Scottish Parliament, 25 January 2024

272 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning.

The first item of business is general question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and responses.

Businesses in Aberdeen (Support)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what support it offers to businesses in Aberdeen. (S6O-03014)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Scottish Enterprise, our national

economic development agency, works with businesses in Aberdeen to create high-value jobs, enable innovation, boost productivity and attract investment. It also helps businesses to internationalise and expand their export opportunities. Last week, with the First Minister, I was delighted to visit Verlume, a renewable energy company based in Aberdeen, to learn how it has benefited from such support from Scottish Enterprise and to hear about its future plans.

Further to that, the Scottish Government is investing more than £125 million in the Aberdeen city region deal, and it further supports businesses in the region through initiatives such as the energy transition fund and the just transition fund.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last week, Aberdeen received the devastating news that Marks and Spencer is to close, just days after we lost Haigs due to difficult trading conditions. Recently, Aberdeen business leaders met the Government to highlight the impact of its decision not to introduce 75 per cent rates relief, as is in place in England. Will the Scottish Government reverse its decision to ignore the demands of businesses, including those in Aberdeen, and the witnesses at the Economy and Fair Work Committee this week, who desperately want the 75 per cent rates relief passed on to ensure that their businesses are competitive with markets south of the border?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Marks and Spencer’s decision to close its Union Street store but invest £15 million in doubling its space at Union Square is a signal of intent and of confidence in the market in Aberdeen. My understanding is that the decision will have no bearing on redundancies. I do not believe that the issue of non-domestic rates had any impact on M&S’s decision to provide substantial investment.

This morning, the Deputy First Minister, Tom Arthur and I had a very productive meeting with the hospitality industry on what is possible in relation to not just non-domestic rates but further work with the sector. That followed on from a very productive session with the Scottish Retail Consortium last week. We will continue to look at what we can do to provide support.

If we had passed on that resource to the hospitality, leisure and retail industry, we would have had no further space to invest in public services. That would have had devastating consequences, as can be seen in England, where the national health service has had a real-terms cut.

Families Outside Report

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its response to the recent Families Outside report, “Staying Connected: Care-experienced children and young people with a sibling in prison or secure care”. (S6O-03015)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Keeping siblings connected is fundamental to the Scottish Government’s commitment to keeping the Promise. I welcome the contribution that the Families Outside report has made to helping our understanding of the issue.

In 2021, we enacted legislation placing a duty on councils to nurture children’s relationships with their siblings when they cannot live at home, including when one sibling is in prison. Through the work that is led by the children and families national leadership group, we are taking action to improve our understanding of how children and young people are affected by a family member being in prison or secure care. The group’s final report and summary of follow-on work will be published shortly.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

One issue that the Families Outside report highlights is lack of data. We do not know how many young people have a sibling in prison, we do not understand why multiple siblings might be involved in offending behaviour, and we do not routinely keep records of where imprisoned siblings are. The report also states that many families struggle to afford travel for prison visits. Will the cabinet secretary meet me and Families Outside to discuss those issues and others that were highlighted in the report so that we can suggest potential resolutions?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Data collection is, of course, important in establishing the national picture and monitoring the implementation of the 2021 legislation. I would be delighted to meet Ms Chapman and Families Outside, which is an organisation with which I am well acquainted.

With respect to travel costs, I am aware that many families are finding it difficult to make visits to their loved ones in custody. Although there are existing supports, we are assessing current issues with partners and will consider practical ways to make travelling to visit family members easier.

MV Isle of Islay

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the MV Isle of Islay will be launched on 16 March 2024. (S6O-03016)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government is pleased that work at Cemre Shipyard on all four vessels continues to progress well and that the MV Isle of Islay will be launched in March. I look forward to attending the official naming ceremony, which is due to take place in Scotland later this year and which marks another major milestone in the vessel’s construction. When the vessel is delivered in October, the communities of Islay and Jura can look forward to a more resilient and modern ferry service.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The Turkish-built MV Isle of Islay is on time and on budget, only two years after being ordered. I assume that the First Minister will not attend the launch with fanfare and fake windows, as his predecessor did for another vessel, but perhaps the minister will.

The handling of the boat being built at the Clyde shipyard under this inept Scottish National Party Government is utterly shambolic. It is three times over budget and six years late, and there is no launch date. That is a complete humiliation for the SNP Government.

Given the latest saga at Ardrossan, which is further letting down islanders, will the minister take the opportunity to apologise to them for the ferries fiasco? Islanders have been let down, ignored and taken for granted. Will she provide a guarantee that the incompetence of the SNP Government’s handling of the ferries fiasco will never be repeated?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Conservatives cannot acknowledge that six vessels will be delivered to support our islanders by 2026. There has been £2 billion of investment in our ferry service in order to support our island communities. Yes, there have been challenges, but, unlike Mr Gulhane, I will not insult the work of the Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Ltd shipyard and its workers. The fact that the shipyard exists enables them to work on completing the vessels. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members!

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I have spoken directly to islanders about the issues that they face. They know of the Government’s concern, and I have apologised directly to them for the difficulties that they face.

However, let us face forward and welcome the six new vessels. Let us not use a positive story about the MV Isle of Islay coming to Scotland this year as another hook for the Conservatives to bash Ferguson’s shipyard and not listen to the islanders who want the six ferries to be delivered by 2026.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The MV Isle of Islay is an exciting prospect for islanders, as is the MV Loch Indaal. The vessel represents an investment of more than £90 million and is proof of the Government’s commitment to providing communities with a resilient and reliable ferry service. [

Interruption

.] The new vessel will bring—

The Presiding Officer

Can I have a question, please, Ms Dunbar? [

Interruption

.]

Would you put your question, please, Ms Dunbar?

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer—I never quite heard you because of the chuntering.

Does the minister share my view that, although it is all very well to play politics, we should all welcome the news of progress on all vessels to improve services for our island communities?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I agree. Islanders do not want politics played; they want the vessels delivered. The MV Isle of Islay and the MV Loch Indaal will deliver increased capacity and added resilience, which will benefit islanders and businesses. We are investing in replacement vessels across the network, and I look forward to welcoming the six new vessels to the fleet by 2026.

Defence Solicitors

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported comments by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland that an exodus of defence solicitors has left the legal system close to collapse. (S6O-03017)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I am aware of the issues of concern that have been raised by the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society. I established, and I co-chair—along with the chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland and the dean of the Faculty of Advocates—the future of the legal profession working group, which is examining evidence and identifying measures that we can collectively take to address recruitment and retention in criminal defence.

We recognise the important role of legal aid providers in the justice system, which is why, in recent years, we have provided significant additional funding and increases in remuneration. We have invested £31 million in legal aid since 2021, despite the clear and significant constraints on our finances as a result of the United Kingdom Government settlement. In this financial year, we will provide an £11 million package of legal aid reforms, including an uplift worth 10.2 per cent overall.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

This is not a problem that has suddenly appeared this year—it is a decade-long issue, so it has been a long time coming. An estimated 70 defence advocates have left the profession and moved to higher-paid jobs in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Unsurprisingly, that exodus and the shortage of solicitors, which the Faculty of Advocates has described as “unprecedented”, have led to trials being delayed or, in some cases, cancelled. The Law Society has said:

“Scotland’s legal aid sector has been left in the dark without long-lasting reform”.

I agree.

What is the Government doing now to ensure that our legal sector does not collapse? As the Government often says, justice delayed is justice denied.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government cannot compel private solicitors to undertake work. However, it is expected that the increase in legal aid fees will have a positive impact on availability for people who seek advice and representation, and on recruitment and retention.

Since 2021, £31 million has been invested in legal aid. If there is a continuing problem with recruitment and retention, that suggests that remuneration is not the only issue and points to a need for innovation in the provision of access to legal services.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Although there has been an increase in fees, the profession still pays defence lawyers less than is paid to lawyers who work for the Government or the Crown Office. The issue is simple to understand: if we do not pay defence lawyers the same as is paid to Government or Crown Office lawyers, we will not attract talent into the profession.

Although Scottish Labour welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to independent legal representation for victims who are subject to section 275 in rape trials, the Law Society has already expressed concern about how it will fulfil that pledge if it does not resolve the unfairness of how defence lawyers are paid.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Despite reductions in the level of crime, revenue funding for legal aid and other aspects of the justice system has been maintained in cash terms. There has been no cash reduction in the budget for the legal aid fund. In addition, the budget is demand led. Everyone who meets the eligibility criteria has access to legal aid, regardless of the allocated budget. The fact that the number of civil legal aid cases that were paid increased by 9 per cent, the number of summary criminal legal aid cases increased by 15 per cent and the number of solemn criminal legal aid cases increased by 13 per cent is a clear indicator of the work that is being done to reduce the Covid backlogs across the justice system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The lack of defence solicitors is a particular problem in rural and island areas, with the falling numbers giving rise to the risk of legal aid deserts in some areas. What steps will the minister take to address that specific aspect of the problems that the Law Society of Scotland rightly highlighted?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Solicitors in all parts of Scotland are able to access funding for the work that is carried out under the legal assistance schemes. The schemes are flexible enough to allow solicitors to travel to rural and remote parts of the country to carry out work, should it be possible to instruct a local agent, although I reiterate that the Scottish Government cannot compel private solicitors to undertake work. However, it is expected that the increase in legal aid fees will have a positive impact on availability and representation.

Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics 2022-23

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the statistics that it has published on criminal justice social work for 2022-23. (S6O-03018)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Justice social work does commendable work to ensure that community sentences and other interventions effectively address offending and its causes, and provide benefits to local communities.

Although the pandemic continued to have an impact in 2022-23, the latest justice social work statistics show encouraging signs that community justice services continue to recover.

There were 14,700 community payback orders commenced in 2022-23, which is an increase of 20 per cent on the previous year. The numbers of bail supervision cases and structured deferred sentences commenced also increased, with both at the highest level in the past five years.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

What the cabinet secretary did not mention was that almost 5,000 criminals were diverted from prosecution instead of being put in the dock, which is a record high. She also did not say that one in three criminals who were given community service were not required to do any unpaid work. To put it simply, thousands of criminals are not prosecuted and those who are convicted receive no punishment.

This morning, I spoke with the Scottish Retail Consortium, whose colleagues suffer unacceptable threats and violence every day. Will the cabinet secretary tell them, and victims across Scotland, why they must pay the price for the Scottish National Party’s relentless weakening of Scotland’s criminal justice system?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I know that Mr Findlay does not like the facts to get in the way of his narrative or of a good old yarn, but he should recognise that, since the inception of community payback orders, 10.6 million hours of reparation has been made to our communities through unpaid work. That is a good way of reducing reoffending and of ensuring that our communities are safer.

Mr Findlay raises the issue of diversion. I am quite sure that he knows that that is a matter for independent prosecutors and not for ministers. He should also be aware of the facts. For the first time, there has been more use of unpaid work in community payback orders than of other supervision requirements, which is positive. He should also know that unpaid work is one of 10 possible requirements in a community payback order, but—

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As usual, the Conservatives are soft on substance and soft on solutions and this Government will focus—

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, minister. We will move to the next question.

Police Stations (Edinburgh)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with Police Scotland regarding potential station closures in Edinburgh. (S6O-03019)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I have regular meetings with the chief constable, where a range of issues, including the police estate, are discussed.

Police Scotland’s 2019 estate strategy outlined plans to replace outdated, underinvested and underused properties with modern ones so that it could develop modern premises that are capable of delivering effective and efficient public services to meet the needs of the people and staff who use them.

We are supportive of that and I agree with Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham, who said that the presence of policing in communities

“is not defined by buildings but by the officers and staff who work there”.

Co-locations often make the best use of the public sector estate and offer the opportunity for increased visibility, closer working and increased collaboration between partners. Police Scotland has more than 60 examples of successful co-location.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary should be aware that those closures might mean that communities such as Leith and Portobello in my region would be left without a local police station.

Police stations are vital to our communities and ensure good relationships between the police and residents. It is not a surprise that Unison has said that the closures

“might deliver balanced books, but ... won’t deliver better policing”.

What assurances can the cabinet secretary give members that as many police stations as possible will be saved from closure? How is Police Scotland ensuring that it develops strong relationships with communities and residents to tackle crime and keep people safe? The cabinet secretary has spoken about hubs. Will she say where those will be in Leith and Portobello, so that people do not miss out on our police?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I recognise that the matter is of extreme interest to local communities and that people often have strong views about the location of public sector buildings. That is why Police Scotland is currently consulting on its estate plans, which will help to inform the detail of future discussions and decisions.

That is, quite rightly, an operational matter for the chief constable. However, from my perspective, it is imperative that the estate meets the needs of modern policing, and that it is fit for purpose for 21st-century policing. That also includes visibility and engagement at the heart of our communities.

The Presiding Officer

With apologies to the members whom I was unable to call, that concludes general questions.

Covid-19 Inquiry (WhatsApp Messages)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. During the pandemic, Nicola Sturgeon made Government decisions over WhatsApp. She was ordered by the United Kingdom Covid inquiry to retain those messages. The former First Minister promised to provide them. She said:

“I have nothing to hide.”

