Scottish Parliament, 8 February 2024

410 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Police Numbers (Edinburgh)

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the most recent “Police Scotland Officer & Staff Numbers” statistics showing the number of police officers in Police Scotland’s Edinburgh division. (S6O-03078)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The latest statistics on police officer numbers were published earlier this week, showing that there were 48 more officers deployed in Edinburgh as of 31 December 2023 compared to the same point in 2022. Additionally, the city’s E division is able to access specialist regional and national expertise when that is required to meet demand. I welcome the chief constable’s commitment to restarting officer recruitment in March, following the positive budget settlement for policing in the draft 2024-25 budget. That means that the chief constable will have more officers available to deploy, in addition to the almost 1,480 officers who have been recruited since the beginning of 2022.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Since the Scottish National Party Government decided to merge Scotland’s police forces into one, that action has had a devastating impact on the visible footprint of police officers in our communities. Despite the cabinet secretary’s response, in the Edinburgh police division alone, there has been a drop of 76 officers, which is a loss of more than one in 20 officers in just over a decade. It is no wonder that recorded violent crime in Edinburgh has increased by 10 per cent in the past year alone. Why has the SNP Government left our hard-working police officers to fend for themselves in the face of rising violent crime?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As I am sure the member is aware, since this Government took office in 2007, Scotland is safer—recorded crime is at one of the historic lows since 1974—and there has been a decrease of 40 per cent in recorded crime. I remind the member that our police officers remain the best paid in the United Kingdom, and that we continue to have more hard-working police officers now compared with what we inherited in 2007.

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

While the UK Government continues to slash Scotland’s public service funding, with the latest autumn statement imposing further damage after more than a decade of austerity, the Scottish Government has supported our vital emergency services and has increased pay for staff. Can the cabinet secretary provide detail on the funding that has been allocated in the recent draft budget and what it will mean for Police Scotland?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

If the UK Government is not cutting public services and the Scottish block grant, it is meddling with pension changes, which has a huge impact on the retention of police officers. Protecting front-line services and supporting those who deliver them is a key priority for the Scottish Government. That is why, despite the challenging financial circumstances, there is a very good settlement for the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland in the draft budget. We will invest £1.55 billion in policing in the next financial year, which is a significant increase of £75 million in resource and a 12.5 per cent increase in capital. As the budget progresses, I hope that we will have the Conservatives’ support, for the sake of policing in Scotland.

The Presiding Officer

As ever, there is much interest in the questions. I would be grateful if we could pick up the pace.

Psychological Services (Availability)

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure the availability of psychological services for all who need them. (S6O-03079)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We want people in Scotland, regardless of their background or circumstances, to have access to the right help at the right time when they struggle with their mental or physical health. To support the delivery of that ambition, the Scottish Government published the “National Specification for the Delivery of Psychological Therapies and Interventions in Scotland” in September 2023. The specification sets out what people can expect when they are referred for a psychological therapy. It also details the evidence-based treatments and whole-system approach that services should offer. That includes a choice to access our much-expanded range of digital interventions. More than £1.3 billion will be invested in mental health services and support in 2024-25. The implementation of the specification will help to ensure that our national health service delivers psychological therapies to the highest standard and will enable greater equity and consistency across Scotland.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The minister will be aware that I have recently written to her about the Lanarkshire Counselling and CBT Centre, which is based in Coatbridge. Set up in 2019, the service has already provided therapy to more than 9,000 people across Lanarkshire. It has more than 100 therapists on hand and can provide individual counselling and group work sessions. Crucially, there is no waiting list, so people can access the support when they need it. Local people seem to really value that service, which is undoubtedly taking pressure off other NHS services. Will the minister be open to visiting the centre and discussing the further supports that are available to allow it to continue to provide that service and to meet the increasing demand?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Our mental health and wellbeing strategy is absolutely clear on the need for a wide range of options to provide support for those who need it. I am aware of the member’s letter and will respond as soon as I can. I welcome him drawing that to my attention and I appreciate the additional support that the centre is providing in Lanarkshire.

We continue to work with NHS boards across Scotland to offer high-quality, enhanced and specialist psychological care by implementing the new national specification for psychological therapies. We are focusing on increasing public access to free, evidence-based therapies throughout the NHS.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Recent figures show that one in four consultant psychiatrist roles are currently vacant. All the while, the Government is freezing the mental health budget again and is failing to meet its waiting time targets. Does the minister accept that mental health will be a priority for the Government only when it starts treating it as such?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

We continue to invest record amounts in mental health provision across the country to ensure that people’s needs are met effectively, safely and in a timely fashion. We are working in an unprecedented financial situation, which might lead to difficult decisions about future investment, but we remain committed to supporting all boards to achieve the standard that 90 per cent of patients start treatment within 18 weeks of referral and to improving the quality as well as the choice of treatments. A suite of work is going on across the board—from medical student level to consultant level—to increase the number of psychiatrists and trainees at every level. Recently, we have had huge investment in psychological therapies, so clinical psychology numbers have gone up. As a result of that work, the median waiting time for psychological therapies—from referral to being seen—is now a mere three weeks.

The Presiding Officer

From this point, to enable more members to contribute, we will have concise questions and responses.

Budget 2024-25 (Primary Care Services)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has conducted an analysis of the potential impact that its 2024-25 budget will have on primary care services. (S6O-03080)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The draft budget invests more than £2.1 billion in primary care to improve preventative care in the community, by supporting the development of multidisciplinary teams in general practice, sustaining national health service dental care through enhanced fees, and continuing free eye examinations.

In-depth analysis of specific primary care service requirements was fed into budget considerations at both official and ministerial level. For example, delivery projections for multidisciplinary teams were assessed using six-monthly primary care improvement plan trackers, while, for dentistry and optometry—which are predominantly demand-led lines—forecast models and estimates of activity were prepared to inform budget allocation.

In addition to assessment of financial need, equality impact assessments were conducted as necessary to support changes in policy, and they can be found on the budget web pages.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We know that general practitioner numbers have decreased since 2017 to fewer than 3,500 whole-time equivalents, although demand has increased substantially. Is there not now a strong case for reconfiguring the health budget so that there is more emphasis on primary care?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scotland continues to have

a higher number of GPs per head of population than the rest of the United Kingdom. A record number of GPs are working in Scotland and we are committed to increasing that number further. The GP head count now sits consistently at more than 5,000, with an increase of 271 additional GPs since 2017. We also invest more than £1 million per annum in a range of recruitment and retention initiatives, so that working as a GP in Scotland remains an attractive career choice.

Covid-19 (Scottish Government Decisions)

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Covid-19 inquiry, what its response is to reports that Scottish Government decisions appeared to have been taken for “purely political” reasons, including comments made by the former First Minister’s chief of staff regarding seeking a “good old-fashioned rammy” with the UK Government. (S6O-03081)

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

The comments that Mr Findlay refers to were extracted from evidence regarding the furlough scheme, which was controlled by the UK Government. The comments were for the purpose of delivering the right results: to push the UK Government into action to ensure that furlough would be available to the people of Scotland if the Scottish Government wanted to apply restrictions. Throughout the pandemic, our sole focus and intention was to protect the people of Scotland from the harms of Covid-19. The Scottish Government remains wholly committed to assisting the UK and Scottish Covid-19 inquiries in all their work.

The Presiding Officer

Before I call Mr Findlay, I ask Mr Lumsden to refrain from commenting.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Those comments were not from some junior civil servant or back bencher. They were said by former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s right-hand woman, her closest adviser. Liz Lloyd was one of the most powerful people in the Government, with huge influence over key Covid decisions, including on the numbers of people who were allowed at funerals and weddings. When she says that the Scottish National Party should act for “purely political” reasons and provoke a “rammy” with the UK Government, we should believe her. Does that not show the very worst of the SNP’s toxic nationalist agenda—exploiting a pandemic to try to drive a wedge between the people of the UK?

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

First and foremost, I found Mr Findlay’s use of language repulsive given that he was talking about Covid-19 and the families who suffered during that period.

Mr Findlay’s supplementary question was a bit confused at best, but I will endeavour, as always, to try to give the member an answer. As I said in my original answer, it was for a purpose—to deliver results for the people of Scotland, to protect them from harm and to ensure that they had financial liquidity during a very difficult period in our recent past. Surely Mr Findlay thinks that that is a good thing for the people of Scotland.

Humanitarian Aid (Funding Criteria)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what criteria it considers when determining how to allocate funding for humanitarian aid in situations such as those in Gaza. (S6O-03082)

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

The primary mechanism through which the Scottish Government responds to a humanitarian crisis is the humanitarian emergency fund. Decisions on which crises to respond to through the HEF are made by the Scottish ministers, based on recommendations from a panel of eight leading humanitarian aid organisations.

We have recently responded to emergencies in Pakistan, Malawi, Ukraine, Turkey and Syria, and Gaza. Key considerations in those cases were which organisations were already on the ground and able to provide a rapid response and value for money. That was the case for Gaza and, similarly, for Zambia, for which I announced last week £500,000 to respond to a deadly cholera epidemic through the Red Cross.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The humanitarian crisis that we have seen unfold in Gaza is harrowing and is worsening by the day, underscoring the need for urgent action. Does the minister agree that the only way to ensure mutual peace and security is through the recognition of a Palestinian state, alongside a binding commitment to the two-state solution? Can she say what representations the Scottish Government has made to the United Kingdom Government with regard to such recognition?

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

I do not think that anyone can look at the images that we are seeing on our TV screens every day and not realise that we need a ceasefire now in order to bring about progress to peace. I wish all the sides well, and I will continue to do that.

We would add our voice to that aim. The Scottish Government supports a two-state solution. We think that it is the only way to progress to peace. In November last year, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister in those terms. We will continue to make such representations to the UK Government as the issue continues. Today is another example of the Scottish Government calling on the UK Government to get round the table, call for a ceasefire and make some progress to peace in order to support the people—the civilians—in Gaza.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

A

ll of us despair about the on-going conflict and crisis that is happening the world over, but that is my point—there is conflict the world over. In that vein, what criteria does the Scottish Government use to decide where and to whom it sends financial aid and what due diligence does it undertake before and during such financial payments?

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

I will ensure that Jamie Greene gets more details on our humanitarian emergency fund and our partners in it. Eight leading humanitarian aid organisations are involved in the decision-making process. When they alert us to an on-going or a possible crisis, we take their advice and decide whether it meets the criteria for funding from the humanitarian emergency fund.

The system that we have in place is well rehearsed and organised. I will ensure that Jamie Greene gets more detail on the HEF and conversations with key partners such as Oxfam, which gives us a sitrep almost every day on the situation in Gaza.

Predator Control (Animal Welfare Standards)

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that all legal predator control is carried out in a way that is consistent with best practice in animal welfare standards. (S6O-03083)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I recognise that control of predators is sometimes necessary in order to protect livestock and other vulnerable species. However, the Government is committed to the highest standards of animal welfare, which we are demonstrating through provisions that we are bringing forward in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill to ban the use of glue traps and snares, for example. We are also seeking to license the use of certain cage and spring traps to ensure that trapping is undertaken only in line with best practice for animal welfare.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

The minister will be aware of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics report “Killing to Kill”, which examines the trapping and killing of animals so that more grouse can be shot for sport. Will that ethical issue be addressed through the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Yes, that issue will be addressed. The “Killing to Kill” report highlighted that 39 per cent of animals trapped in a range of traps are “non-target species”, such as hedgehogs and protected species such as badgers. Our recent decision to ban the use of snares in Scotland is in part due to their indiscriminate nature and the unacceptable risk that they pose to non-target species, including other wildlife and domestic species—we have heard many reports of domestic cats being caught in snares.

The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill will require that individuals who use traps, such as Larsen or crow cage traps, to capture live birds have to undertake training in order to hold a licence. When they are operated in line with best practice, those traps have a much lower risk of trapping non-target species.

