Scottish Parliament, 23 November 2023

301 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good morning. The first item of business is general questions. I invite members wishing to ask supplementary questions to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question, and I make the usual appeal for brevity in both questions and answers.

HMP Stirling (Noise Complaints)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

1. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress towards addressing the reported concerns raised by local residents about HMP Stirling. (S6O-02773)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

A

s the member will understand, that is largely an operational issue for the Scottish Prison Service, but I can assure him that the noise complaints are being taken very seriously by both me and the SPS. Officials from the Scottish Prison Service and Stirling Council attended a public meeting with MSPs and councillors on 13 November to update residents on the actions that they are taking to help alleviate the noise coming from parts of the prison. Those include a range of operational and infrastructure options.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I attended a public meeting last week, where representatives of the SPS were able to hear directly from residents about their concerns. I am pleased that the SPS agreed to provide updates every fortnight to keep people informed of progress towards addressing the issues.

Over the past few days, however, I have received several emails about continued disturbances, and I have real concern over what my constituents feel is a lack of urgency on the various mitigation measures discussed at the public meeting, with most of those measures appearing unlikely to happen until well into the new year. The situation is clearly having a significant impact on the lives of my constituents. For example, one constituent has explained that his eight-year-old daughter sits with headphones on, crying, because she is so upset by the noise that she is hearing. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is not acceptable, and that the SPS must expedite its plans to address the situation as a matter of urgency?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I agree very much with the member, who has continued to raise these matters with me, that the issues need to be resolved as soon as possible for all concerned. I know that the SPS is rightly very concerned about the impact on neighbours, and that it has been taking action as a priority, as Mr Brown is aware. The SPS remains committed to engagement with local residents. Indeed, Prison Service officials are meeting local councillors today to discuss the operational measures that they are already taking to minimise the noise.

I have asked the chief executive to keep me updated on progress.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Residents are exhausted by the continued disturbances. The new facility continues to fail the inmates and residents, who cannot wait months for mitigation measures to be implemented. They need action, and they need it now. It is quite clear from what was said at the public meeting that residents were not in any way considered through the design and planning processes for the facility. What urgent action can we put in place to resolve the situation for the exhausted residents?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I thank Mr Stewart for his extensive correspondence on this matter, which has included some video footage. I reassure him, all members and the constituents whom they represent that they have my support in working with the Prison Service to get matters resolved as quickly as possible. He will, of course, be aware of all the actions that have taken place both operationally, within the prison, and structurally, outwith the prison.

I very much want to see the situation resolved, and I can confirm to Mr Stewart that I have replied to his extensive letter this morning.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The evidence is clear that the noise disturbances at HMP Stirling have been getting worse, not better, despite the proposed mitigations from the SPS. At the public meeting last week, which was co-ordinated by my colleague Councillor Alasdair Tollemache, the SPS admitted that it had no way of monitoring noise around the site beyond recording the complaints from constituents. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the SPS must urgently find a way to monitor noise disturbances at HMP Stirling systematically and proactively to start to restore trust with residents, as well as monitoring whether or not the mitigations are working?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I can

confirm to Mr Ruskell that I have replied to his councillor colleague and assure him that staff on site are actively intervening daily to limit the sound levels that are related to the disturbances experienced on the prison site and by residents. Alongside that and further other operational measures, the SPS has given a commitment to continue to measure and monitor the noise levels to inform the development of further options to suppress them.

Severe Winter Weather (Disruption to Public Services)

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

2. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has in place to reduce disruption to public services due to severe winter weather. (S6O-02774)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and its regulations in Scotland, business continuity is a core responsibility of categorised responders. To support that responsibility, the Scottish Government hosts regular winter resilience meetings over the winter months, with a wide range of stakeholders. The next winter resilience meeting is on 24 November. In addition, at a local and regional level, Scottish Government officials engage directly with partners to support preparedness, including through resilience partnership. That is not limited to winter preparedness, but is part of a continual process of monitoring and assessment.

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

I have a feeling that the subject of my supplementary question is not within the cabinet secretary’s portfolio, but I will ask it anyway.

Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are mainly rural areas. Keeping the road network clear is crucial to all the services that the cabinet secretary has mentioned. How is road grit allocated to local authorities? If necessary, can a local authority access additional road clearing assistance?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

F

or brevity, the best thing that I can say is that I will, with urgency, ask the Minister for Transport to reply to Ms Grahame.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

There was a lessons-learned exercise after storm Arwen. Issues that have been highlighted include the digital voice programme, turning off the copper wire telephone network and the lack of resilience in the mobile phone network. Last December, Shetland had a severe weather event that caused power cuts for up to six days for some people. What engagement has the Scottish Government had with the communications sector to ensure that people are able to contact public and emergency services during such severe winter weather events?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Beatrice Wishart

raises good points about the interaction between severe weather, communications and power outages. I have answered a number of substantial questions from colleagues on the lessons learned from storm Arwen and will forward my responses to Ms Wishart. I also reassure Ms Wishart that robust debriefing is built into our resilience arrangements because, after each and every incident, there are lessons to be learned. However, I will ensure that the member is replied to in depth.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Although I acknowledge that winter weather can disrupt public services, we are increasingly finding that heavy rainfall can disrupt public services in spring, summer, autumn and winter. There is a risk that heavy rainfall can result in the type of disruption that my constituents have experienced in the past two months, so can the justice secretary reassure Parliament that all responders are preparing for changes in climate in order to protect public services?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, I can. We live in Scotland, where weather disturbance is all year round; resilience, therefore, is an all-year-round activity. As we all know, climate change is with us here and now, and it is one of the biggest challenges that we face here and now.

“Migration to Scotland after independence” (Staff Resource)

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government how many civil servants worked on the production of the latest “Building a New Scotland” paper on immigration and European Union policy. (S6O-02775)

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I apologise to Alexander Stewart and other members that I am not in Parliament in person to answer his question.

As with other publications in the “Building a New Scotland” series, “Migration to Scotland after independence” was co-ordinated by the Scottish Government’s constitutional futures division, with officials from other business areas contributing as part of their normal duties supporting the Scottish ministers. There are presently 21 staff in the constitutional futures division.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister has

just related that 21 civil servants may have spent their time working on a policy that will never be implemented. Does he think that civil servants’ time is better spent on dealing with national health service backlogs, for example, or on writing this latest piece of literature in the Scottish National Party’s taxpayer-funded independence campaign?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

When it comes to

NHS performance,

I remind Alexander Stewart that

we have the best-performing accident and emergency provision of any part of the United Kingdom. I also remind him that this Government won the last Scottish Parliament election, which his party lost. In that election, we said that we would advance the case for independence, so we have not only the right but the responsibility to do that. It was part of our manifesto commitment.

When it comes to the time that is being devoted by Scottish Government civil servants, the cost of the work that is being undertaken in 2022-23 in producing those papers, and of the constitutional futures division overall, represented 0.0035 per cent of the Scottish Government budget. In comparison with the great opportunities that would be brought by independence—which, I assure Mr Stewart, we will win—that cost is well worth paying. [

Applause

.]

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank everybody for the round of applause. [

Laughter

.]

Described as “xenophobic and completely unacceptable” by the African Union, the United Kingdom’s illegal Rwanda deportation policy stands in stark contrast to Scotland’s human approach. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the UK’s plans to force through new legislation, and what steps is it taking to help the Tory Government understand that it is imperative that we create an asylum system that treats people with dignity and respect, as set out in the Scottish Government’s proposals?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Be brief, m

inister.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

W

e welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment. Not only is the UK Government’s policy immoral, but it has now been deemed illegal. Rather than seeking to circumvent that ruling by removing itself from the European convention on human rights, as has been suggested, the UK Government should accept the ruling and ditch its Rwandan policy. We will push it to do that, and I have pushed it to drop its so-called illegal migration act.

When all is said and done, we need independence in order to create a humane approach to asylum here in Scotland.

Health Services (Highlands and Islands)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how many health services across the Highlands and Islands have been downgraded or lost entirely over the last 16 years. (S6O-02776)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is for territorial national health service boards and their planning partners to organise and provide high-quality services that meet the needs of local people, in line with national guidelines and frameworks. Clearly, those services are developed over time to account for factors such as changes in clinical best practice and significant technological developments.

When it comes to the Government’s commitment to and investment in local health services, the resource budget of just NHS Highland has increased in real terms by 19.5 per cent between 2010-11 and 2023-24, and in cash terms by 83.1 per cent—£348.6 million—between 2006-07 and 2023-24.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Sixteen years of Scottish National Party mismanagement has seen a running down of our rural health services. Maternity provision has been downgraded in Caithness and Moray, general practitioners are undergoing pressure across the region, and our ambulance crews are increasingly stretched. Many of our more remote and vulnerable communities have lost out.

At a meeting of Sir Lewis Ritchie’s steering group in June this year, NHS Highland committed to providing urgent care and minor injuries cover at Portree hospital, seven days a week, by the end of October. That has still not happened. Will the cabinet secretary tell me and my constituents in north Skye when they will get that vital service back in Portree for seven days a week, as they were promised?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Jamie Halcro Johnston

will be aware that some of the changes that have been made to specific services in the Highlands have come about as a result of safety issues. For example, the issue of the midwife-led service in Caithness was the result of the death of a full-term baby in 2015. The independent review of that made recommendations on why changes had to take place in order to improve safety in the delivery of that service.

When it comes to the provision of services as set out in the Ritchie report, Professor Ritchie is engaging with the health board and local stakeholders to make sure that there is resilience in the provision of urgent care services in Portree for seven days a week. That work is on-going. The board is also working very closely with the Scottish Ambulance Service to ensure that that service is resilient.

Jamie Halcro Johnston will also be aware that we have just invested £27.7 million in the new Broadford hospital to provide additional clinical services in the area.

Renfrewshire Council (Meetings)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government when the education secretary last met with Renfrewshire Council, and what issues were discussed. (S6O-02777)

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

I last met Renfrewshire Council on 31 August of this year, when we discussed school provision in the Dargavel and Bishopton areas of Renfrewshire. The member attended that meeting, as did Natalie Don MSP as the constituency MSP, the interim chair of Dargavel primary school parent council and the chair of Bishopton Community Council. My officials remain in close contact with the council and receive regular updates on school provision developments in the area.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be well aware of Renfrewshire Council’s Dargavel debacle, which will cost taxpayers an estimated £160 million. There are now concerns that a similar blunder might even now be taking place at St Andrew’s academy in Paisley. Meanwhile, plans for a new Thorn primary school in Johnstone were dealt a blow as the council’s funding bid to the Scottish Government failed. Given that, what additional support will the Scottish Government provide to Renfrewshire’s children to ensure that no child is left paying the price for Renfrewshire Council’s incompetence and financial mismanagement?

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

I very much recognise the scale of the challenge, and we engaged on that matter on three occasions during the summer recess. I understand that the council is keen to learn lessons from the report that was undertaken on the action, particularly at Dargavel primary school.

On Government funding, it is worth saying that, over the years, Renfrewshire has benefited from Scottish Government funding for the school estate. It was awarded £16 million towards three projects through the schools for the future programme, and Scottish Government funding is also supporting Paisley grammar school through the learning estate investment programme.

Although Scottish Government investment is intended to augment and not replace local authorities’ responsibility for the school estate, we will continue to explore with the Scottish Futures Trust how we can improve the school estate.

More broadly, it is worth saying that the Scottish schools estate has improved since 2007, when 61 per cent of our schools were in good or satisfactory condition, to now, when more than 90 per cent of them are in good or satisfactory condition. That is thanks to investment from the Scottish National Party Scottish Government.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 6 was not lodged.