However, we now know that she deleted them all. She broke promises to grieving families. She may have broken the law. Does the First Minister accept that it was completely wrong and utterly scandalous for Nicola Sturgeon to delete those messages? (S6F-02733)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Before I answer Douglas Ross’s question of substance, I say at the outset, given that this is the First Minister’s question time before Holocaust memorial day, that it has never been more important to remember the victims of the Holocaust and, indeed, the genocides that followed. Together, we remember the millions of lives that have been cut short with the utmost cruelty and brutality. The freedom and dignity of every citizen relies on our willingness to defend each other’s human rights and to stand up against cruelty and violence everywhere in the world. It is a responsibility that we share equally. It is the responsibility of all of us to remember the Holocaust and, of course, to pay tribute to the survivors of those atrocities. Ahead of Holocaust memorial day on Saturday, my thoughts today—and, I hope, my thoughts every day—are with those who were affected then and those who are affected still. [

Applause

.]

I come to the issue of substance. I will start this exchange, as I have started exchanges on the issue in recent weeks and months, by giving first and foremost an unreserved apology to those families who were bereaved by Covid for our handling of informal communications, such as WhatsApps. As an organisation, we did not handle the request for the WhatsApp messages in a way that gave families who have been bereaved by Covid confidence—in fact, it was quite the opposite. They have asked for nothing unreasonable. They have asked for answers and for the truth. I will certainly give that when I appear in front of the inquiry later today.

Douglas Ross is asking me about Nicola Sturgeon. I believe that it has now been confirmed that Nicola Sturgeon will appear in front of the Covid inquiry next week. She will answer for herself.

As per our records management policy, when it comes to any decisions that are made, whether they are made using WhatsApp or discussed over email or telephone call or any other method of communication, it is so important that salient points are uploaded to the corporate record.

I will end on this point by saying to Douglas Ross that we have handed over 28,000 WhatsApp messages, including mine. That is in stark contrast to the Prime Minister, of course.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I fully associate myself with the First Minister’s remarks ahead of Holocaust memorial day on Saturday.

I asked a very simple question about what the First Minister feels about Nicola Sturgeon deleting those messages, and we heard nothing.

Although Nicola Sturgeon led the cover-up and the secrecy, she was not alone. The then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, also deleted his messages. Is it not telling that neither of them can be in the chamber today?

Although they deleted messages, let us look at some of the messages that we have seen. The chief medical officer, Professor Gregor Smith, reminded colleagues in a WhatsApp chat to

“Delete at the end of every day.”

Ken Thomson, the former Scottish Government director general, wrote:

“I feel moved at this point to tell you that this chat is FOI-recoverable .”

He went on to say:

“Plausible deniability is my middle name.”

A message from the national clinical director, Jason Leitch, said:

“WhatsApp deletion is a pre-bed ritual.”

He also said:

“Just my usual reminder to delete your chat ... particularly after we reach a conclusion.”

From politicians to civil servants, they sought to destroy evidence. Does that not show a culture of secrecy running through this entire Scottish National Party Government?

The First Minister

Douglas Ross

talks about a culture of secrecy, but we handed over 28,000 messages and 19,000 documents. [

Interruption

.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

The former First Minister did 250 media briefings, taking questions from journalists day after day. The accusations from Douglas Ross, of a Government that was hiding from scrutiny, hardly ring true. Far from that, the former First Minister stood up every day and took questions. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Excuse me, First Minister. Many

members wish to put questions in this session. It will make it far more likely that those will be taken if we can hear one another.

The First Minister

I assume that

all the accusations that Douglas Ross is throwing at the former First Minister and the former Deputy First Minister—of course, they will give evidence to the inquiry, and I do not intend to prejudge that or put words in their mouths—ring true for his colleague the Prime Minister, who has not handed over a single WhatsApp message. If the accusations that Douglas Ross is making against Nicola Sturgeon and throwing at the former Deputy First Minister do not hold true for the Prime Minister, who has not handed over a single message, that is not just political opportunism but breathtaking hypocrisy.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is risible and embarrassing from the First Minister. Let us look at the facts. Nicola Sturgeon destroyed all her messages, and she did that deliberately. However, some messages have been recovered from other people. This morning’s Covid inquiry session with Liz Lloyd, Nicola Sturgeon’s former chief of staff, has revealed that, unquestionably, Covid decisions were made on WhatsApp. There are many examples in her evidence, but let us take just one. With just two hours to go before a statement in the Parliament, Nicola Sturgeon said on WhatsApp that she was “not sure” what to do about the number of people at weddings and funerals. Her chief of staff said:

“I think as we only just put them up just leave it … I think we stay at 20.”

Therefore, a Government decision to stay at 20 was taken over WhatsApp.

Humza Yousaf has previously said:

“The Scottish Government did not routinely make decisions through WhatsApp.”—[

Official Report

, 26 October 2023; c 11.]

Did the First Minister mislead the Parliament when he said that, or did he not realise that Government policy—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members, we must hear one another.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to repeat this to SNP members, who seem to want to drown it out. Did the First Minister mislead Parliament when he said that, or did he not realise that Scottish Government policy was being made on the hoof over WhatsApp?

The First Minister

“WhatsApp is a communication application rather than a decision-making tool. Instead, each minister is supported by a private office; that team comprises private secretaries and administrative staff, and that private office records the specific decisions of ministers for the official record.”

Members are laughing, but that is from the Scotland Office. When we asked it for Douglas Ross’s WhatsApp messages, it refused to release them.

The point is that WhatsApp is not routinely used—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members.

The First Minister

Douglas Ross literally read out my quote. It is not routinely used to make decisions. If it was—[

Interruption

.]. Opposition members are getting up in arms over what Douglas Ross has said.

The Presiding Officer

First Minister,

I am sorry, but I cannot hear a word that you are saying, and that will be the case for those who are visiting the Parliament today. I ask all members to remember the requirement to conduct our business in an orderly manner.

The First Minister

The truth is inconvenient for the Conservatives, because it is very simple. If decisions were made over WhatsApp, they would have to be recorded. Otherwise, how on earth would they be actioned? All salient points and key decisions are recorded on the corporate record and taken forward.

To go back to the point that I made in response to the first question that Douglas Ross asked, I believe that there are challenges in relation to our use of WhatsApp. Frankly, in relation to the handling of those requests, it has not been the Government’s finest hour. I put my hands up to that—unlike other Governments.

That is why I have commissioned officials to deliver an externally led review—not a Government review—into the use of mobile messaging apps and the use of non-corporate technology in the Scottish Government. That should take particular account of our interaction with statutory public inquires.

When it comes to being transparent, I go back to the point that I have made, which is that the Government handed over 28,000 messages and 19,000 documents. I, as First Minister of the Government, have handed over my WhatsApp messages. That is in stark contrast to the UK Government and the Prime Minister, who has refused to hand over a single message and who, of course, took the inquiry to court, only to lose.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There was so much in that.

First, I am not sure what the First Minister was speaking about in relation to my own WhatsApp messages, but, to be absolutely clear, I provided my WhatsApps from my time as a Government minister to the Covid inquiry. They are there on the record. Unlike senior nationalists, I did not delete mine.

The evidence that we have heard today is, quite frankly, shocking. It confirms that pandemic decisions by the SNP were made for political purposes. [

Interruption

.]

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

What?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

They are saying, “What?” [

Interruption

.] The education secretary is saying, “What on earth?”

Let me say that Nicola Sturgeon’s chief of staff talked of making “purely political” moves on public health to start a

“good old-fashioned rammy”

with the UK Government.

In another handwritten note, she says that she is going to look at

“political tactics—calling for things we can’t do.”

Hiding revelations such as those must have been the reason that the SNP Government destroyed so much evidence. The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the national clinical director and the chief medical officer all deleted their messages. Discussions and crucial decisions have vanished. A top-down culture of secrecy was rife throughout this entire Government. It looks as though the most senior figures have engaged in a deliberate cover-up.

The Presiding Officer

Can I have your question, Mr Ross?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Now that it has been confirmed that the SNP made some crucial Covid decisions for “purely political” reasons, is Humza Yousaf ashamed that the SNP Government made purely political decisions during the pandemic, and is that not the ultimate betrayal of the public, who sacrificed so much?

The First Minister

I reject the charge in its entirety. We published regularly regarding the four harms approach that we took to decisions that were made in relation to the pandemic.

I can say with confidence that, every single day, our overarching priority was always to keep the people of this country safe.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Political tactics. Calling for things you could not do!

The Presiding Officer

Mr Ross.

The First Minister

That was the overarching priority.

Did we get every decision right? Absolutely not, and we will be rightly questioned about that in both the UK and Scottish inquiries. However, I know that our motivation, every step of the way, was to ensure that we kept the people of this country safe.

Was that not in stark contrast, of course, to a UK Government holding parties in number 10 and holding parties in the Treasury, and the obscene spectacle of the then Prime Minister—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Members.

The First Minister

—

flagrantly breaching the rules while loved ones, individuals and families could not go to their loved ones’ funerals? Throughout all that, Douglas Ross has not had the decency to apologise once.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. Saturday marks Holocaust memorial day on the theme of “Fragility of Freedom”. It is a day on which we pause, reflect and remember all those who have been victims of genocide, but it is also a moment to pause and reflect on those who still strive to live with peace and dignity, away from conflict, and without prejudice.

What has been revealed at the Covid inquiry this week has rightly shocked people across Scotland. The attempts to subvert the inquiry and to breach freedom of information laws are, frankly, a betrayal of the trust that people put in the Government.

WhatsApp messages were deleted on an industrial scale. The former First Minister used a private Scottish National Party email address for Government business. Officials openly joked about breaking the law while the Covid pandemic tore through our country.

The culture of cover-up started with the First Minister and extended down to the senior civil service. In June, when I asked Humza Yousaf whether

“all requested emails, texts and WhatsApp messages will be handed over in full”—[

Official Report

, 29 June 2023; c 15.]

he responded in this Parliament, without equivocation, “Yes”.

Now that we know that that was not true, was the First Minister knowingly misleading Parliament, or was he so out of his depth that he did not know what was going on?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We did hand over what we had—28,000 messages have been handed over. Officials and former ministers of the Government who do not have WhatsApp messages will have to account for that before the Covid inquiry. Anas Sarwar cannot say that there was deletion “on an industrial scale” when 28,000 messages have been handed over to the inquiry. He cannot say that I have been leading that approach from the top when I have handed over all the WhatsApp messages that I have. No doubt, in a couple of hours’ time, I will be questioned about them.

Anas Sarwar is absolutely right, as is Douglas Ross, to ask questions about our informal communications. There is nothing wrong in that. Frankly, though, I do not believe that the public agree with Anas Sarwar or Douglas Ross when they suggest that there was somehow a cover-up. Why? It is because the public looked at this Government, questioned it and saw that it had a First Minister—Nicola Sturgeon—who stood in front of the cameras every single day—[

Interruption

.]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Where is she now?

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

—and took questions from journalists and members of the Scottish Parliament more than 250 times. That is hardly the measure or the mark of a Government that was trying to avoid scrutiny.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister must live in a parallel universe. The then First Minister deleted every WhatsApp message; the then Deputy First Minister deleted every WhatsApp message; the then chief medical officer deleted every WhatsApp message; and the then national clinical director deleted every WhatsApp message. If that is not deletion on an industrial scale, I do not know what planet Humza Yousaf lives on.

The First Minister gave an unequivocal commitment to Parliament but, on his watch, ministers and officials failed to comply with “Do not destroy” notices. Key evidence has been deleted, and deliberately misleading statements have been given to the press and the public, on his watch.

One issue that I raised with Humza Yousaf was the use of private SNP email accounts to conduct Scottish Government business, which the Government has repeatedly denied. However, evidence to the inquiry this week has blown that claim out of the water. In November, when I asked Humza Yousaf whether all emails, whether they were from the Government or his party, would be handed to the inquiry, he said this:

“As for any other form of communication, including any other email address ... it is my full expectation that that is handed over.”—[

Official Report

, 9 November 2023; c 17.]

Humza Yousaf is First Minister and leader of the SNP. Have any emails from SNP accounts been handed to the Covid inquiry? If so, how many?

The First Minister

The fundamental point is that the use of a non-Government email address, such as an SNP email address, does not exempt official correspondence from freedom of information requests. [

Interruption

.] For example, a freedom of information request about a particular issue or for a particular document is not subverted because it is sent to an SNP email address. [

Interruption

.]

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Exactly.

The Presiding Officer

Members!

The First Minister

Therefore, the information should be handed over. I give an absolute guarantee that no Government business was conducted through my SNP email address. Messages from my private communication applications have been handed over. I have handed over not only WhatsApp messages but private direct messages from my private Twitter account.

As for Government messages, I have made it very clear to every minister, cabinet secretary, permanent secretary and civil servant that, regardless of the method of communication that was used, we must comply with the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011, the freedom of information legislation and our mobile messaging policy.

