Scottish Parliament, 18 April 2024

319 contributions from 74 members. The official report.

Points of Order

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time and, in order to get—

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to convey my utmost dismay at the utter shambles that has unfolded this week over the Scottish Government’s handling of the Cass review findings. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the member.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I think that the groans say everything, Presiding Officer.

On Tuesday, I asked what more MSPs must do in the chamber to raise important issues on behalf of their constituents. The Scottish Government has had every opportunity to make a statement on the Cass review and on whether it will pause the prescription of puberty blockers to children, but it has refused to do so. Arrogance has gotten in the way of protecting some of the most vulnerable children right across Scotland.

The question that I have for the Government is: was it worth it? This morning, MSPs read on social media that the prescription of puberty-suppressing hormones is to be paused in Scotland. However, I find that rather odd, because we have been told repeatedly this week that the minister and the Government needed sufficient time to carefully consider the findings. I wonder whether the Scottish Government developed the skill of speed reading overnight.

If the Government was going to make this announcement anyway, why did the Scottish National Party and the Greens not vote for the statement that I proposed yesterday? That would have allowed the Government to announce in the Parliament that puberty blockers were to be paused, and it would have allowed MSPs to ask questions that the SNP has been hiding from all week.

The Government has tried to silence MSPs in this Parliament, and that is a disgrace. It seems content to leak to the press the news that puberty blockers will be paused before having the decency to update the Parliament, treating the Presiding Officer and the Parliament with utter contempt.

I am beyond fed up with this Government and its lackadaisical approach to gender care. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the member.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

We are failing children and young people. There should be an urgent—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I ask that we hear the member and that we refrain from shouting from our seats.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Kevin Stewart has been chuntering away on this issue from a sedentary position.

There should be an urgent ministerial statement so that the SNP can outline what the announcement means and so that MSPs can ask appropriate questions. However, with the SNP and the Scottish Greens’ approach to scrutiny this week, I doubt that that statement will ever take place.

Therefore, given that the timing of the official announcement this morning did not allow for an urgent question to be submitted before the deadline, I seek to move a motion without notice to suspend rule 13.8.1 of standing orders, so that the 10 am deadline can be removed for today to allow for an urgent question on this topic. Presiding Officer, will you accept my moving a motion that, under rule 17.2.1(a), this Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words “by 10 am” for the purposes of the meeting?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I thank Ms Gallacher for her point of order. I am not minded to accept a motion without notice at this time, because we are now in two time-limited question time periods, where members have opportunities to put questions directly to Scottish Government ministers and then to the First Minister. I am keen to protect that time and not disadvantage members. We will move on with our general question time session, and I call Neil Bibby.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would it be possible to reschedule general question time to another slot to allow for the motion without notice that has been proposed?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am not minded to do that at this moment, Mr Whitfield. I am very keen that we proceed with business as has been previously agreed by the business bureau and by this Parliament.

General Question Time

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy meant by her reported comments to the Ferguson Marine workforce on 9 April 2024, that the Scottish Government will

“stand with you long into the future”. (S6O-03316)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I meant just that. As I said at the launch of the Glen Rosa, the young apprentices with whom I was delighted to share a platform, and who trained at the yard, represent the future of shipbuilding in Scotland, and the Scottish National Party stands behind them. When we made our decision to take Ferguson Marine into public ownership, we were clear that we had done so to protect jobs and vital skills, and my comments on 9 April reaffirmed our continuing commitment to shipbuilding in Scotland.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Those apprentices and the wider Ferguson Marine workforce need to see the actual investment and award of future work that, for months now, there has been cross-party support for the Scottish Government to provide. That is urgent and critical.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s planned attendance at the summit on 16 May that is being organised by the GMB union, but I respectfully say to her that the time for indecision is over. Will the workers at Ferguson Marine know by 16 May whether the Scottish Government will invest in facilities at the yard and grant them the future work that they need?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I have consistently said that the best way for Ferguson Marine to secure future public and private work is for it to increase its competitiveness. That is why, as Neil Bibby is right to narrate, we have been working with Ferguson Marine on an updated business and investment plan. That plan has been received by the Scottish Government, and we are now considering it fully, albeit speedily. As Neil Bibby rightly said, I have agreed to attend a round table with the GMB on 16 May, and I look forward to discussing the detail of it then.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Securing a sustainable future for the Ferguson Marine workforce and ensuring the workers’ continued welfare is of the utmost importance. With that in mind, can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the continued engagement that is taking place with the trade unions and the workforce?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I most recently met the GMB union formally to discuss the matter on 27 February, but I also took the opportunity to meet workers and representatives of the union at the launch of the Glen Rosa on 9 April.

As I have said, we will leave no stone unturned when it comes to securing a sustainable future for Ferguson Marine. With that in mind, I look forward to the round table that I will attend in May.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its recent consultations with local authorities about community access to the school estate, including sports facilities. (S6O-03317)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government recently convened a working group that includes representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, sports organisations and community organisations to explore how community access to community facilities such as the school estate can be enhanced.

The group has met twice and has held positive conversations on how partners can more effectively share best practice and address challenges. It will continue to meet over the coming year, and it will produce key findings and any recommendations by spring next year.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is good to hear, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware that there is considerable strength of feeling among local authorities about the significant cutbacks to budgets that are forcing many local authorities not to provide such facilities, whether they be swimming pools, gym facilities or meeting rooms in schools. Those are significant concerns. What is the Scottish Government doing to engage with local authorities to open up the school estate, especially at times when much-needed facilities are underused?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I know that Liz Smith is, as I am, a passionate advocate of physical activity and its importance to health and wellbeing. Access to the school estate and other leisure and community facilities is incredibly important in that regard.

Local authorities are responsible for those buildings where they have that responsibility. We have given record increased funding to local government, although I understand that there are financial pressures on all elements of the public sector. I am due to meet sportscotland this afternoon and, as part of that discussion, I will seek to discuss how we can best manage the facilities that are available to communities and ensure that community access is available. After that, I will report back to Liz Smith.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support childcare groups that provide after-school care and care outwith school term times. (S6O-03318)

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

The Scottish Government recognises the vital role that school-age childcare plays in supporting families to meet their childcare needs.

In October 2023, we published the school-age childcare delivery framework, which sets out our approach to building a system of school-age childcare. We are working closely with providers, children and families to co-design a future system, including considering what support those providing school-age childcare might need.

Last year, we invested more than £12 million in supporting families to access school-age childcare services through a range of partners, including local authorities, childcare services and activities providers.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I have been made aware that funding provisions for some out-of-school care groups in my constituency have not been replicated this year. We know how important parental employment is in tackling child poverty, but lack of childcare can be a barrier to full employment. Will the minister advise what funding options may be available to out-of-school care groups to allow them to continue offering those services to support parents staying within the workplace?

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

We absolutely understand the vital services that school-age childcare provides for working parents and know that the cost of childcare provision is a challenge for many families on low incomes. That is why we remain committed to expanding access to childcare that is targeted towards the families that need it most.

The Scottish Government does not directly fund school-age childcare because it is the responsibility of local authorities to allocate financial resources, based on local needs. However, as I said in my previous answer, we are working with providers, children and families to co-design a future system that includes consideration of the support that those providing school-age childcare might need. We will soon host a series of sessions with providers to discuss the topics that they have told us are important and to think about how we can make positive changes to support providers and make the system more sustainable. I will be happy to update the member on that.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Question 4 is from Monica Lennon. [Interruption.]

We move on to question 5, which has been withdrawn.

My apologies: we will backtrack a little. I ask Monica Lennon to put her question.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it reportedly delayed the approval of the budget for Skills Development Scotland, which, according to the National Union of Students Scotland and the National Society of Apprentices, led to unnecessary distress and disruption for thousands of apprentices. (S6O-03319)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Since the publication of the Scottish Government’s budget in December, and in the face of the most challenging budget circumstances since devolution, we have worked closely with SDS on how to maximise apprenticeships from within its overall budget allocation. Following that work, SDS commenced contracting for up to 25,500 new modern apprenticeship opportunities at the start of April.

I do not accept the assertion that that caused disruption for thousands of existing apprentices. There was no delay in the release of Scottish Government funding for the 38,000 apprentices in training; that funding is committed and apprenticeships continue to form a vital part of our skills system.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am astonished to hear that denial from the minister, who must be saying that the Scottish Training Federation is wrong and has imagined the impact on 1,000 employers and thousands of apprentices. The delay happened and was not a one-off, because it happened last year, too. What will the minister do to guarantee to everyone in Scotland that there will be no delay next year?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The member may well be astonished, but it is a simple fact that there was no issue for existing apprentices.

I accept that the small delay that occurred will have created some degree of upset for some apprentices and we will, as ever, work to avoid such a situation in future.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government’s failure to agree the £100 million employability budget, which means that contracts to deliver employability support programmes cannot be issued, freezes another skills programme. When will the Scottish Government sort that delay?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I will write to the member about that, because it does not sit in my area of responsibility.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to progress the recommendations contained in its fair fares review. (S6O-03321)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

First, I thank all the MSPs who contributed to the constructive debate before the recess on the fair fares review. The debate was challenging but reasonably consensual.

Transport Scotland is actively collaborating with operators and stakeholders to progress the fair fares review’s recommendations and actions. That close working will continue as we progress the medium to long-term actions alongside more immediate ones such as monitoring and evaluating the pilot that has removed peak fares from ScotRail services, as set out by the review, supported by robust governance arrangements to ensure timely progress.

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

I believe that Maryhill and Springburn and the wider Glasgow area are well placed to participate in and benefit from the proposed bus flat fares pilot. Any pilot would ideally also be integrated with our city’s urban rail network. Can the cabinet secretary update me on how candidates for such a pilot, including Glasgow, will be considered and how plans will be developed?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The fair fares review recommended the development of

“a proposal for a bus flat fares pilot for an area-based scheme to provide flat fares on bus travel, or reduced fares on zonal integrated travel for consideration in future budgets.”

The development work will ensure that any proposal for consideration is clearly aligned with the objectives of the fair fares review, and the determination of suitable criteria for selection will take place as part of that development process.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The fair fares review excluded the Glasgow subway from the national concessionary travel scheme. The justification for that was apparently that Glasgow has a strong bus system, but anyone who has used the buses in Glasgow will know that they are completely dysfunctional. Will the cabinet secretary revise that absurd decision so that the Glasgow subway is part of the NCTS?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In relation to the fair fares review, a lot of that is operating, particularly in the nationally supported public sector area. I add that the Scottish Government has invested a considerable amount of funding in the modernisation of the Glasgow subway. However, with the financial constraints that we have—which I understand the Labour Party wants to continue at Westminster—we are not in a position to support areas such as the subway or indeed the Edinburgh trams.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to promote and improve rail services in Dumfries and Galloway. (S6O-03322)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Our aim remains to continue to encourage greater rail use across Scotland. That is why we have the pilot that has removed peak rail fares until June 2024. Only last month, Network Rail completed the £1.9 million upgrade of the Stranraer line, which was funded by the Scottish Government. That involved replacing more than a kilometre of track and creating 650m of new track drainage, thus improving the resilience of the line. People travelling from Dumfries station will soon benefit from the £3.6 million improvements that are being delivered through the access for all scheme, which will provide full step-free access throughout the station.

We are supportive of new operators enhancing connectivity for Scotland and are pleased that the Office of Rail and Road has approved the new open-access service between Stirling and London Euston from Grand Union Trains, which will have calls at Lockerbie, offering some new direct cross-border services from June 2025.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

It is ironic that the cabinet secretary talks about improving the rails when there are no trains to run on them. Stranraer has been denied any rail service to Ayr since last September, following an arson attack on the former railway hotel in Ayr. Now, rail travellers are being told that the situation is expected to drag on until the summer to allow South Ayrshire Council to carry out safety repairs. The situation is having a serious impact on the travelling public who want to visit Wigtownshire and those travelling via the ferry terminals at Cairnryan. It would not be happening in the central belt.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the situation is totally unacceptable? Will she investigate how the process can be speeded up to restore rail services sooner rather than later?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I remind the member that Conservative-led South Ayrshire Council is responsible for the building and that the building itself is causing problems, not least the extension to the north building. I understand that the council has used section 29 of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, on dangerous buildings, to instruct the demolition.

The Conservatives may want passengers to travel in unsafe circumstances and rail workers to complete remediation in an unsafe environment, but this Government will not allow that. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the cabinet secretary.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are committed to supporting the resumption of the rail line, but it must be done in a safe way. We should emphasise that to all the passengers and the rail workers that the member wants to leave in a dangerous position.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Bob Doris for a brief supplementary question.

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

Rail services for Dumfries and Galloway are important to residents but also to visitors to the area, including my constituents, so that they can benefit from the wonderful attractions on offer. How has the removal of peak rail fares supported both endeavours?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

There has been extensive support for rail services in the south of Scotland in particular, including Dumfries and Galloway. On the lines that are in operation, a 20 per cent reduction, on average, has been achieved across the commuting public through the peak rail fares trial. That is very supportive. The resumption of that would benefit not just Dumfries and Galloway but those who want to travel up to Ayrshire and the central belt.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time.