Vulnerable People (Third Sector Organisations)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with third sector agencies to improve outcomes for vulnerable people. (S6O-02779)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Every portfolio across the Scottish Government works closely with third sector agencies and organisations, many of which support our work with vulnerable people across Scotland. Scottish Government grant making is allocated across portfolios to various parts of the third sector to make a positive difference in many areas.

The

Government recognises the vital work that third sector organisations do on a daily basis to help make Scotland a better place for everyone.

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

Aberdeen Football Club Community Trust

recently launched its impact report, which highlighted how the charity used the power of football to support communities across the north-east to close the poverty-related attainment gap, improve physical and mental wellbeing and support our most disadvantaged citizens through the cost of living crisis. Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating Aberdeen Football Club Community Trust? Does she agree that, when public finances are so constrained, it is all the more important that local authorities and the Scottish Government continue to support such fantastic organisations?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I very much agree with Audrey Nicoll on that point. The Government recognises the impact that football clubs and their associated trusts and foundations can have on the lives of people and communities across the country, and Aberdeen Football Club Community Trust is a fantastic example of that work in action. I know, for example, about its initiative with its dementia-friendly football memories programme, which is run with Alzheimer Scotland. That is but one example of one club and the tremendous work that it does in its community, and I commend it for that.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

For more than a decade, the Government has pledged multiyear funding settlements for the third sector and the First Minister repeated that commitment at the most recent Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations gathering. When will the cabinet secretary be able to update Parliament on that and, more important for the third sector, when that will be delivered, or is it just more warm words from the First Minister and his Government?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The First Minister spoke directly to the third sector at that gathering, as Mr O’Kane said, and he committed to looking at the issue. Clearly, it is a difficult area for the Scottish Government when our budget is not guaranteed. In fact, the damaging policies of yesterday’s autumn statement show how difficult it is to ensure that we provide support not just for the third sector but for our public services in general. We are absolutely committed to that through our fairer funding approach, and I look forward to working with the third sector to deliver on that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes general question time.

Michael Matheson (Expenses)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I understand that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has announced the launching of an investigation into the health secretary’s expense claims. Although that investigation is welcome, the health secretary still has to come to Parliament to give full answers and the First Minister must give us a frank response today.

For a moment, let us set aside the doubts about Michael Matheson’s latest story about how he racked up a massive bill on his phone while on holiday. If we believe the unbelievable, suspend our disbelief and assume that that fable is true, just for one minute, that still does not explain why, back in February, Michael Matheson claimed £11,000 of taxpayers’ money for a bill that he could not account for. He promised Parliament, and gave written assurances, that the bill was the result of constituency work and only of constituency work. His new version of events proves beyond doubt that that claim was false.

The First Minister said that it was a “legitimate” expense. Does he still believe that?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Let us remember that, when Michael Matheson discovered what had happened, after speaking again to his family and to his teenage boys about the use of his iPad, and as he laid out in full in a personal statement last week, he took the immediate decision to pay back the full amount.

Michael Matheson has made mistakes in handling the issue. That is something that he has admitted to. In what I thought was a very emotional statement in the chamber, he gave the reasons why that happened. He wanted to protect his teenage boys from the frankly harsh political and public scrutiny that often comes with the roles that we occupy. On discovering from his teenage boys what had happened, he immediately agreed to pay back the full amount.

Let me read a quote from an interview on STV:

“I’m sorry. It was a big mistake. It’s something that shouldn’t have happened, but I am ultimately the only person responsible for that ... This was a big mistake, by me, for which I’m deeply sorry. I know how badly I performed here and how much I’ve let people down and for that I’m very sorry.”

That was a quote from Douglas Ross, when he failed to declare £28,000 of income.

The point here is that we did not call for Douglas Ross to quit. We accepted the point that he had made an honest mistake. People will see through the hypocrisy of Douglas Ross saying that it is fine for him to make an honest mistake but that it is not fine for Michael Matheson to make an honest mistake.

We will not get distracted by Douglas Ross’s political opportunism. The health secretary is getting on with the job of ensuring that our health service recovers through what will be a difficult winter.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask for briefer questions and responses.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Let us be very clear: my apology, which was full and frank, was about not declaring something; Michael Matheson tried to dupe the taxpayer out of £11,000. He wanted the taxpayer to pay £11,000.

Is that the reason why the First Minister could not answer my question? Because he did not answer it, I will put it again. The First Minister previously said that that was a “legitimate” expense claim. Does he still believe that?

Michael Matheson claimed that £11,000 from the taxpayer and promised Parliament that it was for constituency work, but his story has changed. We are now supposed to believe that he did not understand why he had been billed so much and that he was clueless. Michael Matheson supposedly did not know anything about it, but he was certain that it was the taxpayers’ problem and that the bill was theirs to pay. If he had no idea what the bill was for, why on earth did he claim taxpayers’ money to pay it?

The First Minister

The motivation for Michael Matheson’s actions last week—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Why?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Listen!

The First Minister

—before his personal statement—[

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

First Minister, I ask you to resume your seat.

Mr Ross and Mr Swinney, I expect better behaviour from both of you. We need to hear the answers from the First Minister and we need to hear the questions as well. First Minister, please resume.

The First Minister

They clearly do not want to hear the answers. That is the exact point. [

Interruption

.] You can hear that they really do not want to hear the answers, Presiding Officer.

Michael Matheson, in what I would say was a very emotional personal statement to the chamber, laid out in full detail the handling of the issue of the expenses in relation to his iPad, and he was clear that he should have handled it better. I agree with that. On discovery of the fact that his iPad had been used by his teenage boys, he agreed immediately to pay back the full amount. As a father of two children, including a teenager, I can understand the motivation to protect one’s family, but I agree with others in the chamber that it should not have been handled in this way, and Michael Matheson, of course, admitted to that.

After making that personal statement, Michael Matheson has been getting on with the job of health secretary. That is why, on Monday, he chaired NHS Forth Valley’s annual review. That is why, this week, he has announced £42 million for an extra 153 doctor training places—the largest expansion on record. It is why he visited Glasgow Caledonian University’s school of health and life sciences. It is why he met the Royal College of Nursing this week. As much as Douglas Ross and the Conservatives want to distract him, what I have is a health secretary who is getting on with the job.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am going to have to require briefer questions and responses.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We have a health secretary who claimed £11,000 from the taxpayer and a First Minister who will not simply answer whether that was a legitimate claim to make or not. Michael Matheson is taking the public for fools. He supposedly found out on Thursday two weeks ago what really happened. He apparently learned at that stage that there was personal use of the iPad and that other people had incurred the data costs. However, the following Monday, Michael Matheson was asked point blank whether there was any personal use of the iPad. He said no. He was asked directly whether anyone else had used it. He said no. Was the health secretary telling the truth when he gave those answers?

The First Minister

I say for the third time that Michael Matheson accepts, admits and admitted to this chamber that he made mistakes in the handling. [

Interruption

.] Douglas Ross shouted at me, “Why?” I say again that Michael Matheson addressed that. He did what he did to protect his teenage boys. Did he make mistakes? Absolutely. Has he admitted that? Absolutely. Has he agreed to pay back the full amount? Absolutely.

Is it not telling that Douglas Ross wants to talk about the health secretary? What he does not want to talk about is the savage cuts that the UK Government has unleashed on the health service through yesterday’s autumn statement. If we want to listen to those in the health service, let us hear from the Royal College of Nursing’s chief nurse, Professor Nicola Ranger. She said that the autumn statement is

“short-sighted”

and that

“The NHS faces a multi-billion pound deficit”.

The Conservatives do not want to hear from nurses. They want to try to distract, deflect and dodge away from the fact that their autumn statement has led to savage cuts to the health service. We will not let them forget that.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The only person deflecting here is Humza Yousaf, who cannot give honest answers. If everything to do with Michael Matheson was an honest mistake, why have there been so many dishonest statements about it?

While Michael Matheson’s story has unravelled, Humza Yousaf has been caught up in it. He was told by Michael Matheson last Tuesday what actually happened with the personal use, but the following day—last Wednesday—Humza Yousaf told the press and the public,

“For me, the matter is now closed.”

He continued that Michael Matheson had taken the decision

“given the honest mistake he has made in relation to the updating of the SIM card”.

He stuck to the same story that he knew was false.

This morning, the Deputy First Minister was further embroiled in the scandal. She was asked whether, on a point of principle, ministers in the Scottish Government always tell the Parliament and the public the truth. She refused to answer that question, so let me ask Humza Yousaf a question. If Government ministers need to be honest, why is Michael Matheson still in a job?

The First Minister

I will say, for the fourth time, that Michael Matheson admits to making mistakes in the handling of this issue. It is astonishing that the party of Boris Johnson—a man who Douglas Ross described as “honest”—can lecture anybody about standards in public life.

It is telling that, today, just before First Minister’s question time, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, said:

“In the interest of fairness to all, and to avoid prejudicing its investigation, the SPCB will, as of now, not comment on any matters that could have a bearing on this process or provide a running commentary.”

I think that it is right that we let the SPCB get on with the job that it has got to do, and Michael Matheson will get on with the job of ensuring that he protects the health service through what will be a difficult winter.

Honesty and Integrity in Government

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Honesty and integrity on the part of members of both our Governments are essential for the restoration of faith in public life. This morning, on the BBC, the Deputy First Minister was asked twice whether ministers in the Scottish Government always tell Parliament and the public the truth. The answer should have been an unequivocal and simple yes. However, instead, the Deputy First Minister’s answer was that they only “aim to do so.” People have known for a long time that this Government has a problem with the truth, but is that now the official Government position?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We should all be telling the truth in our interactions, whatever they are and wherever they occur. I will say, once again, what I said four times to Douglas Ross: Michael Matheson of course admits to mistakes in the handling of this entire episode, but, when he found out on the Thursday night of the week before last that his family had used the iPad, he took the immediate decision the next day to pay back the full amount, and, in a personal statement to the Parliament, he not only admitted the mistakes that he made but set out the reasons for those mistakes.

Michael Matheson has undoubtedly reflected on what has happened and, this week, he has got on with his job as health secretary of ensuring that he supports our national health service through what will be an incredibly difficult winter.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am pleased that the First Minister said that we should always tell the truth, because, in the short time that Humza Yousaf has been First Minister, the

Official Report

of this Parliament has had to be corrected three times because of wrong information that he has told this chamber. Once, the correction concerned the serious issue of the Covid inquiry and deleted WhatsApp messages, and another time it concerned a response to me in this chamber, when he gave an inaccurate answer about Scotland’s renewables. On the latter occasion, instead of immediately correcting the record, the First Minister took up hours of civil service time in order to try to spare his blushes. We know that, because Labour now has the full unredacted emails between the First Minister’s office and officials, which show that, when civil servants pointed out that he was wrong, he rejected their advice and his advisers had civil servants spend a month trying to cover up the mistake with a new line and by manufacturing statistics to fit his answers.

If those are the lengths that the First Minister will go to in order to hide the truth about a simple mistake, should anyone be surprised that he will not sack Michael Matheson for knowingly misleading the public?

The First Minister

There is a reason why the people of Scotland time and again have elected us to be the Government of Scotland, and there is a reason why Anas Sarwar’s party and the Conservative Party sit here in Opposition. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is far too much barracking and background noise as the First Minister is responding to the questions. Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

Anas Sarwar was shouting that they have not elected me. I remind him that I have won elections to this Parliament and that, in fact, the seat that I represent was held by a Labour MSP until I won it, so I will not take lectures from Anas Sarwar about how to win an election.