Scottish Languages Bill (Areas of Linguistic Significance)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government what support will be put in place to assist local authorities in establishing “areas of linguistic significance”, as set out in the Scottish Languages Bill.

Gus faighneachd de Riaghaltas na h-Alba dè an taic a bhios ann do dh’ughdarrasan ionadail a tha airson àitichean a tha “sònraichte a thaobh cànain” a stèidheachadh, mar a chaidh a chur an làthair ann am Bile nan Cànan Albannach. (S6O-03084)

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

The designation of areas of linguistic significance will ultimately be a matter for local authorities. For areas that may wish to be designated as areas of linguistic significance, a range of Gaelic support and provision is already in place, which includes the central Scottish Government funding support, the commitments of public bodies and local activity from Gaelic community organisations. That support will be built on and strengthened by the new provisions in the Scottish Languages Bill. Guidance will also be prepared to assist local authorities in their process of considering areas in their local area that could benefit from designation.

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

Can the cabinet secretary say any more at present about whether the Scottish Government or Bòrd na Gàidhlig may seek to place a duty on local authorities to establish an area of linguistic significance where, for example, a high proportion of the population are Gaelic speakers?

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

As Dr Allan will be aware, it is fair to say that there is a range of opinions on the matter. However, I expect that, during the parliamentary consideration, views will be offered that suggest that the Scottish Government or Bòrd na Gàidhlig should have an enhanced role in the designation of areas of linguistic significance. We are still at a very early stage with the legislation, but I assure the member that I will seriously consider those views and any observations that the Education, Children and Young People Committee might wish to make.

Michael Matheson (Resignation)

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. I begin by sending my deepest condolences and, I am sure, those of the entire chamber to the family of Keith Rollinson, who tragically died following an assault at Elgin bus station last Friday. Keith died serving his community, and there is a huge amount of shock and anger across Moray. Keith was a loving husband and father, and our thoughts are with his family at this deeply tragic time, as well as with his many friends and colleagues at Stagecoach.

I echo what the Presiding Officer said earlier this week, following the King’s announcement that he is receiving treatment for cancer. We wish His Majesty and the entire royal family all the very best for the King’s full and speedy recovery. [

Applause

.]

Michael Matheson has finally resigned as health secretary, months after it emerged that he was dishonest and misled Parliament over an £11,000 iPad bill that he charged to taxpayers. Humza Yousaf described Michael Matheson as

“a man of integrity and honesty.”

How much does the First Minister now regret those words?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I, too, pay my condolences, as I did earlier this week, to the family of Keith Rollinson. His tragic killing has undoubtedly impacted not just his family but the local community. As someone whose family members were previously bus drivers, I know that that community is extremely close, so all of the bus-driving community will be impacted and affected by that tragic killing.

I echo what I said earlier this week. After His Majesty’s openness about his recent prostate treatment, I, like many, was moved and saddened to hear of his subsequent unrelated cancer diagnosis. As a supporter of many cancer charities over the years, His Majesty’s candour is admirable. A cancer diagnosis is a cause of great worry in any family, and I wish His Majesty a speedy and full recovery. He and the entire royal family are in my thoughts and prayers and, I am sure, the thoughts and prayers of everybody in the chamber.

On the question of substance that Douglas Ross asked, Michael Matheson made a mistake and has apologised for that mistake. What he asked for was due process. I think that somebody who has served this Parliament, served his country and served in the Government—not for years but for decades—should be afforded that due process. As that due process comes to its conclusion, Michael Matheson has concluded that he should stand down, and I have accepted his resignation.

The Conservatives talking about integrity in public life will be quite galling for those who are listening. I remind Douglas Ross that he called Boris Johnson an “honest man”. That would be the Boris Johnson who lied about partygate. That would be the Conservatives, of course, who awarded multimillion-pound personal protective equipment contracts to their pals. If there is one party in the chamber that has no credibility in talking about integrity in public life, it is the Conservatives.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As clear as day, there was

not a bit of regret from the First Minister about claiming that Michael Matheson is

“a man of integrity and honesty.”

The First Minister said that the former health secretary came to his decision after due process. Mr Matheson says in his two-page letter that he has not received the findings of the review but thinks that it is in his best interests and the best interests of the Scottish National Party Government that he resigns. If he is so keen on due process, why not wait for the report to be published?

Let us be clear. Michael Matheson was dishonest about his £11,000 iPad bill. He made a false claim for thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money. He misled the public, the press and this Parliament. He kept on being dishonest, even as his story changed. He has resigned, but Humza Yousaf should have sacked him the minute it became clear that Michael Matheson had not told the truth. In the former health secretary’s lengthy letter, there is not one word of apology to the people of Scotland for what he did and for his dishonesty. I hope that the First Minister will apologise on his behalf.

Why did Humza Yousaf continue to have this disgraced minister in his Government for months after the situation first came to light?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

First Minister, before you begin, I remind members that the investigation process, which is a confidential process, is still on-going.

The First Minister

As I said, Michael Matheson reiterated in his letter that, as the process is coming to a conclusion, he has offered his resignation, and I have accepted his resignation.

I remind Douglas Ross that, when it comes to mistakes being made, he forgot to declare tens of thousands of pounds of income—he simply forgot to do that. I do not think that I asked for Douglas Ross’s resignation at that time, because we understand that mistakes can happen.

Douglas Ross said that Michael Matheson did not apologise, but that is incorrect—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Can we please have quiet so that we can all hear the questions and responses?

The First Minister

That is incorrect. If Douglas Ross wants to look at the

Official Report

—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Mr Ross!

The First Minister

Douglas Ross

might not want to listen to what I have to say, but he can read the

Official Report

of the personal statement that Michael Matheson made in the chamber. He reiterated his apology on numerous occasions for the mistake that he had made. He did make a mistake; I am not suggesting that he did not. All that I am suggesting is that a man who has served this Parliament for many years—decades, in fact—and who has worked diligently and hard in every role that he has been in should be afforded due process. He has been afforded that due process and has come to the conclusion that he should stand down.

What he has helped to achieve is the recovery of our national health service. That process is, of course, on-going but, under Michael Matheson and this Government, we have been focused on the recovery of the NHS. That includes, of course, record funding for our NHS—

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister

—

which is in stark contrast to the Conservative Government, which is imposing real-terms cuts on the NHS in England.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Michael Matheson tried to cheat the taxpayer out of tens of thousands of pounds. He has been backed every step of the way by Humza Yousaf, and he is still being backed by the First Minister. Even when the former health secretary’s story changed, Humza Yousaf was still there defending him. He stood by him even when Michael Matheson had to cancel appearances at general practitioner surgeries and stop doing his job to avoid scrutiny. Humza Yousaf let Michael Matheson continue to be health secretary while he was distracted and was a distraction. The First Minister was just about the only person who still supported Michael Matheson. Humza Yousaf staked his own personal reputation on backing the former health secretary. Why was he willing to tolerate such dishonesty?

The First Minister

Let me again remind Douglas Ross what we have been focused on. Let us look at the facts and at the recovery of the NHS. In Scotland, we have the best-performing accident and emergency departments in the entire United Kingdom. We have provided a real-terms uplift for the NHS in Scotland while the Tories have inflicted a real-terms cut to NHS England to the tune of more than £1 billion. Under the Scottish National Party, there is record staffing in NHS Scotland, which is up by more than 31,000. In Scotland, we have the best-paid NHS staff anywhere in the UK. The number of out-patients who have been waiting for more than two years has reduced by almost 70 per cent, and the number of in-patients who have been waiting for more than two years has reduced by more than 25 per cent. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

First Minister.

The First Minister

The Conservatives do not want to hear it, Presiding Officer, because it points to an NHS recovery.

The Presiding Officer

Can I remind all members of the atmosphere that we wish to have at this session? We want members to be able to put questions and to respond in an orderly manner, and we wish to be able to hear one another.

The First Minister

Unlike where the Tories are in charge, Scotland has not lost a single day of NHS activity to strike action—due to the deal that Michael Matheson concluded, that includes strike action by junior doctors. We are a Government that takes great pride in supporting our NHS at its time of greatest need, which is in stark contrast to a Tory Government that is gutting NHS England to the bones.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

From that answer,

it is as if Humza Yousaf does not realise that his disgraced former health secretary resigned this morning. It is incredible.

Humza Yousaf said that the £11,000 claim was a “legitimate parliamentary expense”. Months ago, the First Minister claimed that the matter was closed—that there was nothing more to see here. Last year, he told me in the chamber that he had “absolute and full confidence” in Michael Matheson. He said that Michael Matheson was

“a man of integrity and honesty.”

Humza Yousaf backed him to the hilt, but most of Scotland has known from the very beginning that Michael Matheson was dishonest. Humza Yousaf’s own reputation is in tatters over the scandal. He looks weak.

Trust in this Government is gone, the SNP’s credibility is gone and Michael Matheson is gone, but Humza Yousaf, the human shield, is still here defending him. How can anyone trust a single word that this SNP Government says ever again?

The First Minister

Well, well, well, Presiding Officer. Douglas Ross wants to talk about trust, but did he not see yesterday’s Ipsos MORI poll, which showed that we in the SNP are trusted—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

First Minister!

We are simply not going to conduct our business in this manner. I ask front-bench members, in particular, to set the best of examples.

The First Minister

The Tories do not want to listen to the facts

. The facts show that the SNP continues to be trusted by the people of Scotland over the NHS, the economy, transport and health, in stark contrast to the Conservatives.

How dare Douglas Ross talk about standards in public life in the week in which his leader, the Prime Minister—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

First Minister!

Mr Ross, you have put your questions. The First Minister is now responding. Let us do one another the courtesy—w

e might not always agree with what we are hearing, but we are simply not going to shout at one another, are we?

The First Minister

How dare Douglas Ross stand up in this Parliament, in this chamber, in this week of all weeks, and talk about standards in public life when his leader, the Prime Minister, quite literally gambled with the lives of the most vulnerable? Just yesterday, the Prime Minister decided to punch down on one of the most marginalised communities in the entire country. Of course, he did that not just on any day; he did it on the day that Brianna Ghey’s mother was in the House of Commons. That was a disgrace. It was shameful. So, I will take no lectures whatsoever from the Conservatives on standards and integrity in public life.

NHS (Delays in Accessing Treatment)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

2. I join colleagues in paying our respects and passing on our condolences to the family of Keith Rollinson. He was a much-loved member of his community. I know from my family in Elgin how deeply wounded and hurt the community in Elgin is feeling over this period.

I also echo the comments that have been made about sending our thoughts and best wishes to King Charles and his loved ones. We hope that His Majesty makes a full and speedy recovery.

After months of Humza Yousaf battling to keep Michael Matheson in his job, today the health secretary has finally resigned. That will make the headlines today, but the crisis in our national health service has been 17 years in the making. Humza Yousaf might hope that swapping one failing Scottish National Party minister for another will solve the problems, but it will not.

I want to ask about the real-life consequences of the Government’s failure. Although the Government pretends that there is no crisis and that it has everything under control, that is not the experience of patients across the country. For many people, delays in accessing treatment can be fatal. Can the First Minister tell Parliament how many people called an ambulance last year but died before they could reach an accident and emergency department?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not have that figure in front of me, but I can say that a significant chunk of the winter funding that we announced was to recruit additional staff to the Scottish Ambulance Service.

I take real exception to Anas Sarwar’s characterisation of the situation as one in which nobody in the Government understands the real challenges that the NHS is under. We do. In fact, we are the ones who brought forward the recovery plan that is helping the NHS to recover. That is why there has been a reduction in the number of out-patients who have been waiting longest—those who have been waiting two years or more. That figure has reduced by almost 70 per cent. The number of in-patients waiting more than two years has been reduced by more than 25 per cent.

