to peace, co-operation and a world in which dialogue prevails over destruction. That is a world that we should all want to live in.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I

remind members that, when referring to Bill Kidd or any other member, full names should be used.

I am conscious of the number of members who still want to participate in the debate, so I am minded to take a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[

Bill Kidd

]

Motion agreed to.

That is not an invitation to extend your speech too much, Mr Leonard.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to Parliament.

We have been campaigning for a nuclear weapons-free Europe for as long as I have been active in the peace movement. People like Edward Thompson, Mary Kaldor and Ken Coates formed European Nuclear Disarmament in the early 1980s, in response to the deployment of American cruise and Pershing missiles across Europe, including at Greenham Common, arguing that instead of being, in the words of the propaganda,

a “theatre” of “limited” nuclear warfare, Europe must be a “theatre of peace”.

They joined up with dissidents like Rudolf Bahro in East Germany and Roy Medvedev in the Soviet Union, with the shared credo that

“Protest is the only realistic form of self-defence”,

bearing witness to the enduring truth that nobody wins a nuclear war: we all lose. The understanding that if we do not destroy those weapons, they will destroy us—that there is a terrifying finality to it.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is more than

40 years since Richard Leonard and I first debated the whole issue of nuclear weapons. I have to say to him—and I hope that he will accept this—that, in the 40 years since, this country has not been involved in a land war or a war of any description in Europe. Does he not agree and acknowledge that the strength and success of NATO—by the way, it was Labour that founded NATO—has been a guarantor of the peace, and that underpinning that has been our nuclear deterrent?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I can give you the time back, Mr Leonard.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

No. I am

afraid that Stephen Kerr has not changed his position since he was in favour of Trident, back in those days, and I was against it. I do not accept the premise of his arguments either, because, four decades on, the cause of peace and disarmament has never been more critical.

It has never been more critical than it is in Europe today, with Russia waging war on Ukraine but also just last week revoking its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. It has never been more critical than it is today in the middle east, with the gravity of the situation that we now face, with Israel a nuclear state with a substantial nuclear arsenal and with a Government that, along with the US Administration, is boycotting United Nations attempts to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east. Yet, it is my deepest conviction that all that people want, including the people of Israel and the people of Palestine, is a chance to live in peace.

My message to all nuclear states, including our own, is that nuclear weapons are not just immoral; they are illegal. There is no such thing as a “targeted” nuclear attack. Its impact is indiscriminate. It cannot be limited to military installations. Entire civilian populations face annihilation.

Just as, 40 years ago, we were warning that a war in Europe is not a limited war, a war in the middle east is not a limited war, either. It risks becoming a general war, a total war, a nuclear war, which is why it is unthinkable. That is exactly why we demand a ceasefire now and UN peacekeepers on the ground, and it is why we need a nuclear weapons-free zone treaty in the middle east if we are to secure a just and lasting peace.

Finally, what of our own situation in all of this? The idea of an independent UK nuclear deterrent is mendacious. The Pentagon supplies us with nuclear warheads. Any use of weapons from these shores would need to be sanctioned by the President of the United States of America, and only then at the request of the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, who is always an American general. We are a client state, but the power of example should not be underestimated. That is why I do not flinch in my support for unilateral nuclear disarmament.

So, I steadfastly oppose the commissioning of a new generation of nuclear weapons. It is why I will continue to campaign for peace, justice and disarmament because, even at this time of despair, I believe that hope will triumph over fear; that we can build a world where we convert skills and science from being in the service of violence, warfare and destruction to being in the service of the human condition, ecology and the cause of peace. I firmly believe that working for that brighter future is not only our bounden duty as members of this Parliament; it is also our solemn obligation as citizens of this world.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Peace and stability are precarious, and safety and security are about more than the absence of violence and war. The number of conflicts around the globe and the accompanying human suffering are horrific. It is hard to witness, even from our position of comfort and safety. Many of the citizens whom I represent feel entirely helpless watching from afar the violence and destruction unfolding in Yemen, Ukraine and Gaza. The escalation of such hostilities to nuclear warfare is all too real a prospect.