Of course, it is incumbent on all of us—Government ministers and back benchers—to correct the record if any inaccurate statement has been made. I take that responsibility very seriously. However, on the issue that Anas Sarwar points to, when it comes to Scotland’s energy potential, I will not apologise for the fact that we have an incredible renewables potential in Scotland—a potential that we will invest in and unleash for the workforce. While we will talk up our energy potential, I know that Anas Sarwar is interested only in talking it down.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The people of Scotland have had only one opportunity to pass judgment on Humza Yousaf as First Minister, and that was the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election, when there was a 20 per cent swing to Labour, and Labour got double the vote that the Scottish National Party got. Come the next general election, I will give the First Minister lessons on how to win an election.

These emails show a gross breach of the relationship between ministers and officials. Such behaviour has become the norm for the First Minister and the Government, but it is also a gross breach between ministers and the public when a minister knowingly misleads them. That is why Scottish Labour has long called for a clean up Holyrood act, to sweep away the culture of secrecy and cover-up that the SNP has allowed to thrive. After the Salmond inquiry, the ferries scandal, the failures of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow and the Royal hospital for children and young people in Edinburgh, and the deleted Covid WhatsApp messages, the Deputy First Minister is now saying that the Government only aims to tell the truth. Under the SNP, trust and faith in Scotland’s institutions have been lost.

Is it not the case, as represented by the good people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West, that this Government is running out of road, is desperate to save its ministers’ jobs and is willing to say anything in order to cling on to power?

The First Minister

That is clearly not the case, because we have been re-elected time and time and time and time again by the people of Scotland to run our public services in Scotland.

With regard to freedom of information, I am more than happy to provide a written response to Anas Sarwar about the improvements that we have made in responding to requests, because we take our obligations very seriously.

Anas Sarwar talks about trust and values. I am sorry, but I do not know what Sir Keir Starmer’s values are when it comes to the United Kingdom Labour Party. Actually, I take that back—I do know what the values of Sir Keir Starmer are. The values of Sir Keir Starmer are to make sure that he retains the two-child limit, the bedroom tax and the rape clause—which, of course, Anas Sarwar disagreed with but now suddenly agrees with. We know what our values are, and nobody from London or party headquarters will tell us otherwise.

Fossil Fuel Boilers (Replacement)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

3. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I own a house and am a private landlord.

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government policy to require households to replace their fossil fuel boilers with heat pumps or other green energy systems in off-gas properties from 2025 and in on-gas areas from 2030 is still going ahead. (S6F-02557)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Our 2021 “Heat in Buildings Strategy” committed to introducing legislation to phase out

“the need to install new or replacement fossil fuel boilers”.

We will consult very shortly on detailed proposals for a heat in buildings bill and we will ask everyone across Scotland to help us design and deliver that in the best way possible. That consultation will provide more detail on when and how the proposed changes will take effect.

Moving to clean heating systems will tackle climate change and reduce the exposure of homes and businesses to volatile fossil fuel prices. However, our 2021 strategy also set out the need for the United Kingdom Government to take urgent action. That includes rebalancing gas and electricity prices and ensuring that energy companies play their part in delivering that vital transition. Let me be clear that we simply cannot meet our legal targets for tackling climate change if we do not end our use of gas boilers.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the First Minister for that attempted answer, but I am not sure that I am any clearer about whether those targets will be met—it appears that we will have to wait.

I am sure that the First Minister will agree that it is vital that we reach net zero. In order to do so, we need to take the public with us. Does he therefore acknowledge, as some of his Scottish National Party MSPs do, that the unrealistic and poorly thought-out policies that have been set by his Green Party colleagues in the Government, including the one that I mentioned and the deposit return scheme, are doing more to damage efforts to reach net zero than they are to achieve it?

The First Minister

We come to the crux of the Conservatives’ issue, which is the problem here. In the face of a climate crisis that, in the summer, engulfed many parts of our planet in flames, and in recent weeks and months has flooded many others at home and abroad, Conservative members tell us that they are not climate sceptics or climate change deniers, yet they oppose every single measure that the Government proposes on tackling climate change. Every time we introduce a sensible proposal that is necessary to meet our targets—and we all voted for those targets—it is the Conservatives who oppose it. They have to decide what side they are on. Are they on the side of trying to protect and save our planet or on the side of climate deniers and climate sceptics? Shamefully, they have chosen to make climate change and culture war election issues. The Tories are not just bad for Scotland or the UK; it seems that they are bad for our planet, too.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We all agree that there is an acute housing shortage in this country, yet Homes for Scotland, Cala Homes, Taylor Woodrow and Persimmon—all of which are major house builders—have repeatedly warned that the heat pump targets, especially for new builds, have had the effect of forcing up house-building costs so that fewer homes are being built in Scotland. If the First Minister wants to tackle the housing shortage, will he consign the Scottish Green Party’s half-baked, pie-in-the-sky policy to the bin, where it belongs, alongside the deposit return scheme and highly protected marine areas? Will he recycle his Green ministers to the back benches, where they belong, and then meet industry and real experts—actual experts—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call the First Minister.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

—

to work out a plan to solve the problem? [

Applause

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will have a response from the First Minister.

The First Minister

Perhaps the applause coming from the Conservative benches might demonstrate to Fergus Ewing that his proposals are not the most sensible ones for him to suggest that we introduce.

I do not believe that we can simply put our heads in the sand and ignore the scale of the climate crisis that we face. It is true that the house construction sector faces challenges. We need only look at the sky-high, rocketing inflation that has been caused by the Conservative UK Government. Let us tackle that inflation and those high construction costs. Not only have we had targets for house building; we have made significant investment in the sector in the course of this parliamentary session and beyond. When it comes to ensuring that we replace gas boilers, we will not consign that policy to the dustbin of history at all. In fact, history will judge very poorly people who are climate sceptics or climate deniers in the face of the climate crisis that is harming our planet.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

While the UK Government sinks into another culture war, cheered on by climate change deniers and naysayers, here in Scotland we are realising our ambitions on heat transition. From next April, all new buildings will need to meet our new standards for clean heating, and our package of funding support for households is the most generous in the entire UK. Does the First Minister agree that our upcoming budget must drive forward pioneering work on tackling fuel poverty and empower households and businesses to make the move to clean heating?

The First Minister

I agree that, in the transition from direct-emissions to zero-emissions heating systems, the Government has a significant role to play through legislation and the budget. However, let us be equally clear that the transition to net zero will require private investment, too. Barely a Government in the world will be able to self-finance such a transition entirely on its own. We have seen the report of the green heat finance task force, and I am looking forward to acting on the good work that it has done.

Mark Ruskell is absolutely right that we must ensure that we take the public with us. That is why we have such generous grants for households available—they are the most generous such funding support in the UK. However, I go back to the point that I have made to everyone who has asked questions on this subject. In the face of the existential threat that is posed by the scale of the climate crisis, none of us can deny that action is needed and that we must accelerate that action as quickly as we can.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

On 14 September, the First Minister told the chamber that the climate change plan would be published before Christmas. Despite the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition’s assertion that the delay was down to the UK Government, Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, said that there were only minor impacts on the Scottish plan and that there were potentially positive impacts from the UK-wide strategy to accelerate grid infrastructure, but that those were reasons to go faster. When will the climate change plan be published?

The First Minister

We will publish the plan—

Members

When?

The First Minister

—

before the statutory target. Of course, we aimed to do it a year before the statutory target for publishing the plan. I say to Finlay Carson that the UK Government’s rollback on its climate ambitions, which we have seen in its many U-turns, is not just bad for people who live in the rest of the UK but will clearly have an impact on Scotland. It is right that we look to explore in detail what those impacts are.

Frankly, it is shameful that an issue of existential crisis has been turned into an election issue—a culture war issue—by the Conservatives. Would it not be far better if we had an element of consensus on the fact that all of us have to pick up the pace and urgently accelerate the work of tackling the climate crisis? If we do not, our current generation and future generations simply will not forgive us.

Energy Costs (Support for Households)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

4. To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is providing to households that are experiencing the pressure of increased energy bills, in light of Citizens Advice Scotland launching its worried this winter awareness campaign. (S6F-02572)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Energy bills remain significantly higher than they were two years ago, due to a volatile energy market and the United Kingdom Government’s complete and utter failure to act. Campaigns such as Citizens Advice Scotland’s worried this winter campaign, together with our current Home Energy Scotland campaign, which will drive vital referrals to HES’s warmer homes programme, are extremely important.

I have consistently called on the UK Government to fully utilise the fiscal and policy levers that it has at its disposal to introduce measures such as a social tariff as a means of targeting support at people who need it the most. Unfortunately, it failed to do that in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s autumn statement, thereby leaving people in businesses and communities who are already facing fuel poverty to suffer even more.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

T

he First Minister will be aware that energy costs are a particular worry in our island communities, which experience disproportionately high levels of fuel poverty. In yesterday’s autumn statement, the chancellor rejected Scottish National Party calls for a £400 energy rebate. With energy prices set to rise again by 5 per cent, can the First Minister assure my constituents that the Scottish Government will continue to support people who are struggling with their energy bills while the UK Government so evidently ignores them?

The First Minister

I can reassure the member’s constituents on that point. With energy bills set to rise again in January, it is unacceptable that the UK Government’s autumn statement completely failed to deliver support for the people who need it the most. Through the islands cost crisis emergency fund, this Government has provided an additional £1 million this year to support islanders who are facing high fuel, food and energy costs in order to help them to meet the cost of living pressures.

While we continue to help people to make their homes warmer and easier to heat through our heat and energy efficiency support schemes, and to support people in fuel crisis through our fuel insecurity fund, unfortunately, the powers to make a real difference remain with the UK Government. Frankly, it is only when those powers are put in the control of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government through independence that we can unleash the full potential of our energy-rich nation.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Given the impact of fuel poverty on the 38 per cent of households that experience it and the 30 per cent in extreme fuel poverty, what lessons has the First Minister learned from the failure to deliver £133 million of investment to make people’s homes energy efficient so that people can afford to heat them? What will happen for next year? How many homes will get that energy retrofitting in place?

The First Minister

We have taken action to help with fuel poverty. One of my first acts as First Minister was to ensure that we not just doubled but tripled the fuel insecurity fund. From 2 October, our relaunched warmer homes Scotland scheme has been providing more funding and help for households to receive a climate-friendly heating system. In 2022-23, we delivered measures in almost 5,500 households, which is a record number of installs through the warmer homes Scotland programme. As I said, we have already agreed to triple the fuel insecurity fund, and we also have the child winter heating payment.

I am more than happy to ensure that the relevant minister or the cabinet secretary writes to Sarah Boyack with full details of how we are supporting those who are facing fuel poverty this winter. Again, instead of having to mitigate the failures of a Westminster Government, how much better would it be if we had the powers in our own hands?

General Practitioner Surgeries (Expanding Role)

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

5. To ask the First Minister what work is being done to support the expanding role of the general practitioner surgery. (S6F-02562)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Since 2018, we have significantly expanded the range of healthcare professionals supporting GP practices. Across Scotland, there are now more than 4,730 primary care multidisciplinary team members working in areas such as pharmacy, physiotherapy, phlebotomy and other disciplines. That means that the average practice now has access to more than five MDT members of the medical department team, alongside GPs and their practice teams. Through our £190 million primary care improvement fund, we are enabling those vital teams to free up practice time so that GPs can focus on more complex community care and reduce referrals to secondary care. That will ensure that more people get the right care in the right place at the right time.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The expanding role of GP surgeries is critical in helping to prevent acute hospitals and accident and emergency departments from being overwhelmed. However, they cannot recruit and retain the various MDT members that the First Minister has referred to.

Colinton surgery in my region has contacted me to express its concern about the disparity in pay that is developing between GP surgery staff and national health service staff. There is now a two-tier NHS pay scale. Staff at the surgery are frustrated and demoralised. Pay for GP staff was uplifted less than it was for their NHS colleagues under the agenda for change. Will the First Minister find the investment to ensure that an uplift can be agreed to support those expanding GP practices that continue to struggle?