There is not a single person on the this front bench who does not understand the significant challenges for the NHS. That is why we are ensuring additional resources for the Scottish Ambulance Service. I would be happy to write to Anas Sarwar with the details of what we are doing to tackle the far-too-long ambulance waiting times across the country.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That answer proves how much Humza Yousaf has his head in the sand. He talks about a recovery plan, but waiting lists have gone up since he published his recovery plan, and more than 800,000 of our fellow Scots are on NHS waiting lists while he dithers around looking for a decent statistic in his book. He needs to wake up to the reality that is faced by far too many Scots.

The answer to the question that I asked is that there were more than 12,000 people last year for whom an ambulance was called but who died before reaching hospital. That figure is up from just over 7,100 in 2019, which is an increase of more than 70 per cent in just four years. Many of those people might have survived if an ambulance had reached them sooner or if they had been admitted to hospital more quickly. That is the real-world consequence of the SNP’s incompetence and its failure to get to grips with the crisis in our NHS.

Here is another example. Back when Humza Yousaf was health secretary, the Government promised that all 150,000 women who had been wrongly excluded from cervical screening would be contacted by August 2021. More than two and a half years later, 65,000 women are still waiting to have their cases reviewed and to hear whether they are at risk. Why has the Government failed those women?

The First Minister

Anas Sarwar rightly raises a couple of important issues, but when he interrogates issues in the health service, he talks about the past four years without giving any recognition to something quite significant that happened in the past four years: there was a global pandemic, which was the biggest shock that the NHS has faced in its 75-year existence. NHS services in Labour-run Wales, in Conservative-run England and in SNP-run Scotland are all facing really significant challenges because of that global pandemic. Anas Sarwar cannot simply say that things have deteriorated in four years without giving any context whatsoever. It is quite something for Anas Sarwar to say that things should have got better in the midst of a global pandemic.

Regarding current waiting lists, there is no suggestion from me that we should do anything other than focus on reducing those waiting times. I can look at the throughput of operations performed. In the past year, there was an 11 per cent increase in the number of operations performed, compared with the previous 12 months, and a more than 15 per cent increase, compared with the 12 months before that. There is no doubt that too many people in Scotland are waiting. We are working to reduce that number, where we can.

I can give Anas Sarwar more detail in writing about the women who might have been affected by issues with cervical cancer screening. Having done an initial audit, NHS boards reached out to women who were deemed to be most at risk and have taken the appropriate action, where necessary. I am more than happy to write to Anas Sarwar with more detail, but it would be incorrect to suggest that they are at risk, or at high risk. There has been a focus on the women who were impacted and whom clinicians believe to be at the highest risk of cervical cancer.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am honestly gobsmacked by the First Minister’s outrageous answer. He says that there is no evidence that those women are at high risk, but that is why their cases are being reviewed. Three women have died while waiting for that review and 65,000 women still have not been processed by the review. I think that he should look seriously at what is actually happening in the national health service that he presides over, because the reality is that those women, and too many other people who need the NHS, are being failed by an incompetent SNP Government. The result is that A and E delays get worse, waiting lists grow, staff burn out and patients’ lives are put at risk.

The Government would rather deny its incompetence than face up to the problem. Its financial mismanagement is further threatening front-line NHS services. It would rather continue with a culture of secrecy than learn the lessons of its failures.

Whoever this weak First Minister chooses to be the next health secretary, is not it the case that we need more than a change of health secretary, and that we need a change from this failing and incompetent SNP Government?

The First Minister

Anas Sarwar has completely mischaracterised what I said. As he knows—I am happy to provide him with more detail, if he does not—the review of cervical screening exclusions had two parts to it. There was the initial review of 1,500 records, which was completed in 2021, and a much wider review of all exclusions from the programme, which is very much on-going and covers about 150,000 individuals. I am more than happy to provide Anas Sarwar with the full details of the progress that is being made.

Under this Government’s stewardship of the NHS there has been record staffing, and we have the best-paid staff anywhere in the United Kingdom. We have not lost a single day to strike action, unlike Labour-run Wales and Conservative-run England. We are making a dent in the longest waits for people who were impacted by the global pandemic.

What does not help recovery is the devastating cuts to the budget by the Conservatives. It would be really helpful if Anas Sarwar was able to confirm that UK Labour, if it forms the next UK Government, would reverse those Tory cuts. What we have had from Labour, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, however, is absolute confirmation that they will not reverse Tory spending cuts.

The Presiding Officer

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister

I am afraid that, while we currently face headwinds of austerity from the Conservative Government, it does not look like the situation will change under a UK Labour Government.

Scottish Government (Use and Retention of Informal Communications)

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

3. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Scottish Information Commissioner’s intervention into its use and retention of informal communications, in light of the United Kingdom Covid-19 Inquiry. (S6F-02813)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Government is committed to complying with all of its legal obligations in relation to freedom of information and records management legislation. We received details about the intervention yesterday afternoon, and we will, of course, fully co-operate with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office once we have considered the contents fully.

I have already instructed that there should be an externally led review looking at use of mobile messaging apps and non-corporate technology. Given that we have heard that the former Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland were unable to provide the UK Covid inquiry with any WhatsApp messages, due to their having been deleted, the Deputy First Minister has written to the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the new Northern Ireland Executive to invite them to participate in that externally led review

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On the day that the disgraced health secretary is forced to quit the shambolic and secretive Scottish Government, it is worth reminding Parliament that the Scottish National Party’s deputy leader, Keith Brown, claimed last year that the SNP was

“the most transparent party in Scotland”.

Since then, Nicola Sturgeon has revealed that she deleted each and every one of her informal Covid-related messages—in line, she said, with Scottish Government policy. Last October, however, Humza Yousaf claimed that he kept and retained his WhatsApp messages from that period. To assist the Scottish Information Commissioner with his investigation, will the First Minister now confirm who breached his Government’s record management rules—Nicola Sturgeon or Humza Yousaf?

The First Minister

A poll that has come out in the past few days has shown that 51 per cent of Scottish voters—[

Laughter

.] Members are laughing at this; they do not want to hear it. It said that 51 per cent of Scottish voters feel that the Scottish Government handled the pandemic better; just 13 per cent thought that the UK Government had handled the pandemic better. I really do not think that the party that was secretly handing over multimillion-pound personal protective equipment contracts to its donors and friends should be lecturing anybody about transparency. That party’s leader took the inquiry to court and lost. That party was breaking the rules, with partying in number 10 while people were missing the funerals of their loved ones. Of all the parties that might lecture anybody on public integrity or transparency, it should certainly not be the Tories—and certainly not Craig Hoy.

Long Covid

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

4. To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on what progress the Scottish Government has made towards implementing the recommendations of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee’s report, “Long COVID”. (S6F-02821)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Since the publication of the “Long COVID” report, to which we responded in June 2023, a number of recommendations have been implemented. They include publishing a suite of educational resources on NHS Education for Scotland’s learning platform to improve healthcare staff’s knowledge and understanding of the condition of long Covid and NHS National Services Scotland commissioning the University of Leeds to support the initial evaluation of long Covid services in Scotland.

Over this financial year, we have made available £3 million of the £10 million long Covid support fund to support national health service boards to increase the capacity of the services that support those with the condition, develop those services into more clearly defined local pathways and provide a more co-ordinated experience for those who need to access support.

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

Addressing stigma and the lack of a single point of contact, evaluation of other approaches to treatment and signposting for affected patients was all recognised as being vital for us to make progress to help sufferers. Will the First Minister reassure the people who are affected that those issues are being taken forward to allow them to learn to live with the condition or to be treated, and to get on with their lives?

The First Minister

Yes. Jim Fairlie makes important points about stigma and establishing in every health board a single point of contact for long Covid patients. I mentioned the funding that was provided. I am also happy to write to Jim Fairlie with details of long Covid services that are available in our health boards.

We continue to engage with people who are living with long Covid to develop case study videos for NHS Inform, which will provide an insight into people’s personal experiences of living with the condition, and to help us to co-design the policy that is required in relation to long Covid.

The identification, assessment and management of people with long Covid is very much guided by United Kingdom-wide clinical guidelines, which were developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network and the Royal College of General Practitioners. The guidelines were developed using a living approach, which means that they will continue to develop and evolve as we learn more about long Covid.

I therefore give Jim Fairlie an assurance that is not just about tackling the stigma involved in seeking help, because nobody—at all, ever—should feel that they cannot reach out for help; I give him a further assurance that any policy that we design in relation to long Covid will be co-designed with those who have lived experience.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister mentioned the publishing of material. On 31 January, the Scottish Government issued an update on long Covid guidance on NHS Inform via the official @scotgovhealth channel on X, formerly known as Twitter. It was endorsed by the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto. The video downplays the challenges that individuals who are grappling with long Covid encounter, fails to fully represent the diversity of symptoms and the severity of long Covid, and disregards treatment for symptom management. In a joint statement, UK long Covid charities urged the Scottish Government to withdraw the video and to apologise. Will the First Minister do so?

I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.

The First Minister

I will, of course, listen to what long Covid charities have to say. We take the issues of long Covid very seriously indeed, and we recognise the impact that it has on the health and wellbeing of those who are affected—not just adults but children as well. We know that people can have a range of experiences.

The video that Dr Gulhane mentioned was made with the input of health professionals and people who are living with long Covid. I give him an absolute guarantee that we will continue to engage with those who have lived experience, including the organisations that he referenced, and will take on board their comments.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

A report from Washington University in St Louis found that those who had had Covid-19 had a 72 per cent increased risk of heart failure, a 63 per cent increased risk of heart attack and a 52 per cent increased risk of stroke, regardless of age. Similar things are happening to other organs in people who have symptoms that are characteristic of long Covid. The problem has not gone away; long Covid persists.

The recommendations in the committee’s report were largely about the collection of data, because little evidence is collected centrally by the Government. What progress has been made to ensure the consistent collection of long Covid data?

The First Minister

Jackie Baillie is absolutely right that one of the report’s recommendations was on data collection. The Scottish health survey provides annual monitoring of the population prevalence of long Covid. It includes questions about self-reported long Covid and, more qualitatively, the impact on day-to-day activities. The Scottish health survey for 2022 was published on 5 December 2023. We should seek to see what more we can do to improve that data collection, as per the committee report. I am happy to ensure that Jackie Baillie gets full details of what health boards are seeking to do to improve their data collection on long Covid.

The Promise

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Who Cares? Scotland research report, “Is Scotland Keeping the Promise?”, which reportedly indicates that, on the fourth anniversary of the publication of “The Promise”, key pledges made to care-experienced people are not being fulfilled. (S6F-02810)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank

Who Cares? Scotland for the continued important work that it does to support the care-experienced community across Scotland. We are carefully considering the findings of the report. We are determined to drive forward the transformational change that is required to keep the Promise and make Scotland the very best place in the world to grow up in, where all children are loved and feel safe and respected.

Yesterday, I had the enormous pleasure of visiting the Hub for Success, which is hosted by Edinburgh Napier University and supported by Scottish Government Promise partnership funding. I met care-experienced students, who shared the positive impact that the service had on them.

There is, as the report has undoubtedly highlighted, more work to do, which we do not shy away from. However, we should also share and celebrate where change is being felt. One key area in which there has been clear progress is in the number of looked-after children. The latest statistics show that there were almost 2,000 fewer looked-after children in July 2022 than there were when the Promise started in July 2020. That does not take away from the work that still has to be done, but I am pleased by some of the progress that we are seeing.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I agree that Who Cares? Scotland deserves credit for the report, which highlights areas of progress but also major areas of concern. To give one example, its freedom of information investigation uncovered that care-experienced children have lost more than 1.3 million school days to exclusion, despite the Promise pledging to end that exclusion. That could be just the tip of the iceberg, as several councils could not provide any data.

We need transparency, accountability and leadership if we are to fulfil the Promise, but lack of data is a constant theme of the report. Does the First Minister agree that, to keep the Promise, we have to tackle quality of data? Will he and his Government urgently review the data that is held by public authorities and report annually to Parliament? What we have here is not good enough.