First Minister’s Question Time

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members that my wife is a serving officer with Police Scotland.

When we opposed the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, the Scottish Conservatives warned that the legislation would overburden our already overstretched police. Now, that is exactly what has happened. Forty officers a day have been brought in, on overtime, to deal with 9,000 reports of hate crimes in the first two weeks.

Calum Steele, who is the general secretary of the International Council of Police Representative Associations, has said:

“Police officers have been left embarrassed by this week’s hate crime farce, with some left so angry they have told me they have never been more ashamed of being in the police service than they are at this moment.”

He added that officers have been pulled from other parts of the service to deal with those complaints.

Why does Humza Yousaf think that he is right and the police are wrong?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I remind Douglas Ross that, in almost a quarter of the hate crime reports, the victims are police officers. Not only that, but we can say from the statistics that we have to hand that many of them suffer the most outrageous abuse, some of which is directed at them because of prejudice in relation to their sexual orientation and some in relation to their race.

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed what I think is the most worrying and concerning debasing of our political discourse by the Conservative Party, in relation to the hate crime act. Just imagine, Presiding Officer, that the Conservatives had been successful in repealing the hate crime act. If the act did not exist, the stroke of a pen would have removed protection from stirring up of hatred against those who suffer racist abuse, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, or abuse because of their disability. What a reckless and, frankly, unforgivable approach is being taken by a party that seems to be more interested in gaining shoddy tabloid headlines than in protecting people from hatred.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

“Shoddy tabloid headlines”, for quoting police officers—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

A voice was given to police officers in this chamber, and that is the response that they get from their First Minister. It is a disgrace that the First Minister is unwilling to accept the failures of his act and listen to the voice of police officers up and down the country.

If he will not listen to police officers, he should listen to others, including the Conservatives, who said that the bill was too vague, was poorly defined, and would not work. Now, some of Scotland's top legal experts have said the same. Alistair Bonnington, who is a professor of law at the University of Glasgow, has said that the law is

“extremely dangerous”

and

“could see entirely respectable and reasonable citizens prosecuted for expressing viewpoints which the law would allow in almost every country in the world.”

Lord Hope, who is a former Supreme Court justice and Scotland’s most senior judge, has said that the act has “misfired” and has described it as “unworkable”. As the Scottish Conservatives have done, he has called for the hate crime act to be repealed.

Why does Humza Yousaf think that he is right and legal experts are wrong?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

In all that, the one group of people whom Douglas Ross is refusing to listen to are the victims of hate crime. That has been consistent over the past few weeks, when Douglas Ross has come to the chamber to speak about the hate crime act.

Let us look at some of the details. Of the 8,984 hate crime complaints that were made to Police Scotland in the first couple of weeks of April, the vast majority—at least 95 per cent—have been deemed not to be crimes. The idea that there would somehow be mass criminalisation of people simply for expressing their opinions, or for being insulting or offensive, did not materialise. Why did it not materialise? If we look at the detail of the 2021 act, it makes it abundantly clear that, for the new stirring-up offences, behaviour has to be both threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred.

We have a piece of legislation that does what any civilised society would want a piece of legislation of that nature to do: it protects people from hatred. Of course, there is an appropriate balance to be struck in relation to protecting people’s freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

If only the Conservatives spent more time opposing hatred than they do opposing the hate crime act, they would be in a much better place.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We are opposing Humza Yousaf’s bad SNP law because of the impact that it is having.

Victims of hate crimes are not getting support from the police because the police are being inundated with thousands of complaints. We are hearing that from the police and from legal experts.

We said at the very beginning that the act would put free speech at risk. Members will all have heard the report of a 74-year-old pensioner who was taken by the police to a station over a dispute with her neighbour. That grandmother was not charged and had not committed an offence, but she has been punished by the process—exactly as we warned would happen, just a few weeks ago.

Public opinion is already against Humza Yousaf’s law. A recent poll found that two thirds of Scots thought that the hate crime act should be repealed.

Why does Humza Yousaf think that he is right and the public are wrong?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Once again, in that question, Douglas Ross did not mention the victims of hate crime. [ Interruption .]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I did. I literally said it.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Time and again, Douglas Ross forgets to mention the very people who suffer hatred.

In the figures for 2021-22, almost 7,000 hate crimes were recorded by Police Scotland. Those are almost 7,000 people who have been the victims of racist abuse, antisemitism, Islamophobia and transphobia, and people who have been the victims of hatred because of their sexual orientation or disability. Those people deserve protection.

What we have seen in the past few weeks is deliberate disinformation from the Conservatives and many other bad-faith actors who have refused to look at what the law actually does. The law is abundantly clear that, for the new stirring up offences, behaviour has to be threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred.

In relation to police officers, let us go back to what Police Scotland has actually said. Let me commend and thank Police Scotland for the incredible job that it has done, despite the fact that there have been many bad-faith actors in relation to the hate crime act. In Police Scotland’s own words, there has been a “minimal” impact on front-line policing in the first couple of weeks.

Let me thank police officers not only for the work that they do, day in and day out, in tackling hate crime, but for the fact that almost a quarter of hate crime reports are against police officers themselves.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Humza Yousaf is describing opponents of his bill as “bad-faith actors”. They are the two thirds of Scots, who, at the moment, want to see his legislation being repealed.

Humza Yousaf is sitting there saying that everything is fine with his legislation, just as he did with the ferries that he could not get to sail, the trains that he could not get to run on time and the NHS waiting lists that grew under his stewardship of the health service. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

We warned him that all these problems with the hate crime act would happen. We warned that the police would be overwhelmed, and that the law was poorly written and would put free speech at risk. He dismissed every single valid criticism. Humza Yousaf said that he knew best.

Now, the police, legal experts and the public are telling him that he has got this badly wrong. The only person in Scotland who seems to think that the act is working well is Humza Yousaf. How on earth can the First Minister say that the hate crime act has been a success?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Once again, Douglas Ross misrepresents the facts. The Parliament did not back the Conservatives. In fact, with the exception of the Conservative Party, the Parliament backed the act. When Douglas Ross’s party lodged a motion to repeal it, the majority of members in the Parliament rejected that motion.

When I talk about bad-faith actors, I am talking about the Conservative Party. I also mean, for example, neo-Nazis—those on the far right—whom The Observer reported were organising and orchestrating complaints to Police Scotland. They are, by any stretch of the imagination, bad-faith actors. Far too many such actors have been spreading disinformation and misinformation. Despite that, despite what they had been warning—which was proved to be untrue—and even despite what I suspect some of them wished, the police dealt well with those thousands of complaints. Only a minority of such complaints have ended up being recorded as hate crimes.

Time and again, every one of us stands up in the chamber to say that we have a zero-tolerance approach to hatred. I have to say that that has been sorely tested by some comments that the Conservative Party has made in recent weeks. If they have that zero-tolerance approach, they should be getting behind the act and supporting the victims of hatred.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

When Humza Yousaf was standing to be leader of his party, he promised to “meet and better” Scotland’s climate targets. When Rishi Sunak rowed back on the United Kingdom Government’s climate commitments, the First Minister said that he had “no intention to change” Scotland’s target dates. This is what he had to say about Rishi Sunak’s approach:

“the UK government’s actions, in the face of that climate catastrophe are simply unforgivable”.

He continued that what the UK Government was saying

“is that ... we can row back on our commitments and ... it is the planet, it is people that will suffer the effects.”

Today, the Scottish National Party-Green Government will row back on its climate commitments. Why is Humza Yousaf following the Tories’ lead?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Untrue. This is probably why it is wise to listen to the detail of a parliamentary statement before coming forward with a misleading mischaracterisation of our position. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As the Parliament will hear later this afternoon, there is no intention to row back from the 2045 date in order for us to reach net zero five years ahead of the UK Government and to continue to have more ambitious climate change targets than, for example, Labour-run Wales.

We have made progress. Between 1990 and 2021, we reduced our carbon emissions faster than any other nation in the UK. Let me also be clear that this Government will not move back by a single month, a week or even a day from the 2045 target for achieving net zero.

The Climate Change Committee was always clear that the 2030 date was a stretch target. That was clear to all of us when we committed to that target and backed it in the first place. What does not and will not change is the end destination of 2045. The cabinet secretary will come to the chamber with details of an accelerated package of climate action.

Time and time again, all that we have heard from Anas Sarwar and his party is opposition to every single measure that we have proposed. If he and other Opposition members are serious about tackling the climate crisis—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

—it is time for them not to shy away or run away but to back the ambitious climate action that we will propose.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We voted for the Government’s targets. That was such an embarrassing response from the First Minister. Such an embarrassing argument might have worked with Patrick Harvie or Lorna Slater, but it is not working with the Scottish people.

Let us be clear. Last month, Chris Stark of the Climate Change Committee said that the Scottish Government’s carbon reduction targets were “no longer credible”. He has been clear that, in many areas, the Government has all the powers that it needs to make a difference, but it has not taken action.

The response across Scotland to the Scottish National Party and the Greens rowing back on their climate commitments has been—rightly—scathing. Oxfam Scotland this morning called it “an acute global embarrassment.” Friends of the Earth Scotland said that it is

“the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish Parliament”.

Even one of the First Minister’s own ministers described it last night as very disappointing. We must have the only Green Party in the world that supports scrapping a climate change target. Is that why more and more people across Scotland are asking what the point is of this SNP-Green Government?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Anas Sarwar started his second question by saying that the Labour Party backed the targets. That is not in dispute. The point is that, time and again, every time we have brought action to the chamber, Anas Sarwar has opposed it.

Anas Sarwar sits there and shakes his head. When we introduced a transport bill that included a workplace parking levy, Labour tried to remove that levy. Not only that, but Labour’s transport spokesperson called it “highway robbery” and a “car park tax”. That was despite the fact that a Labour-run council in England had already introduced a workplace parking levy—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Under this Government, we have made progress, whether that is in the fact that 87.9 per cent of our electricity generation comes from zero-carbon or low-carbon sources or the fact that 75 per cent of all new woodland creation throughout the UK is here in Scotland. We have made progress with the success of the offshore wind leasing round by ScotWind. We have one of the most generous concessionary travel schemes in the UK and we have put £65 million towards 2,700 electric vehicle charging points.

When Màiri McAllan comes to the chamber this afternoon, we will build on that progress by introducing an accelerated climate change proposal and plan. It is important for those who demand action to unequivocally support that bold and radical action. Failure to do so will be nothing other than hypocrisy.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Only Humza Yousaf could believe that slamming on the brakes—because that is exactly what the SNP is doing this afternoon—is an acceleration. We already know that Humza Yousaf supports a tax on workers but not on the oil and gas giants, which are making record profits. The fact is that he is rowing back on his climate targets, and the Green Party is backing him up.

The SNP-Green Government’s failures mean higher bills, fewer green jobs and other countries winning the global race for clean energy. While the SNP and Greens fail to meet their promises on jobs, Labour will deliver more than 50,000 clean power jobs in Scotland. While the SNP and Greens cut the money to retrofit homes, Labour will upgrade thousands of homes to make them more energy efficient. While the SNP and Greens sell off Scotland’s sea bed on the cheap, Labour will deliver a publicly owned energy-generation company, headquartered here in Scotland—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We all know that Scotland has huge potential. The people of Scotland gave the SNP a huge opportunity, which it has wasted. Is it any wonder that people across the country believe that the SNP has lost its way, that it has the wrong priorities and that it is letting people down every single day?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

In the very short list of actions that Labour will be taking, one policy was absent—the £28 billion that it pledged for the green prosperity fund. Instead of £28 billion, we get a brass plaque that will undoubtedly match Labour’s brass neck.

Let us cut through the soundbites and lack of substance from Anas Sarwar, and stick to the facts. Scotland has reduced carbon emissions faster than any other part of the UK—that is a fact. We are absolutely committed to no rolling back on the net zero by 2045 target—that is a fact. The equivalent of 113 per cent of Scotland’s overall electricity consumption in 2022 was generated by renewables—that is a fact. Seventy-five per cent of all woodland creation throughout the UK is in Scotland—that is a fact.

The only green policy that Labour had was the £28 billion a year green prosperity fund, which it has dumped. It takes pride in the fact that its reckless plans are risking up to tens of thousands of jobs in the north-east, all to fund new nuclear power stations in England.

This afternoon will be a key test. When the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy brings forward an accelerated package of climate proposals, it will be time for the Opposition to either put up or shut up.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister, in light of the recent report by the Climate Change Committee, how the Scottish Government plans to accelerate action to ensure that Scotland achieves net zero by 2045. (S6F-03007) [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am sure that no member can possibly think that that is courteous or respectful behaviour when another member is putting a question.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Màiri McAllan will give details of exactly that accelerated policy package when she stands up this afternoon. I will not pre-empt the details of that here.