The First Minister

It is incredible that we are being asked to provide more funding for fairer pay when next year the United Kingdom Government will give us the paltry amount of just under £11 million in health consequentials. That represents 0.06 per cent of our health budget in Scotland. Given the level of health consequentials that the UK Government is giving us this year, it is remarkable that that is not recurring next year. We will concentrate on making sure that our NHS staff are the best paid anywhere in the UK.

On those who work in GP practices, Sue Webber will be well aware of the independent recommendations of the review body on doctors’ and dentists’ remuneration. We will continue to work with our GP practices across the country to ensure that we do everything that we can not only to recruit staff, which we have done, but to retain them. However, I say to Sue Webber that this Government has an excellent track record when it comes to fair pay in our NHS, in very stark contrast to the UK Government.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

GPs in Glasgow tell me that they are firefighting but are still being expected to do more with less. The mental health and wellbeing strategy is making more demands on GPs, but there is little detail on additional capacity or resource. Does the First Minister acknowledge the pressure that GP practices are under? Does he agree with those practices that the mental health strategy is simply not deliverable without further support?

The First Minister

We seek to support and invest in mental health services, and we have a good track record of doing so over the years. I am more than happy to ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance engages with the Labour Party, and any political party, in relation to what more we can do in the upcoming budget.

Mental health has been and always will be an essential part of general practice, and mental health issues commonly feature in consultations. The mental health and wellbeing strategy, which was referenced by Paul Sweeney, acknowledges the need to increase mental health capacity in general practice.

I say to Paul Sweeney that we have a good track record of investment in the health service. This financial year, we have taken the amount to £19 billion. We are more than willing to work with members from all parties to see what more we can do. However, I say to Paul Sweeney that, in the face of significant financial constraints, those who are suggesting that we spend more money in particular areas will have to say where that money will come from.

United Kingdom Government Autumn Statement

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the autumn statement. (S6F-02554)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That is the first time that the autumn statement has been raised in a question, and I am not surprised that Conservative members did not want to go near it, because they are as embarrassed as they absolutely should be about such a dismal autumn statement. It is deeply disappointing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to provide in it the funding that devolved Governments need. That makes the challenge of our budget next year even more severe.

Yet again, the Conservatives have completely failed to take action to support struggling households, businesses and public services, and missed the opportunity to invest in the services that people rely on and infrastructure that is vital to our economy. The increase in the minimum wage falls short of taking it to the real living wage and, despite the cut in national insurance, hard-working people are still seeing their living standards fall.

We are once again at the mercy of poor United Kingdom Government decisions that compound the pressure on our public finances and increase the misery that struggling households face. Would it not be far better if we did not have to mitigate and wait for autumn statements from an unelected UK Government, but instead had the powers in our own hands?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The First Minister will be aware that the £25 billion in election bribes that the autumn statement contains is less than half of the £55 billion in tax increases and spending cuts that the Tories imposed after the disastrous Truss mini-budget last year. Does he share my astonishment that, at a time of high inflation, the shockingly low extra £11 million for Scotland’s national health service is barely a two thousandth of its annual budget, that capital budgets will be severely cut next year, which will impact on essential infrastructure, and that Scotland’s public services will inevitably pay the price of yet another abysmal Tory budget?

The First Minister

I absolutely agree with Kenny Gibson. Yesterday’s autumn statement provided the very worst-case scenario for Scotland’s finances. At a time when we need investment in infrastructure to help to grow the economy and investment in public services that so many people rely on, instead we ended up with a cut in national insurance that will deprive those vital services of the much-needed funds that they require.

As a result of the UK Government’s disastrous handling of the economy, projected growth is just 0.7 per cent next year, and inflation is still running at more than twice the Government’s target. We needed an autumn statement that would grow the economy, invest in public services and protect the most vulnerable in our society; instead, we had proposed sanctions that will penalise those very people.

As we develop Scotland’s budget next month, we will, of course, do so in line with our missions of equality, community and opportunity.

I remind members that, when the UK Government did its disastrous mini-budget, the Conservatives demanded that we copy them and follow suit. Thank goodness we ignored them. No wonder the people of Scotland ignore them.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The autumn statement told small businesses in England and Wales that they will benefit for another year from a 75 per cent discount on business rates. I ask again whether the Scottish Government will ensure that that is also the case for small businesses in Scotland.

The First Minister

We have, of course, a very good track record when it comes to supporting our businesses. There is the small business bonus scheme, of course, and we have a very generous business support package.

We will consider the consequentials that come our way and what more we can do to support businesses, but I say to Liz Smith that the small relief that the UK Government is giving to businesses is miniscule in comparison with the damage that her party has inflicted on business through Brexit. The disaster of Brexit that is being felt by businesses throughout this country will not be undone by the paltry sums given by the chancellor yesterday.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We will move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Israel and Hamas Agreement (Hostages)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is welcome that Israel and Hamas have reached an agreement to exchange 50 hostages held in Gaza for a four-day pause in fighting. However, much more work is needed to secure a ceasefire and prevent further loss of innocent lives. What is the Scottish Government’s response to that development, given that the Parliament has expressed its view on a ceasefire?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I commend members across the chamber for a very good debate on a ceasefire. I was pleased that the Parliament backed by a majority the call for a ceasefire.

I know that the four-day pause will be very welcome relief for those in Gaza who have suffered complete and utter devastation over the past six and a half weeks. I thank, in particular, those who have been involved in helping to negotiate the four-day pause—the United States, Egypt and, in particular, Qatar, which has been at the centre of the negotiations.

I think that all of us will welcome the four-day pause; however, we want it to be not a four-day pause but a permanent ceasefire. I urge the UK Government to use whatever influence it has, alongside the international community, to ensure that, after four days, the bombing of innocent men, women and children does not simply resume but we actually have peace. Not only that, but they must all strive towards a long-term peace, which must be predicated on a two-state solution.

National Health Service Dentistry

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Oldmeldrum dental practice and Laws Dental in Carnoustie have told patients that they have no choice but to ditch NHS treatment because of increasing costs and the recent changes that have been enacted by the Scottish National Party-Green Government. Far from the Government protecting dental treatment for NHS patients, we are seeing an exodus of dentists from the NHS because of the Government’s actions. Will the First Minister commit to finding a better working structure for dentistry to ensure its long-term sustainability?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We have invested in NHS dental services, and just recently we agreed some additional NHS dental reforms. The purpose of those reforms—the exact point—is to incentivise NHS dentistry. That has led to some increased fees for dentists, and I am happy to ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care writes to Tess White with the full details of that. In addition, it is fair to say that NHS registration is significantly higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, with more than 95 per cent of our population registered with an NHS dentist.

However, that is not to take away from the important points that Tess White raises. We know that, on the back of the pandemic, there have been, and continue to be, challenges for our dental sector across Scotland and the UK, and I will ensure that the health secretary writes in detail to Tess White about what we are doing to support NHS dentistry.

University of Aberdeen (Languages)

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Constituents who work in modern languages at the University of Aberdeen have contacted me about the university management’s plans to withdraw honours degrees in languages, cultures and societies. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to improving language learning in schools and the existing shortage of language teachers in the North East Scotland region, does the First Minister agree that Scotland cannot afford Aberdeen losing those languages degrees?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I agree with much of what Mercedes Villalba says. Learning an additional language is a great skill for any person to have, and the news that she gives to the Parliament is of concern. It is, of course, ultimately a matter for the university, and it is appropriate that it makes those decisions. I will ensure, however, that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills—or, indeed, the Minister for Further and Higher Education—engages with Mercedes Villalba to see what support we are able to offer.

Grangemouth (Petroineos Announcement)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Workers in Grangemouth, in my constituency, are fearful for the future after the announcement by Petroineos this week that it is moving from being a refinery to being an import facility. Although I will ask an urgent question later today, will the First Minister take this chance to confirm that he will do all in his power to protect that vital industrial asset and workers’ jobs?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Yes—I give that absolute confirmation. I thank Michelle Thomson for raising the issue. As she said, there will be an urgent question later this afternoon.

Neil Gray and I both met with Petroineos earlier this morning. Neil Gray then went on to meet with the trade unions as well, and I believe that he has offered a briefing for all MSPs tomorrow. We absolutely will engage with the owners of Grangemouth—who will engage, as we have been doing, with trade unions—and with the UK Government, and we will do everything that we possibly can to secure a sustainable future for Grangemouth refinery.

In my conversations with Petroineos, it was very clear that a whole range of factors have to be addressed. Some of those are domestic, but many of them are undoubtedly global. I give Michelle Thomson an absolute assurance that we will work with everybody to ensure that there is a sustainable future for Grangemouth.

Scottish Budget (Agriculture and Rural Communities)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On Tuesday, Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, failed to guarantee to farmers that £28 million of ring-fenced funding will be returned to the Scottish agricultural budget. Furthermore, £45 million is being cut from

the rural budget. Why is the First Minister abandoning rural communities and farmers?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That is astonishing from the party of Brexit—talking about abandoning our farmers. It is the party that has inflicted the biggest and most dangerous self-harm that our society and economy has ever seen—and for what? I do not think that Rachael Hamilton and the Conservatives have an ounce of credibility when it comes to standing up for our farmers.

We will continue to invest in our agricultural community and in our farmers. We will ensure that they do not have to suffer any more of the pain that has been inflicted on them by the Conservatives’ hard Brexit.

Unpaid Carers (Respite)

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Today is carers rights day, when we should all express our appreciation for what unpaid carers do. The state of caring report that has been published today makes for harrowing reading. In particular, 51 per cent of carers who are struggling financially have not had a break. Why was the First Minister’s carers strategy of last year so thin on respite commitments? Does he agree with calls, including those from Labour members, for at least two weeks of respite to support carers who are in such need?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I am more than happy to look into the suggestion that Paul O’Kane makes. I start exactly where he did, by thanking all our carers for the incredible work that they do. Every carer I meet rightly challenges the Government by saying that they do not need just warm words—they need to see action. That is why the Government has acted, and I am more than happy for the cabinet secretary to write to Paul O’Kane, setting out in detail the measures that we have taken and will take to support carers now and into the future. We will consider his suggestion on respite.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a pause to allow members to change seats.

12:46 Meeting suspended.

12:47 On resuming—

Promise Oversight Board Report

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11227, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on keeping the Promise—oversight board report. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes that on 16 March 2021 the Scottish Parliament committed to delivering what it considers a “revolution in children’s rights”, by unanimously passing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill; acknowledges

The Promise Oversight Board Report Two

, which was published in June 2023; notes that the report examines three thematic areas, including education, brothers and sisters and homelessness; further notes the Oversight Board’s concern that Keeping the Promise is not being fully considered and implemented across all relevant policy areas; notes the findings of the report, which highlight the challenging financial landscape facing local authorities and the fears that resources focus more on supporting existing services, rather than upscaling to meet the aims of The Promise; further notes the request in the report for greater evidence that funding is not being used to simply mitigate cuts, and for a strategic investment plan to deliver the required change so that at least 5% of all community-based health and social care spend will be on preventative whole-family support measures by 2030; notes the view that all care experienced children and young people must have a range of individual in-school relationships that they can trust and rely on, with school staff being trauma-informed and using nurture practices, and school moves avoided; further notes the view, according to the report, that there must be more data transparency on informal exclusions, as well as on the use of limited timetables and attendance data specifically for care experienced young people, and that reduced timetables must be reviewed regularly and must not become another form of exclusion, with care experienced young people being supported in attending and attaining all subjects, at all levels; notes the belief that, where living with their family is not possible, children must stay with their brothers and sisters, where it is safe to do so, so that they belong to a loving home; understands that care experienced people have more than double the chance of experiencing homelessness, usually before their 30th birthday; notes the view that more must be done so that there are housing pathways for care experienced young people, including restarting the prevention pathway for care leavers; further notes that, according to the report, “care experienced” is not defined in statute and that this is expected to be rectified in the Scottish Government’s forthcoming The Promise Bill; notes the view that it is important to recognise all types of care experience and to understand what it means for the individual person and their family so that their experiences are not discounted, and further notes the belief that Keeping the Promise is non-negotiable and that any delay would not keep the promise made to children, families and the care experienced community, including in the South Scotland region.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

As always, it is a great pleasure to bring a members’ business debate to the chamber. I thank the members from across the Parliament who supported the motion and the members who have found time to speak.