I go back to the point that I made to Douglas Ross. Regardless of the communication method that is used—whether it be an SNP email address or otherwise—any decisions that are made must be recorded in the corporate record, as must the salient points. We will continue to comply fully with the UK Covid inquiry, as I intend to do in a couple of hours.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Humza Yousaf is meant to be in charge of the Government and his party, but he cannot answer for anybody else in either of those, and he goes back only to his own messages and emails. The issue is not just about the Covid inquiry; it is about how the Government operates. Over the past 17 years in government, the SNP has created a culture of secrecy and cover-up—a culture that goes from the First Minister down.

People in the SNP believe that there is one standard for them and another standard for everyone else—because somehow the rules do not apply to the SNP. They have abused the trust that the people of Scotland put in them. If they will not take my word for it, they should perhaps listen to Caroleanne Stewart of Scottish Covid Bereaved. She said:

“I trusted them, I felt him and Nicola Sturgeon were honest and trying to be open with us, and to find out that was all just a facade, I don’t understand how they can hold their head up high.”

First Minister, how can you expect the people of Scotland to trust you or your party ever again?

The Presiding Officer

Always speak through the chair, please.

The First Minister

I will always leave the verdict of trust to the Scottish people. We will comply with the UK inquiry and the Scottish Covid inquiry—which, of course, we instructed. When it comes to transparency, we have handed over 28,000 WhatsApp messages. That is transparency. We have handed over 19,000 documents. That is transparency. When it comes to what the Government has done across a range of portfolios, whether it is about the duty of candour or the patient safety commissioner, that is transparency. When it is about public inquiries and instructing them, that is transparency. When the former First Minister was standing up at more than 250 media conferences, that was transparency. Taking questions in this chamber on multiple occasions—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister

Doing that on dozens of occasions—that is transparency.

I will end where I started—with my response to Douglas Ross. When it comes to families who have been bereaved by Covid, our responsibility, first and foremost, is to them. I can promise them this. I know that, when I appear in front of the inquiry, it will not just want warm words; it will want to see and hear truthful answers to straight questions. That is what I intend to give when I appear in front of the inquiry in a couple of hours’ time.

The Presiding Officer

Many members wish to put questions today, as you would expect. I would be grateful if we could therefore keep our questions and responses concise.

Private Rented Sector (Rent Cap)

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

3. I associate the Scottish Greens with the remarks of the First Minister and Anas Sarwar ahead of Holocaust memorial day.

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on how the Scottish Government will continue to protect tenants in the private rented sector after the expiry of the rent cap under the Cost of Living (Tenant Protection) (Scotland) Act 2022. (S6F-02735)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Scottish Government has led the way—we are far ahead of any other part of the United Kingdom—in protecting private tenants against rent rises and eviction during the cost of living crisis. We are absolutely committed to supporting tenants when the protections end on 31 March 2024. Yesterday, we laid regulations that will, subject, of course, to the approval of the Parliament, temporarily amend the existing rent adjudication process for a period of 12 months. That will help to protect tenants from excessively large rent increases that could be experienced if there is a move back to open-market rent in a single step, while enabling landlords to continue to reinvest in the private rented sector. The Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights has written to the lead committee on the matter with further details.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that answer and for highlighting that the emergency rent protections in Scotland have been far ahead of any other measure in the UK. Scotland will continue to play that leading role when long-term rent controls are introduced very soon under the forthcoming housing bill.

Some tenants who are watching today may, however, be receiving rent increase notices right now that are well above the 3 per cent cap. Can the First Minister reassure tenants that the rent cap remains fully in place until 31 March and that any tenant receiving a cap-busting rent increase notice before then should challenge that rise? Further to that, what is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that tenants know about, and are able to use, their rights?

The First Minister

Yes, I can confirm that the emergency rent cap remains in place until the end of March, so any rent increase notice that is issued before 1 April is very much subject to that cap, even if the increase will not apply until after that date. If a tenant receives a rent increase notice above that, they should refer it to rent service Scotland and rent will be set in line with the cap.

I fully agree that tenants need to know what their rights are and how to act on them. A national renters rights marketing campaign will launch very soon, highlighting existing rights and the changes when the emergency measures end. That will include online guidance and tools to help people to understand how the changes affect them specifically.

The Government has taken clear, bold action to support people through the cost crisis. We are determined to build on that, and our forthcoming housing bill will set out proposals for longer-term reform of the rental sector. We are committed to working not just with tenants—which is crucial—but with responsible landlords and other key stakeholders to ensure that the legislation delivers reform that works in reality.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Scottish National Party-Green rent cap has not only failed to tackle the housing emergency; it

has exacerbated it. Rents in Scotland have increased by more than 14 per cent despite the SNP-Green rent cap and, as a result of the cap, Scotland is the only part of the UK in which the number of properties sold by landlords has gone up. That ill-thought-out policy has hindered mobility, caused enormous price hikes when people move and reduced the availability of housing by driving landlords out of the market. Does the First Minister agree that his Government’s interferences in the market have been nothing short of a disaster? Will he scrap the cap?

The First Minister

My goodness—I think that that is the most Conservative contribution that I have ever heard in the chamber. How dare the Scottish Government interfere in the middle of a UK Government cost of living crisis to help tenants because of the economic damage that the UK Government has caused? How dare we have the temerity to protect renters because of the economic vandalism of Pam Gosal’s party?

Of course Pam Gosal’s contribution does not bear out the reality or the facts. If we look at—

The Presiding Officer

I will stop you there, First Minister. I am aware of members

clearly having conversations with other members across the aisles. That is totally unacceptable during First Minister’s question time.

Please continue, First Minister.

The First Minister

If we look at the facts, we see that the latest Scottish landlord register data shows that the number of registered properties for rent in Scotland between August 2022 and November 2023 increased.

We will, of course, work with responsible landlords, tenants and other stakeholder groups. However, I say to Pam Gosal that I will never make an apology for making sure that we are on the right side of this argument.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The new rent adjudication rules, which empower private tenants to challenge unreasonable rent hikes, are welcome. However, for the proposed transition to work as intended, tenants need to be fully informed of those rights. Will the First Minister expand on how the Scottish Government intends to ensure that renters and private landlords throughout Scotland understand the system that will be in place from April?

The First Minister

I absolutely agree with that. It is vital that tenants and landlords are made aware of the changes that will come into place from 1 April. Tenants’ understanding their rights and how to act on them is a crucial part of the changes that we are making to the rent adjudication process working effectively in practice. As I mentioned in response to Ross Greer’s question, we are working on a range of awareness-raising activities and the provision of clear guidance to support people through the transitionary period.

A national renters’ rights marketing campaign will be launched very soon, and we are working on an online rent increase calculator to assist landlords and tenants in establishing what rent could be charged from 1 April, should it be subject to adjudication.

Grangemouth Refinery (Engagement with UK Government)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

4. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding the status of the Grangemouth refinery. (S6F-02760)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy chaired the first meeting of the Grangemouth future industry board, which includes representatives of the refinery, its workforce and the UK Government. I am encouraged that the UK Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero responded positively to Neil Gray’s request to consider any proposal that supports a long-term and sustainable future for the Grangemouth industrial cluster, recognising its strategic national importance to the economy of the whole of the UK. My Government is committed to exploring all options to extend the life of the refinery and to bring forward new transition projects at pace.

I also welcome the UK Government’s support of the Tata Steel plant in Wales, and I look forward to a constructive dialogue on a similar package being made available for Grangemouth. The cabinet secretary has written to the UK Government to seek a further discussion.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

It is indeed heartening to hear that the UK Government is now open to giving support to the vitally important chemical cluster at Grangemouth, which is in my constituency. There is the potential for the refinery to transition quickly to a biorefinery to be utilised for sustainable aviation fuel—in other words, there could be a just transition for workers right now. That would require support from the UK Government in respect of its policy barriers surrounding the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—HEFA—cap. What indications, if any, are there that the UK Government realises that potential, and that it is willing to take the necessary steps and act in the best interests of Scotland for that vitally important national asset?

The First Minister

Michelle Thomson is absolutely right—there is a huge opportunity for Grangemouth in the transition to net zero. However, it is clear that there are serious regulatory barriers—to which Michelle Thomson spoke—for the owners of Grangemouth in developing opportunities such as sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF.

The company has made it clear that a major barrier to immediate investment—I stress the word “immediate”—in a biorefinery at the site concerns the United Kingdom Government’s proposed SAF mandate and the HEFA cap that Michelle Thomson mentioned. That requires action from the UK Government, and I believe that action should be immediate and urgent. Grangemouth’s hard workers and the wider community cannot be left at the mercy of UK Government inaction.

The Scottish Government wants to secure the best possible future for Grangemouth. The key powers in that area lie, regrettably, at Westminster, so we will continue to push the UK Government to make the necessary changes to ensure that Grangemouth plays a key role in powering Scotland’s drive to net zero—

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, First Minister.

The First Minister

—and I hope that all members in the chamber can get behind the request that we have made—

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, please.

The First Minister

—to the UK Government to help that transition for Grangemouth and its workers.

Drugs Policy

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

5. To ask the First Minister, in light of the Scottish Government’s plans to open the first safe drug consumption room in Glasgow later this year, what assurances he can provide that other areas of drugs policy, including spaces for residential rehabilitation, will not be deprioritised. (S6F-02748)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Those areas absolutely will not be deprioritised. Drug deaths are a public health emergency, and we remain absolutely committed to investing an additional £250 million in our national mission to reduce harm and deaths caused by drugs. We will continue to take a person-centred approach to address the wider needs of some of our most vulnerable people.

We have been clear in our commitment to support the establishment of a safer drug consumption facility in Scotland. To give Annie Wells a sense of reassurance—I hope—I note that funding was earmarked in the national mission budget in the knowledge that Glasgow might need to proceed quickly, following the Lord Advocate’s position, so no existing drug and alcohol services will be affected in order to fund the pilot.

We remain committed to expanding residential rehabilitation capacity by 50 per cent by the end of the current session of Parliament. That includes the expansion of Beechwood house in Inverness, which, I am pleased to say, broke ground this week. That will add much-needed capacity in the Highlands when it opens in October.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Residential rehabilitation is a vital way to help drug users not just to beat addiction but to get their lives back, yet the most recent figures show that the numbers of people starting at places in those facilities fell to their lowest in more than two years. We know that there are not fewer people addicted to drugs, so why have the numbers of those receiving that type of help reduced?

Can the First Minister assure those vulnerable people that his Government will not oversee a further reduction in places?

The First Minister

First, we have maintained the drugs budget for 2024-25, in the face of significant cuts to our resource budget over the past couple of years.

With regard to the expansion of residential rehab, investment in 77 capacity projects combined will provide an increase of 172 beds by 2025-26, boosting the current rehab capacity in Scotland from 425 to 597. Far from being a cut, therefore, there is an increase of more than 40 per cent.

As I said, we have progressed work on safer drug consumption facilities. We are continuing to widen access to life-saving naloxone, and we continue to drive the implementation of the medication assisted treatment standards.

With regard to the safer drug consumption facility that Annie Wells mentioned in her first question, I am pleased that we have got to the current position. However, it would have been far easier, and far quicker, if the United Kingdom Government had approved the facility in the first place.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The safe consumption pilot in Glasgow is a critical part of our effort to tackle the drug deaths crisis in our country, but we need many complementary tools in the toolkit in order to address the crisis effectively. The Turning Point Scotland 218 centre in Glasgow, which supports women in the justice system with a number of critical issues such as problematic drug use, is set to close next month as a result of funding cuts. How can the First Minister say that other drug policy interventions are not being compromised when his Government is allowing a well-established and effective lifeline service in Glasgow to close?

The First Minister

As I said in response to a question from Pauline McNeill, either last week or a couple of weeks ago, I know that Turning Point 218 is an excellent service. Decisions about funding it are, of course, made locally. In our discussions with Glasgow City Council, the council has made it clear that, if the service has to close, it is already ensuring that there is appropriate service provision available for the women who would be impacted

Prisons (Weapons and Attacks on Guards)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government plans to take in response to the reported rise in attacks on prison guards and weapons found in prisons. (S6F-02753)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Government and the Scottish Prison Service recognise the importance of providing a safe and secure environment to live and work in our prisons by adopting a zero-tolerance approach to all violence.

Although the SPS reports an increase in the recovery of weapons in prisons, that is likely to be a result of the positive impact of the mitigations that have been put in place to detect, deter and reduce the availability of contraband across the prison estate. The rise also highlights the professionalism of our prison officers in their ability to identify and manage both risks and threats. Although every act of violence towards staff is absolutely to be condemned—I am sure that we will be united on that—those acts of violence towards staff have reduced by 28 per cent over the past four years.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Prison guard attacks have more than doubled in seven years, with nearly 4,000 weapons being discovered in the past 10 years. Those include homemade weapons such as knives that have been made from razor blades melted into toothbrushes. This week, Phil Fairlie from the Prison Officers Association Scotland said:

“The trend is growing at an alarming rate and coincides with an increase in assaults on staff and prisoners. We are heading towards record high population numbers and have more members of organised crime gangs inside our prisons than ever. ”

I agree with the First Minister that we have a high regard for our prison guards and the work that they do, but does he agree that they should not have to fear going to work? Indeed, prisoners should not fear being in prison. What discussions is the Scottish Government having to ascertain why those homemade weapons are circulating? Is the First Minister concerned that the increase might be symptomatic of severe overcrowding in Scottish prisons?

