Scottish Parliament, 6 June 2024

306 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of the process that it will follow to develop a just transition plan for the Mossmorran industrial site. (S6O-03540)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government has committed to publishing a just transition plan for Mossmorran following the delivery of the Grangemouth just transition plan. Work will commence in early 2025.

Lessons will be learned from developing the just transition plan for Grangemouth. I anticipate taking a sequential and measured approach, and the plan is likely to include a data-driven baseline, an outline vision for 2045, a corresponding action plan and a monitoring framework.

I am committed to ensuring that that work is business credible while embedding the ambitions of both workers and the community. I welcome early engagement with all stakeholder groups to ensure that their voices are heard, and the plan will be co-designed with them.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for the detail of that answer. ExxonMobil and Shell run Mossmorran. Around 250 workers work there, and many more are employed through short-term maintenance contracts. Any credible just transition plan for the site must be co-designed with the workers and the unions from the get-go, to safeguard their livelihoods. What engagement process does the Government plan to follow to ensure the development of a worker-backed plan? Will the minister join me, alongside site operators, workers and unions, at the summit that I will organise on the issue later this year?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As with the Grangemouth just transition plan, unions and the voices of workers will be central to the development of the Mossmorran plan. I approached ExxonMobil at Mossmorran to say that I would like to work with it on a just transition plan, and it was happy for that to happen.

It is probably more important to get the Grangemouth plan off the ground, given the situation at the Grangemouth complex, but work will be brought forward into how we approach the Mossmorran plan. Many of the same unions will be involved in that process, and we will be able to learn the lessons from the Grangemouth plan and adapt them for the Mossmorran plan.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In December, the Scottish Government, which the Greens were then part of, cut the just transition fund. The Greens now ask about a just transition for the Mossmorran industrial site. Now that the Bute house agreement has collapsed, will the minister commit to restoring funding to the just transition fund for the future?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The just transition fund is for the north-east and Moray, and I am considering how other areas of Scotland might benefit from it. It has not been cut. In its current form, it will be the same as it was when it was announced, and it will be delivered over 10 years. It is not true at all to say that it has been cut.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has held any discussions with stakeholders regarding the future of hyperbaric treatment services on the west coast. (S6O-03541)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is aware that the contract for national health service hyperbaric medicine services in Oban ceased on 31 March and that the chamber has not been operational for NHS patients since January. Review of the facility is on-going, and Scottish Government officials have been in contact with NHS National Services Scotland as the commissioner of those services and NHS Grampian, which provides and co-ordinates hyperbaric medical services in Scotland.

We are being kept updated as the review of the situation continues, and we have been assured that risk is minimised and that plans are in place for the timely transfer and treatment of patients.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I met residents and businesses in Oban earlier this week, and I heard worrying reports that some local businesses in the aquaculture sector are considering relocating nearer to sites that have an active NHS hyperbaric chamber.

NHS Grampian confirmed to me in writing that its decision to renew the contract with Tritonia was not taken for financial reasons. Will the cabinet secretary please commit to engaging with NHS Grampian further, with a view to reinstating that vital service and protecting the aquaculture sector in Oban and its surrounding communities?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the description of the communities and businesses that Tim Eagle presents. As I said in my initial answer, there was a review of the service last month, and I await the outcome of that. We are engaging with NHS Grampian.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its recognition of a housing emergency, whether it will take steps to improve the application of policy 16 of the fourth national planning framework in relation to affordable housing. (S6O-03542)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Policy 16 of national planning framework 4 focuses on quality, diversity and sustainability. It gives strong support for the delivery of the right homes in the right places, reflecting local needs and providing choice across tenures. NPF4 has already strengthened the affordable housing policy, compared with previous Scottish planning policy, to require at least 25 per cent of homes on a market site to be affordable unless local evidence justifies higher or lower contributions. It is for decision makers to apply policy on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I think that the problem lies not in the precise wording of the policy but in its application. Glasgow City Council says that it has approved 1,500 homes since the turn of the year, which could have meant hundreds more affordable homes if the policy had been applied. In one example, the Scottish ministers rejected the call from Green councillors to call in the Shawlands arcade redevelopment, which alone could have provided 125 affordable homes. What is the value of the policy if local councils are not being required to apply it and to ensure that private developers include affordable housing as part of their developments?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I am sure that Patrick Harvie understands that the local development plan has a clear role in how the policy is taken forward and that it is up to local planning authorities and councillors to make decisions on that. He will know that Glasgow City Council is gathering evidence for its new local development plan.

He will also know that policy 16 allows for a lower contribution to be justified by certain local circumstances, which can include an “impact on viability” among other criteria. I do not want to talk specifically about the example that Patrick Harvie has raised, but, in cases where viability is important, it is a question not of losing a number of affordable homes but of potentially not having any homes being built at all, which, of course, would have an impact on the overall market.

All of those factors are taken into account locally, as rightly they should be.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Christine Grahame has a brief supplementary question.

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

I hope that you feel that my question is relevant, Presiding Officer, as it is about affordable homes.

I believe that there are more than 43,000 empty homes in Scotland at large—perhaps this issue is more for the Minister for Housing—including more than 400 in Midlothian and 1,000 in the Scottish Borders. What levers are open to the Scottish Government to bring those homes into the market legally?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Some of that lands in the housing minister’s remit, as the member correctly identified, but planning has a role to play. Work has been taken forward to review compulsory purchase orders, and consideration is also being given to the place that compulsory sales orders might have in helping to support a solution to the problem of empty homes. Updates on that work will be brought back to Parliament in due course.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what the longest projected wait is, in years, for a neurodevelopmental assessment for a child currently on a national health service waiting list. (S6O-03543)

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

Long waits for neurodevelopmental support are unacceptable. However, we do not—as I have explained before in the chamber—currently collect waiting times for neurodevelopmental assessment. Child and adolescent mental health services statistics capture children who meet the CAMHS criteria. Children who require neurodevelopmental support are not reported in those statistics unless they have a comorbid mental health condition.

Our focus is on improving support. Our neurodevelopmental specification places an expectation on the NHS and children’s services to work together to implement standards in line with getting it right for every child. Crucially, local authorities have a statutory duty to identify and provide support for pupils who have additional support needs, regardless of their diagnosis. We are working with NHS boards and local authorities to improve the support that is available, and we have allocated £55.5 million to health boards in 2023-24 to improve mental health and neurodevelopmental services.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If that is an answer, I do not know what I am doing in the Parliament. Let me help the minister: there are 24,096 children on NDAS waiting lists. Some councils and NHS boards do not even have lists, but NHS Ayrshire and Arran says that it will take 19 years and three months to clear its NDAS waiting list. NHS Highland does not have a list and neither does the council. Will the Government at least tell them to draw up a list so that we know how many children actually need help?

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

I assure the member that we are working with all NHS boards, including NHS Highland, to improve neurodevelopmental support and pathways. We are working with local authorities to ensure that support is there for children and young people, regardless of whether they have a diagnosis. As well as the investments in health boards, in recent years we have provided more than £1 million to fund five neurodevelopmental tests of change areas, including one in Highland. Those areas are focused on implementing the ND specification, including the delivery of GIRFEC and multi-agency working. We will continue to support health boards and local authorities to work together in line with the specification, to ensure that the support is there for the children who need it.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has any plans to revise the terms of reference that it has set for the Scottish child abuse inquiry. (S6O-03544)

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

Currently, there are no plans to amend the remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry. Questions about the scope of the inquiry in relation to non-residential settings have been raised previously and ministers have made clear the need for the inquiry to focus on its current and wide-ranging terms of reference, which are centred on the abuse of children within institutions that had legal responsibility for the long-term care of children. Widening the remit of the inquiry to include abuse in non-residential settings would result in it taking much longer to respond to the survivors of abuse in care.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

There are two classes of child abuse victims in Scotland—those who are heard by the inquiry and those who are not. That includes victims such as Susie Henderson, whose childhood was destroyed by a legal establishment paedophile ring, and Peter Haynes and Stuart McMillan, whose childhoods were destroyed by industrial-scale abuse in Scottish football. They and many others simply do not understand why the inquiry is closed to them.