The First Minister

I largely agree with Monica Lennon and the Who Cares? Scotland report that data collection, recording, monitoring and reporting is key to tracking progress and ensuring that we are delivering the change that we need. I assure her that we are working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Promise Scotland and wider stakeholders to develop the national Promise performance outcomes framework—which will be aligned to the 2024 to 2030 plan—to track progress.

I entirely take the points that Monica Lennon made. I am happy to ensure that the appropriate minister writes to her with details of the conversations that we are having with local government about data collection.

School exclusions were mentioned to me in my meeting with the care-experienced community just yesterday. A whole raft of work has been going on to reduce school exclusions to the absolute minimum where we can. I thank Who Cares? Scotland and all the other stakeholders that are working with us to deal with those challenging issues.

The Presiding Officer

Concise questions and responses will enable more members to be involved.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill will play an important part in keeping the Promise. As Parliament moves forward and looks to further improve the bill at stage 3, does the First Minister agree that, despite the complexity of doing so, it is crucial that, in reforming the care and justice system, we uphold and promote the rights of all children, whether they are in direct contact with the system as witnesses, victims or perpetrators or are impacted because of a family member?

The First Minister

Yes—

I absolutely agree. I am proud that Scotland became the first nation in the United Kingdom to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law. The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill is taking measures to promote that and to help Scotland to keep the Promise.

Action to improve the experiences of child victims and their families is an absolute top priority for all of us, I am sure, and particularly for the Government. We have engaged with stakeholders including Victim Support Scotland, which has helped to inform the bill, and the bill completed stage 2 just yesterday. Protecting and promoting the rights of all children who come into contact with the justice system is at the heart of the bill, which will be an important step towards improving outcomes for young people as we keep the Promise.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I note the First Minister’s reference to 2,000 fewer children being in the care system. However, I highlight the report’s statement that that could evidence a “worrying failure”. Given that social workers have a crucial role in keeping the Promise, the revelation that more than 83 per cent of social workers had an absence from work in 2023 because of sickness is very concerning. How will the Scottish Government ensure that local authorities receive adequate support and funding to enable them to have sufficient staffing levels so that care-experienced children, young people and their families receive the support that they deserve?

The First Minister

We will ensure that we fund our local services and local authorities adequately. That is why they are getting a real-terms uplift in the budget, as announced by the Deputy First Minister. That is despite the fact that we have seen a real-terms cut to our budget of about £500 million over the past couple of years.

The social work workforce is employed primarily by local authorities, which monitor staff absence levels. We recognise the pressure that that workforce is under. We are working with partners who have a collective responsibility to our front-line workers to seek ways in which we can support that workforce. That includes the development, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, of a joint workforce improvement plan that seeks to address the recruitment and retention challenges that the profession faces.

We have formed a joint social care and social work services workforce task force, which is considering how we could deliver improvements for the workforce in adult social care and children’s social care. Our proposals for the national care service include the establishment of a national social work agency to support and invest in the profession by providing national leadership, raising the status of social work as a profession and considering the future needs of the workforce.

Long-term Empty Homes (Enforcement Powers)

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to strengthen enforcement powers in relation to long-term empty homes. (S6F-02798)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Tackling empty homes is a priority. We want to see more homes being returned to productive use as warm, safe and secure housing. That is why we continue to fund the Scottish Empty Homes Partnership, which since 2010 has helped to bring more than 9,000 homes back into use. We have recently given councils the power to increase council tax on second homes by up to 100 per cent. We have also consulted on proposals for primary legislation to give councils powers to raise council tax above 100 per cent for long-term empty homes. Where we need to rely on enforcement, local authorities have broad compulsory purchase powers that can be, and are being, used to bring empty homes back into use.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

More action on empty homes is a commitment in the shared policy programme between the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Government. Therefore, the proposal to allow councils further powers to increase council tax on long-term empty properties is important, as is effective use of enforcement powers. Last week, in Glasgow, a backstop was evidenced, with the news that three properties are to be acquired through compulsory purchase for use by housing associations. Does the First Minister recognise the need for reform of the compulsory purchase order system to make it more workable? Does he agree with the recommendations of the independent audit of the Scottish Government’s long-term empty homes policy that it should also consider the merits of enforced sales and rental orders?

The First Minister

I welcome the news of Glasgow City Council’s use of compulsory purchase order powers. I agree that consideration of how we might reform and modernise the CPO process is vital, which is why we committed to progressing the matter in our programme for government. I am pleased to say that we will shortly establish an expert advisory group to inform us on the development of options.

We have also committed to continuing to consider the case for introducing compulsory sales orders. The expert group will consider the extent to which CPO reform could achieve the same aims. The same considerations would also apply to compulsory leasing.

Most long-term empty homes are returned to use through proactive work with the owner to identify barriers and ways to overcome them. We will continue to support that work, alongside ensuring that taxation and enforcement tools to incentivise the reuse of such homes are available.

The Presiding Officer

We move to constituency and general supplementaries.

EE Greenock Call Centre

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

At 11 am this morning, EE announced that it will be closing its Greenock call centre site on 30 November. That will affect more than 450 people in my constituency, who will now be forced either to work in Glasgow or to find another job.

Can the First Minister give a guarantee that the Scottish Government agencies will be on hand to assist those who require it? Will he provide an assurance that the Scottish Government will leave no stone unturned to help Inverclyde? We are now to have another large facility left empty, when we need a replacement for both Greenock police station and the West College Scotland campus.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

This Government has a good record on investment in Inverclyde, and we will continue to work with the local authority to see what further support we may be able to provide.

First and foremost, my thoughts are with all of the 450 workers at the EE site in Greenock; I am very sorry to hear of the news that was given to them at 11 am. I can give those workers, and Stuart McMillan as the local MSP, an assurance that the Scottish Government will engage not only with the local authority, as I said, but with the company directly, where we can.

We will do what we can through our PACE—partnership action for continuing employment—initiative to help those workers who have been affected, should they need it, to look for further employment should that be required. I will ensure that the appropriate minister keeps Stuart McMillan updated on those conversations.

NHS Borders (Deficit)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Rural health boards in Scotland have been forgotten about. The disgraced former Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care has been too focused on covering his own tracks and has failed to deliver for the rural health service in Scotland.

This week, we learned that NHS Borders is facing a potential deficit of £45 million. Front-line services will have to be cut, which will put my constituents at risk. Will the First Minister step up, once and for all, and deliver much-needed support to ensure that residents in the Borders do not receive second-class treatment?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

First and foremost, we do support rural health services. The national centre for remote and rural health and care is backed by an investment of £3 million until 2026. That centre will focus on improving the sustainability, capacity and capability of primary care and community-based workforces. We also offer incentives for general practitioners, for example, to work in rural locations, and we are funding 50 GP speciality training bursary posts in 2024-25 to attract GPs to rural Scotland.

Not only that, but—as I referred to in a previous response—the Scottish National Party Government is giving a real-terms uplift to the national health service in Scotland. That is in stark contrast to the Conservatives, who are gutting NHS England with a cut of more than £1.3 billion. Not only that, but in the autumn statement, we received a paltry £10.8 million in health consequentials from the United Kingdom Government. That would have provided not five weeks nor five months, but five hours, of NHS activity, so we will take no lessons from the Conservatives on funding our NHS.

Fatal Accident Inquiries (Deaths Abroad)

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Scotsman David Cornock died in Thailand in 2019. His father, Davy, believes that there is strong evidence that he was murdered. The Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was meant to enable the Lord Advocate to instruct fatal accident inquiries in such cases, yet it appears that zero fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of Scots abroad have taken place since the law was passed in 2016. The definition of “residency” that is used by our Scottish justice system appears to be at the heart of that failure. Does the First Minister agree with me, and with the families of Scots who have died abroad, that they should be afforded the same chance as other citizens across these islands to know the fate of their loved ones? What can he do to help to ensure that they get the answers that they deserve?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

First and foremost, I once again give my sympathies and condolences to the family of David Cornock. I agree with the premise that those Scots who lose loved ones should be able to get answers to their questions.

I am more than happy to look at legislation. Michael Marra is absolutely correct that it is the issue of residency—in that particular case, ordinary residency—that is causing the issue in that instance. He knows that decisions around FAIs are decisions not for the Government, but for the independent Lord Advocate, to take. Legislation is our responsibility, however, so I am happy to take a look and speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs on that matter. I will consider it further and respond to Michael Marra in due course.

State Pension

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

In the lead-up to the independence referendum, the better together campaign told people that “pensions are safer” in the United Kingdom. How hollow those words are now. Westminster has presided over the injustice that has been done to Women Against State Pension Inequality—WASPI—women; the state pension is shamefully inadequate as a result of years of austerity; and, although the state pension age is expected to rise to 68, reports this week suggest that it may rise even further, to 71. Can the First Minster give his response to how Westminster is failing Scotland’s older people time and time again?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

It is hardly a surprise that the—

The Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but that is not a question on a devolved matter.

Rail Services (East Lothian and Edinburgh)

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

This week, rail commuters travelling between East Lothian and Edinburgh experienced the consequences of Scottish National Party mismanagement, with a reduction in carriage numbers on the trains during the busy morning commute and overcrowding. One of the commuters, Gregor Millar, said:

“It’s uncomfortable, you have to stand and it becomes hard to hold onto anything. When I get on at Prestonpans you have to stand, when it gets to Wallyford people are just squeezing on, and at Musselburgh people can’t get on.”

Given those on-going issues, what assurances can the First Minister offer to Gregor Millar and other constituents that commuters who travel between East Lothian and Edinburgh can depend on a robust and reliable train service?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I was surprised that I was not able to answer the previous question, because it was related to pensioner poverty. I will give Clare Haughey a written answer—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

I am sorry, but I did not hear what you said, First Minister.

The First Minister

I will give Clare Haughey a written response to the question that she asked about pensioner poverty.

The Presiding Officer

Members will be aware of the requirement at First Minister’s question time to put questions that are the responsibility of the First Minister and the devolved Government. I think that, at this stage of the session, members are very well aware of how to achieve that, and I ask members to remind themselves of that.

The First Minister

Indeed, Presiding Officer.

On Martin Whitfield’s question, I do not at all minimise the impact that rail disruption can have on constituents and their everyday lives, when they are going to work and attending their educational establishments. I say to Martin Whitfield’s constituent that we are investing in our rail services. We have invested in our rail infrastructure, in new rail lines on the Borders railway, in new railway stations throughout the country, and in making our railways more affordable by, for example, introducing a pilot that abolished peak fares.

I say to Martin Whitfield that we are, of course, apologetic for any disruption that has been caused on our rail infrastructure, and I am more than happy to ensure that the appropriate minister writes to him with the details of the investments that we are making not just between East Lothian and Edinburgh but throughout the country.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

12:47 Meeting suspended.

12:49 On resuming—

Grangemouth Oil Refinery

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask those who are leaving the public gallery to please do so quickly and quietly, as we are now continuing with our next item of business.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11396—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have not yet finished the intro, Mr Kerr. I will call you when I have done my bit.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-11396,

in the name of Stephen Kerr, on the future of Grangemouth oil refinery. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

I advise members that we are resuming at 2 o’clock this afternoon for business. I therefore encourage members to stick to their allocated speaking times. I appreciate that there is a lot of interest in what is an important debate, but we have to allow time for staff to clear the chamber.

With that, I call Mr Stephen Kerr.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament understands what it sees as the importance of the Grangemouth oil refinery to the local economy and national economy; further understands that hundreds of jobs are directly linked, and thousands are indirectly linked, to the refinery; notes the concern about the potential impact that the closure of the Grangemouth refinery will have on the workers at the plant, including the potential job losses; further notes the concern about the consequences of closure for the numerous supply chains that it understands rely on production at Grangemouth, and notes the belief that the proposed closure would have a serious and detrimental impact on the energy security of Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I apologise for the false start.

