Scottish Parliament, 9 May 2024

119 contributions from 38 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what work it is doing to ensure that teachers get permanent contracts. (S6O-03412)

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

Although the employment of teachers is a matter for local authorities, we are providing local authorities with an additional £145.5 million in this year’s budget to protect teacher numbers. That will provide assurance of dedicated funding and should remove any uncertainty that is a barrier to councils employing staff on permanent contracts.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I raise the issue on behalf of one of my constituents. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s acknowledgement of the importance of the matter in ensuring that we have the best possible teacher resource in our schools. Scotland has the lowest pupil teacher ratios in state-maintained schools and the highest starting rate for qualified teachers in the United Kingdom. Does the cabinet secretary agree that such matters need to continue to be prioritised to ensure that teachers get the support that they need to provide an excellent teaching environment in our schools?

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

I agree with the sentiment that is behind the member’s question. As the member has alluded to, the Government continues to value our teaching profession, which is why Scotland has the best-paid teachers in comparison with anywhere else in the UK and, of course, the lowest pupil teacher ratio. However, we need to do more. I am determined that we will make progress in closing the poverty-related attainment gap. That is why we have provided an additional £145 million in this year’s budget to protect teacher numbers.

For the member’s information, I have just come from an instructive meeting with the Educational Institute of Scotland where we talked about the issue and some of the solutions that it has suggested for how we might provide better protection. I know from experience that there are various practices in relation to teacher recruitment across the country. It is really important that our teachers, who are supported through their training by the Scottish Government, can flourish in their teaching careers. That is why the issue remains a focus for me. I have asked the strategic board for teacher education to provide me with further advice, and I would be happy to write to the member with more detail to provide to her constituent.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government how a public health approach to justice can reduce crime and make communities safer. (S6O-03413)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Our vision for justice emphasises the importance of the public health approach to justice and community safety. Evidence shows that community interventions can be more effective in reducing reoffending and assisting with rehabilitation, which leads to fewer victims and safer communities.

Health considerations are also key. We know that those in the justice system often present with high levels of vulnerability and have complex needs. Ensuring access to health and other support services at each point in the justice system is therefore vital and requires a holistic, multi-agency approach, as well as a focus on prevention and interventions that facilitate those links.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Justice is largely devolved. However, Scotland is limited by Westminster law and policy on some of the most challenging issues that society faces, such as drugs, gambling and organised crime, so creative, focused approaches can be stifled. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is just one of the many reasons why the people of Scotland would be best served by the restoration of Scotland’s independence and the full powers and responsibilities that that would bring?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Well said, Ms Maguire. Independence would allow us, for example, to further embed and extend our public health approach to justice and violence reduction into areas that are currently reserved, such as gambling and drug policy reform. As an example, with full powers under independence, a future Scottish Government could consider a range of measures to tackle gambling-related harm, such as raising the legal age of gambling or reviewing how gambling appeals to young people.

In relation to drug policy reform, a future Government could consider the creation of a statutory framework for supervised drug consumption facilities; review the drug classification system; clarify the law so that services can provide drug paraphernalia legally; and enable a wider range of treatment options, such as introducing drug-checking facilities, as opposed to having to apply to the Home Office.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any reduction in the number of taxis in Glasgow as a result of the introduction of the low-emission zone in June 2023. (S6O-03414)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The number of licensed Glasgow City Council taxis reduced from 1,390 in May 2023 to 1,347 in January 2024. However, that reduction can be attributed to declining public demand for taxis rather than being a direct result of the low-emission zone, because Glasgow City Council offered its taxi fleet a 12-month exemption, from June 2023 to June 2024, from LEZ penalty charges. Glasgow City Council has announced that it will offer a further extension to the exemption for some taxis beyond June 2024, if taxi operators can demonstrate a commitment to retrofit vehicles or purchase compliant replacement vehicles.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

The fact is that hundreds of black taxis are still non-compliant with the Scottish National Party’s low-emission zone in Glasgow, which means that they risk going out of business when the exemption ends next month. In February, Brian O’Hara of the Glasgow Taxi Trade Credit Union said that the lack of an exemption for taxis risks putting 400 small businesses out of business. That could all be prevented if the exemption continues for taxis that are not compliant.

I have one simple question for the cabinet secretary. For the sake of Glasgow’s black taxi drivers, will she back the extension of the exemption for those taxis—not the 76 that are already exempt?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

If the member was listening, she would have heard that that is exactly what Glasgow City Council is doing. It is offering a further exemption, should there be a demonstration that retrofitting is planned.

Unlike other major cities in Scotland, Glasgow City Council does not have an age limit on taxis, so there is a higher proportion of older, non-compliant taxis, specifically in the Glasgow fleet. Annie Wells will be aware that the LEZ retrofit fund is open for applications and provides up to £10,000 towards the cost of retrofitting a taxi.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Bob Doris has a brief supplementary question.

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

What are the preliminary indications for the impact of the Glasgow low-emission zone on air quality in Glasgow, in contrast with the level of air pollution in the city prior to its introduction?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Because it takes many years for fleets to adapt to LEZ entry standards, the improvement is spread over a long period ahead of LEZ enforcement, rather than happening overnight, when enforcement commences.

In 2018, Glasgow Hope Street recorded an annual average nitrogen dioxide level of 61 micrograms per cubic metre. In 2023, it recorded an annual average nitrogen dioxide level of 39 micrograms per cubic metre, which is below the air quality objective limit. Furthermore, the highest daily average level at Glasgow Hope Street fell from 108 micrograms in 2018 to 72 micrograms in 2023, and the highest hourly level there has fallen significantly—from 310 micrograms in 2018 to 124 micrograms.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Paul Sweeney has a brief supplementary question.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The reality is that the cost of renewing a taxi to be compliant can be £60,000 to £100,000. The £10,000 grant is simply not sufficient, particularly when a lot of the affected taxi drivers are approaching retirement age or are in their 50s and cannot take out that huge amount of finance. Will the cabinet secretary review the financing arrangements that are available for people to scrap or retrofit their taxis?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We are paying a lot of attention to the four LEZ local authorities—the three that are about to commence their LEZ and Glasgow City Council, which has commenced its LEZ. The plans for that have been in place for some significant time. I mentioned that there is more of an issue in Glasgow, because it does not have licensing rules like other councils, which have insisted on improvement in their fleets.

As I said, Glasgow City Council has announced that it will offer a further extension to the exemption for some taxis beyond June 2024, if taxi operators can demonstrate a commitment to retrofit vehicles or purchase compliant replacement vehicles. On the finances for individuals, I am sure that engagement with Glasgow City Council will help to scope out requirements.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to address any issues in relation to the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the college and university estate. (S6O-03415)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The Scottish Government has confirmed, via the Scottish Funding Council, the extent of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in the college and university estate, including information on planned remediation and related costs, the measures in place to ensure the safety of staff and students and any plans implemented to ensure that students’ welfare and learning are not affected. We continue to work alongside the SFC to provide advice and support to institutions as they undertake necessary works.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The minister is aware that RAAC was found in the Kingsway campus of Dundee and Angus College last year and that vital safety work to replace RAAC panels and make buildings safe could cost as much as £12 million, with work having to be completed within three to five years.

In a letter from the minister to the college principal in December last year, he revealed that the Scottish Government would not commit any money whatsoever to the replacement of RAAC in the college estate. The minister knows that colleges have no means by which to borrow or raise money. Amid the chaos of the past two weeks, the publication of the Government’s infrastructure investment plan has been delayed yet again. What on earth does the minster suggest that Dundee and Angus College does?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I met the principal and chair of Dundee and Angus College a couple of weeks ago, which allowed me to gain an initial broad understanding of their thinking on future estate provision, taking account of RAAC and the age of the buildings, which, as Michael Marra knows, is an issue at Kingsway. I look forward to the college progressing those aspirational and creative plans for possible consideration by the SFC and the Government, although Michael Marra will appreciate that, given my constituency interest, I would not be involved in any such process.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us pick up the pace, colleagues.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Seven of Scotland’s colleges have RAAC. Audit Scotland’s 2022 report said that colleges are already £321 million short of what they need in capital funding, and no funding has been provided to date to rectify the RAAC issue. Can we take it from the minister’s answer that Scotland’s Government will provide no financial help to Scotland’s colleges to deal with RAAC?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

That is a brave and bold question from Mr Kerr, given that, despite his Government stating that it would spend whatever it would take to address RAAC, we have heard not a whisper from it. There is no indication of any money being provided to this Government in order to tackle this very substantial issue.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is working to increase the number of rapid charge electric vehicle points. (S6O-03416)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Thanks to investment by this Government, Scotland has almost 5,000 public EV charge points and is on target to have 6,000 by 2026. That is in addition to the 20,000 domestic and business chargers that were funded by the Scottish Government as part of the wider charging mix. Scotland also has the most rapid charge points of any region in the United Kingdom per head of population.

In 2023, I announced the publication of Scotland’s vision for public EV charging, highlighting the need for a transition towards a network that is largely financed and delivered by the private sector. In 2024, the private sector is forecast to invest £40 million to £55 million in public EV charging in Scotland. The Government is investing £30 million through our EV infrastructure fund and is prioritising areas of Scotland that are less likely to attract private investment, including rural and island communities.