They have also been fed misinformation from the Government. Last year, Nicola Sturgeon told me that the inquiry’s remit is a matter for the inquiry. That is not true. I have asked ministers to widen the inquiry’s remit, but they have continually refused. I again urge the minister to do the right thing by those victims. Will her Government please think again?

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

I want to make it very clear that our sympathies are with all victims of historical abuse. However, as Russell Findlay knows and as I have reiterated, the Scottish child abuse inquiry was set up under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate abuse of children in care in Scotland following a call, over many years, from survivors of in-care abuse.

Ministers have made clear the need for the inquiry to focus on its current and wide-ranging terms. Although Scottish ministers set the terms of reference for the inquiry, it is the responsibility of Lady Smith, the chair of the inquiry, to decide what is considered as part of the inquiry. We are fully committed to maintaining the inquiry’s independence from the Government, while the investigation into and prosecution of those who are guilty of abuse remains a matter for Police Scotland and the courts.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported calls for a moratorium on the closure of publicly owned care homes. (S6O-03545)

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

No one wants to see the closure of good quality care homes. I understand the concern that that causes for residents and their families. Regrettably, there will be situations in which local authority-run care homes close for various reasons. Although we have overall responsibility for health and social care policy in Scotland, the statutory responsibility for delivering those services is for integration authorities, in consultation with people who use the services and in full awareness of the impact on them. It would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to intervene directly in local decision making. I reiterate that no one wants to see the closure of good-quality care homes. I absolutely understand the concern that that is causing for residents and their families.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister knows that a disproportionate number of the care homes that have closed in recent years in Scotland were publicly owned and in rural areas, at a time when we have a delayed-discharge crisis. In Lanarkshire last year, 64 people died while they were stuck in hospital on delayed discharge. People in Clydesdale were promised a step-down facility but, instead, they are getting the closure of the McClymont house care home, which has space to provide that step-down facility, but is being closed. Even at this stage, will the minister step in and stop that closure? She has the power to do so because, ultimately, those partnerships are directly funded by the Government.

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

Colin Smyth is aware that I have met families who are impacted by the closure in that area. I have also met the chief officer and discussed that particular closure with the local integration joint board. The decision to close the care homes in South Lanarkshire was taken by the IJB. If I were to override local decision making in a Labour-run council area, members would be quick to criticise me for intervening in a matter of devolved competence.

Let me be clear—we do not want the closure of good-quality care homes and services. We understand the concern that that causes for residents and their families. We are acutely aware of the pressures that are faced at present by the social care sector as a whole, and we are very grateful for the efforts of the social care workforce, which continues to support our communities.

The statutory responsibility for delivering—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, minister.

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

—commissioning and—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, minister.

Clare Haughey has a brief supplementary question.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

New data from the Home Office shows that the number of health and care worker visa applications was 76 per cent lower in January to April this year than it was in that period last year. Does the minister agree that that will negatively impact on day-to-day operation of publicly owned care homes? Does she also agree that the incoming United Kingdom Government should overturn the cruel immigration policies that harm our care sector?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Minister, please respond concisely and only on matters for which the Scottish Government has general responsibility.

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

I absolutely agree with Clare Haughey’s point. The workforce in social care is under real pressure and has been supported by immigrants for many years in Scotland. We need an immigration system that delivers a workforce to do important and vital work for our nation by looking after our loved ones, and we need a system that works in Scotland. The current system is absolutely broken and does not deliver to our needs in Scotland.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to prevent children and young people from overdosing on over-the-counter medication. (S6O-03546)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Medicines Healthcare and products Regulatory Agency, in combination with retailers, limits the sale of paracetamol to a maximum of two packets of 16 tablets.

The aim of those voluntary measures is to balance the need for people to access pain relief medicines against the dangers for vulnerable individuals to purchase, on impulse, excessive quantities of any single analgesic.

A community pharmacy may sell larger packs under the supervision of a pharmacist; it is illegal to sell more than 100 tablets or capsules of either paracetamol or aspirin in any one retail transaction.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I recently received correspondence from health professionals expressing concern about instances of young people overdosing on common painkillers such as paracetamol. They also expressed concern about the lack of data relating to the issue. When I wrote to the minister, she responded that National Records of Scotland does not publish an age breakdown of that data. What action is her Government taking to increase the availability of data in relation to drug overdose and age?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Pam Gosal for her question and recognise the work that she has been doing, which she referenced in relation to the fact that she has written to me. She is correct that I responded by saying that National Records of Scotland does not publish an age breakdown of that data. However, I am happy to meet Pam Gosal to discuss that further in order to understand the concerns that she and her constituents have raised.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how it is investing in affordable homes within Glasgow, including within the Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn constituency, to help address any housing need. (S6O-03547)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I ask the minister for a concise response.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Scottish Government has made £328 million of funding available to Glasgow for investment in affordable housing over the first years of the current session of Parliament, and a further £78.6 million has been allocated for 2024-25. From that funding, £26.8 million is planned for investment over the same period in the Maryhill and Springburn constituency. That investment will provide an additional 455 homes for Maryhill and Springburn communities.

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

NG Homes, in my constituency, is seeking to develop innovative ways to bring void properties back into use as affordable homes, including 25 void tenement properties at Stonyhurst Street in Possilpark, which will be a challenge over several years.

Will the minister meet me and NG Homes to discuss the company’s ideas regarding innovation around void properties more generally, perhaps in Possilpark itself, in order to see both the challenges and opportunities that are presented at sites such as Stonyhurst Street?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am aware that NG Homes has already engaged with Glasgow City Council, which manages the affordable supply programme in Glasgow through the transfer of management development fund. The council has agreed to provide funding to undertake a feasibility study to consider options for redevelopment of the pre-1919 tenement buildings. That study is now under way and, on its completion, the council will meet with NG Homes to consider the next steps.

Over the summer, I am planning to meet all the registered social landlords that operate in Glasgow and will be happy to discuss the plans with them.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general questions.

First Minister’s Question Time

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity for each party to make some remarks about D day.

Eighty years ago today, British soldiers joined those from America, Canada and other nations to board planes, ships and landing craft to begin the liberation of Europe. The men who were parachuted into Normandy or who landed at Gold, Juno, Sword, Omaha or Utah beaches on 6 June headed into danger and uncertainty. They were met with mines, barbed wire and the guns of the German defenders. A total of 4,414 of the men who were involved in operation Neptune alone would lose their lives, but their sacrifice, and the brave efforts of all those individuals on that historic day, played a key part in the downfall of Nazism and in ensuring freedom and democracy for western Europe.

On this day, the 80th anniversary, and as the veterans of that day become fewer and fewer and the event passes from memory to history, our need to remember their heroism becomes ever more important. Today, and always, we will remember them. [ Applause .]

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that granting new oil and gas licences for the North Sea is essential not only for our energy security but to protect tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland?

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

I start by echoing Douglas Ross’s comments. Today is a day for reflection on the sacrifice and the bravery of all those who served during the second world war, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice and laid down their lives for us in pursuit of a better world. The youthful faces that we have seen in the photographs in the television coverage this morning stay with us—they certainly reminded me of my loved ones.

Were it not for the courageous actions of those brave men and women, we would not enjoy the freedoms that we now take for granted, including the freedom to debate and disagree this very afternoon. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. As we mark the 80th anniversary of D day today, we will never forget those who have laid down their lives, and those who continue to do so, in the service of their country, and we will never take our freedoms for granted. [ Applause .]