The First Minister

Those are all excellent questions from Pauline McNeill, which I will try to address. If there is further information that the justice secretary can send to her I will ensure that that happens. On overcrowding in our prisons, I do not disagree a jot with what Pauline McNeill said. Our prison population is far too high, so a number of efforts are being made try to reduce it. Our numbers in remand are far too high, as are our numbers in the female prison population. The justice secretary and I have spoken about a range of actions over a number of months to try to reduce the pressures. Those are not a silver bullet, as Pauline McNeill would understand, but we can take a range of actions. I agree with her that reducing the prison population is necessary. On the actions that we are taking in relation to weapons and contraband in prisons, the justice secretary will furnish the member with further details, but we are investing in technology such as rapid scan machines, body scanners and so on to try to detect the contraband that is coming into our prisons.

The last point that I make to Pauline McNeill is that she is absolutely right to say that we must place value on those who work in our prisons. That is why I was pleased that the latest pay proposal was overwhelmingly accepted by the SPS partner trade unions. It is a two-year deal that delivers a salary increase of 10 per cent for the majority of staff, with those on the lowest salaries benefiting from a rise of more than 12 per cent over the period of the pay award. I believe that we should all continue to praise the efforts of our prison staff up and down the country for the fantastic work that they do.

The Presiding Officer

We move to general and constituency supplementaries.

XL Bully Dogs

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

From a written answer to me this week and following Westminster scrutiny of the XL bully dog regulations, it appears that there are an estimated 50,000 to 150,000 XL bully-type dogs in England and Wales. Extrapolating those numbers to Scotland would mean that there are between 5,000 and 15,000 dogs. Given those numbers, what help is available for existing owners, who are mainly responsible owners, to identify whether their dog fits that breed type? What concerns does the First Minister have of there being an influx of dogs to welfare charities, and that vets in Scotland might find themselves euthanising perfectly healthy dogs?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Christine Grahame has raised very legitimate concerns. I know that she has put on record her concern and opposition to the actions that we are having to take. I understand and am willing to continue to have conversations with her about the approach, because I still believe that the Scottish Government’s “deed, not breed” approach is the right one.

We have, unfortunately, had to respond to an unannounced decision that was made by the United Kingdom Government without any consultation whatsoever with the Scottish Government.

The Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, will happily write to Christine Grahame in relation to all the issues that she raises. We have to think about the impact on owners, of course, and about the potential impact on animal rehoming centres and the veterinary profession. All those issues are being considered as we progress these matters at pace.

Belford Hospital (Replacement)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Following the announcement of the Scottish National Party-Green Government’s latest budget, NHS Highland has been forced to put on hold development of the much needed and already delayed replacement for the Belford hospital in Fort William. The current building will be 60 years old next year, and patients, staff and pretty much everyone—except, clearly, the Scottish Government—recognises the urgent need for a new hospital.

Can the First Minister tell me when the people of Lochaber, who have been campaigning for decades for a new Belford, will get the new hospital that they have been promised?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We will provide the chamber with an update on our capital projects, including health capital projects.

I say to Jamie Halcro Johnston that, in the face of not just a real-terms cut to our resource budget but a real-terms cut to our capital budget of 10 per cent over the coming five years, we are continuing to ensure that our national health service gets a pay uplift. That is in stark contrast to a Conservative United Kingdom Government that has prioritised tax cuts for the wealthy over prioritising spend in its NHS.

Maternity Services (Caithness)

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be aware that the northern part of the A9 has been closed several times recently, cutting off Caithness from the remainder of the mainland and from specialist maternity services. The First Minister also knows that Raigmore hospital’s maternity unit cannot cope, which has led to women being asked to leave the unit, with nowhere to go and 100 miles from home as their labour progresses. Despite that, the Scottish Government has paused the Caithness healthcare redesign and the Raigmore maternity unit redevelopment. Will the First Minister revisit the downgrade and continue the redesign so that women who require specialist maternity care are never again abandoned?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The member raises very important points. I was involved in the issue when I was Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and I know it well. The member is absolutely correct that refurbishments to and construction at Raigmore are much needed.

The Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care has outlined the very challenging position that we face in relation to capital projects, due to the cut in the capital budget that we will receive from the United Kingdom Government over the next five years.

I confirm to the Parliament that no final decisions have been taken on individual projects in NHS Highland. We absolutely remain committed to the reinstatement of consultant-led maternity services at Dr Gray’s hospital. Any decisions made in relation to Raigmore’s redevelopment will have no impact on the overall plan to return consultant-led services to Dr Gray’s by 2026.

Notwithstanding all that, the member’s points are crucial, which is why we are keen to update Parliament as soon as we can on our capital infrastructure projects.

Empire, Slavery and Scotland’s Museums Steering Group (Recommendations)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the First Minister provide an assurance that, although budgetary pressures mean that the Scottish Government is not currently able to commit to the empire, slavery and Scotland’s museums steering group’s suggestion that it receive £5 million for its work—which includes bringing forward plans for a dedicated space to address Scotland’s role in empire, colonialism and historical slavery—that work has not been ruled out for the future, and that consideration will be given to locating such a facility in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency, given its links with the transatlantic slave trade?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Scottish Government has allocated £200,000 in this year’s budget to support the on-going work related to the empire, slavery and Scotland’s museums group’s recommendations. We will all work towards the recommendations that are published by the steering group. We will support the building of an effective and resilient organisation that contains the necessary skills to identify and acquire additional funding streams to allow that crucial work to progress and develop in the coming years.

The location of any facility remains to be determined, but I hope that Stuart McMillan will take some comfort from our reassurances about the importance that we place on the empire museum.

Edinburgh Eye Pavilion (Replacement)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

It is more than three years since Scottish National Party ministers cancelled the new replacement hospital for the eye pavilion in Edinburgh, a decision that the former First Minister agreed to U-turn on during the 2020-21 Holyrood election, pledging to build a new hospital during this parliamentary session.

Will the First Minister keep that pledge to patients in Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

There is no doubt that the replacement for the eye pavilion needs to be built. We need to replace the existing infrastructure, and there is no doubt across any political party about that.

However, I go back to the points that I made to the member’s colleagues. We are having to take forward capital spending projects in the face of high inflation in construction costs but also a 10 per cent cut to our capital budget over the next five years, which is being imposed on Scotland by the Conservatives. Therefore, although Miles Briggs has every right to ask us about the progress that we are making, I hope that he will also use any influence that he has with the UK Government to tell it to reverse that capital cut, which is having such significant impacts on our budget and on health infrastructure up and down the country.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes questions to the First Minister. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Paul O’Kane. There will be a short suspension to allow members and people in the public gallery to leave before the debate begins, if they wish to do so.

12:45 Meeting suspended.

12:47 On resuming—

Holocaust Memorial Day 2024

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11789, in the name of Paul O’Kane, on Holocaust memorial day 2024. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises Holocaust Memorial Day 2024; remembers the six million Jewish people murdered during the Holocaust, alongside the millions of others killed under the Nazis’ persecution of other minority groups; reflects on the millions of people who have been murdered in more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur; recognises that Holocaust Memorial Day takes place on 27 January, marking the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp; acknowledges that the theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is developed annually by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust; reflects on this year’s theme, Fragility of Freedom; understands that, in every genocide that has taken place, those who are targeted have had their freedom restricted and removed, before many of them are murdered and that, despite this, in every genocide, there are those who risk their own freedom to help others, to preserve others’ freedom or to stand up to the regime; congratulates the efforts of the Holocaust Memorial Day activity organisers around Scotland who bring people together to learn lessons from history, and understands the importance of challenging all forms of prejudice to ensure that lessons of such events are fully learnt.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

It is a privilege to open today’s debate to mark Holocaust memorial day 2024 and to follow the debates in previous years that were led by Jackson Carlaw and Fergus Ewing, which show the strong cross-party commitment to this motion in the Parliament.

Now, as ever, i

t remains incredibly important to come together to pause, reflect and remember the six million Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, alongside millions of others, including Roma and Sinti people, disabled people and LGBT people. We also call to mind the millions of others who lived through and survived the Holocaust but lost everything—family, dignity, health and home.

Now, as in years gone by, we recommit ourselves and our efforts to the statement, “Never again”, but we know that, tragically, since the Holocaust, humanity has not lived up to that statement in many places across the globe, including Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. We remember those people today, too.

“Never again” is a phrase that should apply not only to genocide but to the hate and persecution that surround the horrific acts of mass murder that we have seen.

The theme developed by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for this year’s commemorations is “Fragility of Freedom”. The horrors of the Holocaust—indeed, the horrors of most genocides in humanity’s collective history—do not come from nowhere. Acts of targeted mass murder are preceded by an erosion of freedoms in order to control populations and make the terrors that follow easier to perpetrate.

In the lead-up to the Holocaust, Jews and other groups that were targeted by the Nazis had many of their freedoms and rights restricted and removed. The freedom to study, work and live wherever they wanted was restricted. Jews were removed from educational establishments, had their businesses attacked and destroyed and were forced into ghettos.

The freedoms of self-identity, religion and marriage were limited, as Jews became a defined class for discrimination under the Nuremberg laws, which restricted whom they could marry. The freedom to engage in leisure and other activities was also restricted, as Jews were banned from cinemas, theatres and sports facilities.

Those are all freedoms that we often take for granted in the modern era. Although many of us cannot conceive of losing a single one of those freedoms, they are fragile, and, in recent times, our world has become a more uncertain place in that regard.

It is not only the freedoms of groups targeted by those carrying out genocidal acts that are restricted—frequently, the freedoms of all people are limited to prevent people from speaking out. During the Holocaust, the targeting of opposition politicians, journalists and dissenting voices of the Nazi regime ensured that information control and propaganda in the population stopped people speaking out and opposing atrocities. We have seen that pattern repeated in other genocides, such as that in Rwanda, where the infamous Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines spewed hatred against the Tutsis to lay the ground, through propaganda, for what would follow.

Ultimately, the Holocaust and other crimes of genocide result in the loss of that fundamental freedom—the freedom to live. Now more than ever, it is important for survivors and people born after the Holocaust and other genocides to recognise that, just because the atrocities have stopped and society begins to normalise, freedom does not always fully return, and survivors have to live with the reality of what they have experienced.

Growing up in East Renfrewshire, I have had the privilege of meeting and hearing at first hand from a number of survivors. Their children now carry on the work of telling their story, because so few survivors now remain. On Monday evening, at the East Renfrewshire commemoration event, I had the privilege to, once again, hear the story of Marianne Grant, who survived a number of camps, including Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen. Marianne was a painter who literally painted for her life—she was forced to record images of the horrendous experiments of the angel of death, Dr Josef Mengele. Marianne’s story is the very embodiment of the fragility of freedom.

For those who have lived through such times, freedom as it once was does not fully return. People lose livelihoods and homes. They often have no choice but to move to new countries, as so many Jewish people have done. People are restricted by the mental and physical trauma of what they have experienced. It can be hard to trust. Understandably, after all that has been experienced, it is hard for people to trust those in their new country, to trust that their freedoms will be guaranteed and to trust that they have complete freedom.

For many groups, the entrenched stigma and hate that are drilled into people through those periods remain, and their freedom remains less than that of their fellow citizens. For example, it was not until many decades later that gay men who had been imprisoned by the Nazis and around the world gained full rights and stopped being viewed as criminals.

The legacy of hate hurts not just those who survived but members of persecuted groups who are born long after. In the context of the Holocaust, Jews in our communities, including in East Renfrewshire, still have to face the vile words and actions of antisemitism and Holocaust denialism. For many, the lessons of the Holocaust—the ways in which Jews and others were victimised, othered and expelled—have still not been learned.

It is incumbent on us all, as representatives of the people of Scotland in this Parliament, to stand up and to recommit to combating antisemitism, racism, hatred and attacks on people’s freedoms without equivocation. This year, let us once again redouble our focus on protecting those fragile freedoms, watch our own words and deeds, and watch the words and deeds of others, whether in our community, in this Parliament or elsewhere, so that we do not allow the fragile freedoms to shatter any further.

We must ensure that we, with one voice, say, “Never again”, and that we have a Scotland where all people can walk free of hatred and fear. [

Applause

.]

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Paul O’Kane for bringing this important debate to the chamber. We often say those words at the start of members’ business debates on all manner of subjects, but, in this case, it is especially true—critically so, given that the importance of this subject should not be underestimated.

About 20 years ago, my wife and I visited Oswiecim in the south of Poland—the site that we know in English as Auschwitz. We took my teenage daughter there to witness the inhumanity that occurred on that site. No one could fail to be moved by the memorials and the industrial scale of the slaughter that took place there and elsewhere, not just in concentration camps but in towns and villages across Europe—events that resulted in the murder of 6 million Jews and millions from other groups in horrific circumstances.