On 1 May, I was pleased to launch BT’s first ever pilot in the UK, in Haddington, using converted green telecom cabinets on our streets to support on-street charging points for houses without drives and in outer areas of town. That is another great example of partnership work with the private sector on EV chargers.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In Inverclyde, we have access to very few rapid charge points. Some of them are currently out of use, which puts people off moving to electric vehicles, in addition to the issue of the limited available parking in the constituency, which also has an adverse effect on people with electric vehicles.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that we need to increase the number of EV charging points, particularly rapid charge points, to show that the infrastructure is very much fit to manage the expected increase in the use of electric vehicles over the coming years?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Indeed. Reliable and convenient rapid charging is critical to supporting EV adoption. We are already seeing significant growth in rapid charging across Scotland and, thanks to the Scottish Government’s early interventions, Scotland has one of the largest public EV charging networks in the UK.

We need to build on that strong foundation at pace and scale in order to meet future needs. That is why, through our EV infrastructure fund, we have been supporting local authorities, including Inverclyde Council, to continue to increase the number of EV charge points that are available. Local authorities such as Inverclyde Council understand their local needs best and will play a crucial role in the future expansion of EV infrastructure.

Last year, the UK Government introduced regulations requiring all public charge points to meet specific reliability standards. I encourage all charge point owners to ensure that they comply with the regulations so that they provide EV drivers with the reliable services that they have the right to expect.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us keep questions and answers concise, please.

I call Pauline McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Give me a minute, Ms McNeill. Can we have Pauline McNeill’s microphone on, please?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Bear with us, Ms McNeill.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Third time lucky. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to issue guidance to schools encouraging them to prohibit the use of mobile phones by pupils. (S6O-03417)

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

As I confirmed in my statement to the Parliament on 12 December 2023, the Scottish Government will shortly publish updated guidance for schools regarding the use of mobile phones by pupils. As a starting point for that guidance, headteachers should be empowered to take any action that they deem to be necessary, including banning mobile phone use, should they see fit. Indeed, many headteachers have already chosen to do that in their school communities.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

In secondary schools, the behaviour that is most commonly reported by staff as having the greatest negative impact is pupils using mobile phones when they should not be. People commonly assume that smartphones are a problem only in secondary schools, but one of my constituents has raised concerns about his child’s primary school, which has had problems with inappropriate content being circulated on WhatsApp groups and bullying via smartphones.

Is the Scottish Government looking into the extent of cyberbullying taking place in Scottish schools? What policies are being considered to beat the problem?

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

Pauline McNeill is right to highlight the issue in relation to primary schools. That was a key finding from the behaviour in Scottish schools research that the Government published in November.

The Government has a number of policies on anti-bullying, which we take extraordinarily seriously. It is worth putting on the record that, in the coming weeks, following the publication of the mobile phone guidance, we will publish an updated national action plan to address some of the challenges with behaviour in our schools. Through that work, we will seek to ensure that our anti-bullying policies are updated.

It is worth recording the real challenge that exists with mobile technology, and I would observe that the issue relates not only to schools but to our discourse in the Parliament.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of Historic Environment Scotland properties remain partially closed subject to safety checks. (S6O-03418)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The work on the properties in care is on-going. Consequently, the position is constantly changing. In order to provide the member with the most up-to-date figure on the percentage of sites that remain partially closed, I have asked Historic Environment Scotland to write to the member directly with a full response.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. Last week, I was told that 90 per cent of Historic Environment Scotland sites have reopened fully or with partial access. We are all aware of such sites in our constituencies. Of the 30 sites in Dumfries and Galloway, five currently have no visitor access, which has a significant effect on the tourism economy.

A whistleblower in HES disputes the 90 per cent figure, claims that more than 200 sites still have serious high-level masonry issues that would pose a real threat to the public and has expressed concerns about the long-term future of the buildings. The whistleblower insists that the work is not even halfway through. Can the cabinet secretary provide evidence of where the 90 per cent figure came from and provide reassurance around public safety?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I hear the concern that Finlay Carson has raised. As I mentioned in my previous answer, Historic Environment Scotland will write to him directly. Should he have any further issues or concerns, I have assured him that I would welcome a follow-up discussion on the matter. We are all committed to safety at historic sites and to their speediest reopening, and having accurate information serves us all in that purpose.

First Minister’s Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is First Minister’s question time.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yesterday, parents in Glasgow were protesting against cuts to teacher numbers. They said that they are fighting for their kids’ education, because those cuts will, in their words, make it

“impossible for schools to support pupils properly.”

In Glasgow, more than 100 teachers have already gone, and it is proposed that that number will rise to 450. Across Scotland, teacher numbers have declined for two years.

A new Scottish Government report that was published this week suggests that the Scottish National Party might abandon its manifesto pledge to increase teacher numbers by 3,500. The First Minister made that promise when he was education secretary. Will he be honest with pupils, parents and teachers today? Will he stick to his promise to increase teacher numbers by 3,500 in this parliamentary session?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government’s commitments in relation to teacher numbers have been given in good faith to strengthen the provision of education in Scotland. I want the Government to work with our local authority partners to deliver on those commitments.

The approach that we take is, of course, hugely dependent on the resources that we have available. The Government has taken steps to expand those resources: for example, if it had not taken the tax decisions that it has taken, we would be more than £1 billion worse off in relation to the funding that we have available.

I have to directly answer Mr Ross’s question about the challenges that we face in the public finances due to the pressures of inflation and the persistence of austerity that is framing public expenditure from the United Kingdom Government. I assure Mr Ross and parents, most importantly in the city of Glasgow but around the country, of the Government’s commitment to sustained investment in education and the maximisation of the investment that we can make available.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Of course, that was not my question. The question was very specific, on a specific pledge that was made not by any other SNP MSP but by the First Minister. He was the education secretary who went to the country and told people, “Vote for the SNP. Trust me, and we will increase teacher numbers by 3,500 in this parliamentary session.”

If I am not convinced by that answer from John Swinney, I do not think that any parent, pupil or teacher will be. We were supposed to have a different style of politics, but it sounds like the excuses are the same as those that we have had previously.

Sadly, John Swinney’s record in education is one of broken promises: he introduced a flagship education bill that could have improved standards but then abandoned it; he promised a free laptop to every child, but that never happened; the SNP said three years ago that Education Scotland would be reformed, but nothing happened; the Government in which John Swinney served promised that the Scottish Qualifications Authority would be replaced, but it is still here.

On teacher numbers, can he just give a straight yes or no answer? Will he stick to his pledge to increase teacher numbers across Scotland by 3,500 in this parliamentary session, or will it be more of the same broken promises from John Swinney and the SNP?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On the question of education delivery, let me put on the record a few things that the Government has achieved. When we came into office in 2007, 63 per cent of children and young people were being educated in good or satisfactory buildings. That figure today is 93 per cent. There has been a transformation of the education estate in Scotland. We have allocated £145 million to support the recruitment of teachers, in partnership with local government. Those are some of the things that we have delivered. The reform programme in Education Scotland and the SQA is being implemented.

Obviously, I have just come back into office, and I will be looking very carefully at the progress that has been made in that respect. I have not been on the front bench for 12 months or so, and I will be getting much closer to all of that.

On the question of the commitment to 3,500 teachers, I will be absolutely clear with people in Scotland today. We face very significant financial pressures in our public finances. The perspective on the public finances has deteriorated because of the effect of austerity, the cuts that have been made in public expenditure and the very significant inflation that we have had to wrestle with—which has resulted, for example, in teachers in Scotland becoming the best paid in the United Kingdom as a consequence of our decisions.

The Government will take forward its programme within the resources that are available to us, but I have to make it clear to people—to be straight with the public, which I will be—that public finances are under enormous pressure. We will set out our commitments as we take our budget decisions.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I would quite like John Swinney to be clear and straight with the Parliament and just answer a question. I will ask it for a third time, and I hope to get a response. As education secretary, he made a pledge to voters across Scotland that, if they voted for him and the SNP, they would increase teacher numbers across Scotland by 3,500 over the course of this parliamentary session. Is that going to happen—yes or no? A clear and straight answer from John Swinney is what is needed.

John Swinney has been education secretary in a previous Government. From 2016 to 2021, he was education secretary of Scotland. During that time, education was supposed to be the SNP’s top priority—it wanted to be judged on education. When he was in charge, however, Scotland’s schools and the results therein fell to record lows in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s programme for international student assessment rankings. Those measured performance in maths, reading and science. In all three, Scotland’s scores declined substantially when John Swinney was education secretary. Why did Scotland plummet down international school league tables on his watch?

I ask this for the third time, hoping that I will get an answer. Will he tell the people of Scotland whether he is going to keep his promise to increase teacher numbers by 3,500?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have nothing really to add to what I have said to Douglas Ross about the financial position that we face. The financial position is acutely challenging and difficult, and it is different from the position that we faced in 2021 and back in 2016. There has been a rampant increase in inflation on the watch of the Conservative Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If inflation rises—and this is elementary—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

We don’t need a lecture.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Hoy.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is elementary arithmetic, Mr Hoy, and we are going to have to go through some elementary arithmetic to help you out here with understanding the answer.

If inflation rises by 10 per cent, the value of the money available to spend reduces. I want to ensure that we have a well-supported and substantial teaching profession, but I have to live in the real world of the public finances available to me—never mind the fact that the Conservatives opposed every single tax change that we have made to boost the public expenditure that is available in Scotland. The Government will take these decisions in the proper course of its budgetary process.