We in the Scottish National Party are absolutely crystal clear in our support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector that recognises the declining nature of the North Sea basin and is in line with our climate change commitments. The difference between my party and the Conservatives is that we will never abandon our workers, we will never leave a legacy of inequality and we will never destroy communities, as the Tories did in the previous transition.

Any further extraction must be consistent with our climate obligations, and we must approach licensing on a rigorously evidence-led case-by-case basis, with robust climate compatibility and energy security being key considerations.

Douglas Ross might not care very much for doing the hard work to understand the evidence for decisions, as he confessed earlier this week regarding Liz Truss’s budget, but we are evidence led and will ensure that our decisions on North Sea oil and gas are consistent with the evidence.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The evidence is very clear. The SNP’s plans to be against any new oil and gas licences will result in tens of thousands of jobs being lost in the North Sea and the north-east. That is the evidence; that is very clear.

This week, the Deputy First Minister said that the SNP has “never said no to” new oil and gas licences. However, of course, it opposed the Rosebank field and Cambo. Let us hear what one of her Government colleagues has said. Màiri McAllan, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, said clearly that the Scottish Government does

“not agree with the UK Government issuing new oil and gas licences.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2022; c 12.]

How can the SNP even pretend to support the oil and gas sector and the jobs that are crucial to it when its own energy secretary says that?

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

It is very difficult to believe the Tories on oil and gas when we know that Douglas Ross’s party has been exploiting Scotland’s oil and gas to fill its budget holes for decades. What has Scotland got to show for it? It has austerity, Brexit and the cost of living crisis. We have never proposed a policy of no further North Sea licensing at all. We have said quite clearly that it has to be compatible with our climate change obligations and that any licensing process must be subject to a robust climate compatibility checkpoint.

Douglas Ross wants to talk about evidence. The scientific evidence is clear: there is an urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels globally if the Paris agreement climate goals are to be met. Our focus is on meeting our energy needs, reducing emissions and, ultimately, delivering affordable energy.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Deputy First Minister does not want to listen to the Conservatives on this, but I was simply quoting her Cabinet colleague. The SNP Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy says that the Scottish Government does not agree with the UK Government issuing new oil and gas licences. That is not me saying that; it is the SNP’s energy secretary.

If the Deputy First Minister is trying to distance herself from those comments, there are more. Humza Yousaf, who was the SNP leader until just last month, said:

“I don’t think it’s the right thing to do to grant 100 new ... licences.”

The SNP leader before that, Nicola Sturgeon, said:

“I do not think that we can continue to give the go-ahead to new oilfields.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2021; c 68.]

Several times this week, I asked John Swinney directly whether the SNP backed new oil and gas licences. He would not give a straight answer, so here is an opportunity for the Deputy First Minister. Does the Scottish Government agree that new oil and gas licences for the North Sea should be granted—yes or no?

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

On the contrary, I have been very clear on our approach. Our approach is that we will continue to support the workers and the industry in line with our climate change obligations. The industry believes in that transition, but the facts speak for themselves in relation to what we are doing. Last month alone, we saw progress on two significant projects that will drive forward our energy transition and that underline our position as an energy powerhouse: Sumitomo’s groundbreaking £350 million high-voltage direct-current cable factory and the investment through Haventus in the redevelopment of Ardersier port. That is because this Government believes in a just transition—a transition that does not leave workers behind and does not turn off the taps overnight, but is very conscious of our climate change obligations.

This week, we have heard a lot of figures that have been cooked up by the Tories. The bottom line for us is that we are led by the evidence, and we will always back the north-east and Scottish workers.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

People might not have realised, listening to that answer, that I had simply asked the Deputy First Minister whether the SNP agrees with the granting of new oil and gas licences—yes or no. We got nothing—no answer whatsoever—on that specific question.

Let me be clear: the Scottish Conservatives support new oil and gas licences, because new developments will protect jobs in the north-east of Scotland. They will also support a just transition to net zero. They will keep bills down, they will prevent us from having to import costly oil from foreign countries and they will secure Scotland’s energy future. Its members are trying to pretend otherwise, but the SNP is against new oil and gas licences, regardless of the impact on the workers affected.

Speaking about evidence, I go back to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, which said in a report that the position not to grant new oil and gas licences would put 100,000 jobs at risk. Why is the SNP ignoring it?

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

Douglas Ross might find that the same report had some criticisms of the Conservatives, too.

Douglas Ross talks about supporting the north-east. I have been very clear about our position on new licences. If Douglas Ross wants to back the north-east, there are some big questions for him this very day—a day when he has betrayed a Conservative candidate in the north-east, whom the Conservatives trusted to be a minister in the United Kingdom Government, who is currently recovering from ill health, who was planning to stand for election and who was supported by local members. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

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

I am old enough to remember when Douglas Ross said that he was not going to stand again for Westminster because he wanted to focus on Holyrood in 2026.

Our position is clear: we will back the north-east, we will back workers and we intend to achieve our climate change aims.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I share the sentiments of the Deputy First Minister and Douglas Ross on this day, the 80th anniversary of D day. It is right that we commemorate all the Scottish, British and Commonwealth soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and liberty in Europe. We will remember them.

On Sunday, it was revealed that the Scottish National Party will effectively hand back up to £500 million of funding that should have been spent on crucial economic and anti-poverty projects across Scotland. That is simply a scandal, and it happened when Kate Forbes was finance secretary. Indeed, £158 million had already been handed back because of the SNP’s failure to meet annual expenditure targets, a further £136 million was not spent by the deadline of the end of 2023 and a further £280 million is still to be claimed. That has all been confirmed today by the independent experts at the Scottish Parliament.

That is just the latest example of SNP financial incompetence. Will the Deputy First Minister tell me how the SNP has made such a mess of that?

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

In the very same report by the Scottish Parliament information centre that the member is quoting from, evidence could not be found for the £450 million claim. We said that very clearly earlier this week, and the SPICe report also indicates that that £450 million is not a figure that its researchers recognise.

The points about this story are clear. First, final expenditure figures will not be known until the programme formally closes in 2025. To have spent all the money a year in advance would itself raise questions. Secondly, we do not expect the final figures to be markedly different from those elsewhere in the United Kingdom or from those of previous programmes. Our commitment is to spend as much of the money as possible. The irony of the question is that the Labour Party has no intention of ever returning Scotland to Europe, therefore depriving us of European funding indefinitely.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is interesting that the clawback in Scotland is going to be greater than anywhere else in the UK. The scale of return in Scotland is likely to be 28 per cent; in Wales, it is 9 per cent; in England, it is 6 per cent; and, in Northern Ireland, it is 2 per cent. I tell Kate Forbes as gently as possible that I used to oversee European Union structural funds, so I know how the claims work, and I know the life-changing impact that the money can have. I do not buy her excuses for one second, because it comes down to the financial incompetence of the SNP Government, at a time when people are crying out for help during a cost of living crisis and when our public services are stripped to the bone. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It unforgivable that the SNP is wasting taxpayers’ money. The scale of the incompetence goes even further. New analysis published by the Scottish Labour Party today reveals that the SNP—

Members:

Oh!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Wait for it. That analysis reveals that the SNP has wasted £5 billion since it came to office. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That includes agency spend costing the national heath service more than £1.6 billion, delayed discharge costing more than £1.3 billion and ferries now £330 million over budget—the list goes on.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Question, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Given the real challenges in the country, can the Deputy First Minister explain to the people of Scotland why the SNP is wasting their money, because that is utterly indefensible?

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

What is indefensible is that the party that is pretending to offer change is short-changing Scotland by adopting Conservative budget rules. We know that, under the Conservatives’ budget, there was a proposed £19 billion cut to UK public services. To quote another Labour spokesperson:

“all roads ... lead back to Westminster”.

There are profoundly difficult choices ahead if the Labour Party continues with its plans of adopting Tory rules.