The debate comes at a time when we are considering young people. It was international students day on 17 November, and the Monday just gone was world children’s day. Last Friday, Children in Need 2023 took place, which was described as a SPOTacular night. It showed the generosity of people across the United Kingdom in helping children all over the UK to thrive and be the best that they can be. We have also heard that today is carers rights day.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child talks about rights to an education, to play, to food, to health, to housing, to respect for privacy, to freedom from violence and abuse, and to family life. We encompass all that in the promise that was made here in Scotland—Scotland’s Promise to care-experienced children and young people that they will grow up loved, safe and respected. In those three simple words, we encompass a convention that is recognised around the world. We recognise the days that celebrate young people, people who support them, their families and their wider communities. Young people have the right to grow up to be loved, safe and respected.

I make no apologies for the many words that went into the motion, which allows the Parliament to consider the work of the Promise oversight board—a board of experts who have just one role: to hold Scotland to account on whether it is doing enough to keep the Promise.

More than three years have passed since the Promise was first made—to keep it by 2030. In order to do that, we had to move Scotland a great distance from the independent care review all the way through to the implementation of the Promise. Today’s motion addresses the second report from the oversight board. “The Promise Oversight Board Report Two” rightly points out the huge amount of work that has already been achieved and the massive efforts that have been put in by individuals, organisations, the third sector, charities, local authorities, the education establishment, schools and the Scottish Government.

That comes with a very blunt proviso, however: that we can keep the Promise by 2030, but achieving the original aims in “Plan 21-24” is not realistic by next year. We need to pay great attention to that. We often hear people say that we set high targets and work hard to achieve them, and that it is sort of all right if we do not make it, because we will get there. We hear people talk about the great steps that have been taken to arrive at something. For people to grow up loved, safe and respected, we need to do more—the “we” is organisations, local authorities, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. Indeed, the Scottish Government probably has the key role in a complex jigsaw. Without the Scottish Government being able to achieve what it needs to do, it will be almost impossible for those who are working so hard, day in, day out, to make the Promise a reality, not just from 2030 but in relation to the experiences that our care-experienced children have, day in, day out.

The report identifies three priority areas: education, brothers and sisters—siblings—and homelessness. The Parliament held a debate yesterday about homelessness. When we talk about care-experienced children, we are talking about a small subset of a greater set, but the concept that they could be rendered homeless is a frightening thought. I go back to the UNCRC and the right to housing.

On the subject of brothers and sisters, it almost seems strange that it took so long to understand the significance of keeping siblings together—the significance for their own development, the significance for their siblings’ development and the significance of being together in empowering them to face challenges that they perhaps cannot face otherwise. We promised that it would happen, but we need much faster and stronger joined-up thinking to allow it to happen.

Going into care is a challenging experience at the best of times. It frequently comes after events that, thankfully, most people will never experience, but they will stay with the young people for the rest of their lives. If that experience is to stay with them, it should stay with them in a shape where they have been supported and cared for. That begins with a child being with their brother or sister—perhaps a younger brother or sister you sometimes just want to put your arm around, telling them “It’s all right,” even if you perhaps do not believe it yourself. It could be a brother or sister to look up to when they are older, and they are there to provide a bit of certainty in life.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

At the Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting yesterday, we heard powerful evidence from Who Cares? Scotland regarding the importance of siblings being kept together, whether in residential care or in foster care. We heard about the conflict relating to the reducing numbers in residential care, which sometimes prevents that. Could the member reflect on that?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am very grateful for that intervention and will reflect on it by saying that we want our young people to be loved, safe and respected—the three words of the Promise that the Parliament made in this chamber to care-experienced children in Scotland.

The third area that the report draws attention to is education. Education has had enormous challenges as a result of Covid. As an adult with some knowledge and experience of education, I look at education and see a challenging environment. Nevertheless, for many care-experienced children, education can be a place of certainty and safety. They can find an adult there they can talk to, not necessarily about the excitement of history, politics or the spelling test on Friday, but perhaps about how they are feeling. It is a big ask to assure Scotland that the education system that our care-experienced children are in—that all of our young people are in—is fit for purpose to provide that. It is a hard ask, but it is a justifiable ask, because we want our children to grow up loved, safe and respected.

I make no bones about the fact that I am aiming my words at the Scottish Government, because that is one of the purposes of the debate. One of the calls contained in the report is for the Scottish Government to set out a clear set of principles—the outcomes and milestones that will guarantee the Promise. The report calls for a strategic investment plan to deliver the required change, and there is a demand for proper sequencing, strategic planning and resourcing.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill will, I hope, come back to the chamber and find its rightful place on our statute book, but one of the asks from those involved in it, and one of the things that will facilitate its development, speaks to the very heart of the Promise, which is that we, in this Parliament, and the Scottish Government must start legislating in a way that brings human rights and our young people’s rights into every area of law, so that, should those rights be needed, they can be enforced. That is the route. If we can achieve for care-experienced children the simple demand to be loved, safe and respected, we can achieve it for all our young people.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I

thank Martin Whitfield for bringing this important debate to the chamber and for his commitment to improving the lives of young people and children.

About one in every 100 children in Scotland goes into care before their first birthday, and children living in the 10 per cent most deprived areas of Scotland are 20 times more likely to become care experienced than those in the 10 per cent least deprived areas. I could fill my four-minute slot with a barrage of statistics about outcomes for care-experienced young people—all of them important but, frankly, none of them good. Instead, I will focus on the Scottish Government’s commitment to improving the lives of young people through the Promise and on addressing the points in Martin Whitfield’s motion.

As Martin Whitfield said, the Promise oversight board’s second report highlights a number of areas that are crucial to the wellbeing of care-experienced children, including sibling contact, homelessness and education. There is so much in the report that it is impossible to cover everything in a short speech. On sibling contact, as a member of the Criminal Justice Committee in this session and of the Justice Committee in the previous one, I had an amendment accepted to the Children (Scotland) Bill to ensure that local authorities must take steps to promote direct contact between a looked-after child and their siblings, where appropriate—it is important to say “where appropriate”. I have seen how important sibling contact is to the welfare of children through friends of mine who adopted a little boy aged 18 months, and his sister one year later. Those children now have their sibling bond to nurture them as they grow up. I cannot stress how important that attachment, nurture and security is.

Care-experienced adults are twice as likely to have experienced homelessness, usually before their 30th birthday. That is shocking. We must do better and improve the pathways and outcomes for care-experienced people, which is exactly why the Promise was set up.

Education is the building block that is needed for every young person, but particularly for care-experienced young people, who face unique challenges. A central aim of the Promise is that they are supported in attending and attaining all subjects, and are encouraged to enter higher education. Only yesterday, I saw a billboard advertising job vacancies for care-experienced people. That is a huge sign of progress.

According to the report, the term “care experienced” is not defined in statute. I am pleased that that is expected to be rectified in the Scottish Government’s forthcoming Promise bill. I am sure that the minister can expand on that. Legislation can be a force for good, as I believe that bill will be.

Last week, in the Parliament, I met an inspiring group of young people—the changemakers, who are supported by Children 1st, which is the driving force behind the bairns’ hoose and supports children in Scotland holistically and practically every day. They do an amazing job, and my meeting with them filled me with hope and optimism. I understand that Children 1st is now working with parents to produce a film to spread the word about its peer research and help professionals to keep the Promise. Sharing and working together is always the best way forward.

As Martin Whitfield’s motion says,

“Keeping the Promise is non-negotiable”,

and I am sure that the minister will confirm that when summing up. We must build on what we have started, without further delay. I urge everyone to believe that the Scottish Government is committed to getting it right for every child, whatever their background or life experience. We have much to do, and I accept that perhaps the pace could and should be a little faster, but our commitment is strong, and we will fulfil our Promise to Scotland’s disadvantaged young people.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Roz McCall joins us remotely.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I

thank Martin Whitfield for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Given my past contributions, it is no secret that I fully support the aims of the Promise and its goal to support people with care experience in Scottish society. When the Promise was made, the former First Minister described it as one of the most important moments in her time as First Minister, and the Scottish Government said that it was committed to implementing the recommendations within a decade. I applaud that.

However, if, three years on and with several new review papers, we are still saying that someone’s support depends on where they live, on whom they ask and on whether they had adequate support or encouragement, we are, unfortunately, not on track to achieve the Promise. Given that many independent organisations, including The Promise Scotland, state that the issues that the independent care review was supposed to address are getting worse, we are not on course to achieve the Promise. Given that the number of foster carers that are provided is decreasing and the number of spaces that are required is increasing, we are not on course to achieve the Promise. Given that the Promise oversight board’s report of June 2023 highlights the specific areas of concern that need addressing immediately as education, brothers and sisters and homelessness, and until those fundamental basics to provide care-experienced children with the help they need for a full and positive life are met, we are, unfortunately, not on course to achieve the Promise.

Recognising the cold, hard facts is the only way that we can get the Promise back on track. First, we need a comprehensive definition of “care experienced” that is recognised in statute. The importance of recognising all types of care experience is paramount, and that definition must encompass them all.

This week is adoption week Scotland, the focus of which is to listen to and support all people who have experience of adoption. I want to echo and widen that sentiment in the debate. Experience of care is so much more than being care experienced, and we cannot put the proper support measures in place until we define what we are supporting. I will focus on the three areas of concern that were highlighted by the Promise oversight board.

The first of those is education. Helping teaching staff and support staff to identify trauma-based behaviour as early as possible best serves the needs of our care-experienced children in the classroom, through primary and high school and on to apprenticeships, colleges and universities. Providing support and the relevant coping mechanisms will help care-experienced young people with relationships with their peers, help them study, and give them the best start, support and recognition to thrive in school and a capacity to participate in activities and move on to positive destinations. That must be addressed immediately.

The second point is removal from siblings. Children are being fostered and adopted in separate homes from their siblings, which creates more trauma and reinforces the trauma that is already present. The pain of separation is difficult and complicated for a child to voice.

Last week, I attended an event for the 100th anniversary of Scottish Adoption and Fostering, and I heard from a young lady who had been placed with a loving family but was separated from her biological sister. It was only with the perseverance of her foster parents that they were able to keep up regular contact. Her story is one of thousands, and children in such situations face repeated trauma, so we must address that immediately.

Homelessness in care-experienced adults is on the rise, with evidence showing that care-experienced people have more than double the chance of experiencing homelessness before their 30th birthday than those who are not care experienced do. Difficulties, barriers and poverty when children leave their care environments have a devastating effect, and unfortunately that must also be immediately addressed.

The oversight board’s concern is that we may not be on course to achieve the Promise. The report’s request for greater evidence of transparent funding usage is not only reasonable, but essential. It is crucial that resources are strategically invested to meet the aims of the Promise, and it must happen without further delay.