The Scottish Government is very appreciative of and grateful to the independent Climate Change Committee for its latest advice. We welcome the recognition of where we have made progress, but we also take extremely seriously the fact that we have not made the progress that we needed to make in order to get to the 2030 target. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that that target is beyond what we are able to achieve, and that is why Màiri McAllan will come to the chamber this afternoon to give details of the accelerated policy package that we will bring forward.

We remain absolutely committed to ending Scotland’s contribution to climate change in a just and fair way by 2045. As a reminder, that is five years ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy will make a statement in Parliament this afternoon on the response to the Climate Change Committee’s report, and the fundamental premise of that statement will be around the accelerated response to the climate emergency.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

One positive from the Climate Change Committee’s report was its praise for our programme to deliver greener, warmer homes through an upcoming heat in buildings bill as a template for the rest of the UK to follow. We have already seen Opposition parties in the chamber call for climate action and then corral the full forces of climate denialism as soon as we propose any change to business as usual. How will the First Minister’s Government build support for our heat in buildings proposals and ensure that everyone in Scotland can benefit from greener, warmer homes?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Ariane Burgess is, of course, entirely right. That approach is symptomatic of an Opposition that continues to demand action and, every time we bring forward action, it opposes it for opposition’s sake. People will absolutely see through that time and again.

This afternoon, when we come forward with further, detailed proposals on how we intend to accelerate our response to tackling the climate emergency, people will be watching to hear whether the Opposition backs those radical proposals or is just full of more hot air.

We will continue to develop our proposals for a heat in buildings bill to tackle climate change and ensure that everybody in Scotland has a warm and affordable house to live in. The recent consultation on those proposals drew nearly 1,700 responses. We are now analysing those responses, and feedback will be published shortly, later this year. The proposals are a critical part of our response to the climate crisis, and it is welcome that they have been recognised as a template for the rest of the UK.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

World-leading climate change targets being delivered by bad-faith actors in the form of the Scottish Government was always going to be a challenge—and so it has proved, with the Scottish Government failing to meet eight of its last 12 emissions targets. That is an embarrassing record. It now appears that the Scottish National Party and the Greens are considering scrapping annual targets in order to hide their shambolic record. Will the First Minister rule that out, or is his Government now retreating in the fight against climate change?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

What a cheek. What a brass neck from a party that has decided that it will approve hundreds of new oil and gas licences without any question whatsoever. What a cheek from a party whose own net zero targets are behind ours. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We are five years ahead of where the rest of the UK is in relation to our net zero ambitions.

I go back to my central point. People will be watching. When we bring forward the accelerated package of climate action, will it have the backing of the Opposition? Time and again, the Opposition parties—the Conservatives in particular—demand that we take action, but they opposed the workplace parking levy, the deposit return scheme, the heat in buildings strategy and every single measure that we bring to the chamber. That demonstrates how unserious and complacent they are when it comes to the climate emergency.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

This week’s memorandum of understanding between HD Hyundai Heavy Industries, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise is a vote of confidence in Scotland as a strategic hub for offshore wind, which is a crucial element of our journey to net zero. Can the First Minister outline what support the Scottish Government is offering to the offshore wind industry to secure jobs and investment that will support Scotland’s economy?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I was very pleased to see the signing of the MOU between HD Hyundai and our enterprise agencies, which is a real demonstration that, through efforts in Scotland in particular, Scotland’s offshore wind sector is attracting global attention.

The Offshore Wind Industry Council has predicted that the number of jobs in the sector in the United Kingdom could grow to more than 100,000 by 2030. That is why we are investing up to £500 million to anchor our offshore wind supply chain in Scotland, to act as a catalyst for further private sector investment in order to ensure that the Scottish workforce and Scottish businesses and communities all benefit from the offshore renewables revolution. Such collaborations are undoubtedly vital—key, in fact—to delivering wider economic supply-chain benefits to help power Scotland’s growing green economy.

We will continue to work closely with our enterprise agencies and with the Scottish National Investment Bank to foster relationships with global industry partners.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government considers this month’s changes to United Kingdom migration rules will have on the seasonal workforce in Scotland, as the soft fruit sector begins to prepare for the summer season. (S6F-03030)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The United Kingdom Government’s policies to reduce net migration are an example of decisions that are taken at Westminster that work directly against Scotland’s vital national interest. Increasing the skilled worker visa threshold from £26,200 to £38,700 makes no sense whatsoever for Scotland nor, I suspect, for many parts of the UK. It will limit labour migration in areas of Scotland that already face significant challenges around depopulation.

Although the increase in the salary threshold does not currently affect seasonal horticultural and poultry workers, migrant workers play a vital role across the breadth of our entire economy. These changes could cause irreparable damage to the food supply chain and to the sustainability of our rural economy. It is only with independence that we would have the ability to devise a humane, principled approach to migration that is needs based and delivers positive outcomes for Scotland’s communities and public services and for our society more generally.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Every day, we hear about the harm that Brexit is causing the Scottish economy, and indeed the UK economy, with the cost now estimated at £140 billion. I say that, but there is a conspiracy of silence among the unionist parties, which will not raise a word of concern or criticism about the effect that Brexit is having.

Today, I, along with other members of the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, visited an exporter, who said that it is “utterly exhausting” trying to deal with the new burdens that Brexit imposes. He talked about businesses that have gone bust overnight, and some that no longer export.

Scotland’s rural industries in constituencies such as mine are bearing the brunt of Brexit. The new migration rules are just the latest in a long list of toxic Tory Westminster policies. A Labour Westminster Government would do nothing to change that; it would keep Scotland out of the European Union, out of the single market—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Can I have a question, Mr Brown?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

—and without freedom of movement.

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland needs not a change of Government at Westminster, but the change that only independence can bring?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

There is simply no doubt that Brexit is relentless. The damage from Brexit has been relentless, as are the impacts that are being faced across the labour market as a result of Brexit.

New import controls that have come into effect have threatened to cause hikes in food prices once again. Of course, that is on top of the Conservatives’ mishandling of the economy, which has seen food prices rise to levels that have caused such suffering and misery.

Changes to migration policy, combined with the loss of people coming from the EU to live and work in Scotland, make it harder for key sectors such as social care, agriculture and hospitality to recruit—and, crucially, to retain—vital staff.

Keith Brown is absolutely right: Tory policy on migration is absolutely toxic, and the sooner Scotland is free of a Tory Government, the better. However, Labour offers little change; on the big issues such as rejoining the European Union, a Labour Westminster Government will change absolutely nothing. It is only with independence that we will once again join the European Union and have free movement of people.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports of significant financial pressures within NHS Lothian and NHS Borders. (S6F-03010)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

This year’s budget provides an increase of more than £0.5 billion to our NHS boards, taking our total investment in boards to £14.2 billion and the NHS and social care budget as a whole to more than £19.5 billion. The £14.2 billion represents a real-terms uplift for the NHS in Scotland, in stark contrast to England, where the Tories have shamefully cut funding to the NHS in real terms.

Despite our significant investment, we know that the system is under extreme pressure as a result of the on-going impact of Covid and many other things. The Scottish Government has on-going contact with all health boards, including NHS Lothian and NHS Borders, to address the financial challenges that they face. That includes scrutiny and challenge of financial plans and agreeing to support recurring savings where we can to ensure that there is financial sustainability.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

On 16 December 2021, Humza Yousaf told the Parliament:

“Every member recognises the importance of Edington hospital being at the heart of the local community. I reiterate that and I understand that, and I know that NHS Lothian understands it, too.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2021; c 47.]

However, last month, as a result of a Scottish National Party cash crisis, NHS Lothian announced the permanent closure of beds at the Edington hospital, the Abbey care home in North Berwick and the Belhaven hospital in Dunbar. Meanwhile, local primary care providers have announced that they are facing massive increases in NHS Lothian’s facilities management fees, with Tranent facing the loss of 3,500 general practitioner appointments as a result. Before the First Minister blames someone or something else, will he finally take responsibility for the crisis that he and his Government have created in Scotland’s NHS?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Craig Hoy has the audacity to stand up and shed crocodile tears for our NHS while his party is cutting our capital budget by £1.3 billion. That capital funding could have, and should have, been used for health infrastructure projects. What a sight it is to behold to have Craig Hoy of the Conservatives demand that we spend more money while his party has cut our capital budget as well as cutting our resource budget in real terms by £500 million.

Of course, there are pressures on our NHS, which is why we have taken a different course of action to the Conservative United Kingdom Government, which has prioritised tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the NHS. Meanwhile, we are asking those who earn the most, such as people on an MP’s salary or a First Minister’s salary, to pay more so that we can provide more funding—record funding—to our public services such as the NHS. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the SNP, and I make no apologies for it.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Lord Advocate regarding the exoneration of Scottish sub-postmasters and mistresses whose convictions were based on evidence from the Post Office’s Horizon computer system. (S6F-03033)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As the member knows, the role of the Lord Advocate as head of systems of prosecution is an independent function. I hope that she is assured by the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I have had discussions with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General on a number of occasions. We continue to press the United Kingdom Government to extend its Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill to cover sub-postmasters and mistresses in Scotland. Today, the justice secretary has written to the UK Government with suggested amendments in order to achieve that. I am happy for that letter to be made public.

If the UK bill is not extended, we will introduce Scottish legislation. Although Scottish legislation can be introduced, it would need to be passed after the UK bill. That is essential so that we can take into account any amendments that are made during the passage of the bill at Westminster, to ensure that there is compatibility with UK legislation, because the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have no responsibility for or power over the UK compensation scheme.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

We now know from recent coverage in the press that people at the top of the Post Office lied all the way about Horizon—and that goes down to our Crown Office. However, the Crown Office accepted an interim report by the accountancy firm Second Sight as corroboration that the Horizon system was okay, despite the fact that the director of the firm said that the report revealed “system flaws” with Horizon. As the First Minister knows, the onus has so far been on postmasters themselves to appeal their convictions, and I am sure that we agree that that is wholly unacceptable.

I wonder whether the First Minister agreed with Kevin Drummond KC that the Lord Advocate could present a petition to the court of criminal appeal to inform the court that the convictions had been found on flawed evidence and could invite the court to overturn the convictions. We all want the quickest route to justice, and that might be a quicker route. Does the First Minister agree that the miscarriages of justice could be dealt with quicker in Scotland, where those miscarriages of justice took place, and that our Crown Office should be responsible for the actions that it took?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I entirely agree with Pauline McNeill that the onus cannot and should not be on sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who have waited far too long for justice.

I also reiterate what the Lord Advocate said a number of months ago—or certainly a number of weeks ago—that she would be willing to update members directly on the questions that they have. Any petition going to the courts would not be a matter for me as First Minister; it would of course be a matter for the Lord Advocate.

There may be some difficulties in identifying so-called Horizon cases, which is slightly more complex here in Scotland. I know that Pauline McNeill will completely understand this, but the Post Office cannot bring forward private prosecutions in Scotland in the manner in which it can in England. Secondly, as the Lord Advocate said previously, the Crown has often chased the Post Office for further information to be able to triage Horizon cases, and that information has often not been forthcoming. Pauline McNeill will also be aware that, in Scotland, prosecutions do not simply rely on one piece of evidence—on Horizon data, for instance—and there would often have to be corroborative evidence in such cases. Triaging those cases can therefore be a bit more challenging.

I do not disagree with the premise of Pauline McNeill’s question at all. If there is a quicker way or route to get justice—at the same time, we do not want those convictions that are sound to be overturned, with those people then liable for compensation—we will explore every avenue that we can. We want no delay whatever, and we will continue to work with the UK Government to do the simplest thing, which is to ensure that the UK legislation applies UK-wide.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In November 2023, Kenneth Donnelly, on behalf of the Crown Office, undertook, in paragraph 73 of his written statement to the Wyn Williams inquiry, that a “streamlined and expedient process” would be brought forward to secure the quashing of the convictions. Why has the Lord Advocate not brought that forward?

Given that we all want to achieve the aim of the swiftest possible delivery of exoneration of people whose lives have been destroyed and ruined—in some cases, they are now dead—should we not at least now publish the proposed Scottish legislation in draft, rather than let the matter drift on further, into the autumn?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

There is nothing stopping us from introducing specific Scottish legislation, and we are working on what a bill would look like in the event that the UK Government does not accept the very reasonable amendments that have been tabled to ensure that the Westminster bill is UK-wide, which we think is the simplest and easiest way to ensure fairness and equity between sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the entire UK. I still have concerns about the UK Government’s approach; hence, I hope that it is open to amendments, so that we can ensure a minimising, if not complete elimination, of those whose convictions are sound having their convictions overturned.

On the questions that Fergus Ewing directly asks me, I understand that the Lord Advocate has written to Fergus Ewing, but if that is not the case I am more than happy to ask the question that Fergus Ewing has put to me to the Lord Advocate, so that he gets a detailed response.