The horrific events of the Holocaust are the most significant example of genocide in modern times, but the act of genocide is, unfortunately, nothing new in human history, and it continues to the present day. It has been estimated that 43 genocides could have occurred between 1956 and 2016, resulting in perhaps 50 million deaths. On this Holocaust memorial day, it is important that we recognise genocides that have taken place in Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia and, here in Europe, Bosnia in the 1990s. In 1995, I visited Bosnia as part of an aid convoy with Edinburgh Direct Aid—an organisation that has delivered humanitarian aid to many war zones and nations that are affected by crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, its work is still badly needed.

The theme of this year’s Holocaust memorial day is “Fragility of Freedom”. Commemoration means nothing if we do not truly learn lessons and take steps to stand against genocide, wherever it occurs. That is the primary lesson. It can happen anywhere, to any group. There is always that risk. In the words of Dutch Jew and Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer, “Never again, for anyone.”

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which defined genocide for the first time as any of five acts

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

The five acts are killing members of a group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions that are intended to destroy the group, preventing births and forcibly transferring children out of the group. A key point is that victims are targeted not randomly but because of their real or perceived membership of a group. The International Court of Justice has a key role to play in assessing cases that might constitute the crime of genocide, and it continues that important work to this day.

In combating genocide, we must always be aware of how it starts. Dehumanising language, comparing whole groups of people to animals and calling for extermination, mass slaughter or collective punishment are signs that we need to be alert to, and we need to expose and combat such behaviour whenever it arises. In Rwanda, the Tutsi people were described as cockroaches. More recently, ethnic groups have been described as human animals. Incitement to genocide is recognised as a separate crime under international law—a crime that does not require genocide to have taken place to be prosecutable. Those who call for the wholesale destruction of a people, their forcible transfer or collective punishment are guilty of that crime.

The 10 stages of genocide have been identified as classification, symbolisation, discrimination, dehumanisation, organisation, polarisation, preparation, persecution, extermination and denial. Awareness of how that process works allows us to recognise it and call it out. We must be alert to and challenge all forms of hatred and prejudice, including antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism.

Nothing is more important than the need to expose and root out the signs that lead to genocide. Preventing the recurrence of the Holocaust begins with an understanding that it can happen to any group, anywhere. At this time of year, we also take time to celebrate our national poet. Although the two are not often linked, it is perhaps worth reflecting on Burns’s words:

That Man to Man the warld o’er

Shall brithers be for a’ that.

A recognition that people of any ethnic group are not animals is a good place to start.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Having participated in or observed these debates for 17 years, it is difficult at times to think how to bring a fresh perspective to the debate, so I congratulate Paul O’Kane on his speech. It has been a privilege to work with him since he was elected in 2021 and with others to ensure that there is a genuine cross-party approach to the way in which we remember—and ensure that the country remembers—the events of the Holocaust.

In the same way, I congratulate Ben Macpherson on the successful event that he held this week on yet another example of the fear that the Nazis engendered that led to so much loss of life.

I wonder, colleagues, when you put up your Christmas decorations. I am quite late in the day in doing so. I still have a real tree, which, this year, went up on Saturday 16 December—it very often goes up on the weekend before the week of Christmas. Bear in mind that date—16 December 2023.

Last year, I saw the latest movie adaptation of “All Quiet on the Western Front”. I think that many of us might, at some stage or another, have seen a version of “All Quiet on the Western Front”. Indeed, the title is a phrase that has worked its way into the common language.

“All Quiet on the Western Front” was originally a book that was written by Erich Maria Remarque, who was a veteran of the first world war. It sold 2.2 million copies in its first 18 months. It is a book about the futility of the loss of life in the first world war, but it was detested by the Nazis. The author of the book found that it was banned. It was burned on Kristallnacht, and he had to flee the country. He moved to the United States and, actually, had a very glamorous life. He had affairs with Hedy Lamarr and Marlene Dietrich, and he married Paulette Goddard. They left $20 million to the commemoration of events of the Holocaust.

Back home, the Nazis arrested Remarque’s sister, Elfriede Scholz. In the judgment of the court, it was said:

“Your brother is unfortunately beyond our reach—you, however, will not escape us.”

On 16 December 1943, she was beheaded by the Nazis for the crime of being the sister of a brother who wrote a book about the first world war that the Nazis detested. The fragility of freedom.

In “A Village in the Third Reich”—a book that I commend to everybody—you can read about the village of Oberstdorf, one of the world’s first skiing tourist resorts, which benefited from massive international tourism, including Jewish tourism, and about how an insidious little clique in the village imposed the will of the Nazis to ban the Jewish community. There was subtle resistance throughout, but people there found themselves to be persecuted, arrested or shot for any collaboration or effort to save Jewish people. The fragility of freedom.

In last year’s debate, I referred to Danny Finkelstein’s magnificent book, “Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad”. It is about his grandfather, Alfred Wiener—the inspiration for the Wiener Holocaust Library, which supplied the exhibition that Ben Macpherson hosted in the Parliament this week—and his grandmother Grete, who were in Germany, and his grandparents Dolu and Lusia Finkelstein, who were in Poland. It is about the remarkable journey that the Wieners had through Nazi Germany and the heroic efforts of his grandmother to save his mother and her two sisters, as they moved through the concentration camps to Bergen-Belsen.

In Bergen-Belsen, Grete Wiener did everything to save her three daughters and, in the end, they got out; they got out near midnight on 24 January 1945. The Wieners crossed the border to Switzerland and to freedom. Grete had triumphed: she had protected her girls through the long years of Nazi occupation and terror, kept them alive through the valley of death, given them every last crumb of food and seen them to safety.

Alfred Wiener had managed to go to New York, and Camille Aronowska, who was based in Switzerland but learned of the prospective exchange, informed him of it. He also received a telegram from the Red Cross, which said that his wife, Margarete Wiener, and the children had escaped from Germany to Switzerland. However, there was a final bit, which said:

“MARGARET WIENER PAST AWAY AFTER ARRIVAL ON WEAKNESS”.

She had done and given everything that she could to save her daughters in Bergen-Belsen and was so weakened by the experience that she literally died on the train as they escaped from that climate. The fragility of freedom.

Whether we are talking about Elfriede Scholz, the community of Oberstdorf, the Wieners, the Finkelsteins or Marianne Grant, whose daughter mentioned this, too, Primo Levi said:

“It happened, therefore it can happen again.”

The fragility of freedom.

We must remember, and we must ensure that, although Primo Levi worried, it can never happen again, even though we know that that is such a difficult task and statement to honour.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank colleagues for their very fine speeches, and I thank Paul O’Kane for giving us the opportunity to renew, in this annual debate, our Holocaust remembrance through reflection and witness. The need for that becomes ever more pressing year by year, as members of the generation who lived through the Holocaust pass. Their witness must not be lost with them.

The Holocaust is history’s greatest horror. It was both the confluence of ancient hatred and industrial modernity and the fullest expression of nationalism, which was given form by an efficient and ruthless state that tore down the doors of family, faith and fraternity and replaced the human dignity of the soul with collated lists of category, of statistics and of method and calculated means. That project begat the most notorious statistic of all—6 million dead.

In 1949, Theodor Adorno said:

“To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.”

Where could beauty be found in a world that is capable of such horror? Was it not trite to find form? Was it not whimsy to seek prose?

How do you write about the Holocaust? That was a question that the late novelist Martin Amis, who died in May last year, walked around for most of his literary career. He was a late stepfather to Jewish daughters, and the Holocaust gained ever greater salience in his writing, although it had been a feature of it from his early career. His 2014 novel, “The Zone of Interest”, features the idyllic life of a concentration camp commander and his wife, who live just over the wire. Of course, we all live just over the wire. For days and even months, we can avert our eyes, yet we cannot avoid—as they could not—the stench of decay.

The Holocaust draws writers and readers in ever greater numbers. Colleagues have cited some of those works already—they include popular books such as “The Tattooist of Auschwitz”. We also have films such as “One Life”, which is an account of the heroic service of Nicholas Winton and his role in the Kindertransport programme. Such works open the hearts and the minds of audiences, and they prompt the biggest and most essential of questions: “How?”, “Why?” and, most urgently and repeatedly, “Could it happen again?”

It was in Amis’s “The Zone of Interest” that I first encountered this quote from W G Sebald on the Holocaust:

“No serious person ever thinks of anything else.”

Amis wrote of the exceptionalism of the Third Reich: it is our duty as elected politicians to see glimpses of it everywhere. Does our state stray too far? Will artificial intelligence make racism ever more efficient? Is our justice blind? Are we truly free?

On Tuesday night in this Parliament, the German consul general recalled the first expulsion of the Jewish Poles in 1938, in what is known as the Polenaktion. She was discharging the most solemn duty of the German state. She also told us of the hundreds of thousands of Germans who, in recent days, had gone on to the streets of their cities and towns to stand in the face of rising fascism, the far right, nationalism, ethnic hatred and economic alienation, and of time looping and history repeating itself. Never again. Never again.

We speak today in the livid aftermath of the largest and most deadly assault on Jews since the Holocaust. On 7 October, Hamas slaughtered the innocent and raped and tortured 1,269 Jews because they were Jews. It did so in the hopeful knowledge of the horror that would be visited upon innocent Palestinian people.

History tells us that we cannot give up on peace, no matter how forlorn or how remote a prospect that may feel. That is our remembrance.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I thank Paul O’Kane

for leading this year’s debate.

Since I was first elected, I have spoken in a number of Holocaust memorial debates. Today, I had a look through my notes from those earlier speeches. One of the core purposes of the day is to remind us of the need to work proactively to ensure that something like the Holocaust could never happen again. Those seven years of notes made for pretty depressing reading.

In 2017, I spoke about how fascists create their own alternative reality, then set about making the rest of society believe in it. That alternative reality is a hateful false reality, in which some people are less than human.

We are all familiar with how the Nazis went about systematically dehumanising Jews, Slavic people, Roma, LGBT people, disabled people and others, and with the importance of media support to their success in doing that, which Paul O’Kane referred to in his opening speech.

We are a century on from the start of the Nazis’ rise to power, but have we really learned the lessons of the darkest period in human history? A century ago, the owner of

The Daily Mail

aligned himself with Hitler and ran the headline, “Hurrah for the blackshirts”.

The first time I spoke in a debate such as this, seven years ago,

The Sun

—this country’s biggest-selling newspaper—had recently published a column that described refugees crossing the Mediterranean as “cockroaches” who should be stopped by gunships—language that caused the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights to intervene to point out that that was exactly how the Nazis had described Jews and other groups. Today, we see dehumanising language being used against the desperate and vulnerable people who are crossing the English Channel, against trans people, against Palestinians and against other marginalised groups.

The Holocaust did not start with gas chambers, the Rwandan genocide did not start with machete-wielding gangs, and the Bosnian genocide did not start with the massacre at Srebrenica. They started with dehumanising language and misinformation, with extremists pushing the limits of debate, and with efforts made to suppress the voices of the groups that were being targeted. Can we really say that the 21st century United Kingdom is doing all that it can do to live up to the commitment that the Holocaust must never happen again?

Seven years ago, Donald Trump had just taken office and major publications in the United States were running puff pieces on neo-Nazis with headlines such as,

“Meet the dapper white supremacist riding the Trump wave”—

the “dapper white supremacist”. This year, the prospect of Trump returning to the White House is a distressingly realistic one. How must the Jewish community in America feel when his first election was quickly followed by events such as those at Charlottesville, where uniformed white men held a torch-lit march chanting,

“Jews will not replace us”?

Across Europe, the far-right surge that appeared to have subsided a few years ago has begun again. A left-to-right broad democratic front may have taken back the Government in Poland, but fascists have just won a shock victory in the Netherlands on a platform that demonises Muslims in exactly the same way as the Nazis’ early platform demonised Jews. Sweden’s centre-right Government is entirely dependent on fascist members to stay in office, and Italy’s Prime Minister leads a party that traces its lineage straight back to Mussolini.

Germany has just been rocked by revelations that senior figures from the AfD party attended a meeting with neo-Nazis that included a presentation on how they could go about deporting people who are not ethnically German if they ever took power, which is not a distant prospect when the AfD is currently polling in second place nationally and in first place across swathes of eastern Germany. The cordon sanitaire is fraying and, in a clear and distressing parallel with Germany’s ruling parties a century ago, mainstream politicians who are desperate to hold on to or get into government are co-operating with the far right and with those who trace their roots back to the fascists who brought about that dark period in our history.

When you treat fascism as simply another political view, you have conceded legitimacy that it does not deserve and should never have. Its ideas become an acceptable part of mainstream discussion when inciting genocide is not an acceptable or legitimate point of view, and believing that you can win the argument by giving those people at platform for debate and then challenging them misunderstands the problem.

Fascism is not rational. Fascists and others who advance dangerous and lethal agendas are not interested in winning the debate. They just want to implement their wicked world view, and they are not going to play by the rules that the rest of us follow in a liberal and democratic society because they do not want a liberal and democratic society in which their argument might win a battle of ideas. We cannot ever allow them to win again.