I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing this important debate, and I acknowledge his long-standing and unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament, and to peace and justice.

I also thank my colleague Stephen Kerr. It is not often that we hear a pro-nuclear weapons voice in such debates. I think that it is helpful. I know that it is not always comfortable being the only person who takes a different position—even for a confident young Conservative such as himself—but it is helpful that we talk about and exercise our differences. It is helpful for people to hear them.

Nuclear weapons are a threat to safety and security. That they continue to be considered to be a source of international influence by some is perverse to me. Those who believe that often speak of their being a deterrent, but it is demonstrably not the case that they are a deterrent. Even if it were true, that does not, as Bill Kidd noted in a previous debate, preclude the use of nuclear weapons for evil intent.

Where weapons of mass destruction are used to kill indiscriminately and to wreak environmental carnage, the results are catastrophic and long lasting. Whenever we speak of these matters, we must never forget that the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan in 1945 killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Their effects are still being felt today. Close to 250,000 civilians met an unimaginable end in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many thousands more have since died from radiation-related illnesses.

There are currently five nuclear weapons-free zones, and the benefits of the treaties are clear. They have helped to strengthen global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament norms against use and testing. They are a testament to what nations can do when they work together, and they represent the first step towards the exclusion of all weapons of mass destruction.

The Middle East Treaty Organization reported that nine out of 28 countries in that region have the capability of creating weapons. Worryingly, four of them have already used chemical weapons during war. The Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons states that, as long as any weapons remain, it “defies credibility” that they will not one day be used, including “by accident or miscalculation”.

The establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone is a measured and incremental approach to disarmament that slowly and methodically rules out areas from nuclear deployment. It is explicitly endorsed by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, article 7 of which formally defines the right of states to create regional nuclear weapons-free zones

“to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.”

I wish to see an independent, nuclear-free Scotland. Until then, we must all continue to oppose the presence of nuclear weapons in Scottish waters and support the global fight for nuclear disarmament.

Safety and security are about more than the absence of violence and war; they are about creating a just and equal society in which everyone can achieve their full potential and where no one is left behind. The continued progress towards the establishment of more nuclear weapons-free zones will help to nurture and support those who most need such zones.

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

I commend Bill Kidd on bringing this important debate to the chamber. He is a long-time campaigner for nuclear disarmament and a fine advocate in this Parliament and across the world for a world that is free of nuclear weapons. He is a legend, I think. Those are my words.

I welcome to the debate Melissa Parke, who is the executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. I had the privilege of meeting her earlier, and we discussed many areas of mutual agreement and co-operation. We will continue those conversations as we move forward.

I declare an interest—members will not be surprised—as an outspoken advocate for and supporter of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament since my teenage years. I will leave others to work out the timeframe for that. I am unequivocal in my opposition to nuclear weapons.

The Scottish Government’s position is very clear: nuclear weapons, with their indiscriminate and devastating impacts, are morally, strategically and economically wrong. We firmly oppose the threat and use of nuclear weapons and the basing of them in Scotland.

Marie McNair mentioned a new generation of young people learning about nuclear weapons from the film “Oppenheimer”. The words “I am become death” now resonate through all the generations. We are firmly committed to pursuing the safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland. Independence would allow Scotland to achieve that aim and unite with allies across the world in securing nuclear disarmament.

As Rona Mackay reminded us, in June the Scottish Government published a paper in our “Building a New Scotland” series on “Creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland”. That paper proposed that the interim constitution should place a duty on the Scottish Government to pursue nuclear disarmament. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber who share my opposition to those dangerous weapons will agree that independence is the surest route to ridding Scotland of them for good.

I join Bill Kidd and others in welcoming progress under the United Nations agenda for disarmament. I commend all countries that act as champions and supporters of those important actions. The international community, the vast majority of which opposes nuclear weapons, must continue to work together to create the conditions for a world without those weapons.

I am particularly pleased to see the progress of nuclear weapons-free zones that is mentioned in Bill Kidd’s call for a nuclear-free Europe. Those zones, as David Torrance highlighted, provide a vital protection to the people and environments of Latin America and the Caribbean, the south Pacific, south-east Asia, central Asia and Africa. Within the zones, the manufacture, acquisition, testing and possession of nuclear weapons are not allowed. That is us in the global north taking responsibility for our impact on the global south.