Members will be aware of the shock, worry and frustration in the Grangemouth area following November’s announcement on the future of Grangemouth refinery. I will put my cards on the table: I want to see the life of that refinery, which is one of the jewels in central Scotland’s economic crown, extended, so I will use this member’s business debate to ask the minister some specific questions that deserve her considered response.

Of course, the global dynamics of oil and gas production have undergone seismic shifts, with production waning in Europe while it has been surging in the US, China, west Africa and the middle east. Grangemouth was built in 1924 and I acknowledge that it now needs substantial investment in order to remain viable.

Petroineos is looking into alternatives for the site, including an enlarged import terminal. Its deadline of spring 2025 for final decisions is little over a year away. I believe that the Government has a role to play in ensuring a successful future for that key part of our economy. The devolution settlement resulted in a complex intertwining of energy and net zero, which means that both Governments have to work together for the sake of Grangemouth.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I wonder whether Stephen Kerr might reflect on two points. First, he is right about the investment that is required, but the site is still a profitable site according to both Petroineos and the trade unions. That is worth reflecting on.

Secondly, would Stephen Kerr reflect on the fact that the global context includes a situation where the US already has a committed price for things such as sustainable aviation fuel, but we do not have that from the UK Government?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank Daniel Johnson for his intervention. He has pre-empted some issues that I will come on to.

I am going to make a serious point, which is not a party-political point, even though it might feel like one. I want to hear an assurance from the minister that we will not get into constitutional game playing on the future of the refinery.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I simply want to say that Stephen Kerr has my absolute assurance on that. Both Governments have to work together for the sake of the future of the site.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that response.

Both Governments must set aside whatever differences there are and embark on the task of crafting a comprehensive strategy that addresses two pivotal aspects. One is energy resilience for Scotland, and the other is the future of Grangemouth and the surrounding communities. A dialogue must be initiated—I think that it might already have been initiated—with Petroineos to unravel the true reasons behind its decision to close the refinery. Is it a joint decision involving both sides of the joint venture, or does it stem from factors beyond economic trends?

A key piece of work in extending the life of the refinery would be to reinstate the hydrocracker line, which has been inactive since April. Daniel Johnson mentioned profitability—the hydrocracker unit is critical to the profit streams of the refinery. I do not pretend to be an engineer, and I do not understand the processes, but I get that the hydrocracker is the critical unit that produces diesel and jet fuel, which are two big—if not the biggest—profit generators for the refinery.

That hydrocracker unit has not been working for a long time. Getting it back online is critical to keeping the refinery going. I ask the minister what is the latest that Petroineos has told her about the hydrocracker? When will it be up and running, and what are the issues preventing it from being restarted?

The Grangemouth future industry board was set up with worthy intentions, but it is stacked with public sector bodies and there is no private sector involvement. The board meets infrequently and the last meeting lasted for only one hour. Can the minister spell out what the Grangemouth future industry board is going to deliver? What are its specific tasks? What are the deadlines? How will it protect the future of the refinery? The workers need to be involved and their voices need to be heard at every level; local people and Falkirk Council all need to know what the board will do. The board, or a functional replacement, must get to grips with the sustainable future that is required for Grangemouth.

The UK2070 Commission’s Teesside task force’s paper would be a good template for that strategy. Working with businesses and universities, it is an example of how different bodies—public and private—can come together to address the kinds of challenges that are now being faced by Grangemouth.

What discussions has the minister had with her UK ministerial colleagues about sustainable aviation fuels and a biofuel future for Grangemouth? Another key question is about what are the existing regulatory barriers to the switch to biofuels. Can the minister reassure me that those barriers can be dealt with and that they will not put off potential investors?

My preference, as I said, is for the plant to remain operational, but if, after all avenues have been thoroughly investigated, that cannot be achieved and, if Petroineos, or some other private investor, is still not willing to put in the investment that is required to keep Scotland’s only refinery operating, we need to be ready with the right plan. We need to know the scale of the challenge that we will face and what we are dealing with, which means that we need a comprehensive economic impact assessment to be completed as soon as possible. The comprehensive economic impact assessment must look at the detail of the impact on jobs, gross domestic product—locally and nationally—council tax revenue, employment and other considerations. Again, the voice of the workers must be heard.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for his analysis of what is required. Does he also recognise that, currently, the impact on the supply chain is yet to be established, which is at least as important as what he has just detailed?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Absolutely. That is why we need a comprehensive economic impact assessment, which will be a vital piece of work.

What timescale would the minister consider to be practical for delivery of that assessment? When will it be completed and published?

The term “just transition” is bandied around a lot in the Parliament, yet I know from my conversations with representatives of the Grangemouth workforce that the term provides cold comfort to most workers. Yes—some jobs will be delivered fairly quickly and some have already been delivered, but the risk of highly skilled, highly paid workers losing the their jobs and leaving the area is a devastating prospect for the local economy and, indeed, for Scotland’s economy.

We must be honest and acknowledge that anything resembling a full just transition away from fossil fuels is going to take decades. Right now, for the workforce in that community, the Grangemouth just transition feels as though it is a blunt injustice. The Grangemouth refinery is not merely an industrial facility; it is the beating heart of Grangemouth and the surrounding communities. I implore both Governments to do all that they can together to keep the Grangemouth refinery open, including giving serious consideration to Government-backed investment. Finally, let us put aside political colours and favours and work together—as we should—to ensure that the lights of Grangemouth continue to burn brightly.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind all members who wish to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons. We move to back-bench speeches of up to 4 minutes.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I am pleased to speak in this important debate and I thank Stephen Kerr for his reflective comments. Let us hope that the debate continues to bring more light than heat.

I am a ferocious protector of my constituency of Falkirk East, including Grangemouth. The Grangemouth community is quite remarkable in its resilience and deserves praise for the pragmatic way in which it has sought to play its part in shaping our future. This can only be a worrying time for the workers, too, so I commend the efforts thus far of the unions that are involved. Grangemouth is, indeed, the beating heart of both an industrial past and a greener future.

Those who describe the refinery as a national strategic asset are right; those who have concerns about energy security are absolutely right; and those who say that we must do all that we can to retain it as an oil refinery are not wrong, but my focus must be on doing all that we can to ensure that the entire industrial cluster around Grangemouth continues to thrive—now and in the future.

What do my asks look like? I was pleased that Graham Stuart MP—the UK Government Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—indicated his willingness to look at all options for the refinery. We wait to hear what more support his Government will offer, and the Minister for Energy and the Environment might be able to give more insight today on discussions thus far. I know that the UK Government will offer financial support to strategically important industrial and commercial ventures that are making a loss. I draw attention to the UK Government grant of up to £500 million for the Port Talbot site that is run by Tata Steel UK.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I pay tribute to Michelle Thomson for the work that she is doing to support the community in her constituency. Does she agree that it would be a cold shower for all of us if the economic impact assessment showed us the impact of losing the refinery with no replacement or continuity? That work would allow us to see what the Government needs to do, and what it might look like proportionately in relation to the cost that might arise from closure of the refinery.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I absolutely agree and I, too, will reflect on that in my speech.

Another barrier that I have previously highlighted is around enabling the site to be modified to become a biorefinery and to produce the likes of sustainable aviation fuel. I note that Graham Simpson pressed Graham Stuart hard on that at a previous visit to the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I agree with Mr Simpson that it cannot be right that none of the eight potential sites that have been considered thus far is in Scotland. Any measures will require a pause before starting the work to convert the refinery to an import facility. I call on Petroineos to extend its timescales to allow us all to reach a positive outcome. Petroineos has a moral duty to Grangemouth and the vital cluster that surrounds it.

I know that the Scottish Government and its partner agencies are undertaking considerable work. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, by mapping current supply chains not only do we get a proper impact assessment for today, but we gain a deeper understanding of what economic policy measures can be taken for tomorrow. Proactively enabling supply chains is a fundamental part of enabling a just transition.

Skills are also an important part of developing our target operating model and, although I realise that skills belong in another brief, maybe the minister could give more information on work that is under way in both those areas.

Finally, when I was on the Economy and Fair Work Committee we raised questions about the purpose, governance and membership of the Grangemouth future industry board. I am interested in hearing more from the minister on how she sees that vital body developing.

Grangemouth is absolutely fundamental, so I want to put on the record my disappointment about the about-turn by the potential next Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, in the latest announcement about dropping the £28 billion energy fund, which had included vital promises for Scotland. Those promises included £1 billion to modernise Grangemouth and the suggestion that there could be around 50,000 clean power jobs. Obviously, that will have an immediate impact, but the vital mood music suggesting that the UK is serious about attracting global investment is severely lacking.

To that end, I encourage a clear proposition from the Scottish Government about our ambitions. I am sure that the minister will have reflections on that.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank Stephen Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I welcome the tone of the debate so far.

I, too, was disappointed to hear the announcement by Petroineos last year. Like Stephen Kerr, I would like the refinery to continue operating. If there is any way to achieve that, we should do it. Stephen Kerr is absolutely right that this matter needs to involve both Governments. The UK Government certainly has a strong role to play, but so does the Scottish Government. They need to work together.

Michelle Thomson—it was a privilege to be a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee with her—referred to our report on a just transition for the Grangemouth area. It contained a number of recommendations, one of which was about the Grangemouth future industry board, which has already been mentioned. It is fair to say that, as a committee, we were very frustrated that there was no private sector involvement with the board and, frankly, we found it to be rather secretive. In the words of the report:

“the Committee calls for more clarity on the role and purpose of GFIB and what it is intended to achieve”.

When I was on the committee, I repeatedly mentioned the role of sustainable aviation fuel. I probably raised it at every meeting and bored the pants off members, who, at that point, might not have known what I was on about, although eventually they did, because now everybody is mentioning SAF.

SAF could provide a future for Grangemouth, or a part of its future. My frustration is that, as Michelle Thomson has already said, Grangemouth has not been one of the places that have been earmarked to produce SAF. Frankly, somewhere in Scotland should be making it, but, at the moment, there is nowhere.

We came up with the recommendation that there needs to be legislation

“for a price support mechanism for SAF to accompany the mandate”,

because that

“may be required to incentivise private sector investment in UK and Scottish SAF production”.

In other words, the Government—the UK Government, in this case—needs to create a market for SAF. I gave Graham Stuart quite a grilling when he appeared before the committee—rightly so, as that is my job. The UK Government really needs to do that, because we need to create a market for SAF.

We need to look not just at SAF but at hydrogen, as there are also opportunities there. I am not completely downcast about Grangemouth. I am disappointed with the announcement that was made, but Grangemouth can have a strong future.

Nobody in the debate has yet mentioned the Grangemouth flood protection scheme, which is really important for the wider economy. Michelle Thomson and others know that I have recently written to Màiri McAllan about that. She has responded to me, and I have shared her response with others. She has committed to setting up a task force. [

Interruption

.] Mr Lumsden is groaning, but I think that, if he sees the letter, which I am happy to share with him, he will see that the tone was quite positive. I would like that task force to be set up, and I want the UK Government to be involved, too, because that scheme needs to go ahead.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank Stephen Kerr for securing time for us to speak about this important topic. He set out the basis for the debate incredibly well. It is about investment, about energy resilience and therefore the future of our economy, and about ensuring that we have a genuinely just transition, not a chaotic end to key elements of our economy.

Michelle Thomson and Graham Simpson set out some very important points that flow from that. If we are to have a just transition, we need to retain the critical skills that we have—including those that we undoubtedly have at Grangemouth—and we need to look at what our future energy requirements will be, including for things such as SAF.