I say once again that we are working on Scottish-specific legislation, although I go back to the central point that we cannot allow a situation where sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in Scotland are treated differently from how they are treated in England in relation to access to compensation.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The work of undercover police officers is secretive, sensitive and dangerous, yet Police Scotland is investigating claims that the personal details and photos of undercover officers have been leaked to an organised crime group. When was the First Minister’s Government first made aware of those serious allegations? What impact might they have on policing operations? Most importantly, what has been done to protect officers who might now be compromised?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Russell Findlay has every right to raise the issue, and I share his deep concern, particularly because of my previous role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, when I worked closely with the serious organised crime task force.

We know how important and imperative the work of our undercover police officers is. Of course, it is an operational matter for Police Scotland, and I have no doubt that Russell Findlay could write to the chief constable to gain as many assurances as possible, but I understand that the matter is still under live investigation, as we speak.

I thank police officers for the excellent work that they do, often putting themselves in harm’s way to protect us. I share Russell Findlay’s concern, but the protection of officers is a matter for Police Scotland. I will ensure that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs writes to Russell Findlay with details about when the Scottish Government first knew of the allegations.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Can the First Minister confirm to the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—who are watching this question time and to those who are protesting outside Parliament today that the Scottish Government stands with and supports them in their continuing battle with the United Kingdom Government for compensation? Will he personally lend his weight to urge UK ministers to bring forward a compensation plan for my Rutherglen constituents and other WASPI women across Scotland with the utmost urgency?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The Scottish Government has always supported—and always will support—the WASPI women. The report from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is a significant moment for all those who have been involved in the campaign. I pay tribute to every woman who has tirelessly fought, not just for their rights but for the rights of all women who have been impacted and affected by those disgraceful decisions that the UK Government made without the women’s knowledge.

It is time for the UK Government not just to apologise but to deliver justice and compensation for its actions, so I am writing to the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition to call for urgent action following the ombudsman’s report.

I reassure members that this Government will not rest until WASPI women receive the justice that they absolutely deserve. I look forward to meeting WASPI campaigners after this question time and reiterating to them that, although they might have been abandoned by the United Kingdom Conservative Government—and also, it seems, by the UK Labour Party—the Scottish National Party stands firmly with them in their pursuit of justice.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The Parliament is aware that, this morning, Sandyford clinic announced that it will no longer prescribe puberty blockers to 16 and 17-year-olds—a key recommendation in the recently released Cass review. Members in the chamber should know whether that decision has been taken as a result of any Scottish Government intervention and whether the First Minister and his Government are supportive of a wider acceptance of the recommendations in the Cass review. After the poor and woeful answers that we received yesterday in the chamber, will the First Minister intervene, where the health secretary has not, and ensure that a statement is made in the Parliament to clarify the Government’s confused position and to allow members an opportunity to question the Government on this very important matter?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will quote directly from an interview that Dr Hilary Cass did just a few days ago. She said:

“The toxicity of the debate is perpetuated”—[Interruption.]

I am astonished that Conservative members are groaning at the fact that I am quoting Dr Hilary Cass. She said:

“The toxicity of the debate is perpetuated by adults, and that itself is unfair to the children who are caught in the middle of it. The children are being used as a football and this is a group that we should be showing more compassion to.”

It is to that very last point that I want to draw attention, because compassion for this group of young people must be at the forefront of everything that we do. I absolutely believe that it is at the forefront of Carol Mochan’s mind and the question that she asks. Therefore, it was absolutely right to allow clinicians to have conversations with the young people whom they treat compassionately, before the Government came forward with any further statement in relation to clinical decisions that were being made. Now that we have had that confirmation, the health secretary or ministers will, with the agreement of the Parliamentary Bureau, come to the chamber next week or in the coming weeks to give an update on the Government’s position.

There is a process of review that is very much under way, but I go back again, not just to the central point about compassion but to the point that, when it comes to the treatment and the care that is provided to these young people, decisions on such matters should be made by clinicians, and not entirely by politicians.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the First Minister welcome the news that was eloquently set out in today’s Herald that Scotland is outperforming the United Kingdom as a whole in private sector business activity, is third among the UK’s 12 regions and nations for economic growth and is currently enjoying the greatest expansion of business activity in nearly a year, and what assessment has he made of devolved decision making’s impact in delivering those positive outcomes?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right to raise those issues. The news will come much to the upset of the doomsayers as regards Scotland’s economy, but Kenneth Gibson is right to point out that Scotland’s economy is, across a whole range of measures, outperforming the UK economy. I welcome his efforts to counter those who would talk down Scotland’s economic success.

Scotland’s gross domestic product per capita has grown faster than the UK’s since 2007, and since 2007, productivity in Scotland has grown at an average annual rate of 1 per cent, compared with the UK’s average rate of 0.4 per cent. Through Stuart McMillan’s question, we have already heard about the partnership between Scottish enterprise agencies and HD Hyundai Heavy Industries. That is just one example of the investment that we are attracting to Scotland. Think how much more we could do if we were not tied to Brexit-broken Britain. Brexit has been an unmitigated economic disaster. If only we had the full fiscal and monetary levers of a normal independent nation, think how much more we could do.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

April is bowel cancer awareness month. Bowel cancer is the second biggest cause of cancer death in the United Kingdom. However, Scotland’s excellent screening programme could be better. The Government has signed up to increasing the sensitivity of the current tests, which will undoubtedly save lives. Sadly, the Government has not yet delivered. As a first step, will the First Minister now commit to evaluating and publishing the costs of making bowel cancer screening more sensitive?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I pay tribute to Edward Mountain, who has spoken about his cancer journey extremely bravely and with good humour. He has brought members across the political spectrum together to challenge us—the Government in particular—on what more we can do. I will have a conversation with the health secretary and we will examine and explore what more we can do in relation to the sensitivity of the excellent screening programme that we already have. Although it is an excellent screening programme, we always want to seek to do what we can to improve it and ensure that we capture more people as early as possible. Edward Mountain knows only too well that the earlier the diagnosis, the better the prognosis for the individual involved.

I will consider Edward Mountain’s ask, and I once again pay tribute to him for his efforts in raising awareness of bowel cancer and cancer more generally.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This morning, we learned from the British Medical Association Scotland that more than 600 consultant vacancies are missing from Scottish Government official statistics. Clinicians have repeatedly warned of the workforce crisis in the national health service, but ministers have been quick to say that there is nothing to see here. Now we learn that the published data is entirely misleading and that the vacancy rate is 15 per cent, which is more than double the 6.9 per cent that is given in official statistics. Will the First Minister guarantee that all workforce data will be urgently reviewed to ensure accuracy? Will that shocking revelation be the wake-up call that is needed to set out a credible NHS workforce plan?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We will always look to see what can be done to ensure that our statistics are rigorously checked using the appropriate means and in the appropriate manner. Where any challenges are raised, we take them seriously, particularly when they are from an organisation such as the BMA.

When it comes to NHS staffing under the Scottish National Party, we have seen a record high of more than 33,000 full-time-equivalent staff between September 2006 and December 2023. We have more staff per head in Scotland than they do in England. We have more qualified nurses and midwives per thousand of population than they do in England. Overall nursing and midwifery staffing is at a record high, and the number of medical and dental consultants is up by 68,000 under the SNP.

That does not take away from the fact that there continue to be workforce vacancies, as Jackie Baillie highlights. That is why we will continue to do what we can to attract, recruit and retain those staff. A key element of that is ensuring that NHS staff continue to be the best paid anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s questions.

Points of Order

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you please rule on the misinformation that Meghan Gallacher gave in her previous point of order about gender services?

To be clear, what was announced today was not a decision of the Scottish Government. The Government has made no announcement and, therefore, there cannot have been any leak, as was alleged in the point of order. The decision was made by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which made its announcement through a press release this morning, confirming the clinical decisions that it has made.

Presiding Officer, I know that you cannot rule on the veracity of members’ contributions, but surely there should be a ruling when it comes to misinformation.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Stewart. You are correct: I cannot, generally, rule on the content of members’ contributions. Your comments are now on the record.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Further to my point of order this morning, Presiding Officer, in the light of your previous ruling and the new information that has been made available through the press on the Government’s announcement to pause the prescription of puberty blockers for children and young people—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Ms Gallacher.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

—I seek to move a motion without notice that, under rule 17.2.1(a) of standing orders, the Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words “by 10 am” for the purposes of the meeting.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you for your point of order, Ms Gallacher. As I previously explained, I am not minded to accept a motion without notice for the purpose of questions when there has just been an opportunity for members to put questions directly to the First Minister.

However, I have noted, with regard to this particular instance, that members have previously raised questions about particular procedures. I know that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is looking at that matter, and it might be one that is up for review. The matter can also be raised by your business manager at our next meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Over the past three years, I have brought many diverse communities into the Parliament. However, a recent incident has cast a shadow over those efforts. With regard to a Tuesday evening Eid reception, attendees were intimidated and bullied into not participating. It came to light that an executive member of a Scottish National Party-affiliated group orchestrated a campaign urging others to boycott the event, citing it as a Tory Eid reception, despite parliamentary rules forbidding party-political events in the building.

That turn of events is deeply disappointing. Occasions when we celebrate Eid, Vaisakhi or Diwali should serve as opportunities to honour Scotland’s diversity and to foster connections between guests and politicians from across the political spectrum. However, this Eid reception was tainted by political undertones.

I thank those who did not give in to the peer pressure and still attended the Eid reception in the Scottish Parliament. I thank Douglas Ross and Alex Cole-Hamilton for their attendance.

I was disappointed that I had to find out first from community links that Humza Yousaf and Anas Sarwar would not be joining us, despite their confirming their attendance. It was also notable that not one SNP, Labour or Green MSP attended to celebrate Eid with the Muslim community.

I appealed to the First Minister to denounce such behaviour, but, unfortunately, no action was taken, which sent a concerning message to those who were involved in the intimidation tactics. The incident sets a troubling precedent for future events and undermines our efforts to foster inclusivity and engagement in the Scottish Parliament.

Therefore, Presiding Officer, I seek your urgent guidance on how we can uphold the integrity of the Parliament by ensuring that party politics do not interfere with the public’s engagement with the Parliament; on how we can ensure the safety of Parliament staff; and on whether the behaviour of members in relation to the Eid event means that, in future, by attending any reception that is sponsored by a member of any political party, we are, in turn, endorsing their political views.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Gosal. That is not a matter of parliamentary procedure, so it is not one that I can rule on from the chair. However, it is obviously extremely important that all can attend events in the Parliament, which is a welcoming democratic space. I would be happy to have a discussion with the member in due course.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Once again, a significant announcement has been made through the press, as opposed to being delivered first to the Parliament by this devolved Government. This afternoon’s business includes a statement from the Scottish Government titled “Climate Change Committee’s Scotland Report: Next Steps”. However, last night, the BBC was already reporting what the statement will say. According to the BBC,

“The Scottish government is to ditch its flagship target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030.”

Presiding Officer, I do not know how many times the Scottish Government has bypassed your request that significant announcements be made in the chamber in the first instance. What I do know is that it is ignoring your instruction, which shows contempt. Before this afternoon’s statement, will you consider what action you can take to ensure that ministers finally respect this Parliament?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Lumsden. I have not yet seen the statement, but I am aware that there is discussion on it in the public domain. I will consider the matter before we return this afternoon.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Further to Douglas Lumsden’s point of order, Presiding Officer, when the announcement was made in April 2022 that the census deadline would be extended, you were challenged by not being able to see what was in the Government’s statement, because it had not yet been published. Would it be within the auspices of your power to observe the Climate Change Committee statement during your recess from the chair over the next hour, so that you can make a decision about whether any or all of the statement should be heard before we move to questions this afternoon?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Yes, indeed. Further to my response to Mr Lumsden, I repeat that I will be considering the matter fully over the next period.

There will be a short suspension before we move to a members’ business debate in the name of Pauline McNeill.

Prison Officers Association (68 Is Too Late Campaign)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12265, in the name of Pauline McNeill, on the Prison Officers Association’s 68 is too late campaign. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

I advise all members that I will seek to ensure that they stick to their allocated time, as they have signed up and agreed to do, because business will resume at 2 pm, and we must allow our staff sufficient time to clear the chamber in preparation for the start of the afternoon session.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the Prison Officers Association campaign, 68 is too late; understands that the campaign seeks to end what it sees as the injustice of prison officers being required to work until they are 68, compared with other uniformed services, such as the police force, fire service and the Armed Forces, which, it understands, have a normal retirement age of 60; notes the view that expecting prison officers to work until almost their seventh decade, at a time when, it understands, the prisoner population is rising, the average age of a prisoner is 36, violence is increasing and the influence of organised crime is expanding, is both dangerous and unrealistic; further notes the belief that a retirement age of 68 risks the safety of prisoners, prison officers and the public, including in the Glasgow region; considers that, for successful rehabilitation, prisoners rely on well-trained, motivated and confident officers working in safe and fully-staffed establishments, and notes the calls on the Scottish and UK governments to enter talks with the Prison Officers Association to discuss how to bring about changes to the retirement rules to provide an option to access their pension at 60 with no financial detriment.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

When I was first asked to host—jointly with Audrey Nicoll, Maggie Chapman and Liam McArthur—the drop-in on the 68 is too late campaign, my reaction was that 68 is too late for everyone, but it is certainly too late for prison officers. I also put on record that although I did not manage to get to the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—demonstration today, I, in common with everyone else in the chamber, endorse the WASPI women’s continued fight for justice.