When I was education secretary, teacher numbers rose. They rose during my term in office as education secretary. One of the things that I am most pleased about—I cannot claim all the credit for this because my successors have delivered it since 2021—is that record positive destinations are being achieved by young people in Scotland, and that is a tribute to the strength of the education system.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

John Swinney wants to give credit to his successors as education secretary. We have 250 fewer teachers in Scotland in just the past two years. He is not being straight with the public about whether he agrees with his own promise to increase teacher numbers by 3,500 in this parliamentary session, but we know already that those are going down—teacher numbers across Scotland are falling under an SNP Government.

John Swinney is reaching out across the parties to seek consensus and work together. I am sorry, but some of that has to come from him. He has to be honest. He has to give a straight answer. I will ask for the fourth time. Will he, as First Minister, commit to the promise that he made to the people of Scotland to increase teacher numbers by 3,500? It is not difficult to say yes or no. He can explain why it is no, but he must tell people, be honest and say that he is not going to do it.

As education secretary, John Swinney went from one failure to another. His implementation of the SNP’s curriculum for excellence was a mess. He is smiling at that—but I say to him that it was a mess. He was at the centre of multiple SQA fiascos, which, again, is not something to laugh about. He broke promises about improving the exam system. He was supposed to close the attainment gap entirely, but he failed. He damaged Scotland’s international reputation for education.

For 16 years, John Swinney has been at the heart of a Government that has let down pupils, parents and teachers. Now that he is the head of that Government, what is going to change?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Certainly, what will not change is the script that we get from Douglas Ross.

Let us talk about some of the achievements that have been made in education according to the most recent data. Record levels of literacy and numeracy attainment at primary school, and improvements at secondary school, were recorded in the curriculum for excellence data that was published on 12 December. There is a record low attainment gap between the proportion of primary pupils from the most and least deprived areas achieving the expected levels in literacy, and there were reductions at secondary level. Again, that is from the achievement of curriculum for excellence levels data from 12 December.

In the summer of 2023, we had the highest-ever number of passes at national 5—a tremendous achievement by the children and young people of Scotland—and a record number of vocational and technical qualifications were achieved. In 2023, higher and advanced higher pass rates were higher than those achieved in 2019.

I will be straight with the public of Scotland. I will tell them the way it is. I will be clear that we are under enormous financial pressure. My Government will have to come to the Parliament with information about the challenges that we face in the public finances, and we will do that in due course. I have been the First Minister for only 48 hours—not even 48 hours—but we will come to the Parliament to be straight about the challenges that we face. I will also be straight with the people of Scotland about the successes that this Government has delivered and of which we are very proud.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The past two weeks have been all about managing the Scottish National Party and have had nothing to do with running our country or delivering for Scotland. However, politics is not a game. Decisions that are made by the Government have consequences, and the effects of those decisions over the past 17 years are playing out in communities across the country. The decisions that John Swinney made as finance secretary then as education secretary are being felt by pupils, parents and teachers.

Since 2007, Scotland’s education standards have declined and teacher numbers have fallen. The Government claims that it is fully funding councils, but the SNP-led council in Glasgow has made a decision to cut 172 teachers this year and 450 teachers over the next three years. I have a direct and simple question: will the Government step in, save those teachers’ jobs and protect young people’s education?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The first point that I want to make is that the events of the past two weeks have been traumatic for my party—I accept that—and they have had everything to do with running the country. I am now here to lead this Government and to lead it with the firmness of direction that it needs to address the problems that the country faces and to achieve our objectives. That is what I am here to do.

On the question of attainment, I have gone through with Mr Ross some of the strengths that exist in Scottish education today. We will continue to improve that performance and support the education system in doing so. We will obviously work collaboratively with local government on that agenda, because local authorities such as Glasgow City Council are responsible for the delivery of education in our communities. I will be meeting the leadership of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on Friday, immediately after the first meeting of the new Cabinet, because I attach the greatest importance to working in partnership with our local authorities.

One of the most critical points about working in partnership with local authorities is that we work collaboratively. I would have members of Parliament in here complaining all the time if I instructed local authorities on what to do, and I will not be doing that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney needs to confront the challenges that he has created over the past 17 years in local government and education.

Yesterday, I was with the Glasgow city parents group and many of the teachers affected. The cut in teacher numbers in Glasgow will hit people in the most deprived communities the hardest. It will hit the very same working-class kids whose grades John Swinney, as education secretary, attempted to downgrade—shamefully—during the Covid exams scandal.

Of the teachers I met, one told me that she had retrained two years ago and was now going to lose her job, another said that he had not been able to get a permanent contract since he qualified, and a third said that the cut does not feel like the thanks and reward that the Government promised teachers in coming out of the pandemic. John Swinney bears responsibility for the broken finances in our councils and the decimation of our education system, so he should not give us warm words or try to explain away the Government’s record. He should tell the pupils, their parents and their teachers what he is going to do to protect their education.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is very important that we have an open discussion about the choices that public authorities and public bodies face. One of the issues that Glasgow City Council has faced, and which has cost it a formidable amount of money, has been the resolution of the equal pay disgrace that was presided over by the Labour Party when it ran the council. For many years, women in our society were persistently let down. When it was running Glasgow City Council, the Labour Party went to the courts to challenge the legitimate claims of low-paid women in the city of Glasgow. The Labour Party should be utterly ashamed of that.

I understand the challenges that Glasgow City Council faces. That is why I will engage constructively with Glasgow City Council and with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities when I meet it on Friday.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

It is clear that the First Minister has no answer for parents, pupils and teachers in Glasgow, only obfuscation.

Let us look at John Swinney’s record. As finance secretary, he broke local finances and slashed the budget for local services. As education secretary, he abandoned teachers, standards declined, the attainment gap widened, Scotland fell in the international league tables and—shamefully—he downgraded the results of working-class children during the pandemic. Now, as First Minister, he is trapped by the past, defending his own record while Scotland’s children pay the price.

Scotland once had an education system that was the envy of the world. I believe that we can get there again, but continuity will not cut it. To give our young people the education and opportunities that they deserve and to unlock the huge potential of our nation, Scotland needs fresh leadership, new ideas and change, so after being at the heart of every single SNP failure for the past 17 years, why does John Swinney think that Scotland should accept more of the same?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have good news for Anas Sarwar: that fresh leadership has just arrived—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members, let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—and I am right here to deliver it. [Interruption.] They are laughing, because they are delighted that I am here to do it. That is why they are laughing—they are over the moon that I am here. They sent me here—they were all behind it.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

What about the people?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The people did send me here. The people have sent me here. In every election when I have had my name on the ballot paper, my constituents have sent me here. In 2007, the people sent us into government; in 2011, they sent us into government; in 2016, they sent us into government; in 2021 they sent us into government; and in 2026, under my leadership, they will send us back into government as well.

I point out to Mr Sarwar, as he has his absence-of-cheerfulness escapade today, that I think Scotland has a very good education system, which we will continue to improve in the years to come.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Scottish Greens have been clear that we acknowledge the Scottish National Party’s right to form a minority Government, but we have been equally clear that the First Minister must quickly signal the direction that his Government will take.

That signal came pretty clearly yesterday. Progressive ministers were sacked and the second-most powerful job in Government was given to someone who has opposed legal equality for LGBT people, who has expressed judgmental attitudes against abortion and who has even expressed the view that people who have families without being married are doing something wrong. Is the Scottish Government’s vision for the future of Scotland taking us back to the repressive values of the 1950s?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

No, it is not, and that is not the Scottish Government’s direction. The Government will be led from the moderate left-of-centre position that I have always occupied and which is the policy position of my party and is supported by all our members.

A week ago today, when I announced my candidacy for the leadership of my party, I set out that I wanted to build on the work of the SNP Government to create a modern, diverse and dynamic Scotland that will ensure opportunity for all our citizens. On Tuesday, in the closing words of my acceptance speech, I made it clear to the people of Scotland that I offer myself to be the First Minister for everyone in Scotland. That is precisely what I will do.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am not yet sure that the First Minister acknowledges or understands just how worried many LGBT people—and others—in Scotland are at the moment. It is not only equality and human rights that are at stake here, because the new Deputy First Minister has also explicitly criticised the role of fairer, progressive taxation. Ensuring that people who are on high incomes pay their fair share is the only way that the Scottish Government has been able to afford investment in climate and nature, cheaper public transport and the Scottish child payment. Without fairer tax policies, which the Greens repeatedly had to push the SNP into supporting, those things simply could not have happened.

We know that, next year, whether it is a Tory or a Labour one, the United Kingdom Government will continue with austerity, imposing deeper cuts than ever on Scotland. Does the First Minister accept that continuing on the path towards progressive taxation will be more important than ever? Will that progress continue or will the First Minister give in to the right wing of his party?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is a matter of history and of record that the Deputy First Minister was responsible for introducing progressive taxes in Scotland. Kate Forbes took those budget decisions and sought the agreement of the Cabinet, and the measures were then put to Parliament. I welcome the fact that our colleagues in the Green Party supported the measures that the Government brought forward.

It is pretty clear that Kate Forbes has delivered progressive taxation. By delivering the approach to progressive taxation, she has also delivered measures such as the Scottish child payment, which is taking 100,000 children out of poverty today. To me, that is something to be warmly welcomed across our country, which supports the mission of my Government to eradicate child poverty.