Rachel Reeves has said that there is no more money. She has made a virtue of that. When we look at the money coming to the NHS alone, we see that it is less than what the Conservatives were promising.

When it comes to the Scottish Government’s position on the budget, we look at the EU structural funds and the projects that have benefited from them. From the Highlands to the Lowlands, there has been significant benefit. We will continue to maximise the funding that is available to ensure that we tackle child poverty, grow the economy and meet net zero.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That was a desperate response from the Deputy First Minister. She had no answer to the £5 billion of waste generated under her watch, and she knows that she is misleading the chamber, because there will be no return to austerity under Labour. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Her attack is straight out of the Tory playbook. Is she not aware that the people of Scotland can see right through that very desperate spin from the SNP? People are tired of the chaos. They are tired of the sleaze. They are tired of SNP politicians not treating Scottish taxpayers’ money with respect. Failing to use millions of pounds is not treating the taxpayer with respect. Wasting £5 billion of public money is not treating the taxpayer with respect. Defending Michael Matheson and his £11,000 iPad bill is not treating the taxpayer with respect. People across Scotland are sick of the SNP putting party before country—[ Interruption .]—and they are sick of the financial incompetence that they end up paying for.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

A question, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Last year, Kate Forbes attacked Humza Yousaf and said that continuity would not cut it, but she seems to have failed to learn her own lesson, because all that we have heard today is more of the same. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Is it any wonder that the people of Scotland are crying out for change from 14 years of Tory chaos and 17 years of SNP incompetence?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Baillie.

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

The people of Scotland are crying out for change—and they are not going to get it with Labour, that is for sure.

Let me start with a point of consensus. I, too, think that the public want to be treated with respect and that they are tired of spin. Labour has spent this week accusing the Conservatives of spinning numbers. That is precisely why there is an air of hypocrisy right now in terms of the figures that Jackie Baillie has come to the chamber with. At the end of the day, Labour has to answer a question from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has said that Labour is effectively signing up to “sharp spending cuts”. Labour needs to have an answer to that, and I have not heard one yet.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am aware of several on-going sedentary contributions from Labour members. I would be grateful if they could desist.

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

At the end of the day, we are proud of our record. Our most recent budget, using progressive taxation, has seen the Scottish child payment increase and the best-performing accident and emergency service in this country, it has delivered for business by slashing or abolishing rates for businesses and it has made Scotland the top destination outside London for foreign direct investment. That is a record to be proud of. However, it would be a lot easier to deliver those game-changing policies if we did not have Tory austerity on repeat.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-day, I have found myself reflecting on a particular evening during the 2016 election campaign, when I knocked on a door not too far from here. The door was answered by a 96-year-old gentleman, who invited me in to admire his collection of bagpipes. Not only that, but he taught me my first ever bagpipe lesson. What blew me away was that those were the pipes that he had used to bring the troops ashore at Sword beach in Normandy on D-day 80 years ago. I reflect on his memory. Sadly, he has since passed away, as have all too many veterans. This may be the last time that we commemorate such an anniversary alongside people who were actually there. We reflect on their sacrifice on the altar of freedom, for the cause of democracy and against the tyranny of Nazism, and we will remember them.

To ask the Deputy First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-03197)

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

The Cabinet will next meet on Tuesday.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

In the early hours of 5 July 2015, John Yuill and Lamara Bell were returning from a camping trip when their car left the road on the M9. The police were alerted to the crash but did not turn up for three days. All the while, Lamara was still alive, trapped, calling for help. She may have survived if help had arrived sooner. In the weeks beforehand, my party had been warning about the chaos in the call centre at Bilston Glen, which was caused by the rushed centralisation of the police by the Scottish National Party Government. John Swinney was Deputy First Minister at the time.

The fatal accident inquiry system is so broken that it has taken nine years to report on the deaths of John and Lamara, with final conclusions published only last week. Will the Deputy First Minister accept that her Government has failed on two counts? The first is the botched centralisation that contributed to the tragedy in the first place, and the second is the intolerable wait for answers that the families have had to endure.

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

I start by expressing my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of Lamara Bell and John Yuill. When the situation happened, the former justice secretary, in his statement to Parliament following the court ruling, was quite clear about giving our deepest apologies. The former chief constable has also apologised unreservedly to the families, and I repeat that this afternoon.

On Alex Cole-Hamilton’s points, it is important that we start by looking at the lessons that have been learned. All the recommendations of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland’s independent review into Police Scotland’s contact, command and control division have now been implemented. I note that the fatal accident inquiry found that lessons have been learned and that the public should have confidence in Police Scotland’s ability to respond to the calls made.

Alex Cole-Hamilton also made a point about the fatal accident inquiry. Obviously, the conduct of investigations that lead to fatal accident inquiries is a matter for the Lord Advocate and her staff, acting independently of Government. However, I understand that the issue has been raised with the Solicitor General, who has indicated that she is willing to come back to Parliament to answer questions more fully.

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

To ask the Deputy First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review the impact of the short-term let licensing legislation, in light of the upcoming summer tourist season. (S6F-03216)

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

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to close family members running a bed and breakfast.

The short-term let licensing scheme is aimed at ensuring that everyone coming to Scotland can be assured of safe, high-quality accommodation. That is especially important as we approach a busy summer tourist season. We recognise the growth of the short-term let sector and its importance to Scottish tourism. As a result, hosts have invested in the future of their businesses and are providing assurances to guests on safety and quality.

We are already undertaking planned monitoring of the legislation, and we recently lodged a statutory amendment order that makes technical changes as a result of feedback. If Parliament approves that amendment order, it will further support business activity and clarify exemptions. We will update Parliament in the summer on the scheme’s implementation, informed by our on-going engagement with stakeholders.

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

During the debate on the legislation, I raised concerns about its reach, as it includes, for example, yurts, tree houses and even lighthouses. I also raised concerns about local pressures for accommodation at times of popular tourist events, such as, in my constituency, the Melrose sevens, the Borders book festival in Melrose and common ridings across the Borders. I understand that flexibility to local authorities was part of the solution. I understand from what the Deputy First Minister said that the Government is monitoring the issue. Can she advise Parliament whether that flexibility is working?

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

Christine Grahame makes an important point, particularly about the significant tourist events that are happening locally. I can confirm that, if approved, the latest statutory amendment would provide additional flexibility around the periods for which local authorities are able to administer temporary exemptions to the licences. I hope that that would be of use when it comes to such events, which, as Ms Grahame said, are hugely important. Many authorities have chosen to offer such exemptions already. The Minister for Housing, Paul McLennan, will shortly update Parliament on implementation, which will cover local delivery. We continue to monitor the implementation of the licensing scheme and take on board any feedback from stakeholders.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Presiding Officer,

“We can all agree that the rollout of this scheme has certainly not been without its challenges over the last few years.”

Those are not my words but those of the Deputy First Minister to her constituents and businesses in the Highlands. Tourism leaders have been clear that irreversible damage is being caused by the legislation, but that seems to be falling on deaf ears in the Scottish Government. We need to see changes, and we need to see them now. The Minister for Housing has not gone far enough, which simply demonstrates how badly the legislation was drafted and implemented in the first place. I ask the Deputy First Minister to act on the issue today, by having ministers suspend the legislation until a full review can take place and Parliament can fix the problems that the Government has created.