Europe does not enjoy the protection of a nuclear weapons-free zone. As the motion notes, establishing nuclear weapons-free zones is complex and difficult. Theodore Roosevelt famously said:

“Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty.”

Although I cannot completely agree with that sentiment, it would be nice if some things were easy. I hope that we can all agree that a world that is free of nuclear weapons is worth having and that working towards that is very much worth doing.

As I and many others—including Richard Leonard—have said, the moral case alone should be sufficient incentive for nuclear disarmament. No more reason should be needed, but let us consider the colossal waste of money, for a moment. Estimates for the replacement of Trident range from the UK Government’s own figures of up to £41 billion to a lifetime cost that has been calculated by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament at a staggering £205 billion—money that could be well spent elsewhere. That spending simply cannot be justified. With Ruth Maguire, I urge the UK Government to focus its defence spending on the capabilities that we need in order to fight the threats that we face in the modern world. I also urge the UK Government to recognise and compensate our Christmas Island veterans, many of whom I have proudly represented in the chamber.

I join colleagues in thanking organisations such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. Their commitment to the cause is truly helping to make the world a safer place.

I commend Rona Mackay, Carol Mochan, David Torrance, Maggie Chapman, Marie McNair, Richard Leonard, Ruth Maguire and, of course, Bill Kidd for their unstinting commitment to the cause against nuclear weapons and for the peace that we all seek for our country and our world to live in.

We live in a complex and fragile world, but nuclear weapons do not provide any meaningful deterrent to many modern-day threats, and they have not prevented other nuclear-armed states from carrying out terrible acts in the UK and around the world.

I find it quite offensive that Stephen Kerr suggested that Ukraine could have prevented its being invaded if it had retained nuclear weapons—especially considering the past and current threats to nuclear energy plants in that country.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way on that point?

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

I certainly will.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is not, in fact, what I said, and I think that the minister has perhaps not been listening to the debate as closely as she should have been. I asked this question of Parliament: if Ukraine had retained its nuclear deterrent, which it gave up freely on the back of the Budapest memorandum, would Russia have so easily—without careful thought—done what it did last year? That is what I asked. To misrepresent my views otherwise is not in keeping with what I expect from a minister of the Scottish Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, I can give you the time back.

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

Oh, it’s not like Stephen Kerr to tell a woman off in this chamber. Quite frankly, I do not take lessons from Stephen Kerr.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is a despicable statement. You are a minister.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Kerr—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I have a point of order.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Stephen Kerr has a point of order.

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

I think that Stephen Kerr’s behaviour—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, can you resume your seat?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer

. Surely it is not in order, when a minister is intervened on and a different point of view is put forward, for the minister to revert to the sort of defence that we heard there, basically accusing me—which I do not think is very respectful—of some form of misogyny. I really object to that and I do not think that it is necessary. Surely that is out of order.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Kerr, that is not a point of order, but it is probably timely to remind all colleagues that they should treat each other with courtesy and respect, which I think we have managed, by and large, in this debate.

Minister, please continue.

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

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I have been listening to the tone police all my political life. I will not be listening to them, going forward—even from today.

The point that I made was that the possession of nuclear weapons has not prevented states from having terrible acts perpetrated on them, which lays bare Stephen Kerr’s weak argument that nuclear weapons prevent war. They do not, and they never have. There is no justification for the possession, threat or use of those weapons, so I look forward to the day when we make it possible to free Europe and the rest of the world from those weapons for good. Thank you.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. That concludes the debate. I suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30.

13:48 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the portfolio on this occasion is transport, net zero and just transition. Members who wish to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Newburgh Railway Station

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its consideration of the proposal for a railway station in Newburgh, Fife. (S6O-02664)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Transport Scotland officials considered the initial detailed options appraisal for a Newburgh station submitted by the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership and provided feedback.