I take very seriously the challenge that Mr Harvie puts to me, because I want people in this country to be reassured by my leadership. When I say that I want to be the First Minister for everyone in Scotland, I deeply mean that. I want to lead a modern, dynamic and diverse Scotland—a place for everybody, where everybody feels at home, at peace, that they have a place, and that their place in our society is protected by my leadership of this country.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the First Minister what support the Scottish Government is providing to women in enterprise. (S6F-03100)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is committed to implementation of the report “Pathways: A New Approach for Women in Entrepreneurship”, which looks at how support for women in entrepreneurship can best be delivered and addresses the barriers that they continue to face. We have allocated £1.5 million this year to support that work, building on the £1.3 million that was invested through the pre-start fund last year.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I recognise the efforts that have been made with the 2023 “Pathways” report, and I hope that any funding can continue on a sustainable basis.

Figures from the Federation of Small Businesses in 2018 suggested that women-led businesses account for nearly £9 billion of gross value added. Today’s figure is likely to be much higher. However, a recent report from Women’s Enterprise Scotland articulates continued systemic barriers, citing issues such as an increase in discrimination and unequal treatment of women in business. Will the First Minister and his new Cabinet commit to a focus on the value of women-led businesses as a key part of his stated aim of driving economic growth, and as a means of increasing labour market participation, innovation and productivity?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I welcome Michelle Thomson’s contribution to the discussion through her question today, but also through her convenership of the cross-party group on women in enterprise.

I acknowledge and recognise that our efforts to boost economic growth in Scotland would be greatly enhanced if, in our society, the participation of women in enterprise was at an equal level to the participation of men. Our efforts have to be focused on closing that gap to ensure that women are able to make a greater contribution to enterprise. I welcome the points that Michelle Thomson has made, and I commit the Government, in its economic strategy and the work that we are taking forward, to specifically making sure that we close that gap, and to working with women and organisations such as Women’s Enterprise Scotland, which is a fabulous organisation, to achieve those objectives.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s progress towards its target to increase the number of residential rehabilitation beds in Scotland to 650 by 2026. (S6F-03107)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have committed more than £38 million for the development of new and expanded facilities at eight residential rehab projects across the country. Investment in those capacity projects alone will provide an increase of at least 140 beds by 2025-26, boosting the rehab capacity in Scotland from 425 to 565, which is an increase of more than 30 per cent. Three of those projects—in Edinburgh, Dundee and Ayrshire—are fully completed and operational.

Alongside that direct funding, we are confident that our significant wider investment in the sector will contribute to boosted bed numbers and we expect to meet our target of a 50 per cent increase in residential rehab capacity to at least 650 by 2026. We intend to commission a formal audit of residential rehab bed capacity in 2025 to provide an authoritative account of our progress towards that target.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his update. All our thoughts are with anyone who has experienced the loss of a loved one due to drugs.

I hear what the First Minister says, but the rhetoric and the reality on the ground are two very different things. The most recent Public Health Scotland audit of rehab beds showed that the £38 million that has been allocated produced only an additional 32 beds. Capacity is nowhere near the level that it needs to be at. Many substantial barriers to accessing rehab remain, and the audit report shows that.

Last week, I had the great privilege of visiting one such centre, the Haven Kilmacolm, which provides residential rehab care. Its people told me directly that they have the ability to increase capacity by 18 beds in a very short space of time, but they have faced substantial problems in accessing Government money. Endless bureaucracy and red tape are holding them back.

That story is repeated across the country. The money is supposedly there, but the bed capacity simply is not. That is the reality on the ground.

Scotland’s drug death crisis is truly a crisis and is our national shame. People are dying. The strategy is not working. In the new-found spirit of being honest with each other as politicians, will the First Minister be honest? The strategy is not working and drug death numbers are rising. Will he personally commit to making this issue his number 1 priority?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I associate myself directly with the comments that Mr Greene has made about the tragedy of drug deaths and the loss to families who are affected. That is a national problem that we have to address, and I give him the solemn commitment that we will do that.

I have set out my response to Mr Greene’s question, but I hear what he says about the concerns of the Haven project, which he visited in Kilmacolm. I want to understand directly what those barriers are, because I have no interest in announcements being made if the practical reality is not being felt in communities. If Mr Greene will be so good as to advise of the details of that, I will ask Christina McKelvie, who was reappointed last night to continue the leadership of drugs and alcohol policy within the Government, to engage with him—however, I remain open to direct discussions about how we progress on what is a national tragedy. I give Mr Greene the assurance of the seriousness that I attach to the issues that he has raised with me today.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the First Minister to his place. The safer consumption pilot is due to launch in Glasgow by early autumn. Across the chamber, there is widespread support for such facilities as just one of the many tools that are required to prevent drug deaths in our communities. Will the First Minister confirm that there will be clear referral pathways to residential rehab for those presenting at the overdose prevention facilities who request or need that support? That is just one of the many ways in which we can prevent people from falling into the trap of addiction and, of course, death.

That is essential, and I have seen it happen elsewhere in the world, such as in Copenhagen, where it works very effectively—within five minutes, a referral to residential rehab can happen from their overdose prevention facilities. Will the First Minister offer a similar guarantee?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am grateful to Paul Sweeney for his kind remarks and I very much welcome the points that he has put to me. A referral pathway should be in place at this moment. The scenario that Mr Sweeney has put to me is that, once the safer consumption room proposition is implemented, a pathway should be available. I take very seriously the point that he makes—that there should be a pathway—because we can help people on the road to recovery only if that pathway is available as swiftly as Mr Sweeney has put it to me today. That is my expectation; however, as I become closer to many of the issues, I will have in mind the one that Mr Sweeney has raised with me.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service continued to prosecute postmasters when there was evidence that the Horizon computer system used by the Post Office was flawed. (S6F-03095)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As the Parliament will be well aware, and as the Lord President reminded me when I took the oath of office yesterday, the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are, rightly, independent of the Government in their responsibility for the prosecution of crime.

I am advised that it was not until the decisions by the courts in England and Wales in 2019 and 2021 that the full extent of the issues with Horizon emerged. Until that point, the Post Office maintained that the system was reliable—indeed, the Post Office told Scottish prosecutors in 2013 that its external lawyers had reviewed all potentially impacted Scottish cases and found no issues.

In 2015, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was not provided with further evidence that had been promised by the Post Office to demonstrate that Horizon was as robust as it suggested. Therefore, the decision was taken to no longer rely on Horizon until such time as that further evidence was provided.

As we all know, the Post Office has, at best, obfuscated and, at worst, hidden the issues with Horizon. It is only through the on-going public inquiry that we are learning to what extent that was undertaken.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I also welcome the First Minister to his post.

I would ask him to note carefully what I say here. We know that, in 2013, Post Office lawyers came to Scotland to meet senior procurator fiscals to convince them to keep prosecuting cases. However, forensic accountancy firm Second Sight’s interim report was given to the Crown Office and flagged that there were defects or bugs in the Horizon software, giving rise to 76 branches being affected by incorrect balances or transactions.

In an email to me this week, Second Sight director Ron Warmington said that it would have been beneficial if there had been “a little less naivety” from the Crown Office and that, if the Crown Office had at least taken the precaution of checking the report and calling him or the Second Sight offices, the outcome might well have been different.

Does the First Minister agree that, notwithstanding the independence of the Crown Office, it should be fully accountable for the miscarriages of justice in Scotland, because it did not provide the checks and balances that it should have? It chose to continue to prosecute cases for five years and never wrote to a single victim or attempted to overturn any of those convictions until now. Given that, should the Lord Advocate not come to this Parliament and answer further questions?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, let me welcome the remarks of Pauline McNeill and her welcome, which is appreciated.

From her long service in the Parliament’s justice committees, Pauline McNeill will understand that we are getting into territory where I will, if I answer in a great deal of detail, be intruding on the independence of the Lord Advocate. I will not do that. The Lord Advocate is an independent office-holder and I want to ensure that I protect the independence of the Lord Advocate by my actions.

The issues that Pauline McNeill raised are material to Crown Office decisions about the prosecutions that have been taken. I will relay to the Lord Advocate the points that have been made by Pauline McNeill today. I met the Lord Advocate last night to confirm my desire for her to continue as the Lord Advocate, but I will convey to her the points that Pauline McNeill has made.

We will, of course, also continue to engage with other parties in Parliament about the appropriate way in which the issue can be addressed in Parliament.