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

The fact that Miles Briggs was able to quote me suggests that I am actively engaged in the issues and have taken a lot of interest in the matter locally in my Highland constituency. We are very responsive to feedback, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders. Only two days ago, I had a meeting with the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers to hear about its experience in full. I will continue to work with the Minister for Housing, who has been exemplary in his engagement, to ensure that we take any feedback on board.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Deputy First Minister how the Scottish Government will prevent further GP practice closures, in light of reports that the number of surgeries has declined in every NHS board since 2015. (S6F-03209)

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

General practitioners are essential to the delivery of high-quality, sustainable general practice service, and we remain fully committed to increasing the number of GPs in Scotland by 800 by 2027. To support general practice, we have significantly expanded the primary care multidisciplinary team workforce, with more than 4,700 staff now working in such services. We are supporting the development of those teams through investment of about £190 million in the primary care improvement fund. The latest data from Public Health Scotland reflects a trend towards fewer but larger practices that incorporate multidisciplinary teams so as to provide a wider range of services.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government has said that it is led by evidence. The evidence is that GP surgeries in rural Scotland are closing at more than twice the rate of those in many central belt health boards. In NHS Grampian, GPs have been damning in their assessment of primary care under the Scottish Government. Here are just some recent quotes from GPs to their representative body in that area. One practice said:

“We had to switch off our phones yesterday for the first time, as we have reached our safe limit ... we felt we had no option. Feels unmanageable just now.”

Another said:

“The current situation cannot continue; staff are completely exhausted, and morale is very low.”

Another GP said:

“There has to be an easier way to make a living than this!”

I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is talking to the Deputy First Minister and giving her feedback. I am glad of that, because we cannot afford to lose more surgeries. GPs and patients across rural communities are watching and listening today.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Can we have a question, please, Ms White?

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What answer can the Deputy First Minister give them now? They are at breaking point.

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

The question that Tess White asked is important. I understand in detail the challenges that our rural GPs face, but it is precisely because of the challenges in recruitment that we have invested in the pioneering Scottish graduate entry medicine programme. The first cohort is coming through ScotGEM just now.

We recognise that there are distinct challenges when it comes to rural and island areas, which is reflected in the budget that has been committed: £3 million for the national centre for remote and rural health and care, which was launched in October and is being delivered by NHS Education for Scotland. Tess White will also know that we incentivise GPs to take up rural positions through the £10,000 golden hello scheme, and are also investing £1 million in bursaries for GP trainees.

There is agreement on the pressures facing our rural GPs. The point is that we are taking action right now to try to support our rural GPs as far as possible because we recognise their importance.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The Tories have presided over the closure of 450 surgeries, more than 1,000 pharmacies—a third of the total—longer waiting lists and strikes by junior doctors and nurses, with 40 promised new hospitals unbuilt over the past decade in England.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the evidence is clear that Scotland’s NHS, with all its challenges, is in better shape for staff and patients under the Scottish National Party than it ever would be under the Tories?

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

Kenny Gibson is right to talk about the wider context, because the situation that the Scottish NHS faces has to be seen in the wider context of the challenges around visas and austerity. Despite that, we are delivering more than £19.5 billion of funding for health and social care to give our NHS a real-terms uplift and support significant investment on the front line.

We are committed to the founding principles of the NHS, unlike some other parties in here, and we also want to mitigate austerity.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I was contacted this week by Prestonpans Group Practice, the GP surgery in Prestonpans, East Lothian, which has concerns about funding, staffing and patient care. It faces a withdrawal of funding of 10 per cent from cuts to the East Lothian health and social care partnership, as well as increased estate fees. That will have an impact on patients.

Will the Deputy First Minister, or the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport, meet me to discuss the concerns that were raised by that group and the Lothian Local Medical Committee and, indeed, how we can improve the situation across the south of Scotland?

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

I have no hesitation in agreeing for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to meet Martin Whitfield and his constituents.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Deputy First Minister by what date the Scottish Government will decide which of the national park nominations will be taken forward to the next stage. (S6F-03205)

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

The deadline for nominations for areas to be considered for designation as a new national park was 29 February 2024. Nominations have been received from Galloway, Lochaber, Loch Awe, Scottish Borders and Tay forests. An appraisal process commenced in March 2024, and concluded last week. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, Mairi Gougeon, is now considering the outcome of that process and will make recommendations shortly.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I live in a national park, and I see every day how it hugely benefits businesses, communities and nature. From speaking to local businesses in the stunning Tay forest area, it is clear that they are looking for certainty about the designation of Scotland’s third national park. However, the clock is ticking, particularly for the statutory process to complete by 2026.

Will Kate Forbes personally ensure that this Government leaves a lasting and tangible green legacy for our rural communities by designating at least one new national park ahead of the next Holyrood election?

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

Mark Ruskell will know that I do not quite live in a national park, but I represent one. I see the benefits, particularly in and around the Cairngorms national park area.

On the process, Cabinet will take a decision on next steps over the summer. The criteria that have been finalised for evaluating the national parks are clear; they relate to outstanding national importance, the size, character and coherence of the area, and meeting the special needs of the area. It may be that not all the proposals meet the criteria, but that decision will be taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to general and constituency supplementaries.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

In light of the reports about CMAL being merged into a national ferries body, what assurances can the Deputy First Minister provide that CMAL jobs will remain in Port Glasgow town centre?

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

We recognise that our ferry network not only provides a vital lifeline service but also employs people in areas that are under pressure. Stuart McMillan has been a stalwart in representing his area when it comes to jobs that are related to the ferry network. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will keep him and others in Parliament informed of any decisions that are made.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

A parliamentary question that I submitted has revealed that the SNP Government holds no information on repeat offences for its flagship domestic abuse rehabilitation programme, which is known as the Caledonian system. If the Government does not hold information on reoffending rates, how can it possibly judge how successful the programme is?

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

All such initiatives and programmes are fully evaluated. It is important for us to make sure that they have the confidence of victims. That is a key consideration when it comes to the data that is held. If the member is keen to understand some of the thinking behind the decisions that have been made, I am sure that Angela Constance would be more than happy to meet her.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice stood where the Deputy First Minister is and delivered the annual update on progress to tackle child poverty. We know that levels of child poverty in Scotland have been stagnant for 17 years and that, on many measures, they have increased.

The cabinet secretary said:

“our action is making a difference.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2024; c 11.]

At the same time as that statement, the Poverty and Inequality Commission released its annual scrutiny report, which, in relation to the Government’s actions, said:

“Limited progress has been made ... over the last year ... Progress in other areas is slow or not evident at all”

and

“without immediate and significant action, the Scottish Government will not meet the 2030 targets.”

The cabinet secretary told me that the Government is committed to those targets. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with the commission’s analysis of her Government’s actions, and will the Government meet those targets?

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

The Government is very proud of the fact that tackling child poverty is one of its national missions. We take it seriously; it is one of the top priorities of the First Minister. The cabinet secretary set out the action that we are taking, which has resulted in just short of 100,000 children who would have been in poverty not being in poverty. The evidence is clear, internationally: the Scottish child payment is game changing. It is the only one of its kind in Europe. We want to go as far as possible in lifting children out of poverty.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

While Westminster trashes the United Kingdom with Brexit, the Scottish National Party Government is prioritising boosting economic growth. The latest Bank of Scotland business barometer report shows that business optimism in Scotland in May was up by 15 per cent, to 57 per cent, which is the joint highest in the UK. That is welcome. Will the Deputy First Minister say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to make Scotland the best place in the UK in which to do business?

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

That is absolutely our aim and ambition. Scotland is open for business. We are committed to working right across the economy to maximise the huge economic opportunities that lie ahead, not least in the incredible renewable energy sector. We want to ensure that our economy remains one of the best performing in the UK—as it is right now—and we will do that by working in partnership with business, industry and trade unions.

Scotland’s gross domestic product per capita has grown faster than the UK’s since 2007, and a record number of foreign direct investment projects were secured in Scotland in 2022, maintaining our position as the top-performing area of the UK, outside of London, for the eighth year running.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On 28 May 2020, in Inverness, Dwayne MacLeay and Gary MacKay were killed, and Kimberley Nicholson was violently stabbed. The person who carried out the attack had had contact with Police Scotland, NHS Highland, the Highland Council and the Home Office, each of which appears to have followed its own procedures without liaising with the others. We cannot turn the clock back, but will the Deputy First Minister agree to meeting me and the families to try to find ways to ensure that information about vulnerable individuals is shared between public bodies, so that no similar event can ever occur again?