I would also like to reflect on the workforce. I have met the workforce twice since the announcement—once before Christmas and once thanks to the drop-in that was organised by my friend Richard Leonard. What struck me was the workforce’s composure, focus and seriousness at a time when many of us would just be outraged and angry. It is a profitable site, and those are highly skilled people, who thought that they were being trained to learn skills and provide opportunities for themselves and their families in the future. They are seeing those opportunities in potential jeopardy.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Having spoken to the unions, I certainly get the impression that the workforce holds the key and the answers to the future of the site with regard to their ideas about how their skills can be deployed, and particularly about the area becoming a biorefinery.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

E

xactly so. It is really important that we retain those skills. I pay tribute to the workforce’s focus and commitment to ensuring that there is a viable site at Grangemouth.

Let us make no mistake—this is an incredibly important site. There are only six large refineries in the entire UK, so there will be a major loss of capacity. That is important for future requirements relating to biorefining or the production of SAF, but we must remember that not all refined products are for fuel. As much as 50 per cent of every barrel of oil leads to products that are not about fuel, such as pharmaceuticals, dyes and plastics. We might be seeking to reduce our reliance on such products, but we will be relying on them long after we, hopefully, stop burning oil. Oil is an important product, and refining will be an incredibly important part of that process.

However, we all need to reflect on what has happened here. Petroineos has, in essence, made a decision based on cost. The site is profitable, but not as profitable as other sites, although it is fair to say that there is still a large degree of confusion about those factors. We need to ask why Petroineos has made that decision. It is not just about pure profitability but about stability, and we need a plan. That has been a theme across a number of—

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am very happy to give way.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Does the member agree that it is slightly ironic that, even if Petroineos ultimately decides to move to an import facility, it would still be dealing in the same market? That makes me question what is going on, because the market itself is not going anywhere. I even question the talk about spring 2025.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I agree with that. We need greater clarity. I do not want to cast aspersions—the workforce is very clear about that—but, if we could understand the basis for the decision, we could provide help.

We need a plan. Other countries have price commitments around products such as SAF, which are enabling investment. Likewise, we need stability around the regime in this area. Changes in policy from Governments—and, potentially, future Governments—do not help. We need consistency and stability so that businesses can make confident investments.

I am grateful for this parliamentary time, because previously we have had only one urgent question on the matter. I note that there will be a statement, but there needs to be parliamentary time for this topic to be discussed.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I thank Stephen Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber. I also thank workers, the unions and the local community for their thoughts, opinions and concerns about the announcement and the future of the site.

Having grown up in Grangemouth and having managed only a mile further up the hill, I know how important the issue is to the entire area. I am angry, on behalf of the workers and the community, that the announcement was given weeks before Christmas. The bottom line of the company—which, as we have already heard, has been questioned—has been put before the workers and the impact on the community. The timetable, which has been questioned by members across the chamber, seems arbitrary, to say the least.

There is a lot of uncertainty and worry across the community. I know that local small businesses are worried about what the announcement means for them. At the drop-in that was organised by Richard Leonard, we heard that workers who are parents are concerned about their job security and what the announcement might mean in relation to uprooting their families. The ripples of the announcement reach far and wide across Grangemouth, as well as more widely across Falkirk.

As we have heard, there has been industry on the site for nearly 100 years, and I am sure that there will be industry on the site long after any of us in the chamber are here. As well as having a conversation about how jobs can continue on the site in the short term, we need to discuss what the industry will look like in the future, how we will get there and what that means for workers and those who live close to the refinery. To do all of that, we need to save the jobs, and we need Government support in that regard. It is clear that, if we leave a just transition to the companies involved, it just will not happen. We need certainty—and quickly—to stop potentially highly skilled people leaving their jobs. We need time for those dedicated and skilled workers to transfer or change their skills to whatever comes next, and we need meaningful engagement with the community about what they would like to see on their doorstep. That has not happened on the site so far.

Unions want to engage with Petroineos and the Government to explore the reasoning behind the company’s decision and what can be done to support workers. If any member has not done so already, I encourage them to read the briefing from Unite the union that came in earlier this afternoon. I also believe that, if they have not done so already, the owners of Petroineos and PetroChina should come to the site to speak to workers and explain their decision. We need a just transition, which, according to their briefing this morning, is what the workers want—a move to the site hosting industries that are better for people and the planet, that provide well-paid jobs and that have good terms and conditions.

I am aware that there are a range of opinions across the chamber as to what form the next step should take, but I hope that the community and the workers who are watching today know that their representatives, including me, are not taking this lying down and that we are committed to saving their jobs and providing a bright future for Grangemouth.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for securing this debate on the future of Grangemouth oil refinery. I agree with him that Grangemouth is a jewel in Scotland’s crown. Since its establishment in 1924, the refinery has been a steadfast pillar in Scotland’s energy landscape. It has been the main supplier of fuel to Scottish airports and Scottish petrol stations and, importantly, has provided a foundation to the generations of families from the Falkirk area and beyond who have worked there since its establishment.

However, today we are here to debate a new reality. The potential closure of the oil refinery is a decision that is driven by economic realities, such as growing international competition and environmental considerations, which carry weighty implications.

I want to say a little about learning from the past. The impact of Margaret Thatcher’s deindustrialisation in my Uddingston and Bellshill constituency remains profound. Once thriving with coal mines and steelworks, Lanarkshire underwent a tragic transformation, with mass unemployment plunging communities into persistent poverty, which still impacts them today. Communities were stripped of their identities and of hope, with scars that generations will never forget or forgive.

As we have heard, in Grangemouth—a town that is already burdened with high levels of social deprivation—the potential closure threatens to exacerbate existing struggles. Simply put, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. Grangemouth needs and deserves a just transition. Although Petroineos’s decision was driven by commercial factors, we must not overlook the profound concerns regarding the workforce and the regional economy. The Fraser of Allander Institute has projected a GDP reduction of approximately 0.25 to 0.3 per cent for the Scottish economy—an announcement that is significant and worrying.

Furthermore, any jobs that are lost are not mere numbers. They represent families’ livelihoods and, as we have heard, there will undoubtedly be ripple effects across the wider community.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does Stephanie Callaghan agree that it is very important that we get a proper quantifiable understanding of the impact of the refinery’s closure? That will help scale what Government can do and what it thinks it can afford with regard to any intervention that can extend the life of the refinery or which can give us the opportunity to have a bridge to the just transition that she is talking about.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I would certainly agree with that.

With any decision that impacts the livelihood of communities, it is imperative that the Scottish Government steps up and facilitates a just transition at pace. That means the provision of high-quality jobs, enhancing the community’s prosperity and safeguarding the community’s wellbeing being rightfully placed at the forefront.

A just transition also brings the opportunity to chart a new course towards a fairer and greener future for all. Given its history as an industrial hub, Grangemouth is uniquely positioned to emerge as a centre for green innovation.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Given the situation that we find ourselves in, if we carry on working in this collaborative way, which I am personally heartened by—and I agree with what has been said about both Governments working on this and impact assessments—I think that we can frame an opportunity here. After all, we have known for some time about the considerable complexities of putting meat on the bones of a just transition. Does the member agree?

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Absolutely. I agree with my colleague Michelle Thomson—we all would, to be fair.

I was actually going to address that point. It is really good to see the Scottish Government’s commitment to collaborating with operators throughout the Grangemouth cluster to spearhead new low-carbon initiatives including carbon capture utilisation and storage, hydrogen production and biorefining. Everything possible must be done to create the right circumstances for Grangemouth to evolve into a flagship for sustainable energy production and one that bolsters Scotland’s ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2045.

However, if we are to ensure that such future low-carbon opportunities are realised with equity and fairness at their heart for the people who live and work there, continued collaboration will be paramount. The Scottish Government must continue to work with industry, workers and communities on shared economic, social and environmental objectives.

Like others, I urge the UK Government to continue to collaborate on a truly optimal future and meaningful prospects for Grangemouth. Although the establishment of the Grangemouth future industry board marks a promising start, the UK Government must, as we have heard, focus on lifting the UK-wide barriers to sustainable aviation fuel.

We must secure Grangemouth’s future from a financial, environmental and social perspective. Through a just transition that embraces innovation, sustainability and compassion, we can shape a positive trajectory in which Grangemouth is recognised as a valuable asset that can propel the Scottish economy forward towards a cleaner and more resilient tomorrow. In that respect, listening, collaborating and meaningfully engaging with affected communities, workers and industry will be key.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Stephen Kerr for bringing this debate to Parliament, and I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Two weeks ago today, the First Minister—I thought, unfortunately—laid the foundations for a blame game.

“Grangemouth’s hard workers and the wider community cannot be left at the mercy of UK Government inaction”,

he opined. He went on:

“The key powers ... lie, regrettably, at Westminster.”—[

Official Report

, 25 January 2024; c 21.]

Well, of course, I will stand second to no one in demanding that the conditions are created for a sustainable aviation fuel policy for the UK and one that will generate jobs in Grangemouth, but the message which I bring from that wider community—from those hard workers—is that they do not want to be a political football between two opposing Governments or, indeed, between Government and Opposition at this time in their hour of need, when we are—

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member give way?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Yes,

I will take an intervention.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I hope that Richard Leonard heard what I said in that regard in response to Stephen Kerr very early doors in the debate.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Yes, I did, and

I very much welcome that commitment that has been given, but I thought it was worth while reflecting on the position of the minister’s boss.

We are at a time when the workers are in their hour of need and when we are deciding on our future energy requirements, so they want both Governments and all parties to be on their side, working together for the common good. They want an extension to the operation of the refinery. They want the hydrocracker restarted. They want investment and jobs. They want transition and protection. They want ambition and hope.

Petroineos themselves say nothing changes until spring 2025, so there is still time for the Government to commit to supporting a programme to extend the refinery’s operation and to invest in new technologies, such as biofuels and sustainable aviation fuel, at the site.

In my discussions with the refinery workers, it has not gone unnoticed that the cabinet secretary has variously called Grangemouth—let me quote him exactly—“an ageing site”. To emphasise the point,

“the refinery is more than 100 years old”,—[

Official Report

, 23 November 2023; c 61.]

he has told us, as if we are dealing with a dilapidated, decrepit, obsolete, antique technology that has not had a penny spent on it for over a century.

The closure of the refinery and the opening of an import terminal was, he said, in any case, “a commercial decision” which will “future proof the site”, as though we were dealing with a world based on rational decisions, but we are not. The Grangemouth refinery is not uneconomic. It is not making a loss; it is making a profit.

So I say in plain terms to the minister that it is a strategic national asset. These are strategically important manufacturing jobs. This is a strategic national energy supply, and its future should not be determined by offshore billionaires or overseas Governments. This is Scotland’s only refinery; it is linked to the Forties pipeline. We should be refining and manufacturing our energy, not simply importing it, because never in economic history has there been an import-led economic recovery.

So let us finally see from this Government an industrial strategy which is jobs-first, people-centred, manufacturing-led and environmentally sustainable, and if that means a stake taken out in this enterprise by the Government, then that is what should happen. These workers need not just words but action. They need political leadership. They need an economic strategy, and they are looking to this Parliament and to this Government to provide it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I call the next speaker, I advise that, 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. I invite Stephen Kerr to move the motion.

Motion moved,

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

Stephen Kerr

]

Motion agreed to.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

I commend Mr Kerr for securing the debate and for his very thoughtful contribution.

Grangemouth is a strategic national asset for Scotland, and decisions regarding it need to be taken in that light. Crude oil is refined not only for fuel but for feedstock for chemicals that are used right across our economy. Scotland produces 90 per cent of UK oil and gas and has just one refinery. To contextualise just how profitable oil and gas produced in Scotland are to the UK, last year saw a record £10.6 billion in revenue flowing from Scotland to the UK Treasury.

When I had the opportunity to question the UK Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Graham Stuart, just a couple of weeks ago, he admitted that the revenue from Scotland’s oil industry is funding reductions in energy bills for the whole of the UK. I wonder whether other members were surprised, as I was several weeks ago, to hear from him that, up until that point, the UK Government had had no approaches from anyone seeking funding for a rescue package.