Keeping the Promise is non-negotiable. Any delay will be a betrayal of the commitment that we made to Scotland’s children, families and care-experienced community.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank my friend Martin Whitfield for the motion and for securing the time in the chamber. As he stated, it is great that in March 2021, there was the passing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament. That was definitely a significant moment in the Parliament’s history, and we need to move on it.

The Promise came from that. It was a much-hailed Government commitment. It was championed by the former First Minister, and has continued commitment from the current First Minister. The Promise commits that by 2030 all of Scotland’s children and young people will grow up loved, safe and respected.

It is one of the most important parts of the Scottish Government’s commitment to Scotland and its young people. The desire to make it a reality is extremely high across the chamber. It is a noble goal, and one that we must all strive towards.

The reality is, sadly, that the Promise oversight board does not believe that the current pace of change means that the original aims of “Plan 21-24” are realistic by next year—as we have heard.

The Promise oversight board is independent of the Promise. It is made up of care-experienced people, whose job is to scrutinise whether the Promise is being kept. With its second report, which was published in June, it has been brave enough to tell us that the Promise is not being kept. It has told us that “Plan 21-24” will fail, and that the recommendations in the plan will not be met. It feels that Scotland is going to fail those with care experience at the first hurdle of the Promise. That is not good enough, and we must make moves to ensure that it what is in the plan happens.

Scottish Labour wants to commit to supporting the Government to ensure that the Promise is fully implemented in the best and most timely manner possible. The overview board report clearly states that keeping the Promise is not negotiable. It said:

“Scotland cannot afford to wait; our children and young people are relying on us. Over the next year we expect to see explicit leadership and drive from the Scottish Government.”

It is fair to say that there is a lack of leadership and, for the care community in particular, the slow pace of progress causes some hurt and upset.

I was speaking to young people in the care community, and they asked me to ask the minister whether she feels that failure is being rewarded. They also asked me to ask where the accountability is for keeping the Promise. The Government funds The Promise Scotland—a private limited company—with millions of pounds-worth of public money every year. Those young people would also like to know whether the same person who wrote the plan will be responsible for setting the next stage of the plan.

Those young people asked me to ask about that because they have been advised that the way in which the plan will be scrutinised may be changed. There was to be a phased approach to scrutinising the plan, but now there will be a change. The plan was to run from 2024 to 2027 and then from 2027 to 2030, but now there is a suggestion that it will just run for the next six years, so there is a worry about accountability.

I will also mention family support. As Martin Whitfield and others said, the Promise says that Scotland must support families to stay together. There is a concern that there is a variety of approaches across Scotland to delivering the whole family wellbeing fund and that the fund is not bringing about the transformative change that was intended. The reality is that local authorities are being starved of cash by the Government. Is the minister highlighting that? We want to know that the fund is not being used to mitigate problems within local authorities.

We are running out of time, so I will close. I hope that we can debate this subject again during Government time, because a number of points should be discussed.

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

I thank members for the opportunity to close the debate and thank all members who have made considered contributions.

As has been noted, it is our ambition for all children to grow up loved, safe and respected and to reach their full potential. It is absolutely essential that we turn that ambition into a reality for all care-experienced children and young people across Scotland. It is reassuring to hear members come together in support of the ambition set out by the Promise. Although the Government absolutely must and will lead from the front, we will only achieve success if we work together to improve our policies, change how we deliver services and recognise, respect and respond to the needs of our care-experienced population. By working together, we can make transformational and sustainable change happen.

Important progress is being made. The First Minister and I met Fiona Duncan on 7 November and were heartened to hear that she believes that Scotland is on track to keep the Promise by 2030. Although that is encouraging, I absolutely understand that the pace must be continued and, in key areas, accelerated if we are to maintain that positive direction of travel.

It is, of course, not for us to judge success. It is imperative that the children, young people and adults who have experience of the care system tell us how it is for them and where we must continue improving, and I will listen to those voices. In that regard, I welcome the continued scrutiny that the Promise oversight board provides, not only of the Scottish Government but of all the organisations that share responsibility. I also welcome the engagement of our representative partners, including Who Cares? Scotland, who regularly help us to listen to the voices that matter.

This week, the First Minister wrote to Fiona Duncan to ask her to provide further detail about the areas in “Plan 21-24” where progress is required and, in so doing, to set out a proposed timeline and her ambitions for the development of “Plan 24-30”, which is something that I know Carol Mochan is very interested in. That information will help us to make connections and drive forward progress. It will help us to focus on what is next, who must deliver and by when, and I encourage all members to get behind that work.

During the eight months in which I have had the honour of holding this position, I have had the pleasure of visiting a range of projects and seeing the truly excellent progress that is underway. The virtual school in North Lanarkshire has seen a dramatic reduction in exclusions. I was truly heartened to see the efforts being made by Siblings Reunited in Fife to unite siblings, an extremely important matter that was raised by Rona Mackay, Martin Whitfield and Roz McCall. I have visited kinship carers in Airdrie and, just yesterday, I visited Aberlour’s perinatal support service in Falkirk. Those are just a few of the visits that I have made.

Members will no doubt know of other work that is under way in their own constituencies. What matters is how we move from having examples of practice to established practice. That point was echoed by those who attended the Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting yesterday. We must work together to share our learning and ensure that what works can be spread across Scotland, so that the whole care-experienced community will benefit.

I will highlight some key areas of progress. Members will be aware that the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill is currently going through Parliament and is a key vehicle for the legislative change that is necessary for Scotland to keep the Promise. If the bill is passed, it will represent the first step in a process to reform the children’s hearings system that will include consultation on the changes proposed in the recent review by Sheriff David Mackie. As I have said before, the Scottish Government’s response to that report will be published by the end of this calendar year.

I say to members that I could list many examples of work that is under way, including the Scottish recommended allowance for foster and kinship care, which will benefit over 9,000 families, helping them to provide the standard of living and the wellbeing that the children and young people in their care deserve; and the £2,000 care leaver payment to support our young people as they move on from care, which was put to consultation earlier this month. However, I do not raise those points to be combative. I have absolutely no right to do that. Instead, I want them to help to demonstrate the seriousness with which I and this Government take the task that has been set. We absolutely must deliver the change that is required, and we will.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is right that the minister has not raised those points as successes in their own right just to celebrate them, but they are fine examples of how we are moving from where we are now towards keeping the Promise by 2030. We have legislation going through that is clearly too far advanced for it to encompass the request from the third sector that we legislate to encompass the UNCRC, but we have a fine opportunity in

the Promise bill that will be coming forward. Can the minister give an assurance that that will be drafted to encompass the UNCRC?

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

As Mr Whitfield will be aware, the Promise bill will be introduced by the end of the current parliamentary session, and we will take all considerations on board.

The Promise oversight board recently wrote to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport in relation to homelessness and suicide prevention. We really appreciate the board’s feedback on those issues and the continued oversight, and I understand that the two ministers are responding respectfully to that.

Before coming to a conclusion, I pick up on the point that Rona Mackay raised about the definition of “care experienced”. We will undertake a consultation on the definition in spring 2024 to inform the Promise bill, which could be used to legislate to introduce a universal and inclusive definition.

I acknowledge the number of children and young people who are in care in Scotland. It is falling, which is positive news. It is up to all of us to continue our work to ensure that, where it is safe for them to do so, children and young people will stay with their families and that those families can access the support that they need at the right time and in the right way. For our young people who are transitioning out of care, we have a package of support available to help them into adulthood. For our care-experienced adults, we acknowledge across our services that being care experienced is lifelong.

I emphasise again that I will continue to listen to the voices of our care-experienced community in order to continue to progress change and ensure that we are getting it right. I thank Mr Whitfield for bringing this discussion to the chamber. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with him and, of course, all members as we continue our journey to deliver the change that is required.

13:18 Meeting suspended.

14:15 On resuming—

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. I recommend brief questions and responses, wherever possible. Anyone looking to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Fairtrade Products

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body under what circumstances Fairtrade products are used in catering in the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-02785)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is incumbent on our catering services provider, Sodexo, to source and use Fairtrade products whenever possible as part of the delivery of the catering service in the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament serves a wide range of Fairtrade products, including fresh fruit, coffee, hot chocolate and a range of tea and fruit and herbal teas.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

A member of the cross-party group on fair trade raised with me, in my capacity as convener of the group, that non-Fairtrade coffee was being served at a recent parliamentary reception. I am keen to know on what occasions and why the decision would be taken to serve a non-Fairtrade product when a Fairtrade option was available, which is the norm in the Parliament. Will the SPCB consider publishing the level of Fairtrade spend in the Parliament?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the member for raising that issue. Fairtrade tea, coffee and sugar sachets are served where possible. I know that, recently, due to a supply chain issue, an alternative had to be sourced.

The team will continue to work with the supplier to ensure that the sachet options are Fairtrade, which should be standard. The coffee that is served in flasks is always Fairtrade.

We can look at disaggregating the spend. I think that we spend around £25,000 on Fairtrade products, which is about 5 per cent of our total spend at the moment. I can write to the member with a fuller response.

Exhibition Spaces

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

2. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider having a third exhibition area, in light of there being considerable demand for such spaces. (S6O-02784)

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

Apart from the two existing spaces, there are currently no other suitable spaces in the busy parliamentary campus or available resources to support an additional member-sponsored exhibition space. However, the SPCB is sympathetic to the issue and we are happy to explore it as part of future work on the use of the building.

Although there is a lot of demand for member-sponsored exhibitions, most can be accommodated within the current arrangements. When that is not possible, parliamentary officials will always seek to offer an alternative date to accommodate the exhibition or, where appropriate, offer organisers a member-sponsored event instead.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have to slightly disagree with the member and suggest that there are other places where we could have an exhibition. Near the pass office, there is quite a lot of space in the garden lobby. I would be happy to discuss other options with her because, just the other night, we were at the Scottish Gypsy/Traveller community cross-party group, which has been able to book a space, but not until next October.

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

It is not simply a matter of space; it is to do with resources, the equipment that is required, the staffing and so on.

As I said, the SPCB is sympathetic to the issue, and we will see whether another space can be found as we explore future work on the use of the building, especially as the use of the building has changed following the Covid pandemic.

Staff Cost Provision Uprating

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

3. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how the staff cost provision uprating for 2024-25 will be calculated. (S6O-02795)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

We know that Christmas is coming, because this question always precedes it. I can say to Jackie Baillie that, as part of the annual budget cycle, the SPCB considers the indexation of all provisions, including staff cost provision. The index to be applied is a matter for SPCB judgment rather than automatic application, and it will, of course, be confirmed when the SPCB submits its budget for consideration to the Finance and Public Administration Committee in the coming weeks.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

And here was me thinking that Jackson Carlaw was auditioning to be Santa, but I fear that he might disappoint me. I point out to him that the SPCB has used a figure of 6.7 per cent for average weekly earnings and 6.2 per cent for the annual survey for hours and earnings. However, data published last week shows that the annualised increase in AWE from October to September this year was, in fact, 7.5 per cent. I encourage Jackson Carlaw and the SPCB to use the most recent figure to uprate the staff cost provision to ensure that staff receive the uplift that they deserve, and that he gets the title of the best Santa ever.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Well, if I am Santa, Jackie Baillie can be one of the elves, and I am happy to support her application in that regard.

I take note of what Jackie Baillie says. The corporate body considers the various indices at a point in time. I am not sure that I recognise the figure that she has quoted, but we applied AWE to the staff cost provision last year, and we thought that that was an admirable decision.

Staff Recruitment

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

4. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what difficulties there are, if any, in recruiting staff for jobs in the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-02781)

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The corporate body is proud of its ability to attract and retain talented staff from a wide range of backgrounds, despite on-going challenges, with which we are all familiar, in the recruitment market, and with vacancies for some roles outstripping the number of people who are actively looking for work.