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

We know that the United Kingdom-wide use of the tainted Horizon computer system evidence was a decision of the Post Office. Does the First Minister share my concerns that it appears clear that people at the top of the Post Office have continually obfuscated and provided misleading information over the years?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Obviously, an on-going public inquiry is looking at the issues that are material to Audrey Nicoll’s question. In observing the evidence, I am struck by how overwhelming it looks that her point is a fair one. We have to allow that public inquiry to take its course. While that is happening, there is action that we can take to remedy miscarriages of justice. That is, of course, part of the legislative programme of the Government, and the Government will bring those proposals to Parliament.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Scottish Conservatives have tried to get the Lord Advocate in here three times to answer Pauline McNeill’s questions, and many other questions, because Scotland’s Post Office victims deserve those answers, yet the Scottish National Party and the Greens voted against that reasonable request. I ask, again: why will John Swinney not do the right thing, and why he is adding to the distress and delays of the Horizon victims?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As an experienced member of the Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee, and as somebody who knows his way around the issues in our courts and our judicial system, Mr Findlay knows that the Lord Advocate is independent in the prosecutorial decisions that are taken. I have said to Parliament that I will convey to the Lord Advocate the issues—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

You are blocking her appearance.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will convey to the Lord Advocate the issues that Pauline McNeill and Russell Findlay have raised with me. As I said in my answer to Ms McNeill, we will continue to co-operate with other political parties about the best way to address those.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Scotland has the highest suicide rate in the United Kingdom, with young men being three times more likely to die than women. (S6F-03103)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Suicide prevention is a key priority for the Scottish Government, and it will be a priority for me, as First Minister. In September 2022, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, we published our 10-year suicide prevention strategy, “Creating Hope Together”, and an associated first three-year action plan. Those are backed by a commitment to double annual funding for suicide prevention to £2.8 million by 2026. We are tailoring our approach to ensure that we reach people across Scotland who are most at risk of suicide, which includes placing a strong emphasis on reaching men.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Last week, the Parliament’s Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee heard from a panel of witnesses on suicide prevention, including representatives of the Scottish Men’s Sheds Association. The association is seen as possibly the most effective suicide prevention and life-affirming movement, and it has been inspirational in improving men’s health. However, it will be expected to pursue alternative funding arrangements outwith the Scottish Government in future. Why has the Scottish Government once again decided that funding for such an initiative is not a priority when it is saving lives?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If Mr Stewart will allow me, I will look into the question that he has asked me about funding for the men’s shed movement, with which I have many happy associations. Indeed, I had the great pleasure of opening the men’s shed in the village of Stanley, in my constituency, which emerged from a collaboration with Historic Environment Scotland. That was an example of how Government facilities can be used to create a men’s shed and support it without direct funding being made available.

As I said earlier in answer to Mr Ross, funding is under enormous pressure, but I recognise the contribution of the men’s shed movement. I also recognise that, just last week, my colleague Jim Fairlie hosted a gathering in the Parliament for a variety of organisations that support men who face difficulty. I welcome all efforts to support that aim.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Considering population size, the Highlands and Islands region has consistently had a higher rate of suicide than other regions. Mental health provision in NHS Highland has been variable in recent years, with the authority spending more than £2 million last year alone on locum psychiatrists. Staff shortages are leaving charities and campaign groups such as no more lost souls, Mikeysline and James Support Group to fill the gaps. Will the First Minister consider a different approach to recruitment of health staff in rural areas, such as offering financial incentives for permanent staff to relocate? We simply cannot continue without the support that vulnerable people need.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the seriousness of the issue that Rhoda Grant raises. It applies not just in this policy area but in a variety of such areas. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills will be wrestling with such problems in relation to teacher recruitment. There is a substantive issue that needs to be explored to see whether there is a way in which we can do that, as some teacher induction schemes do already, so there is a serious point to be made. I add that there is much good provision in the Highlands, which is provided by organisations such as shinty clubs. They do very good outreach work to support men who face difficulties. I very much welcome that as part of the approach that we need to take.

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

In the first few days after a person is discharged from a psychiatric ward, they are at their most vulnerable to suicide. I understand that there is a requirement that within 72 hours of discharge they be visited by a mental health nurse. It is difficult to deliver that for a Friday discharge, given the Monday deadline, especially in rural areas such as my constituency where there are long distances to be covered. Will the First Minister advise whether, in such circumstances, there is any flexibility to be practicable in complying with such a requirement, such as by providing online contact initially?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will answer Christine Grahame’s question by saying that, although we are working to achieve the commitment to make contact within 72 hours, we should make contact as quickly as possible. We should not view the commitment to make contact within 72 hours as simply the measure of what we are trying to do; we should be working to get contact made swiftly.

There are opportunities for a telephone call or a video call to be made to individuals as a flexible alternative. However, I stress the importance of making sure that support is in place at the earliest possible opportunity.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

It is with considerable sorrow that I must report that another person has lost her life on the A9. I am sure that all our thoughts are with her family.

Five of the six political parties that are represented in the Parliament, and no fewer than 122 of the 129 MSPs, support the dualling of the A9. Prior to my asking this question, of which notice has been given to the First Minister, I secured agreement from one member of each of the five parties, including myself, to put it to the First Minister. I very much welcome his appointment and his approach to work cross party. Therefore, will the First Minister meet the five of us to discuss how we can accelerate the completion of the dualling project and thereby prevent the risk of further fatalities arising?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I express my sadness at the most recent fatality that has taken place on the A9, and I send my condolences to the family of the individual involved.

As Mr Ewing will know from our long association, I have been committed to the dualling of the A9 from the origins of my first parliamentary campaign, for the 1992 election, in the North Tayside constituency, with the A9 passing through my local area.

Therefore, I have been pleased that this Government has delivered a number of improvements to the A9: the improvements to the Kincraig to Dalraddy section that were put in place; the improvements through the grade-separated junction at Ballinluig junction; the Crubenmore improvements; and, most recently, the Luncarty to Birnam improvements, with the road having been made into a dual carriageway. In addition, there is currently a procurement process for the Moy to Tomatin section, and we hope that that will be concluded shortly.

I want to assure Mr Ewing of the Government’s commitment to dualling the A9. I would be very happy to meet the cross-party delegation to discuss the issue and to explain how the project fits into the Scottish Government’s infrastructure plan and how the different steps that we have taken as part of the capital investment programme have delivered the improvements to the A9 that the Government has already delivered.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The extremist Greens have been ditched from the Government, so can the First Minister tell me whether the damaging policy of the presumption against new oil and gas development will also be ditched?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that Mr Lumsden’s language is appropriate in the Parliament. It is not for me to police language—I am just giving my observation; it is a matter for the Presiding Officer. However, in the spirit of trying to get us to a position in which we respect one another’s opinions—[ Interruption .]

I disagree fundamentally with Mr Lumsden on more issues than I care to imagine, but he will be treated with courtesy by me, and I think that others should be treated with courtesy in the chamber, too.

Presiding Officer, please allow me to say that I was not trying to intrude on your responsibilities. I just think that, in general, the public expect us to be quite civilised to one another, and it would be nice if we could be.

On the substantive point of the question, I want to ensure that we have a just transition for the oil and gas sector. We have a climate crisis, and we have to take careful and appropriate steps to respond to it. That response must involve a just transition for the oil and gas sector, and that is what the Government will deliver.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Point of Order

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your clarification on rule 13.2 of standing orders, regarding ministerial statements. In recent days, we have heard requests and attempts by the Conservatives, including in questions at First Minister’s question time today, to change the order of business. It is my understanding that, under rule 13.2, any minister or member of the Government, including the law officers, can make a statement if they make a request to you to do so. Can you clarify that, if the law officers wish to make a statement, it is open to them to make such a request to you directly?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I can confirm, Mr Johnson, that any member of the Government can make such a request.

There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

Domestic Abuse of LGBTQ+ People

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12342, in the name of Collette Stevenson, on shining a light on domestic abuse in LGBT+ history month. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament condemns domestic abuse in all its forms; understands that domestic abuse often consists of intimate partner violence (IPV), and that this is defined by the World Health Organization as behaviours including sexual abuse, violence, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner; is concerned by Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) statistics showing that 30,139 charges were reported to COPFS with a domestic abuse identifier in 2022-23; notes that these figures show that the accused was male in 86% of these cases; understands that Police Scotland statistics for 2021-22 show that 1,691 domestic abuse incidents were recorded with same-sex victims and suspected perpetrators, representing around 3.5% of incidents in which gender was recorded, but that the data is not broken down for transgender people; believes that these statistics are a stark reminder of what it considers to be the unacceptable levels of domestic abuse in Scotland, but considers that these likely underestimate the scale of LGBTQ+ domestic abuse; understands that research suggests that 30% to 45% of LGBTQ+ people will ever experience IPV, which, it believes, is in line with cisgender women in heterosexual relationships; notes the view that structural inequalities could be prohibiting LGBTQ+ victims of domestic abuse from coming forward or receiving the support that it considers they deserve from services; acknowledges that the theme of LGBT+ History Month 2024, “Medicine: #UnderTheScope”, aims to showcase the work of LGBT+ healthcare staff and highlight what it sees as the health inequalities experienced by LGBTQ+ people today; believes that domestic abuse is a public health issue; considers that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 strengthened the law to protect people in East Kilbride and across Scotland against abusive behaviour, including physical and psychological abuse, as well as coercive control; recognises the Scottish Government’s Equally Safe strategy to tackle violence against women and girls; notes the calls for a national LGBTQ+ domestic abuse policy, with specific outcomes and measures to help the community, including ensuring that services and staff have the right procedures and training to ensure that LGBTQ+ people get appropriate support; further notes the belief that such a policy could be aligned with or supplementary to Equally Safe, which, it considers, offers a good framework for such a policy; notes reports that LGBTQ+ people can face barriers in accessing services, including potential stigma, misunderstanding of LGBTQ+ relationships, and what it considers to be default heterosexual norms; further notes the calls for a comprehensive analysis to identify gaps in domestic abuse service provision for LGBTQ+ individuals, to ensure routine risk assessment processes are more inclusive for LGBTQ+ experiences, and to ensure that LGBTQ+ people are considered and included in sexual violence and domestic abuse courses; acknowledges that a roundtable on LGBTQ+ IPV was held in the Parliament on 8 February 2024, with stakeholders including members of the LGBTQ+ community and representatives from the third sector, local authorities and Police Scotland; understands that this roundtable for the wider LGBTQ+ community builds on previous research by academics in Scotland, including Dr Steven Maxwell, from the University of Glasgow, and Professor Jamie Frankis, from Glasgow Caledonian University, into same-sex male relationship IPV; believes that LGBTQ+ people experiencing domestic abuse should not be made to feel invisible, and notes that people who have experienced domestic abuse are encouraged to seek the support to which they are entitled.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I am grateful to members for supporting my motion. The catalyst for the debate was a recent stakeholder round-table session that we had in Parliament, which was led by Dr Steven Maxwell from the University of Glasgow, on domestic abuse in the LGBTQ+ community. That event, which brought together MSPs, Dr Maxwell and representatives from councils, the police and the third sector, allowed us to have an open conversation about the many challenges that LGBTQ+ people experience—not only the harm of domestic abuse, but the barriers to accessing support. The event was followed by a report that has 14 recommendations. I will cover as many of those recommendations as I can in the time that I have.