An industry that is worth £10.6 billion a year is hugely valuable to the economy of the UK—a country or, rather, a state of 67 million people. Let us imagine for a moment how much further that would go and what we could do with it in a country of just 5 million people.

Grangemouth needs investment to save it and make it profitable into the future. It is estimated that the investment that is needed is around the £80 million mark. That is but a drop in the North Sea compared to the billions upon billions that Scotland’s oil and gas industry has poured into the UK Treasury. In fact, £80 million is only 0.7 per cent of last year’s revenue—not even 1 per cent of a year’s revenue.

Scotland has only one refinery. The rest of the UK has six, but the Scottish refinery is marked for closure. If Grangemouth is to be no more, Scotland will find itself in the uncomfortable position of being the only one of the top 25 oil producers globally with no refinery. That is a disgrace.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Does Ash Regan agree that using language such as “Grangemouth no more” completely ignores the fact that Grangemouth’s refinery has a great deal of potential if we get it right and invest some of that oil and gas revenue in its just transition to, perhaps, a biorefinery?

Ash Regan

No, I do not completely agree with that. The way that I imagine a just transition is that the “just” part is about the people. In the future that the Government imagines, the people with the skills will largely be lost to the site if it is turned into some kind of import terminal.

Scotland needs to have a refinery once it is independent. We must continue to have a refinery and refine our own oil in it—not produce it, send it away and then buy it back at a premium. That is also an energy security issue. Reliance on global markets creates insecurity for Scotland, which is simply absurd for an energy-rich nation.

It is not an issue about which the Government—any Government—can shrug its shoulders and say, “Oh well, there’s nothing we can do.” The Scottish people expect more and expect better. The UK Government and the Scottish Government must find some vision and ambition and work together to secure a rescue plan. The UK Government must provide the funding and the Scottish Government must wake up and find a backbone. Anything less than that will be a betrayal of the workforce and the country.

We cannot stand by and see more of Scotland’s key assets lost. History tells us that, once they are gone, they are gone for ever. We cannot stand by and see a strategic asset lost to us for ever.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

As mentioned in my entry in the register of members’ interests, I am a member of Unite the union and the GMB, and I undertake other trade union activities.

I join colleagues in thanking Stephen Kerr for securing this important debate. I echo my Scottish Labour colleague Daniel Johnson, who was right to say that the Scottish Government needs to devote some of its chamber debating time to the matter because that would allow for a fuller debate and more parliamentary scrutiny.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There will, indeed, be such an opportunity next week, when the cabinet secretary will deliver a statement. It is up to the Parliamentary Bureau to decide whether that is extended. Of course, members all have colleagues who go along to the bureau.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I point out that we are in recess next week.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I will be guided by you as always, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I welcome the commitment that the minister gave to Stephen Kerr at the start of the debate on what workers and the people of Grangemouth—and, indeed, the people of Scotland—need, which is collaboration between not only the Scottish Government and the UK Government but all the key stakeholders. Stephanie Callaghan was right to bring us back to what matters. It is about people, their families and livelihoods. We can get caught up in the big economic picture, but the debate is about people and we need to hear their voices, too.

I am not a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, so I will defer to colleagues who were part of the inquiry into the just transition for Grangemouth. It is significant that the committee did that work. The report is good, and some things have been addressed.

However, I was concerned and disappointed to read at the very top of the report that Ineos turned down the committee’s opportunity to give evidence. I am not sure of the reason for that. That would have been a good opportunity to set out and get on the record what work the company is doing to contribute to Scotland’s net zero targets.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To be completely accurate, the committee approached Ineos rather than Petroineos. I just want to make that distinction.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

That is a useful clarification.

The report mentions the Grangemouth future industry board, which I understand has been recently repurposed. Graham Simpson touched on that, and there are definitely questions about getting the right people around the table and the potential roles for the Scottish National Investment Bank and people from the community, including workers and trade unions. I know that the UK Government recently hailed the repurposing of the future industry board as an opportunity for both Governments to come together. I hope that it is received in that spirit.

As we have heard in the debate, the approach to the issue has largely been consensual and cross-party. Richard Leonard recently hosted a drop-in session and we met Unite shop stewards who do not want politicking—they want to hold politicians to account and they want us to work together in the national interest.

I know that time is short and I have taken a couple of interventions, so I will conclude by saying that Derek Thomson, the Scottish secretary of Unite, told us that every option must be on the table. As we try very hard to build a just transition for workers and communities, we have to get our act together collectively. Every option must be on the table, but we need a planned approach. We have heard about the importance of an industrial strategy, which has been lacking, and we heard in the debate a commitment to joint working. Let us see what happens after recess.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I nearly did us all out of a week’s recess, for which I apologise.

I agree with the spirit of Monica Lennon’s speech, particularly in her final words, that every option must be on the table. That should be the phrase that we keep in mind as we go forward. I thank Stephen Kerr not only for bringing the issue to the chamber but for his extremely constructive and collegiate speech and for his general attitude, and I thank the other members, who, with the odd exception, spoke in that spirit.

My colleagues are right to say that the people of Grangemouth, the wider Grangemouth area, the wider Falkirk area and the community are listening to what we say on the issue. We all have to put our shoulders to the wheel and look at every option. I fully believe that, although the announcement has been greatly worrying to the people who currently work in the refinery, we have everything to gain if we get this just transition. This is a test for us; the first test of the just transition is whether we can keep the refinery open in some shape or form.

Before I go into what the Government has been doing, I want to reflect on some of what has been asked of me. We need to look at the barriers to deployment for a biorefinery. On Mr Kerr’s point on that, he will probably be aware—and if he is not, I can certainly send him the details, and I recommend that he gets in touch with colleagues at Petroineos—that Petroineos has identified regulatory barriers to becoming a biorefinery, such as the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids cap. The HEFA cap is the cap that has been put on the use of the crops that would provide feedstock for a biorefinery. The UK Government has put a cap on that, which is complex, because it is about food security and the percentage of crops that can be used for biorefinery.

I want to reflect on what executives at Petroineos told me in that regard, which was that if the HEFA cap was lifted, they could transition to being a biorefinery very quickly. They are already in the appraisal phase of the biorefining, and they have also said to me in meetings that staff could be trained very quickly—within, I think, six months. I could be wrong on that, but it was a very short period of time.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I note that Petroineos is being careful in the use of the word “could”. Is such a transition part of its intention? Is it beyond words? Does Petroineos suggest that it “would,” transition, rather than that it “could” transition?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is obviously a question that is best put to Petroineos, because it is making commercial decisions. However, I got the sense that that would be its intention if that option were on the table and if the cap on HEFA was looked at again by the UK Government.

Graham Stuart was in that meeting as well. He said that it was not in his portfolio arrangement because it goes into the wider agriculture portfolio. However, two cabinet secretaries—Mairi Gougeon and Neil Gray—and I have written to follow up on that on behalf of Petroineos, because that is what the workforce wants as well. It is ready to go, and that could secure its future.

I also want to mention the economic impact assessment. It is absolutely vital, but just as vital is the just transition plan, which is action focused and makes an assessment of the economic gains for the site and the wider community if we were to change to any of the options that are on the table. I see that as part of the Grangemouth future industry board’s remit.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I wonder whether those two points come together in an important way. It is well and good to talk about just transition and the need for a plan, but unless the board considers things such as the HEFA decision, which the minister mentioned, and other decisions that might lie in other departments, we do not really have a plan. It needs to be joined up. There is an investment gap. Peak oil was 20 years ago, but we have only installed 10 per cent of our offshore wind generation capacity.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Daniel Johnson makes an

important point. I was going to come on to that. Graham Simpson talked about the market for what the site would be producing—particularly sustainable aviation fuels. I will say a little word about what the Scottish Government is doing on that. We have a working group, which Màiri McAllan set up, with the airports of Scotland, and the cabinet secretary, Neil Gray, is meeting airlines and airports in Scotland about that market.

Grangemouth has the potential to be a leader in the UK in providing sustainable aviation fuel, which would make a difference in respect of the climate change targets of both Governments. It would make a difference to the sustainability of aviation in the future if the airlines and airports were willing to set out their stall and say, “We will take on that product.”

I want to mention a couple of other people. Gillian Mackay talked about the impact on the wider Grangemouth town economy, which was backed up by Stephanie Callaghan. Those lessons in history are important. Members will know that I am a child of Clydebank, which suffered the same kind of situation that Stephanie Callaghan’s constituency did.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for taking the intervention. The Grangemouth site is quite unique in how close it is to the town and where people live. In some cases, the site is only across a road and down a grass verge from people’s houses. Will the minister commit to involving the community in what the site looks like, what comes next and the impact on their living environment?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That is an important consideration. At the moment, the Grangemouth future industry board has the unions and Petroineos involved, but it also has the council and community councils involved. That is possibly the conduit, but if it can be widened out in some shape or form, I am up for that.

I was at the first meeting of the Grangemouth future industry board, and we thought that we needed to have more frequent meetings, which we have already outlined. We also decided to look at the scope of what the group does and, potentially, have some sub-groups. We need it to be action focused rather than a talking shop. We need to look at the plans for the future and lift the barriers.

Emerging technologies such as hydrogen production and biofuels manufacturing could sustain the refinery and provide jobs, not only for the existing workforce but also for the future workforce of Grangemouth and the wider area. Business cannot do that alone, and commercial decisions must be made, but I am heartened by the tone of the debate and the comments about both Governments working together.

Graham Stuart, John Lamont and Neil Gray were also at that meeting. Off the back of that meeting, Neil Gray and I wrote to the UK Government ministers involved to follow up on some of the assurances that they had given us that they wanted to be fully involved in protecting the future of the refinery.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am very grateful for the minister’s patience in allowing me to make a second intervention. Before she concludes, will she comment on the issues that have been raised about the hydrocracker? That seems to me to be a vital component in extending the life of the refinery as it is.

Secondly, has work begin on the economic impact assessment that a number of us have talked about? Does she have an estimate of when it might be produced? I simply think that it would give us all a huge impetus to make sure that what we are talking about in relation to transition actually happens.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

In responding, minister, please could you start to close?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I will wind up.

I thank Stephen Kerr for the reminder—I was going to come on to the hydrocracker. On that issue, there is not much that I can say, as it is commercially sensitive, but we know that the site’s operators are working at pace to get it back online as quickly as possible. That is really all that I can say at the moment—that information has come from the operators themselves—but it is absolutely fundamental.

As for the economic impact assessment, that has actually been done by the group itself. Obviously, our officials are involved in assessing the economic impact; there is a Scottish Government assessment, and Scottish Enterprise are involved, too, as members would hope.

From my point of view, I would say that everything possible is being done to look at what Governments, agencies and the private sphere can do to realise the site’s potential. Geographically, it is ideally located; it has a long history of providing Scotland with fuel and energy security; and it has the most expert workforce whom we cannot afford to let down, for the reasons that all members have highlighted in the debate. Members have my assurance—and the cabinet secretary’s assurance—that we in the Scottish Government will work with whoever has solutions for prolonging the refinery’s life.

13:47 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time. The first portfolio is transport, net zero and just transition. I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question, and I make the usual appeal for brevity in questions and responses.