The corporate body continues to be successful in attracting people with the right skills and experience for our roles. The SPCB takes a strategic approach to recruitment. We assess the market constantly, including benchmarking salaries, and we engage with candidates at all stages of the recruitment process to learn about how we can improve. Our competitive salaries and benefits, including flexible and hybrid working arrangements, are attractive for jobseekers, which means that we continue to be successful in attracting high-quality candidates for our vacancies.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank all the hard-working staff who keep the place going and look after us so well.

It seems that, in recent times, there have been a number of vacancies in security and catering in particular. What is the corporate body doing to ensure that we have good—the best—pay and conditions in place for our staff? Have shift pattern changes had an impact on recruiting and retaining staff?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The corporate body

puts fair work at the centre of its approach to employment, and staff survey results show that our staff consistently respond positively regarding the employment package that we offer. We take a number of approaches to ensure that that is the case. Salaries are regularly benchmarked with comparator employers to ensure that they are fair and competitive and attract candidates with the right skills and experience. We also have a no compulsory redundancy guarantee in place until the end of this parliamentary session, which gives staff security and reflects the organisational values of inclusiveness and respect by ensuring that SPCB staff feel safe to be themselves at work.

I am not aware that shift working has created any particular difficulty. The one area in which we have found an exception to our ability to recruit has been in the appointment of senior software developers. However, we have reviewed our recruitment approach for those particular vacancies and are confident that we are well placed to advertise the roles again, with the expectation that we will be successful this time.

Crèche (Restriction on Hours)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

5. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on its work to ensure that the crèche facility can offer more than four hours per week per child. (S6O-02747)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are working hard to find a solution. The main reason for the current four hours per week restriction is the lack of access to an adequate outdoor space. The facilities management office met the Care Inspectorate and our crèche provider on Tuesday 7 November to look at options for creating a new outdoor space that would allow the current restrictions to be eased. An initial feasibility report has been drafted by our property services consultant, and outline design work is now under way. Once the design work has been completed, further work will take place in relation to timescales, budget and liaison with the Care Inspectorate.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

Of course, the facility has not changed; only the limits that have been imposed on it have changed.

Last term, at least four MSPs who were also mothers stepped down from Parliament, with some citing the impossibility of balancing childcare and political office. That figure is guaranteed to increase unless the ridiculous and unnecessary limit of four hours per week per child is resolved. If it is not resolved, that will, ultimately, mean less representation in Parliament of working parents in Scotland. Does the SPCB understand the urgency of the matter and will it work tirelessly to resolve it?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate how challenging it can be to combine the role of an MSP with caring responsibilities. I was a user of the crèche when I was first elected and my daughter was one year old, so I recognise how important it is for MSPs to get that level of support.

We are working hard to find a solution, in the first instance, to get us back up to the four hours a day provision that we had before, but it is the Care Inspectorate that is putting those restrictions on us.

With regard to our longer-term ambition, we are having discussions with the Scottish Government that might enable us to use its nursery. As I said, we have set out a design consultancy process and we will look at all the options that are available to us.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I support the efforts that Kate Forbes and Meghan Gallacher are making to have the hours of the crèche facility extended. However, I have grave concerns, which I hope that Claire Baker can address, about security in relation to children in this building. I was baffled, and greatly concerned, that a member of the SPCB, Maggie Chapman, encouraged, endorsed and applauded an illegal protest on the roof of this very building. That is totally unsatisfactory from a member of the SPCB. Can she give me assurances in that regard?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not think that that is relevant to the original question. We will move on to question 6.

Michael Matheson (Use of Parliamentary Device Abroad)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when SPCB staff were notified by Michael Matheson of his holiday to Morocco and intention to take a parliamentary device abroad. (S6O-02796)

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Matheson did not notify the Parliament’s information technology team about his intention to take his device abroad. As the member himself has confirmed to the chamber, he contacted the Parliament’s IT team on 28 December, from Morocco, seeking assistance with a parliamentary device.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Obviously, some arrangement has been made to allow Michael Matheson to pay only £3,000 from his office expenses to offset the £11,000 bill. Will the member confirm when Michael Matheson first offered to pay a contribution, who set the amount and on what basis it was set?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the member will know, the SPCB has today issued a statement that was circulated to all members of the Scottish Parliament. This morning, the corporate body determined that it would undertake an investigation in line with its duties under the MSP code of conduct.

The investigation will consider whether the claims for £11,000 of public money, incurred through data roaming charges, were proper and met the requirements of the scheme and whether resources were used for parliamentary purposes in accordance with all corporate body policies.

We will seek to conclude our investigations promptly, and our findings will be published. Depending on those findings, a number of options might be open to the corporate body, as set out in section 9 of the code of conduct, including referral to the Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

I am sure that Edward Mountain will appreciate that, in the interests of fairness to all, and to avoid prejudicing our investigation, the corporate body will, as of now, not comment on any matters that could have a bearing on the process. It is important to stress, however, that the corporate body remains wholly committed to openness and transparency and will release all material that it can, when it can, in line with our legal obligations.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am grateful to the member for the information that has been given, but I would be grateful if the corporate body could give an idea of the timescale for its investigation into Michael Matheson’s inappropriate use of expenses. I note that the statement says that it will be done “promptly”, but what does that mean?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I

am sure that Jackie Baillie will appreciate that the investigation was announced only this morning. However, the corporate body recognises members’ interest. We will undertake the work as promptly as we can, and we will respond. I am afraid that, this afternoon, I cannot give a proper timescale for that. We want to make sure that it is a fair and transparent process, and we will undertake the investigation in those terms. I refer the member to my earlier statement.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I believe that, after First Minister’s question time this afternoon, in response to the announcement of the investigation, the First Minister’s official spokesperson confirmed that Humza Yousaf will co-operate fully with the corporate body’s investigation. Will the member confirm that all interested parties, including the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care, will be interviewed as part of the process and that such interviews will feed into the investigation that has now been launched?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the member would expect, this will be a fair and due process. The member who is involved in the investigation would be able to provide us with further written representation if he wished to do so.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

My supplementary question relates to the management of the Parliament’s website, not the investigation itself.

Michael Matheson’s roaming charges bill, which was partially paid for out of parliamentary expenses, was more than double the value of the rest of the MSP mobile phone bill claims combined. That clearly cannot represent value for money for the taxpayer, and the expenses claim has now been deleted from the Parliament’s website. Was the expenses claim removed from the Parliament’s website because it blatantly did not comply with the requirement that expenses claims must represent value for money?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the member will know, Michael Matheson recently paid the £11,000 back to Parliament, and the expenses database has been updated to reflect that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes SPCB question time. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow for a change of front-bench members.

Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio on this occasion is transport, net zero and just transition. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Battery Energy Storage Systems (National Strategy)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the just transition secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding whether a national strategy for battery energy storage system sites could form part of Scotland’s plans for a just transition. (S6O-02766)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We are clear that battery energy storage systems are an essential component of a decarbonised electricity grid. We are currently in the process of updating our energy strategy and just transition plan for publication by next summer, taking into consideration the responses received to the consultation on the draft strategy. The finalised energy strategy and just transition plan will set out in more detail our vision for energy storage.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank Richard Lochhead for that answer and for the update on the national strategy.

People in communities across Scotland, including those who live around the Eccles substation in my constituency, have so far been supportive of battery storage applications to play their part in meeting net zero targets, but they are concerned about the cumulative negative impact of multiple applications across prime agricultural land. Can the minister reassure my constituents that, in line with the similar guidance that exists for onshore wind, guidance will urgently be issued for battery storage? Will he take up an offer to meet me to discuss the Government’s direction of travel for renewables in the context of the use of prime agricultural land?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank Rachael Hamilton for raising an issue that is going to grow in prominence across the country as more battery storage facilities are built. As I said, they are an essential part of Scotland’s future energy profile. I know that planning officials recently met Rachael Hamilton and other groups to discuss some of the concerns in her constituency and the local region. At the moment, the planning guidelines allow for energy developments on agricultural land; a number of conditions are attached to that in certain circumstances. I will certainly pass on Rachael Hamilton’s request for a direct meeting with ministers to discuss that.

I assure Rachael Hamilton that we are considering such issues carefully as we work up the final energy strategy and just transition plan, and that we will continue to take on board the concerns expressed by her constituents and by other members.

Road Safety (A77)

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to reduce accidents and improve overall safety on the A77. (S6O-02767)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are committed to improving safety across our network. Since 2007, £124 million has been invested in the A77 to ensure its safe and efficient operation. In addition, our annual assessment of trunk road safety performance has identified three investigations on the A77 to be progressed this financial year: on Bellfield to the B7038 overbridge, on Holmston to the East Ayrshire boundary and on powered two-wheeler collisions. We have upgraded and completed new signing and road markings between the Monktonhead and Dutch House roundabouts, while also developing speed management measures for Turnberry, Kirkoswald and Ballantrae.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I have been talking about the A77 since my maiden speech. It is the main artery connecting the central belt to Northern Ireland, through the port at Cairnryan, and it takes an average of 69 minutes to travel a 43-mile stretch. The Government’s own south-west Scotland transport study identified the A77 as the slowest A road in the country, with an average speed of 37.7mph. It is also leaving the south-west at an economic disadvantage. When will the A77 be fully dualled?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In relation to the improvements, we said in our spring budget revision that there is priority for the A77—that is why the A77 is mentioned in it.

The member’s question was about reducing accidents and improving overall safety, rather than increasing speed. I know that addressing some of the speed management and safety issues around Turnberry, Kirkoswald and Ballantrae will affect speed. However, the building of the Maybole bypass, which was a considerable investment, will have helped to improve driving times.

I am very familiar with the A77, and I am keen that it gets the time and attention that it needs, as well as the funding. That is why I am pleased to report the progress that is taking place this financial year on those key areas.

British Transport Police

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the effectiveness of the British Transport Police on Scotland’s railways. (S6O-02768)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As the member is aware, the British Transport Police reports to the United Kingdom Department for Transport, but it works in close partnership with ScotRail, Police Scotland and Scottish Government officials. The British Transport Police advises that its operations in partnership with ScotRail have seen a significant reduction in antisocial behaviour on Scotland’s rail network. We encourage the British Transport Police to continue to work closely with Police Scotland and the rail industry to ensure that its operations are focused on the needs of rail passengers and staff.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I was delighted to recently host the first-ever BTP exhibition in Parliament. The minister is correct that the officers do a sterling job of keeping people safe on Scotland’s railways.

However, the BTP sometimes faces difficulties when asking the Crown Office for permission to publicly release images of individuals who are suspected of committing a crime. The BTP is sometimes told that corroboration is needed before an image can be released. That requirement can be difficult to fulfil in cases of crimes of a sexual nature, so such images are not released, to the despair of victims and officers. Will the transport minister raise that important issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member raises an important point about how we can have successful prosecutions. He will know that those decisions are matters for the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. However, I think that anything that improves awareness will help to ensure that people know that if they commit a crime, they could well be captured. The issue of what can and should be used in evidence is not a matter for me, but I will bring the point that the member has made to the attention of the justice secretary.

Air Pollution (Urban Towns)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce air pollution levels in urban towns such as Coatbridge. (S6O-02769)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Scotland enjoys a high level of air quality and, over the past three decades, levels of the main air pollutants have declined significantly. In 2022, for the first time outside of the Covid-19 lockdown periods, all air quality objectives were achieved in the 98 sites in the Scottish monitoring network, including the air quality management area in Coatbridge.