When we think of the risks that prison officers manage on a day-to-day basis and the incredible physical courage and patience that they must display, it is clear to me that, in the main, 68 is far too old an age for a prison officer to be able to deal with physical challenges of such a nature. Most prisons and custodial institutions are inherently violent places, but the skill and professionalism shown by prison officers are what limit the frequency and severity of incidents.

In his 2011 review of public sector pensions, Lord Hutton of Furness produced a list of uniformed services that he proposed to protect from the rise in the state pension age to 68. He insisted that, historically, the pension age had been lower for the armed forces, the police and firefighters to reflect the unique nature of their work and that, therefore,

“a pension age of 60 is appropriate.”

Prison officers are clearly a uniformed service, but they were unfairly left off that list. If a prison officer fails their annual physical test, they will generally be allowed to retire, but that means that they will not get their full pension. That is hardly fair when police officers and firefighters are able to retire almost a decade earlier.

Unlike most public sector workers, prison officers cannot go on strike. Given that they are prohibited from taking any form of industrial action, we need to make sure that the Government is not taking advantage of that restriction and underrewarding prison officers.

I also note that the Prison Service Pay Review Body has continued to raise concern about the pension age, arguing that 68 is

“far too old to cope with the physical and mental demands of being an operational frontline prison officer”.

The retention rate of newly recruited prison officers is very low. Violence, or the threat of violence, is always there. The fact that it is a difficult and unpredictable job should be acknowledged through the retirement age.

At the start of the year, the head of the Scottish Prison Service, Teresa Medhurst, said that Scotland’s jails were “too full” and that they were reaching a “tipping point”. Overcrowding creates all sorts of pressures inside jails. Andy Hodge, the governor of Perth prison, has pointed out:

“The pressure of population is forcing us to put more people into one room. That’s a real stretch. Two adult men into a room where you’ve got one TV, one kettle, tensions start to build, people start to fall out. Violence amongst the residents starts to go up.”

Prison officers have to deal with the fallout of those increasing pressures and tensions. That is on top of their having to deal with violence directed at them by inmates.

Another pressure that prison officers have to deal with is the increasing number of prisoners suffering from acute mental health problems. There are high levels of self-harm, suicide and drug deaths in our prisons; all are clearly challenging to deal with, and our prison officers are tasked with dealing with such incidents on a daily basis.

The Prison Officers Association is extremely concerned about the impact of prolonged exposure to such an environment on front-line staff, especially those who are required to continue working until they are 68. It has pointed out that relying on prison officers to work until they are 68 results in high levels of sickness and absence rates across the service. Prison officers are critical to the rehabilitation of prisoners, and it is not in the interests of prisons as a whole for members of the prison workforce to feel that they are being unfairly treated compared with workers in other sectors.

Prison officers are on the front line of the criminal justice system and do a difficult and dangerous job. I do not believe that a retirement age of 68 is either appropriate for prison officers or in the public interest, and I ask the Scottish Government to have discussions with the United Kingdom Government about how we can ensure fairness for prison officers.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I congratulate Pauline McNeill on securing crucial debating time for this important subject.

Prison officers shoulder unique and demanding roles, necessitating that they keep order while functioning, on occasion, almost as social workers and educators to individuals, many of whom are deemed too dangerous for the rest of society.

The Prison Act 1952 vests prison officers with

“all the powers, authority, protection and privileges”

of police officers. Despite that clear legal mandate, a glaring denial of prison officers’ pension rights persists. Expecting prison officers to retire at 68 shamelessly disregards the realities of prison life for those on the service’s front line. It makes no sense to ask a 67-year-old male or female to confront, subdue and control a physically agile 25-year-old who might be armed with a bladed weapon or influenced by a history of violence or drug abuse. In such situations, a retirement age of 68 threatens the safety of inmates, prison officers and, ultimately, the public.

There have been 900 reported assaults against prison officers in the past three years, and the number is on an upward trend. Moreover, the behaviour of inmates is becoming hard to contain as new types of crime and drug use evolve in combination with overcrowding. A recent study conducted by Richard Harries of the Leverhulme research centre for forensic science at the University of Dundee revealed that vapes are now being utilised in prisons for the trafficking and administration of drugs, leading to a risk of the escalation in drug use and gang affiliation within Scotland’s prisons. The proliferation of mobile phones also introduces security risks that require constant vigilance.

An anonymous source told The Guardian last year:

“Prisoners are bigger due to steroids. Spice turns inmates into zombies. And with social media they might know where we live.”

Managing those challenging circumstances places significant physical demands on younger staff members, let alone those in their seventh decade who might have dedicated almost half a century of their lives to their roles in the prison system.

There is certainly no other profession that places such duties and expectations on staff. The pension age for police officers, the fire service and the military stands at a dignified 60, or less in certain circumstances, whereas prison officers are required to work for an additional eight years. The Prison Officers Association has rightly voiced concerns about the prolonged exposure of front-line staff in their 60s to that environment.

Research from PTSD UK indicates that UK prison officers face a significantly higher risk of developing post-dramatic stress disorder than those in most other occupations. Burn-out, characterised by emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and a diminished sense of personal accomplishment, is also more prevalent among prison officers.

Given the widely acknowledged risks faced by officers on the job, there is a clear need for increased support, one crucial aspect of which is to ensure a timely and dignified retirement. Moreover, for Mark Fairhurst, chair of the POA, the retirement age is a primary reason for the recruitment crisis in the prison system. Fairhurst has said that, for many 18-year-olds, the thought of working on the prison estate for half a century deters them from seeking to join the service.

The POA has also found that poor retirement prospects are central to the haemorrhage of long-experienced officers, who are lost to the service. Meanwhile, years of austerity and real-terms pay cuts have intensified the pressure on prison officers, resulting in the overcrowding and understaffing that can lead to prisons failing to meet the minimum staffing requirements for a safe and fully operational establishment.

It is imperative to acknowledge that the challenges faced by prison officers do not cease on retirement. Many carry physical injuries, mental scars and emotional burdens accumulated over years of service. They deserve the opportunity to retire at an age where they can enjoy the fruits of their labour, spend quality time with their families and pursue personal interests without the constraints of age-related limitations.

I whole-heartedly support the 68 is too late campaign, because we cannot, in good conscience, allow the situation to persist. It is incumbent on us to prioritise the wellbeing of our prison officers, both in the present and during retirement. Let us not forget the years of service that they render to our communities. A retirement age of 68 is an act of profound injustice and disrespect, and I therefore support Pauline McNeill’s motion.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Sharon Dowey is joining us remotely.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber and for bringing the Prison Officers Association to Holyrood at the end of March, when we heard from it directly about its campaign.

The retirement age for these dedicated professionals has sparked widespread concern, particularly in light of the challenging conditions that they face daily. The Scottish Conservatives understand the demanding nature of the work that prison officers carry out and we fully understand and appreciate the sentiment that 68 is too late for officers to be conducting front-line work. The work is incredibly demanding and physical, and it takes a real toll. I have spoken with prison officers and I recently visited HMP Kilmarnock, and I have great admiration for the work that prison officers do.

The broader context is important. The SNP Government’s justice failures have resulted in crime levels spiralling upwards, overcrowded prisons, delayed infrastructure projects and heightened risks in our prisons. In such a deteriorating environment, expecting officers to continue front-line duties until the age of 68 is asking too much.

Prison officers also face increasing gang violence. A new study by the SPS found that gang violence is being fuelled by steroids inhaled through vapes, and those steroids were identified in every prison that the study looked at.

With many premises being over capacity and understaffed, prison officers often face terrifying situations. One of the POA campaigners highlighted to me a situation that occurred where the ratio was 66 prisoners to two female prison officers, and at one point an officer was left alone with the prisoners. The chief executive of the SPS has also warned that officers are facing significant danger from organised crime gang members.

We agree that there should be action on the pension age, but the Scottish Government must also look at what else it can do for prison officers. It can ensure that prison officers are not subjected to such adverse work conditions, and measures such as the provision of body-worn cameras for officer safety can be implemented, which would reverse recent setbacks such as the loss of those cameras when HMP Kilmarnock was nationalised by the SNP.

I agree that 68 is too late. It represents a long time to expect officers to work on the front line, especially in such harsh and difficult conditions. However, it is also important that the Scottish Government addresses the pressing and systemic issues that the prison system faces. The wellbeing and safety of our prison officers must receive greater focus from the Government.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I congratulate my colleague Pauline McNeill on securing this important debate. The age at which prison officers can retire from the service and collect their pension is currently set at 67, and it is due to increase to 68. While their retirement age continues to be linked to the UK state pension age, prison officers face the real prospect that the age could be increased even further. As it stands, 67 or 68 is too late. It puts prison officers, the colleagues for whom they provide back-up support and the prisoners whom they look after at unacceptable levels of risk.

The omission of prison officers from the list of uniformed services for which a pension age of 60 was agreed to be appropriate, in recognition of the unique toll that such professions take, was a significant error. As Pauline McNeill said, the Hutton review in 2011 concluded:

“for the uniformed services ... where pension age has historically been lower to reflect the unique nature of their work a pension age of 60 is appropriate.”

Prison officers should have had a pension age of 60. We must appreciate that, historically, there have also been lower pension ages in other sectors, such as for staff in psychiatric hospitals. Firefighters, prison officers and the armed forces were all included in 2011, yet prison officers were then excluded.

The current retirement age fails to recognise the unique pressures on prison staff. It is abundantly clear to me from speaking to them and reading the many responses that they provided to the Prison Officers Association’s all-member survey on the issue that the situation is untenable and unsafe. More than 90 per cent of the Prison Officers Association members who were surveyed said that they believe that they will not be able to continue to work until the age of 68, with more than 95 per cent fearing that they will need to leave their job before they reach that age because of the considerable physical and mental health challenges that they face in their work.

In the words of one prison officer,

“By the time we reach 68, we will already be suffering from ill health, hip and knee issues, and the stress that comes from working in the job. Including strokes and heart attacks and high blood pressure. Most of us barely live until our 70’s.”

Another describes how they are already

“struggling to cope”

at the age of 49. The injuries that they frequently receive in the course of their duties

“are taking longer to heal from”,

yet that officer will still be required to work a further 19 years of service before they are permitted to pick up their pension. It is clear that the mental and physical impact of carrying out those roles is incredibly high—and, as Sharon Dowey said, the prison environment that officers work in is becoming increasingly dangerous.

Prison officers work with an ever-expanding prison population and respond to high levels of prisoner violence, which is often instigated by those who are high on psychoactive substances. As has been said, prisons are becoming more dangerous, given the presence of drugs and the increasing numbers of members of organised crime gangs. All of that is coupled with a Scottish Prison Service that is understaffed and overstretched.

I urge the Scottish Government to meet the Prison Officers Association to discuss those issues and, thereafter, to make appropriate recommendations to the UK Government.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank Pauline McNeill for her motion and for securing the debate. Before the Easter recess, it was my pleasure to co-host, with Pauline McNeill and other cross-party colleagues, a drop-in session in the Parliament with the Prison Officers Association. Many colleagues will have taken the chance to have a chat with prison officers about the work that they do and the conditions in which they must do that work.

In those conversations, I heard prison officers talk about the physically demanding nature of their role, which staff who are in their seventh decade—and who are approaching their eighth decade—should not be expected to undertake. A prison may be a “controlled environment”, but that does not mean that it is a safe environment. This afternoon and in many other debates in the chamber, we have heard of the violence and abuse that take place in our prisons. I argue that such conditions alone are justification enough for a whole-scale review of our prison system that covers what—and who—it is for, and why we still use a carceral system that has not fundamentally changed for decades, if not centuries.

However, that may be a debate for another day. Today, we have the chance to come together as a Parliament and stand in solidarity with workers who do a difficult and demanding job. We have the chance to make a clear and united call to the UK Government that we agree with the Prison Officers Association’s campaign—that 68 is, indeed, too late.

Pauline McNeill has mentioned, but it is worth reiterating, that as a uniformed service, prison officers should have been included in the 2011 Furness review of public service pensions. That review stated clearly that uniformed services should have a pension age of 60,

“to reflect the unique nature of their work”.

Pauline McNeill outlined clearly many of the increasing pressures on our prisons, all of which make a retirement age of 68 even less appropriate. Making prison officers work until they are 68 is risky, and lays the foundations for problems in the service in the coming years. Experienced prison officers might decide to leave their roles in their 40s or 50s because they want to get another job before getting close to 60, when their employment prospects will decline. That is not good for ensuring that younger workers have experienced colleagues to support them as they get to grips with a job that probably not many of us would want to do. It is not good for the service as whole. It is also likely that sickness absence rates will increase, which will put additional strain on remaining colleagues and potentially make prisons even more dangerous. That cannot be the future that we want for the service.