Domestic abuse is an abhorrent crime, and we all recognise the harm that it causes to individuals and our society. In recent years, there have been some big developments in tackling the damage of domestic abuse, including the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which brought together within one offence the modern understanding of what domestic abuse looks like, including psychological domestic abuse such as coercive and controlling behaviour.

The Scottish Government has also developed the equally safe strategy in order to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls. It sets out a vision of preventing violence, improving support services and strengthening the justice response for victims and perpetrators. Those developments are very welcome.

However, at the round-table meeting, we heard about issues to do with gender framing of policies. Many people in the community do not fit into societal assumptions of masculinity and femininity, or into traditional binary gender norms. There is a need to ensure that policy and practice work to ensure that anyone who is experiencing domestic abuse can get the support that they need. The round-table meeting participants agreed that there needs to be a national LGBTQ+ domestic abuse action plan that is perhaps based on, or aligned with, the equally safe strategy. I hope that the Government will consider that.

Data collection underpins the invisibility of domestic abuse. There are challenges in understanding the extent of such crimes. For example, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service publishes a breakdown of the sex of the accused in domestic abuse charges, but not the sex of the victim. Police Scotland sometimes includes the sex of both the suspect and the victim in its statistics. We know that most cases of domestic abuse do not get reported. I encourage all victims to seek support from the organisations that can help them: there are many great services out there.

Police Scotland data from 2022-23 shows that, when gender was recorded, around 3 per cent of recorded domestic abuse incidents involved same-sex victims and suspects. That equates to around 1,500 incidents. There is no breakdown of figures for transgender people. However, research suggests that between 30 and 45 per cent of LGBTQ+ people will experience intimate partner violence. That is in line with the levels that are experienced by women in heterosexual relationships.

I hope that the Government can work alongside its partners in the justice sector to consider what approaches can be taken in order to understand better the scale of LGBTQ+ domestic abuse and, perhaps initially, to get official estimates of its prevalence. One of the challenges for LGBTQ+ people who are experiencing domestic abuse is that they might be nervous about engaging with statutory services. It was interesting to hear police officers at the round-table meeting acknowledging the concerns that many LGBTQ+ people have, while being clear about their commitment to ensuring that Scotland’s police force acts for the diverse communities that make up modern Scotland, and that it resembles them.

However, the changes that must be made go well beyond the police. A key part of policies such as the equally safe strategy is that they prevent domestic abuse from occurring in the first place. There is a need to ensure that public sector bodies and wider society are ready and able to prevent domestic abuse in the community. That could include developing an LGBTQ+ curriculum within existing sexual violence and domestic abuse courses, including those that are provided by statutory services.

There is also a specific need for risk assessments to be more inclusive of LGBTQ+ experiences. For example, multi-agency risk assessment conferences—MARACs—are used across Scotland to help to identify high-risk cases. Concerns were raised at the round-table meeting that such processes are structured around heterosexual norms. In fact, stakeholders mentioned that the number of LGBTQ+ people who are being referred to support agencies through a MARAC is well below what was expected, which likely indicates that there is an issue with the current safeguarding policies.

Overall, it appears that the prevalence of domestic abuse in the community is significantly underestimated. In turn, that has meant that local services cannot recognise and address the issue. That is not a criticism of those services, but an example of why there has to be a shift in the approach that is being taken to tackling domestic abuse.

There is a lot to say on the topic, but I conclude by thanking Dr Maxwell and his colleagues for their work to highlight the issue, and by thanking the people who have taken part in research studies on LGBTQ+ domestic abuse. I also thank everyone who took part in the round-table meeting earlier this year.

I hope that today’s debate will shine a light on domestic abuse, encourage people to seek the support that they deserve and help to begin the change that we need for people in the community who experience domestic abuse—something that has, for too long, been hidden.

I hope to meet ministers soon to discuss the recommendations, which I hope the Scottish Government can help to advance—in particular, the recommendations on identifying gaps in service provision, on ensuring that agencies are equipped to deal with the specific challenges for the community, and on helping to ensure that there is adequate data collection.

We all agree that domestic abuse has no place in modern Scotland and that we must do everything that we can to support anyone who experiences it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and I congratulate my friend and colleague, Collette Stevenson, on securing it. Collette has outlined the issue really well, so I am pleased to follow her at the beginning of LGBT+ history month.

I, too, want to start by condemning domestic abuse in all its forms, whether it is sexual assault, coercive control, psychological abuse or any other form of controlling behaviour.

The University of Glasgow has carried out a great deal of work on LGBT domestic abuse, and the findings of its report make for concerning reading. The research shows that LGBT+ people face fear of being stigmatised and disbelieved by police, support services being designed for heterosexual people and a systemic lack of LGBT+ domestic abuse knowledge and inclusion across “most services” in Scotland.

On the few inclusive services, the report recorded prolonged waiting lists and “inadequate” safe accommodation for LGBT+ people—a problem that the report’s author Dr Steven Maxwell has warned will only be worsened by impending local authority cuts. Dr Maxwell said:

“Domestic abuse experiences of LGBTQ+ victims and survivors are overlooked and unheard. One in 3 LGBTQ+ adults will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime, the same level as heterosexual women.”

We know that such abuse has a profound impact on a person’s life, so it is absolutely crucial that the Scottish Government does all that it can to get the services right for our LGBT+ community. We must deliver parity of esteem for domestic abuse services for all domestic abuse victims—of any and all sexual orientations.

There is a clear way forward to improve the current situation. According to Dr Maxwell, a number of steps could reduce the high-risk situations that LGBT+ victims experience.

The starting point is for the Scottish Government to review the national equally safe policy, which Collette Stevenson mentioned, to have it include LGBT+ domestic abuse experiences. The University of Glasgow report says that LGBT people’s experiences are “invisible” in the equally safe strategy.

The report calls for a tailored national action plan to provide “visible competent measures” to meet people’s needs. They include: stronger prevention; service inclusion messages; more inclusive safe spaces; and practitioner workforce education for health and social care staff through, for example, Turas e-learning modules. Previously, as a clinical nurse educator, I developed and delivered e-learning courses, and it seems pretty achievable for us to pursue that, so I will ask the minister whether that could be considered.

As Collette Stevenson’s motion shows, statistical publications show that 30,139 charges that had a domestic abuse identifier were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2022-23. The accused was male in 86 per cent of reports, which means that 4,219 women were perpetrators of domestic abuse. We need to ensure that policies such as equally safe work to support anyone who has experienced domestic abuse, because it is not a women-only problem.

One excellent example of work that is being undertaken to support LGBT+ people who are experiencing domestic abuse is the work of the charity Galop. Galop specialises in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence, hate crime, honour-based abuse, forced marriage, conversion therapies and other types of interpersonal abuse. Galop is run by LGBT+ people for LGBT+ people, and the community is at the heart of everything that it does. Galop is a fantastic organisation, and I would like to hear from the minister whether the Scottish Government could engage with it.

Enabling our LGBT+ community to be supported in cases of domestic violence is crucial, so I welcome the debate.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Collette Stevenson for securing today’s debate. Taking time to highlight the problems of domestic abuse, intimate partner violence and the challenges faced by members of the LGBT+ community is vitally important. Those issues demand constant attention and focus to ensure that we continue to progress in the right direction, by making it clear that there is no place for domestic abuse in Scotland and by furthering the rights and equality of LGBT+ people.

The motion references the view that structural inequalities could be prohibiting LGBT+ victims of domestic abuse from coming forward or receiving the support that they need. I will start by addressing those structural inequalities, because there is no doubt in my mind that, of late, the rhetoric in relation to LGBT+ people has become more toxic.

We have come a long way since the days of section 28 and the homophobia of years gone by, but there can be no mistaking—we should not kid ourselves that this is not the case—that homophobia and transphobia are still present in our politics, media and society. Some of the headlines in the press over the past few weeks, and some of the reactions and commentary on them, have crossed the line from nuanced, responsible and sensitive questioning of policy to full-throated stereotypical attacks that are met with hurt and, very often, fear by LGBT+ people across Scotland.