Today, we remember the victims of humanity’s worst crime, when 9 million people, including 6 million Jews, were slaughtered in the Holocaust. We must think seriously about how we turn our determination never to allow that to happen again into a practical reality. It is not enough not to be a racist or a fascist; we must all be active anti-racists and anti-fascists. That is the only way in which our statements of “Never again” can truly mean something.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

It is a privilege to rise to speak for my party on the important occasion of our annual commemoration of the Holocaust. I am grateful to Paul O’Kane for leading the debate, which has been characterised and punctuated by thoughtful and moving contributions, not least from Jackson Carlaw and Michael Marra.

As we have heard and will hear again this afternoon, the Nazis engaged in the most horrific and barbaric acts. There was the mechanised slaughter of 9 million people, 6 million of them Jews—a genocide that killed two thirds of Europe’s Jewish population. Entire communities, huge segments of entire races and, indeed, anyone who the Nazis declared to be either deviant or defective were rounded up and shipped to camps such as Auschwitz and Belsen to be murdered.

As we have heard in speeches such as that of Ivan McKee, today is also an important opportunity to remember the victims of other genocides around the world—in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur—all of whom were tyrannised, oppressed and tormented simply because of who they are.

Monsters are real. They might wear business suits or military uniforms, but we see the evidence of their works in the bleaker chapters of human history, and today we mark the darkest chapter of all. The horrors of the Holocaust are a grim and tragic reminder of what can happen when we fail to recognise and challenge those monsters, and when we turn a blind eye to them. Horrific acts of this kind are enabled by the passivity of those with the power and the agency to act and to stop them, but who choose not to.

Elie Wiesel, a survivor of Auschwitz, warns us against that when he tells us:

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

The haunting memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe, standing as it does at the heart of Berlin, symbolises the particular horror that can occur when those in power become corrupted and when domination trumps any sense of service to one’s fellow human being. There is no limit to how bleak things can become.

We should acknowledge that the Nazi regime was made possible only by the blind capitulation of thousands of otherwise normal people. The Nazis were successful at mass murder because they desensitised it, normalised it and buried it under the drudgery of bureaucracy. They inured every level of government and the military to atrocity using endless layers of bureaucracy that reduced millions of precious lives to the lines of a ledger book.

As we have heard many times today, the theme of this Holocaust memorial day is “Fragility of Freedom”. The word “fragility” rings scarily true just now. We have seen democratic institutions tested the world over. Some of them are facing tests still now. Authoritarianism is on the rise, and war has returned to continental Europe.

If we look even at modern-day Germany, we will be alarmed and heartened in equal measure. The rise of Alternative für Deutschland, the far-right nationalist party in Germany since the Nazi era, is deeply concerning. However, just last weekend, and in recent days, tens of thousands of Germans have taken to the streets to protest right-wing extremism, following reports that senior AFD members were present at a meeting at which the mass deportation of millions of not just immigrants but anyone who they did not deem to be properly German was discussed. That was a chilling echo of the past.

We in the Liberal Democrats and members across the chamber stand with those who took to the streets in defiance of that extremism. We must never be complacent. We must always remember the consequences of that complacency.

I have previously told the story of when I spent some time in hospital, and a man in the bed opposite volunteered his belief that the Holocaust was a hoax. In the argument that followed, he revealed that the basis of his position was rooted in the videos that he had seen on YouTube. Challenging antisemitism and Holocaust denial falls to each of us, wherever we find it, as does educating our children and young people about the horrific reality of the genocides that have taken place across our world.

The fact that today we are living among many of the communities that the Holocaust sought to extinguish, and that we stand united across the chamber in our remembrance of those awful events and in our opposition to the twisted ideologies of which they were born, is evidence that the Nazis failed. That sort of darkness will always fail, but only if we stand unflinchingly together, united, and resolute against it.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I thank Paul O’Kane for securing the debate on this important issue, and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for all the work that it does. I also thank Paul O’Kane in advance for hosting the Scottish national Holocaust event next week, when the Parliament will welcome pupils from Northfield academy in my constituency, who I believe will be speaking at the event. I am always pleased to see young folk from Aberdeen coming into our Parliament.

As the motion notes, the theme of this year’s Holocaust memorial day is “Fragility of Freedom”. Over the past few years and across the world, people’s freedoms feel much more fragile.

When I was younger, I remember thinking of the Holocaust as a one-off tragedy—an act of unspeakable evil, carried out by evil folk, who just kind of disappeared at the end of the war. Over the years—especially the past few years—I have come to realise that the Holocaust and other genocides are at the end of what tends to be a long journey. I have come to realise that the folk who carried out those acts were not always evil—that they were once quite ordinary, and that many went back to living ordinary lives. I have come to realise that saying, “Never again,” is, sadly, just an aspiration rather than the promise that it should be.

I have also come to realise how many challenges the groups that were targeted in the Holocaust continue to face. Can any of us say, hand on heart, that, in the past few months, we have not seen, at home or abroad, any bigotry and discrimination that is aimed at Jews, Gypsy Travellers, those with disabilities, or the LGBT+ community? I cannot say so. I think that those things are becoming more common and, in some circles, are starting to be seen as acceptable.

That situation is very dangerous, and we need to challenge it whenever and wherever we see it, because, before the death camps, there was the discrimination, the dehumanisation and the turning of folk against their own fellow man. I fear that we are not doing enough to prevent that from happening again.

When the details of the Holocaust first emerged, folk reacted with horror, and the world said, “Never again.” However, in the years since, and with varying degrees of recognition, we have continued to see that sort of atrocity. We saw mass killings in Guatemala and said, “Never again.” We saw them in Bangladesh and said, “Never again.” We saw them in East Timor and said, “Never again.” We have seen them in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Zaire, Darfur, Iraq, Syria and Myanmar, and we keep saying, “Never again.” In the years to come, when that list is, inevitably, even longer, will we just keep on saying, “Never again”?

Looking ahead, instead of just saying, “Never again”, we need to say, loudly and clearly, what we are saying today—as individuals and as a nation, at home and abroad. When we see discrimination, dehumanisation, persecution, and mass killings, we need to call those for what they are and call for them to stop. That is the least that we can do to show that we have learned the lessons of history, and to make “Never again” a reality.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Due to the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

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

Paul O’Kane

]

Motion agreed to.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is an honour and a privilege to contribute to this debate to mark Holocaust memorial day 2024. I warmly thank Paul O’Kane for securing parliamentary time for such a poignant and sobering topic. We come together each year in remembrance, so that the Holocaust may never again be repeated.

A tragedy is now unfolding in the middle east. Israel has suffered the worst terror attack in its history at the hands of Hamas, and Palestinian civilians in Gaza are experiencing a humanitarian disaster.

What to say, after 1,200 Israeli men, women and children were slaughtered in 24 hours? Where to begin, after the rising tide of antisemitism that we have witnessed in recent months? Understandably, as we commemorate Holocaust memorial day, we look to the past. The devastating events in Israel and Gaza since October 2023 have shown us that we must also look to the horizon.

Experts argue that genocides do not simply happen; they are the culmination of a series of circumstances or events. They begin with the persecution of a particular group of people simply for who they are and escalate to annihilation—of lives, religion and culture. In a diary entry dated Saturday 20 June 1942, Anne Frank wrote:

“That is when the trouble started for the Jews. Our freedom was severely restricted by a series of anti-Jewish decrees.”

She listed many restrictions in her everyday life, from having to turn in her bicycle to being forbidden from using swimming pools. She said:

“You couldn’t do this and you couldn’t do that, but life went on.”

As other members have touched on, the theme for this year’s Holocaust memorial day is “Fragility of Freedom”. Anne lost her freedoms before she, ultimately, lost her life. The lives of millions of Jews were curtailed before they were brutally cut short. We must understand what precedes genocide and how the seeds of hatred and prejudice are sown, so that we might prevent it from happening again and again.

The conflict in the middle east must not become part of the culture wars that are waged on streets and screens. The nuance and complexity of crisis cannot be effaced for social media likes and views. With the rise of antisemitism incidents across the UK, Europe and the US, I worry that we have reached a tipping point—we cannot allow the clock to turn back.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I offer my apologies to my colleagues: I was not scheduled to speak today, because I have been off sick with a chest infection. However, I have made it to the chamber because how could I not speak in today’s debate? In a Parliament of 128 MSPs who are eligible to speak, this debate, given its importance, should have been oversubscribed. I will not take up too much of members’ time, but I will make two additional points over and above the eloquent and moving speeches that we have already heard today. One point will cast our eyes back in history, but the other point, I hope, will cast our eyes towards the world that we live in today.

The first point is that, in addition to the 6 million Jews who were exterminated—and that is the word that we should use—the events of world war two led to the victimisation, persecution, torture and death of some 9 million non-Jews as well. It is often described as the era of Holocaust because it extended far beyond the systematic targeting of Jews. Catholics, disabled people, Roma people, gay people, communists and freemasons. I am not Jewish, but I would not have stood a chance. Indeed, to this day, the forget-me-not badge is worn on the lapels of many a mason across the world in remembrance of those who suffered. Those three simple words, “forget me not”, could not be more apt to today’s debate.

Of course, the Nazis saw many people as threats for religious, cultural, ethnic, social, racial, political or sexual reasons, or saw them simply as a burden on society because they failed to sign up to Hitler’s growing fascism and violent nationalism. Many of those people were sent to camps and wore inverted red triangles. I know that because, on a recent visit to Brussels just a few weeks ago, I went to the museum of military history and I stood face to face—through a glass cage—with a pair of those striped pyjamas that we often see in Hollywood films. Those red triangle badges were on the pyjamas—they were real, not a prop. Someone had lived in and worn that item of clothing.

The second and perhaps more pertinent point that I want to make today has already been made—the Holocaust did not happen overnight. “Forget me not” means as much today as it did then, because Tess White is absolutely right—it was a creeping hatred and a series of events that led to mass murder. Of course, Kristallnacht, which Jackson Carlaw referred to, kicked off overt mass violence against Jewish people and their businesses, but that was the culmination of many months, if not years, of systematically targeting them. The boycott of their businesses was almost discreet when it started—the gossip columns of newspapers, the caricatures of Jews in satirical cartoons, the verbal abuse in the street and blaming them for things that happened in bygone years or, indeed, faraway places. Then the political rhetoric crept in.

Let us not forget that the Nazis were voted in democratically by their people. Germany was an unsettled country that had a nostalgia and an appetite for its former strength and glory. Opportunistic politicians promised that restoration of glory, which, of course, gave way to Hitler, who promised leadership and restoration of economic success and glory once again.

Oh, friends, how history repeats itself. The stab-in-the-back myth that is often referred to blamed Germany’s losses in world war one on betrayal, not on the battlefield. The communists, socialists and Jews were supposedly to blame for that almighty fall from power. Radicalisation of thought crept in. It started with boycotts, protests and placard waving, perhaps driven by political ideology or perhaps even well-meaning expressions of disapproval. It starts with blaming everyday people for the actions of Governments and army chiefs in faraway lands.

Looking at the polls across the European Union, we see the balance swinging and shifting in a dangerous direction. The parallels are true. Antisemitism is as creeping and dangerous today as it was in 1930s Germany, less than a century ago. Underneath it all, whether it be age-old, medieval, true antisemitism, antisemitism cloaked in modern outrage over other horrific events of war and conflict or simply a wider hatred and othering of those on the margins of society, the sentiment, causes and complacency are the same.

It is a dangerous assertion to believe for just a moment that the Holocaust was a thing of the past. A Holocaust, in some shape or form, could happen again. Forget it not.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I echo the thoughts of the other members in the chamber and thank Paul O’Kane for lodging the motion, which gives us a valuable opportunity to speak about the importance of Holocaust memorial day.

The horrors of the Holocaust are a stark reminder of the inhumanity and violence that hatred and prejudice can wreak if left unchallenged. I thank all the members for their powerful, thought-provoking contributions. Despite the political differences that we might have, it is deeply touching to see the chamber united in commemorating everyone who perished during the Nazi atrocities, as well as the millions who were persecuted in the genocides that took place in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.

This year’s theme for Holocaust memorial day is “Fragility of Freedom”. It reinforces the importance of opposing those who threaten the essential freedoms that underpin our society. As history tells us, genocide begins with the erosion of basic liberties. In Nazi Germany, the Jewish, Roma and Sinti people were initially banned from participating in activities that we take for granted, such as attending places of entertainment and enrolling in academia. As we are painfully aware, those cruel and prejudicial acts sowed the seeds of the mass extermination of millions of people.

This Holocaust memorial day marks the 30th anniversary of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. That tragedy began with restrictions on people’s freedom, as they were instructed to stay indoors and not leave their homes. That created an environment for soldiers and the civilian militia to murder indiscriminately, resulting in the deaths of 75 per cent of the Tutsi population.

We must, of course, also pay tribute to the acts of extraordinary bravery in which people put themselves at great risk to preserve freedom and protect the lives of others by providing food, medication or sanctuary to those targeted for persecution. We should forever be indebted to them for those acts of immense sacrifice.