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

The member makes important points about engaging with the families and constantly looking at ways in which public bodies can work together. Without wanting to agree on Angela Constance’s behalf to more meetings than I have agreed to, I think that she would be more than happy to meet Edward Mountain and the families.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Only 38 per cent of type 1 diabetics in NHS Lothian have access to a flash glucose monitor, compared with 51.8 per cent across Scotland. The divide is even more stark for children, as only a quarter of paediatric patients in NHS Lothian have access to an FGM, compared with 35.5 per cent across Scotland. That technology is life changing for those who receive it, but type 1 diabetics in the Lothians are being short changed. What is the Deputy First Minister’s Government doing to increase access to flash glucose monitors across the Lothians?

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

The member is right to say that that treatment can be transformational. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has announced £8.8 million to support the work that we are doing around diabetes and has made the commitment that all children with type 1 diabetes will get the support that they need.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I associate the Scottish Greens with colleagues’ comments in commemoration of those who made the ultimate sacrifice in Normandy 80 years ago to liberate Europe from fascism. We will remember them.

Following the tragic death of a cyclist in March and multiple other serious incidents along the Drymen Road and Duntocher Road corridor in Bearsden, a community campaign called safe streets Bearsden has formed to call on East Dunbartonshire Council and other public bodies to take urgent action to protect pedestrians and cyclists. The campaign has highlighted that a number of schools in the area simply do not have safe ways for many of their pupils to walk, wheel or cycle in each day.

Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me and safe streets Bearsden that action must be taken without delay to address the serious safety concerns along the roads and to make Bearsden and Milngavie safer places to walk, wheel and cycle?

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

We are absolutely committed to making our streets safer, particularly for young people and around schools. Ross Greer makes an absolutely critically important point. He referenced the fact that local authorities need to be involved because they are on the front line when it comes to delivering safer local streets.

Clearly, funding has been made available in this year’s budget, and we are committed to making sustainable travel a more attractive option. I am sure that we will continue to work with Ross Greer, in partnership with the local authority, to deliver what the community is keen to see.

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

The Deputy First Minister mentioned earlier the warnings by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that Labour and Tory spending plans will mean sharp cuts for public services. Has the Scottish Government considered the impact of those plans on the Scottish Government’s budget and, consequently, the vital devolved Scottish public services, not least our national health service?

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

When it comes to the funding that Labour is talking about making available to Scotland’s NHS, it beggars belief that it is actually lower than the consequentials that we received from the Conservative Government. Our priorities will always be to protect Scotland’s public services and to mitigate austerity, but there is only so much that we can do. If the IFS is saying that Labour and Tory spending plans would mean sharp spending cuts, it really needs to get an answer, not least when Rachel Reeves is saying that there will be no more money.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It seemed as though things might finally be progressing on Skye, with NHS Highland’s draft plan to restore 24/7 urgent care at Portree community hospital being submitted to ministers on 24 May. However, despite repeated requests, local campaigners have still not received a copy of the plan. They were told that it would be explained to them at a meeting that was supposed to take place yesterday, but that was cancelled by NHS Highland with less than 24 hours’ notice.

Will the Deputy First Minister commit to ensuring that the Scottish Government shares the plan with local campaigners immediately? Will she ensure that the priority of the local community—that 24/7 urgent care is restored at Portree community hospital as soon as possible—is also the priority for NHS Highland and the Scottish Government?

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

I absolutely agree with the member that restoring 24/7 urgent care at Portree community hospital remains the Government’s aim. NHS Highland has been crystal clear when it comes to the Government’s expectations that that is what needs to be delivered.

Significant work has happened. NHS Highland submitted its action plan towards the end of May and it was made very clear to the community that the meeting has been postponed rather than cancelled. I would like to see that meeting happen as quickly as possible to unpack the work that has been done and to give the community confidence that we intend to deliver on that recommendation.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Last weekend, Orkney’s young athletes—hockey players, swimmers, footballers and netballers—successfully retained the Stuart cup in the junior intercounty competition against their Shetland counterparts.

Will the Deputy First Minister join me in congratulating both the Orkney and Shetland athletes on the quality of the competition and the spirit in which it was played and will she also restate the Scottish Government’s on-going support for the International Island Games Association games, which will take place in Orkney in 2025?

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

I have no hesitation in joining Liam McArthur in congratulating the Orkney and Shetland athletes. He sits next to Beatrice Wishart and I am sure that there was no bias whatsoever in his question.

The international island games are wonderful. They really put the spotlight on our island communities and give great opportunities to young athletes from those communities, so I wish them well and commend what they have achieved.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Mark Ruskell. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so before that item begins.

Rail Fares

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-13270, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on permanently ending peak rail fares on ScotRail. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Members who wish to participate should press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes what it considers to be the success of the pilot scheme to remove peak rail fares, which has been in place since 2 October 2023 and has been further extended to the end of September 2024; believes that this has been an important tool in encouraging public transport use during the cost of living crisis, including for commuters in the Mid Scotland and Fife region; notes the belief that shifting commuters to low-carbon public transport is essential to drive down climate change emissions from the transport sector and contribute to the target of reducing car kilometres by 20% by 2030; further notes the support of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the rail unions RMT, ASLEF, TSSA and Unite, for the removal of peak time rail fares; notes the call to abolish peak time fares in the rail unions’ joint report, A Vision for Scotland’s Railways, published in October 2021, and further notes the calls on the Scottish Government to permanently abolish peak time rail fares.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank members for signing the motion, and I thank those who have stayed to debate it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Please resume your seat Mr Ruskell.

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

Mr Ruskell, please resume.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

They may be running for their trains.

Last Wednesday, I was delighted to join passengers on the first train to Leven and Cameron Bridge since 1969. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport was with us, too. It was especially wonderful to join tenacious campaigners from the Levenmouth Rail Campaign. It is clear that those new stations will change lives.

Rail services are permanent and deliver far-reaching economic benefits, and investing in rail connects communities, offering a fixed, greener, cheaper transport option for as many people as possible. As a Green MSP, I have always been a strong advocate of investment in rail, new rail stations, decarbonisation and the reform of fare structures and pricing. I have repeatedly called for the nationalisation of ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper, and, as the cabinet secretary knows, the Green group secured significant funding for rail as part of the Bute house agreement.

I think that we all agree that radically improving public transport is good for people, the economy and the planet. Back in 2021, I met the four rail unions outside Parliament for the launch of “A Vision for Scotland’s Railways”. We agreed on much in that report, and the removal of ScotRail’s peak-time fares was one of those ideas. We have been proud to fight for and win the removal of peak-time fares on ScotRail services for a trial six-month period, which started in October 2023. Alongside the four rail unions and tens of thousands of passengers who have felt the benefit of this transformative policy, we now call on the Scottish Government to make the change permanent.

Why do simpler and cheaper rail fares matter? Transport is responsible for about a third of our greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland. Road transport alone makes up about three quarters of those emissions, with a significant proportion coming from passenger car use. The Scottish Government says that it is still on track to achieve net zero by 2045. It also has the important target of reducing the number of car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030. Significant, transformative investment in public transport, including rail, is essential if we are to have any hope of encouraging people out of polluting private cars and reducing Scotland’s carbon emissions.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Mark Ruskell talks about investment. Does he or anyone else know what the cost of the off-peak rail fare pilot is or is likely to be? That will be a factor in whether it can continue.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

John Mason makes a good point. There was an allocation in this year’s budget, but it is, of course, a changing picture. It depends on how many people get back on to the railways and whether we can see a modal shift.

We know that modal shift takes time. That is an important point in this debate, because it is about changing habits that have formed over a lifetime—a lifetime in which Governments of all shades have prioritised investment in roads and cars over investment in public transport.