It is those feelings of hurt and fear that very often convince people that they will not be heard or taken seriously and that they are still looked on as other. When we talk about domestic abuse and intimate partner violence, both within and outwith the LGBT+ community, but we still cannot talk in a sensible way about inclusive education and support that treat LGBT+ identities as normal and valid, is it any wonder that we are concerned about the underreporting of the problems that people face? We have heard about some of that already, but it is why education is so important.

Education around domestic abuse and what it means to be LGBT+ in Scotland remains completely vital, and it is why I and many others across the chamber continue to support organisations such as the Time for Inclusive Education campaign, so that we can increase understanding and our support of young people.

There are still too many young LGBT+ people in Scotland who are scared to talk about themselves, their identity and their experiences, because they do not see themselves reflected in their education and in society. Tackling the general stigma faced by LGBT+ people and helping to empower them to speak out need to go hand in hand with tackling the general stigma and fear around domestic abuse and intimate partner violence. I recognise that we have made significant progress in the way that we talk about domestic abuse in the context of violence against women and girls. There is much more to do, and I stand with the work of the Government and the excellent work of organisations such as White Ribbon Scotland, particularly in ensuring that men take responsibility for changing our attitudes and behaviours.

We debate this motion at the beginning of the Government of a new First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and I want to take the opportunity to thank Emma Roddick, who is in the chamber, for all her work in her time as Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, particularly in those areas in which I know that she took a keen interest. I wish her well on the back benches, where I know that she will continue to advocate on all those issues.

I say to the Government that we must not roll back now on the hard-fought rights of LGBT+ people; rather, the Government must show commitment and progress while building a consensus across our country, just as we have done at every milestone for LGBT+ people in the past. As I have said previously in the chamber, we are not going back into the closet, we are not going to hide and we are not going to be ashamed of who we are. I support the calls in the motion for a national LGBT+ domestic abuse strategy to raise awareness and improve services so that they are accessible to everyone in that community, and I call on the Government to reflect on that in its response. We must start the journey of tackling this important issue today.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I thank my colleague Collette Stevenson for bringing this important debate to the chamber and helping us highlight the issue of domestic abuse in LGBTQ+ relationships.

Domestic abuse knows no boundaries and follows no rules. It can happen to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. It can take many forms, be it emotional, psychological, physical or sexual abuse. It was reported that, in 2022-23, 30,139 charges were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service with a domestic abuse identifier and that, in 86 per cent of those cases, the accused was male. However, Police Scotland notes that, in 2021-22, 1,691 domestic abuse incidents were recorded with same-sex victims and suspected perpetrators.

Those figures are concerning, but they highlight the possibility that LGBTQ+ domestic abuse might be going widely unreported. Societal discrimination, stigma or inequalities might be prohibiting LGBTQ+ victims of domestic abuse from coming forward to receive the support that they so greatly deserve. That is backed up by research, which notes that underreporting is common because of people not feeling safe or able to identify their experiences of abuse within typical assumptions of heterosexual dominance. Research also suggests that rates of underreporting in the LGBTQ+ population are between 60 and 80 per cent, which is consistent with the national underreporting rate of 79 per cent, according to the Office for National Statistics in 2018.

As we cannot allow fear and stigma to prevent survivors from seeking help and support, it is important that we do more to include LGBTQ+ survivors in our discussions and actions on domestic abuse. Some studies suggest that around 40 per cent of individuals in LGBTQ+ relationships might experience domestic abuse.

It has also been noted that higher rates of domestic abuse are found among those who identify as transgender. According to a Scottish Trans study, 80 per cent of transgender victims had experienced domestic abuse. That has been backed up by recent literature, which found that transgender individuals are two times more likely to experience physical abuse and almost three times more likely to experience sexual abuse than cisgender individuals. Experiencing that alongside transphobia can lead to severe and concerning mental health issues.

In tackling domestic abuse, we must also address the root causes of misogyny, homophobia and toxic masculinity, and we must challenge harmful stereotypes and attitudes that result in discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. We must also educate each other on the warning signs of domestic abuse to help break the cycle of violence. Relationships must be built on mutual respect and compassion. No one should ever be fearful of violence or coercive control within a relationship.

In reflecting on the achievements and struggles of the LGBT community throughout history, I would like to remember all those victims of domestic abuse. To those who have felt their lives shatter around them and those who have felt invisible, I say: you are not alone. In fact, I have experienced this, too, and I am here to show that we will not be silenced. I do so in recognition that it is important to speak out and empower others to do so, to recognise the signs when you are being gaslighted, bullied and manipulated, to recognise that you are strong, resilient and have the strength and support to stand up to bullies and to speak out and assert that such behaviour is wrong and not welcome in any part of this society. I am here on your side, because I have been there, too.

I again thank my colleague Collette Stevenson for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I pay tribute to Collette Stevenson for her relentless work on this issue and for bringing stakeholders to the Parliament earlier this year. I congratulate her on the longest motion that I have ever read in the Parliament; in fact, it reads more like a report, which is excellent and a testament to her office, too. There is a lot in that report to get through, but I will cover three specific areas that I think we should debate.

First, I put on record my thanks and tribute to those who did a lot of the groundwork on and research into the subject, particularly Dr Steven Maxwell of the University of Glasgow, who has relentlessly kept MSPs up to date on his work and informed the stakeholder round table that we had in February, which I attended and was grateful for.

I thank those in the third sector, too. Emma Harper mentioned Galop, which organises the national domestic abuse helpline that specifically helps LGBT people.

One of the most profound things that I heard at that round table was the lived experience of many of the young people who attended, and some of the very moving and difficult stories that they shared with us. It is never easy when we attend such groups and listen to what is happening in the real world, when we are so often caught up in statistics and policy documents.

All of that is important, because it goes without saying that domestic abuse is abhorrent and unacceptable to all of us. Indeed, all parties have signed up to that view over the past couple of years. The DASA legislation that we have passed, as well as other pieces of legislation and the debate that we had last week are good examples of cross-party working and of how we, as a Parliament, use the powers available to us to tackle that abhorrent practice.

The experience of LGBT people in particular is quite unique. For all the reasons that we have just heard, they often feel an inability to report something, given the stigma that comes with it—not just of being in an LGBT relationship, which is often difficult depending on the community that they live in, but of having to admit that they are suffering some form of abuse or coercive behaviour and physical and mental violence. I would say that the equally safe strategy provides a good framework, unpicking how we take a Government policy and design it around particular groups of people to meet their needs.

One of the things that came out of Dr Maxwell’s report was a welcome analysis of the importance of variety in the different routes and pathways by which services can be delivered to people. The awareness of access to those services is important, too.

Importantly, we need LGBT+-specific services, because most people in the community who have been surveyed said that they felt “invisible”—that is the language that they used—to other services. There was a huge reluctance to report to the police; in fact, Police Scotland attendees at the round table acknowledged as much, and a lot of work has been done on training front-line officers to deal with DASA and the situations that they respond to. However, what happens when they turn up and face a domestic situation in an LGBT household? Are they fully confident that they know how to deal with that and that they can gather the appropriate evidence that the Crown might use down the line? I am not convinced that they are, and nor was the round table.

I want to make a point about awareness and barriers to access to services. A lot has been said over the past few weeks about organisations such as LGBT Youth Scotland, the TIE campaign and other organisations that help and educate young people. Education is absolutely key here: in my view, the earlier we educate people about appropriate relationships and what constitutes abuse, the better. There is nothing controversial in that.

I would just like to put on record my personal thanks to Emma Roddick for her work in Government. I know that many people have been gloating over her exit, which is disgraceful. Everyone who gets into public office deserves respect and thanks.

Finally, I thank Collette Stevenson for bringing this really important matter to the chamber, and I hope that we can revisit it in future.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank Collette Stevenson for securing this debate. I know that she has taken a special interest in this issue. Her allyship is incredibly valuable and I am sure that it is appreciated by many of her constituents, as well as the wider community.

Throughout this debate, I have felt the weight and value of the speeches by Marie McNair, Paul O’Kane, Jamie Greene and Emma Harper, particularly because, right now, LGBTQ+ rights are under sustained and constant attack—an attack that Paul O’Kane described articulately. I am grateful to Paul O’Kane and Jamie Greene for their kind comments. In times such as these, we expect comments of support from our closest allies, but I have been extremely appreciative of the comments from many colleagues, obviously those on the Labour and Green benches, but also those on the Conservative benches. I have always tried to build cross-party relationships, and I have massive respect for many MSPs across the chamber. It has been lovely to feel some reciprocation of that today.

That is perhaps most important right now, when we are considering equalities issues, be it for the LGBTQ+ community, disabled people, refugees and people seeking asylum, people who experience racism or people from many other groups that I have had the privilege to work with in Government and who are under constant public attack. Those of us who recognise the unfair and indefensible harms that are being caused to regular people who just want to live their lives and be who they are must speak up as much as we can, and across party lines. Progress is not linear and it is not guaranteed. We can, and we must not, lose ground.