I hope that we can all be clear in our commitment to ensuring that prison officers are included in the list of uniformed services with a retirement age of 60. I urge the cabinet secretary, in her closing remarks, to commit to engaging with the Prison Officers Association and others, so that we might explore what we can do to support prison officers until we get the change that we need at Westminster.

I close with the words of a prison officer who took part in a survey undertaken by the POA this year:

“I am aged 59 at the moment and have 30 years of experience in working in various establishments. The job that I am required to do has had a lasting mental and physical impact on me, in particular the latter years. The thought of having to go to 67/68 fills me with dread as I feel that I will be less capable of doing what is demanded of me. It is not an environment for anybody over the age of 60.”

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

I, too, am pleased to speak in the debate, and I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing it to the chamber. I commend the 68 is too late campaign, which seeks to address a long-standing anomaly whereby prison officers in the UK are unable to access their pension until they are 68. As a former emergency services worker, I recognise the strength of feeling and support behind the campaign.

I am astounded at the appalling position taken by UK ministers, who view 68 as an appropriate age for prison officers to retire on the ground that a prison is a controlled environment, which completely fails to understand the complexities and challenges of managing a changing 21st-century prison population. The UK Government must bring about pension justice for our front-line prison staff, and I lend my weight to the efforts to secure that change.

I want to continue the theme of wellbeing and acknowledge the commitment of prison officers in Scotland. That was highlighted at a recent event that I sponsored in the Parliament on behalf of Aid & Abet, a charity that works with ex-prisoners. The event celebrated the publication of “The Good Prison Officer”, which is a collection of reflections written by ex-prisoners who are all now practitioners and educators in the criminal justice field. Their personal stories offer an insight into the importance of developing a rehabilitative culture in prison that derives from the empathy, compassion and respect that are shown by prison officers and which were shown towards them, profoundly impacting their lives and, in some cases, probably saving their lives.

Those people described what I would call discretionary effort, the lifeblood of every organisation, whereby staff go above and beyond their role, day in and day out. If workers do not feel that that effort is recognised and acknowledged, they will eventually withdraw it. I will pick up on that point in the context of today’s debate. In a recent lecture titled “We asked for workers and they sent us humans”, the former chief constable of Lancashire constabulary, Andy Rhodes, set out a compelling argument for placing mental health and wellbeing at the forefront of every operational and organisational decision. The context was policing, but the principle applies across other bodies of public-facing workers and particularly, I would argue, to prison staff.

Andy Rhodes spoke of the importance of embedding organisational justice so that a workforce is given the protection and support that it deserves and is better able to respond to the public in a competent and compassionate way. That ties in closely with the survey findings in the report “68 is Too Late: The Case for a Fair Retirement Age for Prison Officers”, which highlights the impact that

“prolonged exposure to this environment has on front-line staff, particularly for those staff who are required to continue working until they are 67 and 68 years of age.”

The report includes some powerful quotations that were shared with the POA, including the one that Maggie Chapman used in her contribution, which I am going to repeat:

“I am aged 59 at the moment and have 30 years of experience in working in various establishments. The job that I am required to do has had a lasting mental and physical impact on me, in particular the latter years. The thought of having to go to 67/68 fills me with dread as I feel that I will be less capable of doing what is demanded of me. It is not an environment for anybody over the age of 60.”

I would have felt exactly the same.

I wish the Prison Officers Association well in its campaign, and I hope that today’s debate shines a light on the injustice that is being faced by prison staff in Scotland and the UK.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I begin by thanking my colleague Pauline McNeill for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I know that she is a strong campaigner on this matter and will continue to stand firmly on the side of prison officers in Scotland.

I was privileged to have the opportunity to meet POA Scotland members in the Parliament just last month, and we had some good discussions about what challenges are presented to prison officers and service delivery as a result of the retirement age remaining at 68.

In setting out my position today, I start by firmly reiterating my support for this campaign, as I did to the POA Scotland members. As we have heard from across the chamber, 68 is too late. UK Government ministers must act, and Scottish Government ministers must redouble any efforts that they are currently making to deliver the much-needed change in retirement age to 60.

As the POA parliamentary briefing ahead of today’s debate states,

“Prison officers are manifestly a ‘uniformed service’”,

and, as such, it is clear to me that they should be treated in the same manner as other uniformed services and see their retirement age return to 60 without detriment to their pension. Indeed, the briefing that we have all read acknowledges that that was previously the case and that it is due to a 2011 review that omitted prison officers from the definition of uniformed services that they are now expected to work until they are 68.

Prison officers have explained to me the mental and physical challenges associated with working in the prison setting until that age. Other members have described those well, and I fully agree that the situation is wholly unacceptable and untenable. In its report, the POA highlights that more than 90 per cent of those surveyed believe that 68 is too late and that more than 95 per cent have concerns that they will not be able to work until they are 68 due to the physical and mental demands that are associated with this extremely challenging job.

Across the chamber, we all agree that this is no way to treat our prison officers, who deliver an absolutely essential service, that they must be treated with dignity as they reach their retirement age, and that this challenging profession deserves to be treated in the same way as other uniformed professions.

It cannot be forgotten that, despite the fact that they are described as managed environments, prisons can often be violent places, as we have heard, and officers are regularly expected to attend violent incidents. By their own admission, prison officers are rightly concerned about their ability to provide physical support to younger colleagues if they encounter such a situation as they approach their 60s, and they have concerns for their safety and the safety of others.

We hope that the UK Government will recognise that the current position poses a risk to the physical and mental health of the officers and others. It must listen to those who are lobbying it and take action, and I hope that the Scottish Government will continue to lobby it as constructively as it can in order to make progress on the issue.

Again, I thank Pauline McNeill for bringing the debate to the chamber and all members who supported the motion.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this important debate and I place on record my thanks to Pauline McNeill for lodging the motion and to the members who have made a valuable contribution this afternoon. I also pay tribute to members who have worked on a cross-party basis to support POA Scotland in its quest. I very much agree that 68 is too late, and, as members would expect, I have met with the POA, and will continue to do so.

We all agree that prison officers play a vital role in our justice system, helping to ensure that our prisons are safe, secure and stable environments for all prisoners and staff. They are very much hidden in plain sight; they are a hidden part of our criminal justice system and the more that we can do together to show the nature of their challenges and the value of their work to the general population, the better.

In my tenure as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, I have taken the opportunity to visit every prison in Scotland and I have seen the dedication, professionalism and engagement of prison officers. In my past role as a prison-based social worker, and in my present role as the justice secretary, I have seen them working in a way that is person centred, inclusive, trauma informed and rights based and that makes a difference to people’s lives every day.

I was struck, but not surprised, by the words of an individual in custody in HMP Greenock, who is quoted in a recent report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland:

“This prison has been exceptional in helping me through my sentence, all the staff are wonderful and easy to speak with. This is my first time in prison and I have felt supported at each step of the way”.

Audrey Nicoll spoke to the work of the good prison officer project, where people with experience of incarceration spoke powerfully in their testimonies about how prison officers have helped them to turn their life around.

The Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service recognise that prison officers work in a challenging environment and, at times, put themselves in danger and at risk. We have a high and rising prison population. Behind the numbers, as members have accurately reflected, there is increasing complexity, whether that is with the increasing numbers of those in custody with links to serious and organised crime groups, challenges around drugs and psychoactive substances, or the increased demand for social care due to an ageing prison population.

The Scottish Government and partners across the justice sector, including the SPS, are fully committed to tackling those issues and reducing the impacts and harm caused. You will be relieved, Presiding Officer, that I will not repeat the content of the two previous statements that I have made to Parliament on those matters.

I very much recognise that prison officers carry out front-line operational duties, including control and restraint, until the state pension age, which is due to rise to 68. That is hugely challenging and carries with it significant stresses and strains.

The Scottish Prison Service takes the safety and security of its staff extremely seriously. I discuss the matter of staff wellbeing regularly with the SPS. The SPS provides support to staff to remain at work and in meaningful employment when they cannot undertake their full contractual role, including workplace adjustments and redeployment to alternative roles across the organisation. Every effort will be made to accommodate requests for a change or adjustment when the request is evidence based. However, that does not in any way detract from the point of principle that prison officers deserve parity with other uniformed services.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, of course.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I apologise to Pauline McNeill for missing the opening minute of her speech. There was a bit of a lunch stampede and it was hard to get back in the chamber.

I am listening to the debate with great intent. It is an area of interest to me given my former role, and I am sympathetic to, and concur with, a lot of what has been said. On the issue of parity with other uniformed services, one of the big pushbacks over the years—this has been rumbling on in Westminster—has come from various Government ministers who have said that the reason that they were able to reduce the pension age for police officers is that police officers have been paying higher contributions to their pensions up front, as employees, during the course of their career. Is it the case in Scotland that police officers have to pay high contributions to allow them to retire early, and would it have to be the case for prison officers, too? It is more of a technical question, rather than one of policy intent.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am happy to answer Mr Greene on that matter, which is, indeed, technical. Prison officers do not have a separate pension scheme; they are part of the UK-wide civil service pension scheme that all devolved civil servants are part of. It was deeply regrettable that the Hutton review did not take account of the Prison Act 1952, which said that prison officers should have “authority, protection and privileges” and rights equal to those of police officers. However, no account was taken of that.

It is well established—many members have articulated it—that some occupations are restricted by capacity and age due to the physical demands of those roles, making it untenable to expect their duties to be carried out until state pension age. That was recognised by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which at that time set the pension age at 60 for firefighters, police officers and those in the armed forces. Prison officers do not have their own dedicated pension scheme—they are part of the wider UK civil service pension scheme.

Over the years, the Scottish Prison Service and the Scottish Government have strongly supported the position of POA Scotland on the issue. We opposed the changes to public pensions following the Hutton inquiry and, in particular, the requirement that prison officers should have the normal retirement age of 68.

Successive cabinet secretaries for justice have made representations to the UK Government, and we will continue to do so, raising concerns about the physical demands of the prison officer role. The UK Government has consistently maintained its position that there is not a sufficiently strong case to make on-going special provision for operational prison staff. However, I politely beg to differ, based on the testimony and contributions of members across the chamber.

I acknowledge the work of POA Scotland on behalf of its members. I point out that prison officers in Scotland have the right to strike, unlike in England and Wales. POA Scotland has a constructive partnership agreement with the Scottish Prison Service, which has been in operation for more than 20 years. I very much welcome the POA’s support in bringing HMP Kilmarnock into the Scottish Prison Service family.

I reiterate that the work that prison officers do to keep our prisons safe and stable has great value. Their commitment and dedication make a difference to people’s lives every day, and I put on record yet again how much I appreciate everything that they do.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio questions on social justice. I remind members that, if they wish to request to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or enter the letters RTS in the chat function during the relevant question.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what the average waiting time is for a determination on adult and child disability payments in Mid Scotland and Fife. (S6O-03308)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Official statistics for adult disability payment and child disability payment, including information on processing times, are routinely published by Social Security Scotland. The figures do not include information broken down by geographies below Scotland level.

The figures based on the most recently published statistics for adult disability payment and child disability payment show that the median average processing time in Scotland was 59 working days for adult disability payment in January 2024 and 97 working days for child disability payment in December 2023.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was planning to raise the case of a constituent who had to wait more than six months for a payment, but this morning we have seen the distressing report that nine children have died while waiting for their child disability payments to be processed. Our thoughts are with the families of each of those children.

I know that we all want a social security system that works for those who need support and treats them with compassion and dignity. We have to recognise that part of that involves addressing long waits and delivering vital payments with the urgency that is required.

Today’s press report was heartbreaking. What assurances will the cabinet secretary give that such a situation will not happen again? What action will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

First, if Claire Baker wishes to write to me about the constituency issue that she was planning to raise, I would be more than happy to pick that up in correspondence.

My thoughts are, of course, also with the families of the children who are referenced in the media reports this morning. I take the issue exceptionally seriously, as we all do, as we deliver social security in Scotland.

It is important to point out that, whether it is a child or an adult with a terminal illness, such cases are dealt with exceptionally quickly. We do not publish the times for child disability payment for those with a terminal illness, because such cases are so few in number. However, I am looking at what can be done to publish information to give some reassurance to families in the most difficult of circumstances, if their child is terminally ill.

As I have said in the chamber before, it is important to recognise that, in general, it can sometimes take time to process CDP claims. Unlike under the Department for Work and Pensions system, Social Security Scotland gathers the supporting information about a claim, rather than that being a responsibility for the families. It can sometimes take time to get through that, but I give Claire Baker the reassurance that we are making strides in dealing with processing times.

Processing times are improving, and we are taking further measures to ensure that those with the longest waits are looked at and that decisions are taken by the agency as soon as possible. I will—as, I am sure, Claire Baker and other members would expect—continue to keep a close eye on what is a very serious issue.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I associate myself with Claire Baker’s remarks, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comment that she will look into the matter and report back.