That has been achieved through tighter regulation, improved fuel quality, cleaner vehicles and an increased focus on sustainable transport. Our cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy builds on those successes by setting out actions for further reduction of air pollution across Scotland.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

T

he minister will be aware, and in fact has made mention, of the areas of Whifflet, Shawhead and Kirkshaws in Coatbridge, which were recently prescribed as air quality management areas, as the air quality in those zones did not fall within the legal limits. That is especially relevant for the area around the Shawhead flyover, which is a busy junction that connects Coatbridge and wider Lanarkshire to the M8 motorway. In fact, in 2019, Shawhead recorded an average of 27.17 micrograms per cubic metre of nitrogen dioxide. That was the 33rd highest level in Scotland, with only roads in our major cities having levels above that.

Given that the air pollution is almost exclusively caused by traffic issues, what can the Scottish Government do to ensure that air quality remains at a safe level, especially in the context of increasing traffic levels in areas such as Shawhead, and given that the council there seems to have approved plans for further industrial development at that junction?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Our cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy sets out a series of actions to further reduce emissions from transport sources. In addition, national planning framework 4 sets out our spatial strategy for Scotland’s long-term development.

It is clear that development proposals that are likely to have significant adverse effects on air quality will not be supported. Co-benefits for air quality will also be delivered through policies on tackling the climate and nature crisis, sustainable transport and 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Kingsway in Dundee goes through several of the most deprived communities in the city, and it is used by thousands of vehicles each day. That exposes residents to high levels of air pollution. Transport Scotland’s assessment of a potential bypass suggested that the project would have a positive impact on air quality by taking away 50 per cent of the traffic on the Kingsway. Does the minister recognise the health and environmental benefits that that project could bring to Dundee?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, I do. I have an example from my own area in Aberdeenshire. One of the most highly polluted streets in Scotland would have been Market Street in Aberdeen. As a result of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which the Scottish Government delivered on, a significant amount of traffic has been diverted away from the city of Aberdeen.

The cabinet secretary might be interested in pursuing that issue further with Mercedes Villalba, as I do not have the detail of that particular proposal in front of me.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

People are understandably seeking more affordable alternatives as the cost of winter heating soars. However, Asthma and Lung UK Scotland has highlighted the negative impacts of domestic burning on respiratory conditions and how domestic burning increases levels of dangerous pollutants, including carcinogenic emissions. Can the minister outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to raise public awareness of the adverse impacts of domestic burning and any measures that are in place to promote healthy, affordable and environmentally friendly heating methods?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Stephanie Callaghan has outlined why ensuring that our air is as clean as possible is a real health priority. In one of the actions in our cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy, we are working with stakeholders on the development of an air quality public engagement framework. That will include raising public awareness of the impacts of domestic fuel burning. We intend to publish that framework in 2024.

Circular Economy (Wind Turbine Decommissioning)

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making towards achieving a circular economy, including through the development of the wind turbine decommissioning sector. (S6O-02770)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Progress is being made in several areas. As well as the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill and the forthcoming circular economy and waste route map, we provide support through the recycling improvement fund, funding for the share and repair network and business support through Zero Waste Scotland. The national strategy for economic transformation also identifies the circular economy as a new market opportunity.

Through the recently published onshore wind sector deal, we have agreed to work with the onshore wind sector and the coalition for wind industry circularity to publish a strategy paper by October 2024.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Zero Waste Scotland’s document “The future of onshore wind decommissioning in Scotland”, which was published in March, shows the recyclable components of a wind turbine. It states that between 4,800 and 5,500 turbines will be decommissioned between 2021 and 2025, and it shows which parts will be broken down and into what materials. However, one essential part is missing: the blades. Can the minister outline how the Government can achieve its net zero targets through a just transition when our renewables are not currently fully recyclable? When will that fundamental problem be rectified so that our renewables are actually renewable?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member raises an important issue, and I think that everyone would agree with the sentiment that she outlines. In the coming years, we have, through the energy transition, to get to a position in which we can recycle as much of our materials as possible. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill will address some of those issues.

I should say that we have an onshore wind sector deal commitment whereby, supported by Government, all the relevant agencies in the onshore wind industry have agreed to deliver at least one specialist blade treatment facility in Scotland by 2030. A lot of thought has been given to the objectives that the member wants to achieve, and there are measures in place that it is hoped will deliver that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are a number of supplementaries. I will try to get them all in.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Can the minister give an update on how the Scottish Government is supporting the enhancement skills and training provision to help to deliver on the needs of the wind industry and achieve a circular economy?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The education and skills system is already adapting to the transition to net zero, and institutions such as our colleges and universities are key anchors for that transition. For example, the Energy Skills Partnership co-ordinates the wind training network, which allows colleges to better collaborate with industry on the skills that are needed for both onshore and offshore wind.

In addition, Zero Waste Scotland has developed a range of courses to develop circular economy skills, and it is working to embed those circular economy principles across all our sectors.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

The Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill is currently being considered by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Although it is largely a recycling bill that focuses predominantly on household waste, has the minister considered how it could be improved in order to ensure that a circular economy is achieved across our industrial sectors such as renewables, where we will see huge investment? Will he support amendments at stages 2 and 3 that cover those sectors to deliver the huge, joined-up opportunities and action on green jobs that we need?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Those are important issues that Parliament should consider. I am not the minister responsible for the bill, but the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity will be appearing before the relevant committee in a matter of days, and the committee members will, I am sure, take the opportunity to raise those issues.

I will ensure that the minister will be aware of Sarah Boyack’s questions prior to that appearance. The purpose of the committee system is to improve the bill and make sure that we capture all those opportunities for the Scottish economy and to address our carbon footprint.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Given the changes in energy production and delivery, and the challenges in encouraging young people into science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, what can the Scottish Government do to ensure that training and careers are supported to develop a circular economy, including in wind turbine decommissioning? I note the minister’s response to Jackie Dunbar’s question.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Again, that is an important issue, and I tried to address some of the points in response to Jackie Dunbar’s question. The universities and colleges are now beginning to address that issue, and it is important that they do so with some urgency.

The Scottish Government is funding a number of projects to ensure that there are transferable skills between, for instance, oil and gas and renewables. The member is quite right that we need to use decommissioning as a massive economic opportunity for Scotland, in relation to both onshore wind turbine equipment and offshore oil and gas installations.

I have visited one yard in Scotland where there are a number of jobs—I think that it was in Shetland, but I would have to verify that. The yard is decommissioning an offshore platform, and there are 20 or 30 jobs involved in doing that. That platform was built in a yard in Scotland in the first place, so that is a good example of the circular economy and the economic opportunities.

Hydrogen Fuelling Infrastructure

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the development of hydrogen fuelling infrastructure for use by heavy goods vehicles and other road-going heavy machinery. (S6O-02771)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We support the roll-out of infrastructure that is needed for hydrogen vehicles to operate in Scotland. Aberdeen city has two hydrogen refuelling stations. Transport Scotland has contracted Heriot-Watt University to work with road haulage fleets and stakeholders to assess where initial en-route charging and refuelling infrastructure for zero-emission HGVs will be needed.

The zero emission truck task force convened by Transport Scotland includes a working group that is focused on hydrogen refuelling infrastructure. The task force is developing strategic actions to unlock a successful transition to zero-emission HGVs, and it expects to publish the HGV decarbonisation pathway early next year.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

My colleague Sharon Dowey has already highlighted the issue of the A77. Hydrogen is increasingly seen as a major player in the drive towards net zero. In order to take advantage of the huge potential that Scotland could and should have in the green hydrogen economy, it is important that demand is created and that the appropriate infrastructure is in place.

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other breathing issues clearly had a major problem with the air quality, as was, in Glasgow. Disabled people and carers will absolutely benefit from clearer air.

There are currently few options for hydrogen refuelling. Does the minister agree that, without the infrastructure, businesses will be reticent to make the change? We need roads such as the A77 and the A75 to give us a hydrogen superhighway that will turbo boost that element of our decarbonisation.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I hope that Brian Whittle will appreciate from my initial answer that we take the issue seriously. That is why we are working with the industry to identify where hydrogen refuelling infrastructure can be best placed. I am conscious of Scotland’s freight opportunities. To maximise impact, I am working with my Welsh counterpart in relation to our United Kingdom-wide interministerial meetings—the next one will focus on freight. There is rail freight and road freight, but urgency is required to anticipate the opportunities that hydrogen brings for heavy vehicles in particular.

I hope that Brian Whittle is reassured by my initial answer that we are looking at that and working at pace to deliver exactly what he asks for. We should listen to what the industry, as opposed to anyone else, says about the location for facilities. For freight that travels to Northern Ireland, it would make sense for the A77 and the A75 to feature. Let us see what the industry task force comes up with.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

When I was at the PNDC conference in Glasgow yesterday, I saw great examples of Scottish businesses working to develop hydrogen, including Hydrogen Vehicle Systems from Glasgow, which is at an advanced stage of developing hydrogen vehicles and is working with partners to put in place the refuelling infrastructure as a consequence. I commend that work to the minister.

Will the minister give an update on Scotland’s hydrogen train project, which is another stellar example of Scottish universities’ innovative work? How is that initiative supporting the decarbonisation of our public transport sector?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Our hydrogen action plan sets out our ambition to be a leading hydrogen nation. In a collaboration with the University of St Andrews and Scottish Enterprise, £3.5 million of Scottish Government funding was provided to convert a class 314 train into a hydrogen fuel cell train. Many of us saw that when it was displayed at the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and it had trials on the track in 2022. That developed local supply chain knowledge to support the introduction of a zero-emission fleet over the longer term, and lessons learned are being considered as part of planning for future rail fleet options.

Low-emission Zones (Impact on Disabled People)

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that low-emission zones do not have any negative impact on disabled people and carers. (S6O-02772)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are all aware of the harm that excessively polluting vehicles cause, particularly to the young, the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions. For disabled people who cannot switch to a cleaner alternative or who get a lift from someone who has a non-compliant vehicle, we have developed the low-emission zone blue badge exemption system so that registered vehicles will not incur an LEZ penalty charge notice. The Government continues to provide support and funding for low-income families and microbusinesses that need support to prepare for LEZs.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Paid and unpaid carers are worried about the potential impact that the low-emission zone could have on their ability to enter and travel through the city centre to provide vital care. As it stands, they can access an exemption only if the person they support asks for that one day at a time. I have discussed that with Glasgow City Council, which is prepared to consider ways to streamline the process so that a more permanent exemption could be provided to carers, but Transport Scotland manages that system. Is the minister willing to work with Transport Scotland to allow exemptions for carers on a longer-term basis?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Under the system that is in place, blue badge holders who require LEZ exemptions can register their details on the official website, and more than 11,000 blue badges have been registered so far, but the member is talking about carers or those who assist others. I will certainly bring her comments to Transport Scotland’s attention, but it is clear that Glasgow City Council is in the lead.

Another aspect is supporting low-income families to access funding to make changes. There is a two-track system of helping people to move to lower-emission vehicles and identifying whether a need exists for a short-term exemption rather than a temporary one. I cannot give a commitment to that today—I do not think that the member would expect me to—but she has had the opportunity to raise the issue.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome the minister’s responses. Does she agree that, fundamentally, the LEZ is a good thing that helps absolutely everyone? The evidence from London was that particulate matter reduced by 13 per cent in five years.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member is correct that air pollution affects everybody’s health. That is why the Scottish Government and the city authorities in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow are delivering air-quality improvements through low-emission zones, with a number of them about to be rolled out next year.

I draw members’ attention to the evidence sessions that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee held when I was deputy convener. We examined the issue under the committee’s wider scrutiny role, and one of the significant pieces of evidence was on the impact of particulates on health. That was a very good short, sharp inquiry through which the Parliament drew attention to the matter, and I refer members to the evidence that was taken by the committee.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

T

hat concludes portfolio question time.