The toxicity of the public debate on LGBTQ+ issues makes it harder for people to report or even acknowledge many of the harms that are being done to and experienced by queer people in Scotland. That absolutely and undoubtedly extends to domestic abuse in LGBTQ+ relationships. I have heard from people who struggle to come forward because they think that, unless the issue involves male violence directed at a woman, it will not be taken seriously or even seen as real domestic abuse. Others report feeling shame about their sexuality, which then contributes to a tendency to hide when things go wrong, in case they are outed or criticised or subject to queerphobic abuse and victim blaming. In both cases, it is clear that there is a lack of awareness about the risk of domestic abuse in LGBTQ+ relationships, as well as persistent assumptions about who carries it out and who is subject to those crimes. That contributes to a lack of reporting and an inability to seek support.

Thanks to the recent report by Dr Steven Maxwell of the University of Glasgow, we know that one in three LGBTQ+ adults suffers domestic abuse in their lifetimes, which is the same rate as heterosexual women. During my time as Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr Maxwell at an event discussing his research, and I am glad to see it being given the attention that it deserves in the Parliament.

I know that a massive amount of hard work is being done in the third sector to address those issues, by the likes of the Equality Network, LGBT Youth Scotland, the Terence Higgins Trust and Rape Crisis Scotland. LGBTQ people such as myself will know how important raising awareness of those issues is and how far we still have to go. They will, like me, be used to people outright denying the daily experiences of LGBTQ+ people and living in happy ignorance of the homophobia and transphobia that still exist in Scotland today.

I know that the minister cares deeply about the work that she has been tasked with carrying out in relation to equally safe strategies and ending hate crime in Scotland, and I am glad to see her being asked to remain in Government to carry that on. I hope that she will reflect on the information provided by Dr Steven Maxwell and by those whom Collette Stevenson brought to Parliament and whose views she shared with the chamber, and consider what more the Scottish Government can do to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse are included in policies and strategies that are aimed at ending it.

Nobody should be subject to domestic abuse, and we cannot end it or support victims if we do not know and accept the risk to LGBTQ+ people.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I thank Collette Stevenson for securing the debate and for highlighting that people experience domestic abuse and intimate partner violence within a wide range of situations, identities and relationships.

Collette Stevenson’s comprehensive motion raises many important issues, of which I would like to focus on just one: the experience of trans and non-binary survivors of domestic abuse. I thank the Scottish Transgender Alliance, LGBT Youth Scotland, the Equality Network, Stonewall and others for their painstaking and sensitive work in that area.

Trans people experience disproportionately high levels of domestic abuse. That abuse includes physical and sexual violence, emotional and financial abuse and controlling and coercive behaviour. Perpetrators deny their trans partners access to essential medication and treatment to prevent them from expressing their identity. They undermine their decisions and manipulate their vulnerability, intentionally leaving them ashamed of who they are and guilty about living with integrity.

Trans partners are often isolated from family and friends, and are sometimes outed before they are ready. Those who are parents may face denial of contact with their children and encouragement of those children to reject or abuse them. We know that potential predators seek out people who are vulnerable because of their previous experiences of abuse, trauma or rejection.

Trans and non-binary children and young people are disproportionately likely to be estranged from their families and to have undergone abuse, including conversion practices. The cumulative and combined mental health impacts of family and intimate partner abuse can be devastating, especially for young people and those who are early in their transition process.

All those forms and consequences of abuse are made much worse by toxic media and political narratives. The myths and tropes of transphobia serve to normalise abuse, embed feelings of worthlessness and isolation and block pathways to support and recovery. It is hard to seek help when you are told that you do not deserve it, that this is the only relationship that you will ever have and that safety and respect do not apply to you. It is hard to find help when your family and friends turn away and when you are still learning the norms that cis people have been taught every day of their lives. It is hard to contact support services when political rhetoric says that a refuge is no safe place for you.

Those services—I refer members to my entry in the register of interests on that—have been supporting trans people safely for many years, but that good practice is too often invisible or vilified. What can we do? How can we in the Parliament, with the privilege that we have, show our solidarity and care for our trans and non-binary neighbours who are enduring such abuse?

We can be courageous, by speaking out against the rhetoric of hate and fear and by recognising the scale and depth of the problem and the ways in which political discourse and political choices have failed those who we ought to protect. We can be sensitive, by working with and supporting civil society organisations that have built expertise, learning from them and—most of all—from transgender and non-binary people. We can be fair, by properly funding services that address all forms of domestic abuse, including those that offer specialist support for minority and intersectional survivors. We can be progressive, by acting robustly and radically to address misogyny, including trans misogyny, and by bringing in a comprehensive ban on conversion practices and ensuring that young and older people can access the healthcare, respect and dignified processes that they still need and deserve.

I would like to speak once more to the trans community—our neighbours, our friends and our family. Much has changed, and for the worse, but our solidarity and care remain. You are treasured and you are not forgotten.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite Siobhian Brown to respond to the debate. Minister, you have around seven minutes.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I express my thanks to Collette Stevenson for lodging the motion for today’s debate on domestic abuse in LGBTQI+ relationships. I also give my thanks to Emma Roddick for all the work that she has done, and that I know she will champion from the back benches, for the LGBTQI+ community. I am proud to be closing the debate, and have found all members’ contributions to be powerful and thought-provoking.

Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships is devastating and heartbreaking, and no one should ever have to endure it. I pay tribute to the brave victims who have shown real courage in recounting their stories and shining a light on this important issue. I also acknowledge the specific barriers that LGBTQI+ people can face when accessing services and support.

All domestic abuse and violence is abhorrent, irrespective of the sex, sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim or the perpetrator. That is why our ground-breaking domestic abuse legislation, which came into effect in 2019, applies to everyone and makes it absolutely clear that coercive and controlling behaviour is domestic abuse and a crime. It is also why the Scottish Government funds services that support LGBTQI+ survivors of domestic and sexual abuse.

It is vital that perpetrators are held to account and that victims have access to front-line services that deal with violence and domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 created a specific offence of domestic abuse that covers not just physical abuse, but covers other forms of psychological abuse as well as coercive and controlling behaviour. We must treat domestic abuse survivors with compassion and we must make available services that acknowledge the significant trauma that they experience.

Research on the operation of our legislation on domestic abuse has found that it better reflects victims’ experiences. However, we must never be complacent but must instead recognise that we can always do more and do better.

It is also vital that specialist services are available for survivors. Our delivering equally safe fund has provided support to LGBTQI+ projects that are working to address domestic abuse. That includes Sacro’s FearFree service, which provides one-to-one support for male and LGBT victims of domestic abuse; the voices unheard focus group, which aimed to raise awareness among decision makers of LGBTQI+ experiences of domestic abuse and gender-based violence; and Scotland’s Domestic Abuse and Forced Marriage Helpline, which provides support to all survivors.

Additionally, we allocated £16.2 million between 2017-18 and 2023-24 to support the development of a sexual assault response co-ordination service in every health board in Scotland. SARCS offers a healthcare assessment and forensic medical examination for people who have recently experienced rape or sexual assault. Anyone who is aged 16 or over can, subject to professional judgement, access healthcare and request a forensic medical examination in the days following an assault without first having to make a report to the police. I acknowledge that that is a very sensitive issue.

We know, from listening to survivors, that access to self-referral is an important aspect of giving control back to people. The Scottish Government remains committed to continuous improvement of SARCS, with further funding planned for 2024-25, bringing our total investment to almost £18 million over seven years.

Although domestic abuse is most frequently perpetrated by males against their female partners, all domestic abuse and violence is unacceptable. We published our refreshed equally safe strategy last December. The strategy recognises LGBTQI+ people’s experiences of domestic abuse and other forms of gender-based violence. Key LGBTQI+ stakeholders were consulted as part of the engagement process, and helped to shape the strategy and its references to LGBTQI+ people’s experiences.

We know that the global evidence base shows that women and girls are disproportionately impacted by specific forms of violence such as domestic abuse. The equally safe strategy is based on the framing of the United Nations and World Health Organization, and has been acknowledged as a model of excellence.

However, our approach does not negate the experiences of male victims of crimes such as domestic and sexual violence. Gender norms that promote ideals of masculinity that are based on men’s power over women and children can also lead to men’s experiences of abuse during childhood and sexual violence during adulthood. That is why the Scottish Government understands LGBTQI+ people’s experiences of domestic abuse to be a form of gender-based violence. Key stakeholders also understand the issue in that way.

We are committed to advancing equality for LGBTQI+ people and to promoting, protecting and realising the rights of every LGBTQI+ person in Scotland. We will continue to fund third sector organisations to ensure that the voices of those with lived experience can help to improve outcomes for LGBTQI+ communities across Scotland.

I thank Dr Steven Maxwell, Professor Jamie Frankis and colleagues for their research on LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence and I thank the victims who bravely shared their stories. As was highlighted in the research and at the subsequent parliamentary round-table event in February, it is clear that significant challenges remain for LGBTQI+ victims of domestic abuse.

We do not want any victim of LGBTQI+ domestic abuse to be made to feel invisible and we encourage anyone who has experienced abuse to seek the support to which they are entitled. I have outlined some of that support today.

I am fully committed to tackling domestic abuse and am always willing to look at how we can improve our response to all forms of domestic abuse, including in same-sex relationships, by building on the provision that we already have. My door is always open to any MSP who wants to continue conversations on how we can improve things. In response to Emma Harper’s request, I say that I would be very happy to visit the organisation in the south of Scotland that she mentioned.

By working collaboratively and innovatively, we can build a Scotland that is free from all forms of domestic abuse, where no one is left behind.