Although it opted not to take up the offer of a meeting to discuss Transport Scotland’s comments on the draft detailed options appraisal report, SEStran provided a revised detailed options appraisal report. That report

outlines a number of multimodal options, including a rail station, and is being considered by Transport Scotland, which will provide feedback to SEStran on the revised report during the coming weeks.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Locals have put years of work into the plan. An appraisal, in line with the Scottish transport appraisal guidance, was submitted in June last year but it took more than six months for Transport Scotland to respond. Suggested changes were made to the plan, which was resubmitted months ago, in June of this year.

There is overwhelming and enthusiastic support for a new railway station at Newburgh, so when exactly will a decision be made?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As I said in my first answer, there will be a response in the next few weeks. To be fair, there has been a considerable amount of work by everyone, not least by the community and by those who put forward the options appraisal report. It is clear that SEStran has wanted to revise its proposal at every stage. Although that will make for a better proposal, constantly going back to revise it takes time. In this case, although patience may be a virtue, the people of Newburgh may want to see action sooner rather than later. I understand why the member asks that question.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Willie Rennie is right to say that the project is well supported by the local community. A site has been identified and there are plans to construct a platform at a relatively low cost, but progress has been glacially slow. Will the minister facilitate an early meeting between Transport Scotland and the local community action group so that we can finally see some progress on what would be a very welcome project?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

SEStran submitted a report on the project and a revised detailed options appraisal report. As I said, there have been three revisions as part of the process. As the member well knows, the STAG appraisal must be robust and must consider a number of areas. The community case, which has been set out by many, is strong, but there are also financial and economic factors. I know that the member has held finance briefs for his party in the past and that he will know the severe financial constraints that the budget is under, not least because of the failure to provide for inflationary increases on capital budgets for this Government.

Every consideration will be given to the report and a response will be given in a few weeks time.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The local community has made a really good case for bringing a station back to Newburgh, proposing a low-cost modular station that would be of great benefit. Does the minister agree that the new modular stations have an important role to play in expanding Scotland’s rail network and that developing one at Newburgh could be a trailblazer for developments that could benefit other communities?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

It is my understanding that modular railway stations have already been used but may not be applicable to every circumstance. If a strong business case is presented for rail intervention, plans must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If the plan for Newburgh is taken forward, we must consider the fact that modular stations are not suitable for all sites and that the design of any new or altered station must take into account the characteristics of that particular location.

Acceptance of the design of station platforms is ultimately a matter for Network Rail, as the infrastructure owner, and ScotRail, as the operator.

Local Bus Services

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

2. To ask the Scottish Government when it last received an update from the traffic commissioner for Scotland on any complaints regarding local bus services. (S6O-02665)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Scottish Government officials have regular engagement with the traffic commissioner for Scotland. However, the traffic commissioner is an independently appointed regulator and does not inform officials about specific complaints that she receives. Findings of any proceedings against bus operators can be found on the office of the traffic commissioner’s website.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As the minister is aware, the traffic commissioner has a standard of 95 per cent for the punctuality of buses. Following a number of complaints, an investigation by Bus Users Scotland showed that only 88 per cent of some McGill’s Buses services in my constituency ran on time. However, I suspect that figure to be much lower, as my constituents regularly tell me that services are cancelled at short notice, that they are unreliable and that communication is poor. That impacts on people’s ability to get to work and access education and healthcare on a daily basis, and it often leaves people stranded late at night.

Can the minister outline the steps that the transport commissioner can take to ensure that McGill’s takes action to improve the levels of service that are so crucial to many of my constituents?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In relation to punctuality and service complaints, the traffic commissioner relies on evidence that is submitted to her by BUS arising from the monitoring exercises that it carries out. If BUS finds evidence that an operator is failing to run a service in line with its registration, it can inform the traffic commissioner, who has the power to take action against the operator. That could include issuing a fine, imposing conditions on its public service vehicle licence or rejecting future service applications from the same operator.

I am aware that, on 14 August, in recognition of the punctuality and reliability issues, McGill’s made a number of service changes that were designed to improve bus services in the Clackmannanshire area.

Sustainability (Net Zero Targets)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how it defines “sustainability” when creating policies aimed at reaching its net zero targets. (S6O-02666)