However, does the cabinet secretary recognise that it is not just about the waiting time once a person makes an inquiry? There are long delays in people getting through to Social Security Scotland, either on the telephone or by social media. What is being done so that people do not have to hang on the telephone for an excessive amount of time to get an answer to an inquiry?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I recognise that the amount of time taken waiting on the telephone was causing concern. I do not have the figures on those wait times in front of me, but they have improved markedly since concerns were raised. That is thanks to the work that the agency has done to ensure that people have their calls answered much more speedily. I will be happy to provide information and the specific numbers on that to Jeremy Balfour in writing, but I hope that he can be reassured that significant progress has been made on the agency’s call wait times.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Such deaths, which have happened in the context of not only child disability payment but adult disability payment applications, bring into sharp focus the consequences of long waits. Nonetheless, I thank Social Security Scotland staff for managing to get the wait times down. They are now broadly in line with the DWP’s times, which is more welcome.

The cabinet secretary did not set out what practical steps she is taking to improve the system to ensure that such issues do not happen again. Will she give us a bit more colour and detail on exactly what is being done to ensure that we do not have long waits in the future?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

A large number of system changes have been made, but I can perhaps give a flavour of them. I will give Mr Rennie some examples.

We have looked at every step in the process, such as how the application forms, which were co-designed with people who have used the DWP system, be changed so that we can implement suggestions for clients to provide stronger supporting information. That is not to say that we should put the onus on them but, if they were to do that to begin with, it would certainly help. Additional calls are made immediately to people who apply without supporting information, to make suggestions about the types of information—for example, prescription lists—that could be sent in right at the start, to allow that to be included. There is greater use of in-house health and social care teams to support faster decision making, and there is also a review of staffing levels. Those are not the only examples; they are just some of them.

Social Security Scotland staff will soon be in the Parliament and will invite all members to talk to them about particular constituency cases or the work that the agency has been doing. I am sure that they would absolutely welcome the opportunity to talk through Mr Rennie’s question with him in further detail, and I, too, would be happy to do so.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment the ministerial task force on population has made of the potential impact of the centralisation of services on the sustainability of rural communities. (S6O-03309)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

In 2019, the Government established a ministerial task force on population to oversee the development and delivery of Scotland’s first national population strategy in 2021. The task force, which Emma Roddick chairs, brings together ministers from across the Scottish Government, including those who are responsible for key public services, with a clear focus on delivering joined-up policy solutions for our communities. The addressing depopulation action plan, which was published in February, further highlights the action that the Government is taking to support communities, with a clear focus on the role of infrastructure in key services such as education, childcare and health and social care.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Across Dumfriesshire, my constituents are finding it harder and harder to access basic services. National health service dentistry is now non-existent in many parts of the constituency. My constituents in Sanquhar, Kelloholm and Kirkconnel tell me that they cannot see a general practitioner face to face. Gretna community council says that finding the police in the community and getting them there is now near impossible as they have disappeared. In Langholm, people are working hard to get back basic podiatry and physiotherapy services that were taken away during Covid. Does the minister accept that having such poor services makes it harder for elderly, disabled and disadvantaged people to live in rural communities?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Mr Mundell raises a number of points. It is key to note that, this year, NHS Dumfries and Galloway has received increased funding of £12.5 million, which takes its overall funding to £364.7 million. I will be happy to take away Mr Mundell’s points as action points if he would like to write to me or the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care about them. He made three or four main points on actions that we are already undertaking. One is to examine how we attract people to work in the area. We are talking about promoting an attractive wellbeing economy, which is really important in my own area. Housing also plays an important part. During the summer, I will undertake a programme of visits to rural communities. I hope that Mr Mundell will consider meeting me on my visits to Dumfries and Galloway to explore the issues that he has raised.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the housing minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any potential impact on rural community housing of its decision not to allow the use of fossil and biofuel heating systems in new-build construction. (S6O-03310)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I regularly meet the Minister for Housing to discuss intersecting portfolio interests, including the heat in buildings agenda. The new-build heat standard, which was scrutinised by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee and approved without opposition, is an essential part of our commitment to reach net zero, and it will have a positive impact on rural housing. The standard was subject to full consultation in 2021 and 2022, with both consultations showing strong support.

New-build homes are required to be highly energy efficient, which reduces heat demand, but bioenergy systems can be installed to provide emergency heating where required.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

As the MSP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, where there are many rural off-grid properties that rely on oil and solid fuels as their primary heating source, I ask the minister for clarification of the definition of emergency heating in the new-build heat standard, which states that such fuels can be used in some cases, where a need can be justified.

Given that wood-burning stoves are the most reliable and cost-effective backstop in isolated areas, and that they can help to address the significant issue of rural fuel poverty, can the minister provide assurance that building standards verifiers will interpret the regulations in a way that provides certainty for house builders?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I hope that Elena Whitham will join me in reassuring those of our constituents who currently use bioenergy systems in existing buildings that they are not affected by the changes in the new-build heat standard.

We recognise that emergency use of heating for energy will sometimes be needed, even in new builds, and that may especially be the case in rural and island areas. That is why the standard permits systems for emergency use, which could include wood-burning stoves.

In most cases, we think that, in those circumstances, portable solutions would be more appropriate to provide emergency heating, for example during power cuts. However, the regulations require that heating systems are non-polluting, and a provision for emergency use was added, which, in response to rural concerns, is not restricted to clean heating. The drafting of the technical guidance on what constitutes emergency heating can be difficult to reconcile with the nature of wood-burning stoves, which are generally installed for regular and not just emergency use.

We have heard the concerns that have been raised over the past week about the use of wood-burning stoves, and we fully take them on board. As I said yesterday, we will consider what further clarity is needed in the guidance to address those concerns, and we will continue to work with concerned parties, developers and local authorities to ensure that any updates to the existing technical guidance address those concerns comprehensively.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The recent heat in buildings consultation undervalues the significance and ability of renewable liquid fuels to contribute to a just transition and allow off-grid households to decarbonise in a fair, easy and affordable way. Will the minister commit to giving renewable liquid fuels a prominent role in the upcoming heat in buildings legislation? Will he look towards removing renewable liquid fuels, such as hydro-treated vegetable oil, from the polluting heating systems criteria?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not agree with Mr Briggs’s characterisation of such fuels. The heat in buildings consultation goes far beyond the issue of new builds and looks at how we decarbonise our existing housing stock. The consultation specifically asks what flexibility ought to be included in relation to bioenergy systems. I look forward to hearing the responses to the consultation, whether from those who lobby in favour of the industries whose interests Mr Briggs seeks to reflect or those who hold a wide range of other views about how we decarbonise heating, how we do it fast and how we do it fairly for all communities.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Can the minister give more detail on what the exemptions are? I am puzzled as to how, for instance, one would vent a portable stove. Can he also say how one would apply for an exemption, especially with regard to woodland croft houses—crofts that are created specifically for their renewable heat potential? How do the changes impact on solid-fuel stoves that are used for both cooking and heating and thus make the best use of the resource? Will he publish the island impact assessment including those changes?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

In response to more detailed questions yesterday, I set out the information that we have published. I have committed, and I have stated again today, that we will look to work with partners to clarify any aspects of the technical guidance that need to be clarified in order to respond to some of the concerns that have been raised in the past few days.

However, I reinforce that the measures that we are taking forward are about the use of fixed heating systems—primary and secondary—in new-build buildings, including new-build housing. They do not apply to emergency and back-up systems, many of which will be the portable systems that Rhoda Grant has described.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In recent years, Shetland has seen the vulnerability of its power network. Adverse wind and snow weather events have left homes without power and heating for days. Does the minister agree that that justifies the need for the installation of traditional heating in new-builds for back-up and emergency use? Does he agree that the messaging around that policy has been confused?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I think that the Scottish Government’s messaging has been very clear. I am sorry that some people—including, I am afraid to say, a few people in the Parliament—have sought to misrepresent the approach as a complete ban on wood-burning stoves. It is not, it never has been, and it will not be a complete ban on wood-burning stoves.

Beatrice Wishart is quite right that some of the communities that she has described illustrate why the provisions in relation to emergency and back-up heating systems are important and why the heat in buildings bill needs to reflect on questions about the flexibility for biomass in relation to existing homes.

Shetland is a good example of an area of Scotland where rurality and some of the issues that affect island communities are not barriers to deploying clean heating systems, whether at an individual building level or a district heating level. Shetland is a good example of where the decarbonisation of heating can be achieved in a way that meets the needs of remote, rural and island communities.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the work undertaken by the staff and officials of Social Security Scotland to complete the move to have all payments for disabled children being paid directly by Social Security Scotland, and subject to the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-03311)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am incredibly proud of the work of Social Security Scotland staff and those in the Scottish Government programme and social security directorate as a result of the work that they have undertaken to achieve that key milestone. All payments for children and young people with a disability in Scotland are now paid by Social Security Scotland. By the end of 2023, more than 47,000 awards were safely and securely transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions disability living allowance for children to our child disability payments. Some £333 million was awarded to support disabled children and young people whose benefits were transferred and their families.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Can the cabinet secretary assure my constituents and people across Scotland that the child disability payment is designed to avoid the stress and trauma associated with the DWP benefit that it replaces?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Rather than asking members to take my word for it, I will quote from a recent STV article on the issue of case transfer, in which Rebecca spoke about the difference that the approach has made to her. Rebecca said:

“There are a lot of hard things about being in a family affected by disability. This was someone taking away one of those. That has been fantastic and I’m incredibly grateful for the values that underpin Social Security Scotland.”

I hope that everyone can take heart from that, because the Parliament passed that legislation. I am exceptionally proud of that, as the minister who has been responsible for social security for half the time that it has been devolved.

In saying that, it is very important that the Government remains open to continuous improvement and to areas that can be worked on. We talked about that earlier. As I said in my responses to Claire Baker’s and Willie Rennie’s questions earlier, I take incredible pride in what has been achieved, but the agency and the Government will continue to work on improvement.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact the 2024-25 Scottish budget will have on its targets for reducing child poverty. (S6O-03312)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Tackling child poverty is a critical mission for the Government. In the face of a deeply challenging financial situation, we continue to allocate around £3 billion a year to a range of actions to tackle poverty and mitigate the impacts of the cost crisis on households.

Modelling estimates that this Government’s policies, including the Scottish child payment, will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25. We remain absolutely committed to meeting our statutory child poverty targets, and we will continue to do everything within the scope of our powers and our budget to deliver the change that is needed.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The document “Best Start, Bright Futures—Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan 2022-2026” states:

“Homelessness has a devastating impact on families and children, increasing barriers to accessing employment and education, disrupting social support networks and negatively affecting mental and physical health.”

In the lead-up to the budget, what discussions—if any—did the cabinet secretary have with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the impact on child poverty of the £200 million cut in the affordable housing supply programme?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As the member would expect, I had discussions with the finance secretary and other Cabinet colleagues about the difficult decisions that this Government had to make when we were looking at the budget. I say very gently to Mr Rowley that, in a recent press article, I said—and I meant it—that I believe that tackling poverty is something that we can work with an incoming UK Labour Government on, if Labour is, indeed, successful at the next election; however, it takes two to have that productive relationship, and it takes two Governments to take action.

This Government is continuing to take action to support those who are being harmed by Westminster. Nonetheless, tackling poverty takes action from both Governments, and the best thing that Mr Rowley and I could do together, I hope, is ensure that any incoming Labour Government reverses the cuts to revenue and capital for the Scottish Government. We would then not have to make the difficult decisions that we, as a Government, have had to make.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Child Poverty Action Group’s recent analysis of official data showing that 4.3 million children were in relative poverty across the United Kingdom, up from 3.6 million in 2010-11. (S6O-03313)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

That analysis demonstrates the devastating impact of the United Kingdom Government’s decade of austerity and welfare cuts on families across the UK. Although it is estimated that the Scottish Government’s policies will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in 2024-25, we could go so much further if UK Government policies were not actively working against us.

I have repeatedly called for the UK Government to reform universal credit, including by introducing an essentials guarantee and abolishing the two-child limit, which could lift 40,000 children in Scotland out of poverty. The spring budget was another failed opportunity to make the change that is needed.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

I agree that child poverty remains unacceptably high, particularly among disabled children, whose families are disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis. Nonetheless, Scotland has reduced child poverty, helped by social security measures such as the child disability payment. What steps is the Scottish Government taking, therefore, to increase the uptake of the child disability payment in my Uddingston and Bellshill constituency and across Scotland?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

This year alone, we are investing £1.1 billion more than the UK Government gives us for social security. We are taking that very seriously as an investment in the people of Scotland.

We also take very seriously our obligations to ensure that those who are eligible for payments are both encouraged and supported to apply for what they are entitled to. We have already received 6,000 child disability payment applications in North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire, with take-up being driven through, for example, our network of local delivery teams, which is unique to the Scottish system. We will continue to encourage those who are eligible to apply in order to give them that support. I hope that one of the quotes that I used earlier encourages people to come forward and reassures them that there is a system without stigma and with support for them.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I note what the cabinet secretary said in her answer, and in previous answers, about an incoming Labour Government. She will, I am sure, want to support transformational policies such as the new deal for working people, which will put money in people’s pockets.