Radical interventions in public transport fares clearly make a difference. Nearly 750,000 young people in Scotland now have access to free bus travel, and more than 137 million of those journeys have been made in just over two years. The national entitlement card for bus travel goes further by offering young people 50 per cent off train fares. We are already creating a generation whose first choice is public transport.

Some green shoots of progress are already emerging from the interim evaluation of the off-peak-all-day pilot, which was published earlier this week. Although the picture is yet to fully emerge, the data shows us that 53 per cent of new rail passengers in the pilot period had previously chosen to travel by car. It shows us that a third of existing rail users made at least one additional rail journey that they would ordinarily have made by another travel mode, with two thirds of those journeys normally made by car. If we want to achieve long-term modal shift, we need to give people the security of knowing that peak-time rail fares are gone for good. Only then can commuters start to plan their work and travel options around fixed rail services that are cost competitive with running a private car.

Modal shift is an important objective for the off-peak all-day pilot, but it is not the only reason why securing cheaper and simpler fares matters. Budgets are still tight for many people across Scotland. Although inflation might have levelled out, the cost of living crisis has a long tail, with prices remaining high in many sectors. I hope that John Mason acknowledges that, although the pilot has been important in driving modal shift, it has also been important as a cost of living measure. High rail fares, particularly at peak times, coupled with a complicated pricing structure threaten to make rail an unattractive option in the future. We cannot stand still on this. Rail must continue to grow its passenger demographic, not shrink it.

For those who commute to work at peak times, the cost pressure is even more stark, as I will outline. Before the pilot, someone travelling at peak times between Edinburgh and Glasgow paid £28.90, and someone travelling between Glasgow and Stirling paid £16.10. With the removal of peak-time fares, those prices have been slashed—by half in the case of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route.

Cheaper rail fares will make train travel more attractive to commuters and leisure travellers, and there are early indications from the pilot evaluation that that is having an effect. During the pilot, 78 per cent of new rail passengers chose to get the train because of the pilot. Put simply, they got on board ScotRail because the tickets were cheaper—it is that simple. It cannot be right that it is cheaper, easier and simpler to choose private cars over public transport, so reforming antiquated and unfair structures such as peak-time fares is an important part of the picture.

However, we also need to think bigger. Creating incentives to reduce fares is just one side of the price equation. We cannot secure sustainable funding for transformative green transport solutions through driving up rail passenger numbers alone. We need to be brave and bold, and measures such as congestion charging and workplace parking levies in the cities are needed to get a better balance between private car usage and the use of public transport. We know that the Scottish Government has done initial work on demand management, and I look forward to seeing the final 20 per cent reduction plan. However, we also need councils with strong leadership that can stand with the Scottish Government and drive through measures that will transform our cities for good. We also desperately need to see progress on integrated ticketing, which the Government has often promised but has not yet delivered, and which should go a huge way to improving the passenger experience and delivering more affordable fare packages.

ScotRail’s now being in public ownership is our chance to deliver on a people’s vision for ScotRail—one that makes rail affordable and accessible to as many people as possible and that encourages folks to get out of cars and on to our incredible rail services. Getting rid of peak-time fares is a very important step on that journey.

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 Mark Ruskell on securing it. I will keep my contribution brief.

The removal of the peak rail fare has undoubtedly benefited people in many parts of Scotland, enabling them to travel by train more affordably. It has also had benefits for emissions reduction and action against climate change.

The removal of peak rail fares has also built on the Scottish National Party Government’s commitment to making public transport more accessible and reliable, and it has encouraged people to switch away from cars to cleaner, greener public transport. From expanding free bus travel to under 22s to putting money straight back into people’s pockets with reduced rail fares, the SNP is helping people where it matters. Every pound saved can help to mitigate the impact of the Tory-inflicted cost of living crisis.

Although the off-peak rail fare is welcome, it does not benefit many of my constituents across South Scotland. For example, at present, there are no ScotRail services from Lockerbie to either Glasgow or Edinburgh. The west coast main line is serviced by TransPennine Express and, on occasion, Avanti West Coast. There are no rail services from Stranraer to Ayr at all at the moment, and the replacement bus service takes substantially more time to get to Ayr than the rail service did.

The reason why the rail service has not been working for the past eight months is the derelict Ayr station hotel. Although that is not the responsibility of the Scottish Government but that of South Ayrshire Council, it is another example of how my constituents from Stranraer, Wigtownshire and East Ayrshire are not benefiting from the removal of the peak rail fare offer that the Scottish Government introduced.

Another example of how South Scotland is disadvantaged in relation to the peak rail fare cut is the Scottish Government’s recent investment of £20 million in Reston railway station, which I visited just last week. It is an amazing, welcome, fantastic and accessible asset for people living in Reston and the surrounding areas of the Scottish Borders. However, there are no ScotRail services on the line; the station is serviced by TransPennine Express, Avanti West Coast, the London North Eastern Railway and Lumo, and none of those operators offers non-peak rail fares at any time of day, which means that people across the south are missing out.

The parts of Dumfries and Galloway that see the benefit are those on the Gretna to Glasgow line, but many constituents choose not to use the service, because it is much quicker to take the TransPennine Express from Lockerbie to Edinburgh, which takes 58 minutes as opposed to the two hours that it takes to travel from Dumfries to Glasgow.

I have lobbied successive transport ministers for improvements to the line, such as the reduction of journey times and electrification. The second strategic transport projects review—STPR2—made recommendations for the line to be improved. I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to request an update on the intended timescales.

I welcome the extension of the peak rail fare cut. However, I ask the cabinet secretary to consider the issues that I have raised about how many communities across South Scotland might not benefit from that excellent pilot scheme. I ask whether she could explore whether transport officials and ScotRail could look to enter reciprocal commercial agreements with other operators, which would mean that constituents on the Scottish stations that do not have ScotRail services could also benefit from non-peak fares at all times during the pilot scheme period.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate. I was very happy to sign his motion, because I agree with every word of it.

The removal of peak fares on our trains has been a positive thing. I would like it to be permanent because, for a long time, my view has been that we need a simple fare structure and lower fares. By “a simple fare structure”, I really mean what we currently have on our trains. It was off-putting to have a structure that had people pay different prices at different times of the day.

Irrespective of the interim evaluation, which I think gave a mixed picture, we should keep what we have now because it is the right thing to do. If we reverted to the previous system, there is a danger that it would discourage people from using the trains, and that would be a negative thing.

John Mason—who I see is not in the chamber at the moment—asked earlier for a cost. There is a cost given in the interim evaluation of £40 million. We need to see that as an investment rather than a burden on the public purse. Getting fares lower is an investment.

Mark Ruskell covered quite a lot of ground. He mentioned smart and integrated ticketing, which I would like to see. I am frustrated that the board that the Scottish Government set up to look at that has been given three years to produce recommendations. We need to move a lot quicker than that. The technology is being used elsewhere in Europe and the world, and we could move quicker on it. I have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport about that—three years is far too long. We need to get on with it. It is all about making public transport, including trains and buses, easier to use.

The cabinet secretary has announced that there will be a pilot of a flat fare system for bus travel. I would like the start of that to be announced very quickly. I accept that we are in an election period, but I think that the cabinet secretary needs to decide where the pilot is going to be. That change could be transformative. I have called for a £2 fare cap across Scotland, and although the cabinet secretary is going for a slightly different system, they amount to the same thing—putting a limit on what bus travel should cost. That is the way that we need to go.