When we reflect on those tragedies, it is tempting to view them as so abhorrent that we could never possibly allow them to be repeated. We cannot turn a blind eye to the challenges that we face today. We know that there are people whose freedoms are being curtailed and who experience hatred and prejudice because of who they are and the group to which they belong.

That is why the Scottish Government, in our commitment to combating hatred and prejudice, has embarked on an ambitious programme of work. Last November, I spoke at our tackling hate crime and building cohesive communities conference, at which we launched our hate crime strategy delivery plan. The delivery plan shapes how we work in collaboration with our partners to enhance protections for those who are most at risk, while taking meaningful action to prevent hate crime from happening in the first place.

Putting people and communities with lived experience at the centre of our policies is at the heart of our approach, and that is essential to the delivery of our actions. We want to foster communities where everybody feels empowered, included and safe, and we want to address the societal attitudes that lead to the perpetrating of hate crime.

It is unacceptable for anybody to live in fear or to be made to feel as if they do not belong. Preventative work that builds strong, respectful and cohesive communities can stop the narratives that foster prejudice from taking hold.

We are clear that there is no place for hatred or prejudice of any kind in Scotland’s schools. I am sure that members on all sides of the chamber will fully recognise the vital role that schools play in helping our young people to value a diverse and respectful Scotland, supporting them to become responsible and truly global citizens, and helping to counteract prejudice and intolerance. It is essential, therefore, that our curriculum continues to support learners to develop their understanding of others’ beliefs, cultures and traditions alongside their own. Our aspiration is that they feel equipped to go out into the world, to be citizens of the tolerant and inclusive Scotland of which we all want to be part.

This following Tuesday, I, along with the First Minister, will be participating in the Holocaust memorial day Scottish ceremony. I commend our partners at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for their continued efforts in organising the event, which will also be attended by Peter Lantos, who is a Holocaust survivor. Chantal Mrimri and Sabina Kadic-Mackenzie, who escaped the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia respectively, will also be in attendance. I hope to see as many members there as possible, as we stand in solidarity to honour all those who have suffered.

In my final reflection, I remind members that, while the Nazis began consolidating their power, the German journalist Fritz Gerlich warned:

“The worst thing we can do, the absolute worst, is to do nothing”.

This year’s “Fragility of Freedom” theme provides possibly the most poignant illustration of the importance of heeding those words.

It is only through remaining unwavering in our opposition to all forms of hate, and in striving to protect freedom at any cost, that we can prevent genocides in the future, and instead build a better world for everybody.

13:37 Meeting suspended until 14:30.

14:30 On resuming—

Social Justice

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time. On this occasion the portfolio is social justice. Any member who wishes to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. There is quite a bit of interest in supplementaries. I therefore make the usual appeal for brief questions that do not come in four or five parts and for similarly brief responses from front-bench speakers.

Families in Poverty

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether a greater increase in the Scottish child payment or a council tax freeze will do more to help families in poverty. (S6O-03006)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish child payment provides well-targeted support to the lowest-income families. It is estimated that it will lift 50,000 children out of poverty this year. We have committed to increasing the payment, in line with inflation, to £26.70 per week from April, and it is expected that 329,000 children will benefit from it in 2024-25. The Government is working with local authorities to help them to deliver the council tax freeze and to provide much-needed financial relief to more than 2 million council tax payers. Both measures are provided for in the budget, are unparalleled in the United Kingdom and will provide much-needed help for families.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Some people, especially those in the third sector, have argued that a council tax freeze will not help the poorest people, because they already do not pay council tax, but that it will help those who are better off, who pay more council tax. How would the cabinet secretary respond to that argument?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

People who have the lowest incomes will benefit most from a council tax freeze. That is because, for them, council tax represents a larger proportion of their income than it does for people who are better off. The freeze is on top of the council tax reduction scheme, which supports people who cannot be expected to afford to pay council tax. However, the cost crisis has seen bills rise for households across the spectrum, and the freeze will give them some certainty for next year.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Councils across Scotland are having to slash their budgets due to the council tax freeze. That means that local services to help people in the most deprived areas will come to an end. How will that help them?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The position has been made clear on numerous occasions by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I am happy to say, once again, that the council tax freeze will be fully funded by the Scottish Government. Work is on-going with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the details of that proposal. That is a very important reassurance, which I am pleased to be able to give to the chamber again today.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

It is recognised that council tax is regressive, which is contrary to the Government’s stated progressive outlook. What work has been undertaken to evaluate other models of less regressive and more proportionate property or land value taxes? When does the Government expect to complete that work?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Council tax represents a larger proportion of overall income for lower-income households than it does for richer households. The council tax freeze recognises the regressive impact of council tax, which underlines the importance of reform. We are committed to a fairer, more inclusive and fiscally sustainable form of local taxation. I have convened the joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform, which is co-chaired by the Scottish ministers and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Short-term Lets (Planning Guidance)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will update its guidance to local authorities on planning rules for short-term lets, in light of the recent ruling from the Court of Session that deemed the City of Edinburgh Council’s planning guidance for businesses on short-term lets to be unlawful. (S6O-03007)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

In bringing the judicial review of the City of Edinburgh Council’s local guidance, the petitioners noted that it was not consistent with the Scottish Government’s guidance. In issuing its decision, the court agreed with the Scottish Government’s position on the interpretation of the relevant legislation. Therefore, the Scottish Government does not consider it necessary to update its current guidance, which was set out in planning circular 1/2023.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the minister would acknowledge that there is confusion about the law on planning for short-term lets, with different councils taking different approaches. Some councils now require such operators, even if they have been operating for some time, to apply for retrospective planning consent before they will grant a short-term let. Other councils take a different approach. Does the minister not think that updated guidance from the Scottish Government would be helpful, so that we could have uniformity of approach across the country instead of the current confusion?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

One of the most important points when we set out the policy was about giving local authorities the ability to use their own flexibility—something that was supported in our discussions by the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland, SOLAR.

I am aware that representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council are speaking to petitioners to try and clarify some of the points that have been raised, and I know that discussions are on-going in that regard.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the minister make it clear that the court ruling applies only to the City of Edinburgh Council’s short-term lets policy, and that the national legislation underpinning the licence scheme remains robust and applicable across Scotland, with a considerable degree of local discretion?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

As I mentioned in my previous answer, I can confirm that the ruling applies only to the local planning policy of the City of Edinburgh Council, which relates to the council’s interpretation and implementation of legislation

for designated short-term let control areas. The ruling does not impact in any way on either planning or short-term let licensing legislation, nor was the court asked to consider any matters relating to legislation as part of the judicial review. Our view is that the licensing and planning of short-term let accommodation can be operated effectively by authorities so as to respect the rights of hosts and guests.

Social Security Support (Motherwell and Wishaw)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what social security support is available to people in the Motherwell and Wishaw constituency who are experiencing poverty, including fuel poverty. (S6O-03008)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government’s

priority is to do everything that we can to help those who are worst affected by the cost of living crisis, which is why, since 2022-23, we have continued to allocate around £3 billion a year to support policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible. That includes our investment of more than £22 million this winter through our winter heating payment to support around 400,000 households on the lowest incomes to heat their homes. We have also invested more than £7 million this year, making more than 30,000 payments of the child winter heating payment to children, young people and their families in Scotland who may have higher fuel needs due to a disability or health condition. There is no equivalent support available elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

We continue to raise our investment, increasing all social security benefits in 2024-25 by 6.7 per cent, in recognition of the challenges that are being faced across Scotland.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

E

nergy companies are resuming the installation of prepayment meters under warrant, following updated advice from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. I have contacted Ofgem and major energy suppliers, which say that that is a last resort. However, my constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw, who are at the sharp end of that unfair practice by the energy suppliers, tell a very different story. Energy policy remains reserved to Westminster, so what engagement has the Scottish Government had with the UK Government regarding the unfair position that is faced by people who are forced to take prepayment meters?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I

very much share the member’s concerns regarding the reintroduction of forced prepayment meter installations. Ofgem’s code of practice requiring suppliers to meet a number of conditions before taking such action is an important step. However, too many households remain at risk from that practice, especially with energy costs remaining so high. We believe that energy suppliers must exhaust all options, including meaningful support to struggling households to manage debt, before imposing prepayment meters. The Minister for Energy and the Environment has raised the matter previously with the UK Minister for Affordability and Skills and will continue to pursue the matter in meetings with the UK Government and Ofgem in the coming weeks.

Social Security Scotland (Support for Claimants)

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it holds Social Security Scotland to account to ensure that it is fulfilling its responsibility to help claimants, who request support, to provide supporting information, including obtaining it on their behalf. (S6O-03009)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Social Security Scotland framework document provides accountability and governance to ensure that Social Security Scotland meets its statutory obligations. The framework requires delivery in keeping with our core values of dignity, fairness and respect. Encouraging people to access the benefits that they are entitled to and assisting them through our application process are rights that are enshrined in the social security charter. Assisting people to gather supporting information for disability assistance is a fundamental part of delivering those obligations. Reviewing performance on that is a frequent priority in my discussions with the chief executive of Social Security Scotland.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

T

he cabinet secretary recently informed me that

“Social Security Scotland are committed to ensuring people applying for disability assistance are helped to provide supporting information, which can include obtaining it on their behalf.”—[

Written Answers

, 14 November 2023; S6W-22558.]

A constituent of mine advised that, as his claim was being considered, he was not contacted once and nor were the clinicians whom he provided to verify the claims. What data is kept on the number of applicants who may need additional assistance with applications? How often is that reviewed?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am afraid that, from the information that Foysol Choudhury has given and our previous correspondence, he has not directed me to a particular constituent and issue. If he has his constituent’s permission to pass it on, I would be happy to receive that information and to work with the agency to look into it.

It is clear that an integral part of the work on adult disability payments is assisting those who gather supporting information. That is a very important part of the work. I know that we have corresponded on the matter previously, but I am not aware that Foysol Choudhury has raised a particular case in which there has been an issue. I would, of course, be very pleased to look into that along with the agency and to get back to him in correspondence.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The support that Social Security Scotland provides to claimants has helped it to build remarkably high satisfaction ratings. Those stand in stark contrast to the reputation of the UK Government’s Department for Work and Pensions. Has the cabinet secretary had any recent discussion with Social Security Scotland about how it can maintain or even improve claimants’ experiences?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I have been very pleased to have had regular discussions with the agency’s executive team about how we can build on the high satisfaction ratings. For example, around nine in 10 survey respondents said that they were treated with kindness, dignity, fairness and respect. That is, of course, in stark contrast to the reports from the DWP’s previous system, particularly on the personal independence payment. However, it is clear that there is still work to do to ensure that we deliver that service for everyone. I am always more than happy to work with members to see what more can be done to improve that.

Temporary Accommodation (Support for Local Authorities)

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what support it is offering to local authorities to help people stuck in temporary accommodation. (S6O-03010)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

We have committed to reducing the use of temporary accommodation and, in response to the recommendations of the temporary accommodation task and finish group, we are investing at least £60 million through the £752 million affordable housing supply programme in 2023-24 to support a national acquisition plan. We are working with partners to develop a new programme for social landlords to maximise the use of existing housing stock alongside targeted partnership plans with the local authorities that face the greatest pressures. Additional funding of £2 million in 2023-24 has been targeted at the local authorities with the largest percentage increases in temporary accommodation.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

W

hat the minister failed to mention is that more than 15,000 households are stuck in temporary accommodation. “The homelessness monitor: Scotland 2024” predicts that homelessness will increase by 33 per cent by 2026. I find it shocking that the Scottish National Party Government has chosen to cut the housing budget and to starve councils of the funding that is necessary to tackle those issues. Does the Scottish Government plan to declare a housing emergency to ensure that the predictions in the homelessness monitor do not come to fruition?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

It is

important to make a few points.

There is a 10 per cent capital cut from Meghan Gallacher’s Government. I hope that she will take that back.

I am glad that Meghan Gallacher mentioned the homelessness monitor, because one of the key things that it said was that the biggest increase is due to the local housing allowance being frozen over a number of years. That is in the report; the member should read it. It also mentions benefit rates being the biggest factor. If Meghan Gallacher is serious about the issue, she should go back to her chancellor about the budget, which is coming in March, and discuss those issues. We spend near enough £100 million a year on discretionary housing payments to support that. If we had a decent level of local housing allowance, we would not need to do that.

There are three main points that Meghan Gallacher needs to take back in that regard. I am glad that you mentioned that because, as I said, the biggest impact is from poverty, which your Government is adding to.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You should speak through the chair, please, minister.

Affordable Homes

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to ensure that it meets its affordable homes target by 2032. (S6O-03011)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

To September 2023, 15,765 homes—of which 77 per cent are for social rent—were delivered towards the 110,000 target. The United Kingdom budget has meant that our UK capital funding will fall by 10 per cent in real terms between 2023-24 and 2027-28.

Inflationary pressures, Brexit impacts and wider market conditions have triggered a rise in construction costs and workforce challenges.