Does she recognise, however, with regard to her own responsibilities in Scotland, that, prior to the recess, the annual release of official statistics showed that child poverty levels have been static at 24 per cent? That is significantly above the interim target of 18 per cent, which the Scottish Government is now almost certain to miss. Does she accept that she is going to miss those legally set targets? If so, when will she come to the chamber and outline her concerns about that?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I do not accept the premise of that argument. As I said in my original remarks to Stephanie Callaghan, we are absolutely determined to meet our anti-poverty targets. As I have said and will continue to say in the chamber, it would make it a lot easier if there was not one Government trying to lift people out of poverty and another Government—whether Labour or Tory—pushing them into poverty. That would help people a hell of a lot more.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I would like to squeeze in questions 7 and 8, but I will need co-operation. I need short, succinct questions and short, succinct answers.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what work it is undertaking to give greater representation to older people. (S6O-03314)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

We continue to work with our trusted partners in the older people’s strategic action forum on a range of priorities for advancing age equality. I chaired the latest meeting on 27 February. The report, “A Fairer Scotland for Older People: A Framework for Action” was developed to challenge the inequalities that older people face as they age. The framework outlines the range of activities that we are undertaking to support older people to improve their lives, tackle age inequality and celebrate older people in Scotland. Through our equality and human rights fund, we are investing more than £2.2 million in support of older people’s organisations and age equality projects that deliver positive outcomes for older people.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

A recent Independent Age survey showed that almost three quarters of those who are over 65 in Scotland think that the issues that they face are badly understood. Age Scotland’s recent “The Big Survey” revealed that just 3 per cent of respondents felt that it was easy for older people to have their voices heard by decision makers. Given that both surveys showed overwhelming support for having an older person’s commissioner for Scotland, why does the minister think that those older people are wrong? Why does he think that the work that he has described is not, in the view of older people, working for them?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I had the pleasure of meeting Independent Age a number of months ago, and we talked about some of those issues and the impact on housing in particular. I mentioned the equality and human rights fund, of which more than £2.2 million goes towards providing support for national organisations. That also contributes to the Age Scotland national helpline. Through its work, it identified £1.5 million in unclaimed benefits for older people who called the helpline. We are continuing to invest £3.8 million in funding to support another 53 organisations.

I am aware of the work that Colin Smyth is doing on the creation of an older person’s commissioner. We will consider the evidence that is gathered by the consultation and respond to its findings. Our main priority is to support older people who are facing hardship through the cost of living crisis.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to figures showing that there has been a decrease in the number of new homes started in 2023 compared with 2022. (S6O-03315)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Scottish Government has led the United Kingdom in housing, delivering more than 128,000 affordable homes since 2007. More than 90,000 of those homes were for social rent. In 2022-23, there was a disappointing decrease in starts, which was reflected across the UK. The combined impact of inflation, supply chain issues and labour shortages linked to Brexit created an extremely challenging environment, and we remain committed to close partnership working to mitigate those challenges. In the same year that Scotland’s completion rate for new build homes increased to 43 homes per 10,000 people, England’s rate was 38 per 10,000 people and the rate in Wales was 18 homes per 10,000 people.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Reported figures show that the number of new builds in Aberdeen fell from 1,182 in 2022 to 553 in 2023. The council says that, due to the work that is needed to address reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in Balnagask, other housing projects will be delayed. Will the Scottish Government reverse its opposition to helping Aberdeen City Council to address RAAC, so that those other housing projects can go ahead?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I have met Aberdeen City Council since RAAC was discussed. I also met with it prior to RAAC being identified, and we had numerous meetings before that. As the member will be aware, we have an options appraisal at the moment and we will continue to discuss that and develop it with the council. We have also been very flexible on the funding that it received for housing for those coming here from the Ukraine, and we have worked with it to look at the units that are required.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That does not answer the question.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

It does, actually.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members, just let the minister respond.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

As I said, we continue to work with Aberdeen City Council on new builds. It is also really important that we have set up a housing investment taskforce, which is looking to get more funding into the system, including more funding for Aberdeen City Council. I am happy to discuss the issue further with the member.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The minister mentioned the housing investment taskforce in his last answer. Can he tell us any more about it?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The medium-term outlook for capital remains challenging, with an expected 8.7 per cent real-terms cut to our capital funding between 2023-24 and 2027-28. Given that, I was delighted to chair the first meeting of the housing investment task force just two weeks ago. Over the coming months, members will address longer-term investment barriers to help attract additional private sector funding for all tenures of housing in Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions.

Climate Change Committee Scotland Report

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a statement by Màiri McAllan on the Climate Change Committee Scotland report—next steps. Before we move to that item, I wish to make the following remarks. Important aspects of this afternoon’s statement have been reported in various media outlets. When the Government chooses to share information pertaining to any ministerial statement in advance of that statement being made, the Government remains responsible for ensuring that such information is not reported by the media before the Parliament learns of it. I have spoken to the Minister for Parliamentary Business, and I have asked for the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy to apologise to the Parliament for the breach of our long-established good-practice guidance on announcements.

The Parliament will be aware that I have previously disallowed or truncated statements. However, the information that has been reported in the press today is key to actions that may impact on legislation in the Parliament and on the way in which the Government is held accountable by the Parliament. Additionally, there is information in the statement that has not been previously reported. For those reasons, and as I do not wish to disadvantage other members, I intend to allow the statement to be made, but I remind the Government in the strongest terms possible that this Parliament must be given its proper place.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Please allow me to begin by setting out my regret and my apology to you, Presiding Officer, and to the Parliament for the media speculation that has surrounded the content of my statement. I regret it because I take very seriously the integrity of the Parliament and the Presiding Officer’s role within that. It has also made it more difficult for me to communicate something that requires careful, nuanced and detailed communication. I have asked the permanent secretary to conduct an internal investigation into the circumstances as a matter of urgency.

The race to net zero is one that we must all win, and I begin by affirming the Government’s unwavering commitment to ending our contribution to global emissions by 2045 at the latest, as agreed by Parliament on a cross-party basis. I was grateful for the latest report from the Climate Change Committee on our progress in reducing emissions. The CCC is a key partner in our net zero journey, and its insights are essential. Its report recognised that there is much to be proud of, including the Government’s provision of free bus travel to all under-22s, our work to deliver more woodland in Scotland in a year than the other nations of the United Kingdom combined and our work on decarbonising heat in buildings—noting that it could be a template for the rest of the UK. Considerable progress is also being made in energy. Scotland is becoming a renewables powerhouse, with 87.9 per cent of electricity generation coming from zero-carbon or low-carbon sources in 2022.

Those are just some of the examples of the considerable work that has been undertaken, which brings us nearly halfway to net zero—narrowly missing our most recent annual emissions reduction target, but still decarbonising faster than the UK average. Quite rightly, however, and just as with the UK Government, the CCC challenges us to go further, and that is exactly what we will do. Today, I am announcing a new package of climate action measures, which we will deliver with partners to support Scotland’s just transition to net zero.

The global transition to zero-emission vehicles is happening apace—indeed, major car manufacturers have named the day when they will cease manufacturing new petrol and diesel vehicles. Scotland has long been at the forefront of helping people to make the transition to electric vehicles, but we will now go further by working in partnership to more than quadruple the number of electric vehicle charge points across Scotland.

Through collaboration across the public and private sectors, Scotland will see approximately 24,000 additional charge points by 2030. That will help to ease any remaining range anxiety that people might feel and ensure that going electric is an option in every part of our nation.

To make public transport fit better with people’s lives and to encourage all of us to choose more sustainable transport, we will also explore a new national integrated ticketing system for public transport in Scotland. We will encourage and support operators across all modes of transport to participate in that project, which aims to enable passengers to use one ticketing system for all elements of a journey.

We will help people to be less reliant on cars and we will publish a route map to help deliver a 20 per cent reduction in car use. That will not be a one-size-fits-all or top-down approach. We understand that urban Scotland and rural Scotland will contribute differently, and our just transition plan for transport will ensure support for all communities.

Turning to other vehicles, we will support the transition away from petrol and diesel vans. Working with business, including the largest companies for an initial phase and in line with our new deal for business principles, we will develop plans and support mechanisms to accelerate the switch to zero-emission technologies and more sustainable modes. We understand the importance of that transition to small businesses and independent traders in particular, and we will ensure that their needs are at the heart of the work.

Scotland’s food and drink is a significant national success story, and food security is important to the Government. That is why we are supporting our farming community to continue producing food while lowering emissions. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands is working with the sector to deliver that, including through the on-going Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill and the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, which she co-chairs with NFU Scotland. However, we want to do more to support our agricultural sector to lead the way in regenerative farming and food production.

That is why we will take forward a pilot scheme with some Scottish farms to establish future appropriate uptake of methane-suppressing feed products or additives, which is a key measure to reduce emissions from livestock where practical. Some of those additives are being pioneered here in Scotland, so we look forward to working on that home-grown innovation.

By 2028 at the latest, proportionate carbon audits will also be required by farms that receive public support. Nutrient management plans will build on that and will be integrated into whole-farm plans.

We will also accelerate our regional land use partnerships, with up to three new areas coming into the initiative over the next year, while recognising that successful partnerships are those that are driven by communities.

To further accelerate peatland restoration, we will investigate how partial rewetting can coexist with continued agricultural activity and access to agricultural support, including investing up to £1 million in pilot projects. This summer, we will launch a consultation on a carbon land tax on the largest estates, as part of considering regulatory and fiscal measures that could further incentivise peatland restoration, afforestation and renewable energy production.

We are also considering the recommendation from the green heat finance task force to review and publish, by the end of the year, analysis of how non-domestic rates relief can better support our climate ambitions and encourage investment in energy efficiency and clean heating systems. That will be developed by working closely with the business community, in line with new deal for business principles.

Scotland is distinguished by the importance that we place on a just transition. We will publish our final energy strategy and just transition plan this summer, to be followed by draft plans for agriculture, transport, buildings and construction. Moreover, following the publication of a just transition plan for Grangemouth, I can confirm today that we will co-develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran.

Those policies again emphasise the critical role that Scottish businesses and industry play in our net zero transformation, and we will work closely with them throughout delivery.

To reflect on the recent Audit Scotland report on climate change governance, we will redouble efforts to ensure that net zero is fully considered in our workforce, spending, policy development and structures. That will start with the full roll-out of a net zero assessment in the Scottish Government from the end of 2024.

To ensure that spending across the public sector reflects our net zero ambitions, we will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, including through our climate delivery framework, to understand wider public sector spend and opportunities for action.

Finally, we will propose the establishment of a four nations climate response group, with a remit that includes climate financing and the balance of reserved and devolved powers.

Those policies sit alongside extensive on-going work and will be built on through our next climate change plan and our green industrial strategy. With that ambitious new package, I will allow there to be no doubt about the seriousness with which the Government treats the climate and nature crises and about our readiness to act to deliver. We must, however, acknowledge that we do so in difficult circumstances. The Climate Change Committee is clear that the UK is already substantially off track for 2030 and that achieving future UK carbon budgets will

“require a sustained increase in the pace and breadth of decarbonisation across most major sectors.”

Indeed, we see climate backtracking at UK level. With severe budgetary restrictions imposed by the UK Government, and under the continuing constraints of devolution, we are trying to achieve societal and economic transformation with one hand tied behind our back. Such is the UK’s unprecedented economic mismanagement that full delivery of our plans will be contingent on the UK Government reversing the 9 per cent cut to our capital budget.

This Government and this Parliament have—rightly—high ambitions. It is beyond doubt that investing now in net zero is the right thing for our environment, our society and our economy, but we are being held back. I am asking MSPs from across the chamber to work with us to call on the UK Government to reverse Scotland’s capital cut.

Although Opposition members rightly demand that the Scottish Government must take urgent action to address the climate crisis, if they are serious about that challenge, they must now stand with us in support of today’s policy package and the remainder of the work that we are taking forward across this year and the coming years, instead of opposing the measures that we propose.

In the challenging context of cuts and UK backtracking, we accept the CCC’s recent rearticulation that this Parliament’s interim 2030 target is out of reach. We must now act to chart a course to 2045 at a pace and on a scale that are feasible, fair and just. With that in mind, I confirm that, working with Parliament on a timetable, the Scottish Government will introduce expedited legislation to address matters that the CCC raised and to ensure that our legislative framework better reflects the reality of long-term climate policy making. The narrowly drawn bill will retain our legal commitment to 2045, alongside annual reporting on progress, while introducing a target approach that is based on five-yearly carbon budgets.

With our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2045 steadfastly remaining and recommitted to today, and with Scotland’s emissions already nearly cut in half, we are well positioned to continue to lead on climate action that is fair, ambitious and capable of rising to the emergency that is before us. This Government will not yield to climate culture wars. We will never shirk our duty to those who are impacted by climate change today and to future generations. Together, we know that we can tackle the crisis with the pace and the urgency that are required. Indeed, with the very minor legislative amendments that I am proposing today, we will pave the way for continued ambition and pragmatic delivery on this most important challenge.