Green Economy (United Kingdom Government Action)

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

1. To ask the Scottish Government, with regard to cross-Government co-ordination of net zero policy, what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding what is required to unlock the full potential of Scotland’s green economy. (S6O-03070)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Tackling climate change and nature loss is an environmental imperative and a significant socioeconomic opportunity. The transition to net zero and climate adaptation will transform the global economy, and Scotland is so well placed to be part of that, not least because of our renewables abundance and our expertise in energy.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition regularly engages with her counterparts in the other three nations of the United Kingdom through the net zero, energy and climate change interministerial group. There are a number of reserved matters in which UK Government action is critical to unlocking the full potential of Scotland’s green economy. Those matters should not sit with the UK Government, but for as long as they do, we will continue pushing it to act in the interests of Scotland’s economy and people, and the world’s climate.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

According to Offshore Energies UK, backing home-grown energy will strengthen supply chains, boost capability and unlock economic growth. However, UK-wide, many businesses are holding off from confirming final investment decisions because of policy uncertainty from the current UK Government. That and the latest U-turn from the Labour Party in abandoning its policy on £28 billion investment in green energy, including £1 billion for Grangemouth in my constituency, places Scotland’s ambitions at risk. Will the minister, on behalf of the Scottish Government, emphasise to the UK Government, whichever party it is comprised of, the importance of certainty in policy to unlocking that vital funding?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am very grateful to Michelle Thomson for that question. Policy certainty is critical to investment, and so is moving quickly and gaining first-mover advantage, where possible. The current UK Government has allowed us to be left behind as the US, Europe and others move quickly to stimulate domestic economic activity in net zero matters.

I am afraid that Keir Starmer’s Labour Party’s abandonment of its flagship £28 billion green investment pledge—this is really important and significant—on the very day when scientists confirm that the world has, terrifyingly, breached the 1.5°C warming threshold for a year, is a terrible indictment of a future Labour Government and of the economic stability of broken Brexit Britain. Scotland is accustomed to perpetual disappointment in Labour, so perhaps that decision is not a surprise; however, it is environmental and economic ineptitude.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Wow.

In addition to completely eliminating the green economy as a line item from this year’s budget, the Scottish Government has slashed the budget for the Scottish National Investment Bank, Scottish Forestry, land managers, skills development and the Scottish Funding Council. How on earth does the Scottish Government plan to deliver its targets without properly funding the green economy or being able to train the future workforce of the green economy?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The Scottish budget does, indeed, prioritise nature and the green industrial transition. We have committed to investing up to £500 million of public sector funding over the next five years in our offshore wind potential. We need the UK Government to provide clarity on its longer-term approach so that we can continue to support the sector. However, in Scotland, we are doing what we need to do to invest in the supply chain and to ensure that we get the economic benefit from the transition to net zero.

Potholes

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what it can do to address potholes on the road network, including what support is available for local authorities to do so, in light of reports that Edinburgh is the second-worst city in the UK for potholes. (S6O-03071)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I appreciate the road maintenance challenges that exist in Edinburgh and across Scotland and the importance of a safe well-performing road network. However, local road maintenance is the responsibility of local authorities, which allocate resources on the basis of local priorities. In 2024-25, the City of Edinburgh Council will receive £988.6 million to fund local services, which equates to an extra £48.5 million to support vital day-to-day services. Ultimately, it is for local elected representatives to make local decisions on how best to deliver services to their local communities.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

How bad does it have to get before ministers recognise the impact of sustained cuts to council budgets?

I have a constructive question. What work is the Scottish Government doing to monitor the health and safety impacts of our deteriorating roads and the impact of potholes in damaging bikes, buses and cars? A bike crash that occurs as a result of a pothole can have a massive impact on someone’s health, never mind their wellbeing. In addition, cyclists face the cost of buying new tyres on a regular basis. We now have an issue in relation to the economic impact, too. What will the Scottish Government do to monitor that impact?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I understand the seriousness of the issue, but I make it clear that although the Scottish Government has responsibilities for trunk roads, road safety more widely is a collective responsibility.

As regards measurement of the impact at local level, we would expect local transport departments to monitor that. If Sarah Boyack is suggesting that that should be done in a more co-ordinated way, it might well be the case that transport officials across local authorities work with Transport Scotland on road safety. I will look into that.

I encourage everyone to think about the wider impact on road safety. That is one of the reasons why, nationally, we have increased our maintenance budget for trunk roads by 31 per cent.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The priorities of the Labour administration in Edinburgh are not aligned with the priorities of residents across the capital. Rather than focusing on essential road repairs and fixing the multitude of potholes on our streets, it is hell-bent on pursuing pipe-dream projects. Wasting £44 million on a business case for a Granton to BioQuarter tram extension should not be a priority. The project would also destroy a popular and well-used active travel corridor in Roseburn. In addition, the capital now has the prestigious honour of being number 1 in the world for having the worst cycle lanes. I make a plea to the minister: will you use every piece of influence that you have to ensure that the priorities of residents in Edinburgh are put first by the Labour-led council?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please speak t

hrough the chair.

I invite the minister to respond, on matters for which she is responsible.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Sue Webber has made her point, but I reflect on the fact that, increasingly, people ask Scottish Government ministers to interfere with local decision making by local councils. They want centralisation, when we recognise that local authorities are elected by the people whom they represent to make the decisions that they want to be made.

The member should reflect on the fact that the budget challenges that everybody faces mean that we have to make challenging choices. The capital reduction particularly affects the transport budget.

However, it is up to the people of Edinburgh to decide what they want to do. If they want to elect parties that want to take forward ambitious projects to bring about a green transition in Edinburgh, they should do so. It is for the people of Edinburgh to ensure that their views are well known, and it is for local councillors, who are elected to do so, to make those representations.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I need more brevity in the questions and, indeed, the responses.

Public Transport (Modal Shift)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

3. I remind members of my entry in the “Voluntary” section of the register of interests.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to encourage a modal shift to public transport. (S6O-03072)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

This Government is committed to modal shift: as we continue to invest and support an affordable and accessible transport system, we are finding ways to promote public transport as an attractive option.

For example, almost half the population of Scotland is eligible for free bus travel through our concessionary fares schemes, and the extended ScotRail peak fares removal pilot encourages the use of public transport. In addition, we continue to invest in infrastructure, drawing on examples such as the Falkirk stadium electric vehicle charging hub, in Richard Leonard’s region, where active travel links to the town enable people to choose more sustainable modes of transport.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Getting people out of their cars and on to public transport is vital if the Scottish Government is to meet its climate change targets, yet ScotRail—a company that is wholly owned by the Scottish Government—is trying to force through driver-only operations, which would remove safety-critical guards. After two years, the Scottish Government is still considering the axing of ticket office hours, and total safety-critical railway renewal spending for the next five years is £315 million lower than it was in the previous funding period, with 70 front-line workers having been made redundant over the past few months. Will the Scottish Government rule out extending driver-only operations and cutting ticket office hours and will it reverse its planned cuts to safety-critical railway investment?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I think that Richard Leonard is mistaken. He will know that I wrote to him on 19 January to point out the mistakes in the analysis that seemed to imply a reduction in the rail budget. The rail budget for the issues that he refers to has gone up. There has been an 8 per cent increase in spending on maintenance and a 4 per cent increase in operations spending for control period 7. The budget for the railway system has gone up from a pre-pandemic level of £1 billion to £1.6 billion.

I agree that staff presence on railways is really important because it gives people a sense of safety. The Government is committed to ensuring that our railways operate safely. We do that through maintenance and staffing. Richard Leonard will be aware that ScotRail is expanding its staffing and is recruiting staff. It is important to members that, having written to the member on 19 January—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We must move on. I call Bob Doris for a brief supplementary question.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

Removal of barriers and encouraging greater use of buses will be crucial to securing a modal shift away from car journeys. To what extent does the free bus travel scheme for under 22s help to remove barriers? How many journeys have been taken as part of that scheme since January last year?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The under-22s scheme has been a great success and has demonstrated the appetite for sustainable travel. Many young people travel by bus a number of times a week, and are making habitual use of public transport. Since 1 January this year, more than 7 million journeys have been made by under 22s in Scotland.

Just Transition (Gender Equality)

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it is embedding gender equality into its efforts to deliver a just transition. (S6O-03073)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

We are committed to doing what we can to increase

diversity and representation in the workforce by supporting women and people with protected characteristics to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the green transition. Our just transition plans will show how that will be integrated into our policy making. For example, we have already funded flexible working and workplace equality programmes to support women’s participation in the workforce and we will look to mainstream gender equality across our policy interventions in that area.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

A survey that was conducted by the centre for international labour market studies found that women make up only 4 per cent of the total oil and gas workforce in the United Kingdom. Here in Scotland, we have an opportunity to deliver equality for women and girls through our plans for a just transition. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that women and girls reap their fair share of the opportunities and benefits that a just transition will bring to Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member’s sentiments on the issue are correct. Our forthcoming just transition plans will take into account the equality impact assessment for the energy strategy and just transition plan that is being carried out by the consultancy SWECO and which includes reference to the status of women in the green workforce. That will underpin our just transition policy to ensure that we can achieve equity of access to opportunities.

We will also stay in touch with the energy sector. There is a big role for the sector itself to play in attracting more women, which is an important dimension of the debate.

Renewable Energy Sector (Ministerial Meetings)

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the net zero secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the role of the renewable energy sector in meeting its net zero ambitions. (S6O-03074)

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition regularly meets with ministerial colleagues to discuss how to maximise the role of the renewable energy sector in meeting our net zero ambitions and delivering wider benefits for the Scottish economy. The energy transition offers significant economic opportunities for Scotland and is essential to reducing our emissions. We must also ensure that it delivers for the people, workers, communities and economy of Scotland. It is critical that we work together to deliver a just transition to a net zero energy system.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Recent reports that renewables technologies generated the equivalent of 113 per cent of Scotland’s overall electricity consumption in 2022 were welcome. How will the Government’s planned green industrial strategy bring about the investment that our renewables industry needs to build on that success and fully deliver our net zero ambitions?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Those statistics show that the actions that we are taking to scale up renewable energy capacity to transform and expand Scotland’s clean energy generation sector are working. Developing a green industrial strategy is a signal that we are serious about capturing for Scotland the economic benefits of the global transition to net zero. The strategy will sit alongside and support our just transition plans, and we will set out our plans to secure a fair transition to net zero for specific high-emitting sectors of the economy. It will offer a clear view of the economic sectors and industries where we have the greatest strength and the most potential and of what the Government will do to support them, so that we can give the private sector confidence to make decisions and invest in Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It can take more than a decade for offshore wind farms to complete the planning and consent process. The Government wants to cut that time, but industry is sceptical that enough specialists and planners will be recruited. What can the minister tell industry to reassure it that the Government has made progress on that? In other words, how many more planners have been recruited in the last while?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The member is quite right that the planning system has a crucial role to play. We have engaged extensively with the United Kingdom Government to seek the devolution of the necessary powers to Scotland to provide a modernised grid consenting regime that is fit for purpose. The member is correct that planning and consenting are key to unlocking our energy potential, and the Scottish Government is working hard to do so.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

We know that solar energy is a crucial contributor to achieving an affordable energy mix and a just transition. While the Scottish Government’s commitment to enhance solar energy generation by 2030 is incredibly welcome, there is a notable constraint while the current cap on energy generation is set at 50kW. Can the minister provide reassurance that the Government is working towards removing such output restrictions, so that people can reap the benefits?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

While policy and regulation in respect of electricity networks is reserved to the UK Government, we have established a local electricity networks co-ordination group, which brings together representatives from different sectors to find ways forward on exactly such issues. In some places, where there is a wish for a generation project greater than 50kW to be connected to the distribution network, the distribution network operator is required to seek approval from the electricity system operator. That is because there may be a wider system impact on transmission as well as on the distribution network. We recognise that that can result in cost and time delays in connecting such projects.

Budget 2024-25 (Strathclyde Partnership for Transport)

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the 2024-25 budget will have on Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. (S6O-03075)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Scottish Government officials are engaging with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport on the impact of the budget to ensure the sustainability of its services. It is regrettable that no capital funding has been allocated to SPT in 2024-25. However, the United Kingdom autumn statement was a worst-case scenario, confirming that the Scottish Government’s capital block grant is forecast to contract by almost 10 per cent in real terms over five years. Revenue funding for regional transport partnerships, including SPT, has been provided for 2024-25, and Transport Scotland is currently preparing the specific allocation.