We remain focused on our target of delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032. To support that, we are bringing forward to 2024 a review that was scheduled for 2026-27, with a focus on deliverability. We are also accelerating work with the financial community to boost private sector investment.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Nearly £200 million is to be cut from the affordable homes supply programme. The number of social homes on which construction began was down by 41 per cent in 2023. An average of 7,700 new social homes need to be built every year in order to meet the target.

How does the minister believe that that can be achieved if funding is to be cut?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I refer the member to my answer to the previous question, regarding the 10 per cent real-terms cut to our funding. That is an issue to mention—we have to deal with those issues. The Institute for Fiscal Studies gave evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the cuts to the Scottish Government’s budget and the Welsh Government’s budget, which have been made basically to pay for tax cuts. That is the decision that has been made.

I meet and work with local authorities on how we can maximise the deliverability of their own programmes.

There is also a challenge for Katy Clark and her party. If Labour is successful in the election, it is key that it reverses the cut to our capital funding. It also needs to look at local housing allowance rates, which are important. I hope that, if a Labour Government is elected, we can discuss those issues and bring forward proposals, because those are the main things that are impacting on deliverability.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the minister confirm that the previous Labour Administration built only six council houses in Scotland between 2003 and 2007, and that this Scottish National Party Government, despite Tory austerity and Sir Keir Starmer’s refusal to turn on the taps if he becomes Prime Minister, is still building 1,157 houses this year, which is nearly 200 times more than Labour built over four years?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Indeed—a total of six council houses were built in the last four years of the Labour-led Government in Scotland. That is in stark contrast to the last few years of this Government, when 7,564 new council houses have been built. That is 1,260 times the number that were built under the last four years of the Labour-led Government. I am proud that, from April 2007 to the end of September 2023, we worked with the sector to deliver 126,396 affordable homes, more than 89,000 of which are for social rent, including 23,625 council homes.

I come back to Mr Gibson’s point about Keir Starmer’s refusal to turn on the taps. There is a real challenge for Labour on housing if it is elected—I will come back to that point later in the year.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Scotland’s

“affordable homes target risks becoming an impossible dream.”

Those are not my words but the words of the chief executive of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. The Scottish Government set a target of 10 per cent of all affordable homes to be in rural and island communities. Last year, however, there was a record low in approvals and completions. Does the minister now accept that that target is unlikely to be met?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

In my first answer to Katy Clark, I mentioned that we are bringing forward to 2024 a review that was scheduled for 2026-27, with a focus on deliverability. I also mentioned some of the issues that have had an impact on house building, such as inflationary pressures and the impacts of Brexit, as well as wider market conditions, which have not helped. As I mentioned, there is also the 10 per cent cut to our capital funding.

Miles Briggs mentioned rural homes. I have discussed with rural developers the cost of construction, which has had an impact in that regard. That comes back to the point about interest rates and construction inflation over that period. I continue to meet local authorities in rural areas to deliver houses there.

New Homes (Rural Areas)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the number of new homes started in rural areas. (S6O-03012)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I have been engaging closely with a range of partners such as local authorities, housing providers and businesses, including at a recent round-table event, to support the delivery of more affordable homes across rural Scotland.

That work is underpinned by our recently published “Rural & Islands Housing Action Plan”.

We will invest more than £556 million in affordable homes across Scotland in the next financial year, including through the demand-led rural and islands housing funds and the rural affordable homes for key workers fund. We also provided funding for the Communities Housing Trust and South of Scotland Community Housing to support communities to deliver more affordable homes in rural and island communities.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is helpful, but I want to double-check that, out of the 110,000 affordable homes that are planned by 2032, 10 per cent is the proportion that is supposed to be built in rural and island communities. Can I check that figure, please? There seems to be a bit of confusion about it.

The latest housing statistics from the last quarter in 2023 showed that the number of new homes that were started had decreased by 24 per cent. Can you tell us how that will impact on your ambitions to ensure that rural areas are well served, given that such homes are critical to the sustainability of rural communities?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members to speak through the chair.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

As I have said previously, 10 per cent is the minimum target that we are aiming for, and we will work with local authorities in that regard. If we can deliver more than that, we will. As I mentioned, we had a round-table discussion with major employers about opportunities through, for example, the key workers fund, and we are working with the Communities Housing Trust on deliverability.

We are looking at other opportunities. Liz Smith will be aware of some of the developments in the renewables sector in Inverness. I spoke to developers there, along with the local community and the local authority, about the opportunities for Inverness and the surrounding areas. We are looking to see how we can deliver six or seven renewables hubs, mostly in rural areas. By working with the sector and developers, there is an opportunity to develop more housing in rural areas. I am happy to discuss that later.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Many young people want the chance to live in the rural and island areas where they have grown up and where they have family ties. Even a small number of new properties can have a significant benefit, such as the development by Hjaltland Housing Association of four new homes in Walls, in my constituency. The outcome of the methodology to determine where new houses are built can sometimes differ from the needs that are expressed by communities. What action can the Scottish Government take on that point?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Beatrice Wishart will know that I visited Shetland a number of months ago and spoke to Hjaltland about that development. Infrastructure funding was provided for the site. The topography of an area can be a particular challenge, and she knows that we are working closely with Hjaltland and Shetland Islands Council on that. I know that Shetland has had specific challenges with the renewables sector and others that have put real pressure on the area. We continue to work closely with people on Shetland and will have follow-up meetings with them. It is key that we meet local authorities to discuss their individual challenges, such as those that Shetland has. I will continue to discuss Shetland’s particular issues with the people there.

Disabled People

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the lives of disabled people. (S6O-03013)

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government is working hard to improve the lives of disabled people. The independent living fund, which supports disabled people, will reopen to new applicants after it received £9 million in investment as part of the 2024-25 Scottish budget. That investment will support about 1,000 new applicants. Later this year, we will implement an immediate priorities plan, co-produced with disabled people’s organisations, which will include a range of actions to support disabled people. In addition, £5 million from our equality and human rights fund supports disabled people’s organisations to tackle inequality and discrimination, further equality and advance the realisation of human rights in Scotland.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

The Scottish National Party Government claims that Social Security Scotland is founded on the principles of dignity, fairness and respect. However, Scots with disabilities are being let down by the system. Specifically, the latest Social Security Scotland statistics show that more than a third of adult disability payment applications have been denied, while the average processing time for the child disability payment is about five months. What action is being taken to ensure that everyone who is in need of disability benefits receives them in a timely manner?

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government recognises that some people have waited too long for Social Security Scotland to make a decision on their application, but work is on-going to address that, and the situation has been improving at pace.

I absolutely stand by the principles of dignity, fairness and respect being embedded in Social Security Scotland. That is borne out by the customer and client reviews that we have received from Social Security Scotland, which tell us that the process is far better than the one that the Department for Work and Pensions down south uses for similar benefits. I urge the member to ensure that the communications to constituents provide the message that people should feel able to ask Social Security Scotland for support and that they will be welcomed when doing so.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the minister outline how the reopening of the independent living fund will align with Social Security Scotland’s work to support the wellbeing of disabled people?

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Government recognises the pressures on household budgets, including those of disabled people, who are disproportionately impacted by, and being stretched due to, the on-going cost of living crisis. That is why, since 2022-23, we have continued to allocate about £3 billion a year to social security policies that tackle poverty and protect people as far as possible.

The independent living fund provides additional funding to disabled people, alongside social security and social care funding, which supports them to live more independently. The reopening of the fund realises our commitment to further supporting the disabled people who need it most. The £9 million of extra investment will allow up to 1,000 new recipients to exercise greater choice and control over the care and support that they receive, so that they can be better supported in their homes and their communities.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

This week, Homes for Scotland’s “Existing Housing Needs in Scotland” report showed that 85,000 households are living in properties that do not have the required adaptations or support for the disabled people who live in them. The 27 per cent cut to the housing budget will not help to drive forward the progress that we need on aids and adaptations. Will the minister who has responsibility for equality tell the chamber what assessment was made of the impact that the cut will have on disabled people across Scotland?

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

We are all too aware that older and disabled people might struggle to find housing that meets their needs. We are taking steps to mitigate that by increasing the supply of accessible and adapted housing.

Technology

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-11958, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on Scotland as a technology nation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Today, as we celebrate the contribution of Rabbie Burns to the world, in this debate we can celebrate and discuss Scotland’s contribution to the world as a technology nation.

The world’s economy faces two extraordinary and arguably unprecedented and unavoidable forces. First, there is the critical need to transition from an economic model that is based on fossil fuels to one that is based on sustainable resources. Secondly, there is the need to rethink the way in which we live and work in order to harness the potential of artificial intelligence and other forms of new technology. Those forces are transforming our world and demanding collective leadership to steer a course through uncharted waters, and it will be an exciting voyage of discovery.

Scotland can face that journey with optimism. We are equipped with an abundance of natural resources, and universities and industry can provide opportunities to lead and break new ground, improve productivity, create new businesses and open new markets at home and around the world.

Scotland absolutely has the potential to be a leading nation in technology, science and world-class innovation. We start from a position of strength, with our tech sector employing more than 80,000 people and contributing around £6 billion to our economy—that figure has increased by an astounding 107.5 per cent since 2012.

With more than 700 life science organisations employing more than 42,500 people, Scotland is one of the largest life sciences clusters in Europe. Life sciences are worth £3 billion to the Scottish economy. The sector has achieved 8 per cent growth each year since 2010, and life sciences exports stood at £3 billion in 2019. Scotland is also home to 227 financial technology companies. The fintech cluster has seen a 24 per cent increase in jobs over the past two years and is breaking new ground in areas such as green finance and financial regulation.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is interesting to note that the minister highlights both pure technology and its applications. Do we need greater clarity on the fact that tech is not just pure tech but a dynamic and a driver? Consider, for example, advanced manufacturing, life sciences and robotics in the North Sea. That clarity also needs to be translated into policy.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

There is an element of truth in the member’s point, and it is an important point in the debate, but I hope that, as my remarks progress, I can give the member some confidence that we are doing that at the moment.

We have a thriving space industry, with more than 130 companies in a sector that employs 18 per cent of the United Kingdom workforce and has seen recent revenue growth of 30 per cent. Orbex, based in Forres in my constituency, has just been identified in the top 10 space start-ups to watch globally.

This year, we hope to see the UK’s first vertical launch take-off from Scotland, and that will command headlines throughout and beyond Europe. With regard to Daniel Johnson’s point, we also have one of the largest critical technologies clusters in the UK, with a turnover that is estimated at more than £2.8 billion. Those underpinning and often invisible technologies are vital to our future. In particular, they have huge export potential. Photonics—the science and technology of light, including lasers, optical systems and fibre optics—generates £1.3 billion in revenues, with more than 96 per cent coming from exports.

The growth that has been achieved warrants celebration. That is tremendous growth in tech against a backdrop of the challenges of Brexit, Covid, inflation and energy costs, which are faced by all industries, including technology, and the wider business community. The growth is testament to the strength and resilience of Scotland’s high-tech industries.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Scotland has always been very good at innovation and early-stage advanced technology. However, we have not been so good at taking that to the next level. What are we doing to make sure that overseas agencies do not come in, buy up our technology and take it away?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member raises an issue that is very topical and pertinent to the debate. Of course, at the moment, there is a huge amount of activity in Scotland, with lots of signs of progress in relation to that challenge. I will refer again to some of the progress that is now evident, because we want sticky jobs that stay in Scotland, which is particularly the case with tech jobs. In this country, we want not only to invent things but get the jobs and economic benefits from those inventions. I honestly think that there are signs of that now changing in this country.

Our national strategy for economic transformation and the recent innovation strategy set out a very clear model to build on that, by forging partnerships between Government, academia and industry to build an entrepreneurial, innovative and successful technology nation. Together, we have invested in an infrastructure that nurtures talent and provides opportunities to apply the technologies of tomorrow to the challenges of today. The National Manufacturing Institute Scotland, the medicines manufacturing innovation centre, the national robotarium and the Aberdeen BioHub are just a small sample of the new infrastructure that has opened, and those four examples have opened just in the past two years. The Scottish public contribution totalled more than £100 million for those projects. Since 2013, we have invested more than £155 million in innovation centres, and a further investment of up to £8 million per year was announced last week.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will take a final intervention.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I think that the minister knows what I am going to say. It is great to highlight that infrastructure that is in place, but how does that align with the Government’s decision to shut three of the seven innovation centres last week?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As the member knows, the Scottish Funding Council carried out a review—at arm’s length from Government—of long-term funding for innovation centres. A lot of work is going on with the innovation centres that did not secure long-term funding from the SFC on how the new model can work for them. The SFC is leading that exercise and I am confident that, in some shape or form, the great work that is carried out by some of those innovation centres will continue.

We have committed £60 million so far to the implementation of the “Scottish Technology Ecosystem Review” recommendations, including £42 million in our national and unique Techscaler network to support the next generation of Scottish start-ups over the next five years. We are also developing entrepreneurial campuses, with academics, researchers and students bringing new business ideas to life. This is the technology nation in action—our science excellence fuels our innovation and technology, with our world-class universities underpinning our tech revolution.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am happy to do so if I can get the time back.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Given the point that the minister just made about universities, is he concerned by the £28 million cut that they are facing this year?