Mark Ruskell also mentioned the Government’s ambition to cut car miles by 20 per cent. We have yet to see a plan for that, so I urge the cabinet secretary to get on with that. We need to know what the Government thinks should be done to get people—

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I see that Mr Ruskell wants to make an intervention, and I am happy to take it.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am enjoying hearing Graham Simpson’s not just acceptance but enthusiasm for green policies, but I am interested in what his views are on demand management. We can keep offering the carrots of reduced fares, flat fares and free travel, but there is a point at which we have to rebalance the cost of private car usage with public transport. Would he support demand management in, for example, the city of Edinburgh, if the council and local taxpayers wished to introduce it? That could lead to transformative investment in public transport in that city, as it could in many other cities, while at the same time rebalancing the cost, which, as he knows, is vastly skewed towards private car usage and away from public transport at the moment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Begin winding up, please.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I will close by answering that point. My view is that I am more of a carrots man than a sticks man.

The kind of proposal that Mark Ruskell has come up with would be hugely controversial, which is possibly why the cabinet secretary has not said what she plans to do. However, she needs to set out her plans and have discussions across the Parliament and perhaps in advance of announcing those things, because I accept that this is not easy.

Once again, I congratulate Mark Ruskell on securing the debate and for allowing us a chance to air a number of issues.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and to Mark Ruskell for lodging the motion. As an MSP and Scottish Labour’s transport spokesperson, I have been consistent in my support for scrapping peak rail fares. I welcome the bold steps that the Scottish Government has taken and I continue to support the work that it is doing, while also calling for the changes to be made permanent.

I am pleased that Mark Ruskell’s motion mentions rail unions. The rail unions have often been overlooked when discussions of the scheme have taken place, so it is important to remember that it was the rail unions that first proposed and campaigned for the ambitious action and that their members’ efforts to deliver the staffing that is required have made the pilot scheme such a success. As such, I pay tribute to all those in the trade union movement who have made the case for this policy change on behalf of the people of Scotland.

The rail unions understand, as I do, that peak fares are only a tax on workers who are doing exactly what their Government is asking them to do in leaving the car at home and travelling in a more sustainable way. As we know, rail fares have increased at a far greater rate than the cost of travelling by car, so it is no wonder that we are still struggling to get people to make the jump from their cars to public transport, particularly as people across the country are still struggling with a cost of living crisis. I welcome the work that the Government has done on peak fares.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Alex Rowley for his mention of the unions. I met the four unions again on Monday. They told me that, from the perspective of workers, the scheme has been really successful. Because it simplifies the sale of tickets, it has become very easy for workers who sell tickets on our railways to explain the fact that there is a single fare throughout the day. They no longer have to have difficult conversations about why a rail fare has suddenly jumped by 50 per cent. We have had great feedback from our incredible workers on the railways through our rail unions.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will give you the time back, Mr Rowley.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As well as speaking to rail unions, from speaking to rail workers when using the trains, and from speaking to passengers, it is clear that the policy is positive and welcome. It is an example of policy that makes rail more affordable and accessible, which is why we must make the change permanent without delay.

As someone who firmly believes that we must inspire a greater modal shift in transport, I often despair at the punitive approach that is taken to transport policy. Rather than making public transport more attractive, I fear that we often focus too much on making driving more unattractive, often without ensuring that the appropriate alternatives are in place. When we talk about workplace parking levies, road charging and proposals to reduce road budgets even further, despite having the worst road conditions in living memory, I believe that we are taking the wrong approach. If people across the country had the option of a public transport system that was affordable, available and accessible, we would not need to figure out new ways to charge people for driving, because the desire to do so simply would not be there.

That is why I have raised the need to ensure that bus services remain affordable for those who do not benefit from the concessionary schemes, which I support, and why I believe that local authorities must be provided with the resources to explore local solutions to operating bus services in their areas. It is also why I support bringing a permanent end to peak rail fares.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

As other members have done, I thank Mark Ruskell for giving us the opportunity to debate the policy today. I am proud that the Scottish Greens were able to secure the funding to deliver on the removal of peak rail fares—a policy that rail unions and climate campaigners across Scotland and the United Kingdom have long advocated for. It is the perfect example of a policy that acts in the interests of people and the planet.

As other members have said, workers do not have a choice over when they commute; students do not have a choice over when their lectures or tutorials are; and people who are attending medical appointments do not have that flexibility. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen was absolutely right to call peak rail fares

“a de facto tax on workers”.

Compared with bus travel, rail travel skews towards those on higher incomes but, post-pandemic, working from home skews massively towards the most privileged people and those on the highest incomes in our society. It is the lowest-income users of our railways who are the least likely to have flexibility over when they travel. They are the ones who were penalised the most by the previous peak rail fare system.

The policy to remove peak fares has meant huge savings to my constituents. I am fortunate in the west of Scotland to have an extensive rail network compared with other parts of the country. Many of my constituents commute into Glasgow city centre to work, and I will run through some of the savings for them as a result of the policy. If they live in Paisley and commute to Glasgow, at the moment, they are saving £8.50 a week or £34 a month; in Lenzie, it is £9 a week or £36 a month; in Clydebank, it is £9.50 a week or £38 a month; in Dumbarton, it is £12.50 a week or £50 a month; in Greenock, it is £18 a week or £72 a month; in Helensburgh, it is £19 a week or £76 a month; and in Largs, it is £27 a week and £108 a month.

A few moments ago, I mentioned Bearsden and Milngavie at First Minister’s question time in relation to safety concerns on roads in the local area. The area also faces serious issues with air pollution because of significant traffic volumes on the roads. Both issues are of major concern, particularly because Drymen Road and Duntocher Road, which I mentioned, have three primary schools, a high school and an early years centre along them. It is a public health issue, particularly for our children and young people.

At the moment, a commuter from Milngavie who is travelling to Glasgow city centre is saving £8.50 a week or £34 a month as a result of the Scottish Greens securing funding for the policy in this year’s budget. A number of people from Bearsden and Milngavie commute to Edinburgh, and they are saving £274 every month. Anecdotally, as a local commuter, I have noticed busier peak-time services on the Milngavie line.

Removing peak fares is only one part of the equation. I have long campaigned for improvements on that line, which was the worst-performing line in Scotland. At one point shortly after I was elected, only one in four trains on the Milngavie line arrived or departed on time. The Scottish Greens were proud to secure £5 million of improvements to that line a few years ago, and we have seen performance improvements.

However, the timetable has still not been fully restored to the pre-pandemic level. Before 2020, we had four trains an hour throughout the day. That is seen as the tipping point of frequency for rail services to be truly attractive. However, at the moment, outside of peak time, we still have only half-hourly services. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for meeting me about that last year. I urge ScotRail to make clear what its criteria would be for returning to four trains an hour all day.

The final piece of the puzzle on the Milngavie line, like so many others in Scotland, is infrastructure. That line had two tracks up until 1990, but one was removed, and the single track creates major capacity issues. There has long been a local consensus on the need for a new Allander station between Hillfoot and Milngavie to service the now larger local population. However, we cannot add a station to a single-track line without decreasing services, which nobody wants to do.

Issues on the Milngavie line have a knock-on impact across the central belt, so investment here is not just a benefit to those who live locally. Improving that line and increasing the frequency of services are part of the first stage of the Clyde metro project, but we cannot realise that ambition without bringing back the second track.

I am concerned by the lack of detail from Transport Scotland on its intentions for the Milngavie line. Adding the second track would not be expensive, because the existing track was not centred when the other one was removed, so relaying it is a relatively cheap process, with just one bridge upgrade required.

I am proud that the Scottish Greens secured the removal of peak rail fares and the funding required for that in the budget. I repeat other members’ thanks to rail unions and climate campaigners; this is a perfect example of how transforming public transport in this country is in the interests of people and planet. I hope that we can make the removal of peak rail fares permanent and see it as an example of the transformative policies that are required across the network.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests, and I thank Mark Ruskell for bringing this important debate to the chamber.

Let me start with some basic facts. This year, the Scottish Government has abandoned its 2030 climate change targets—that is a fact. This year, the Scottish Government’s budget for trunk roads is up by 25 per cent, to over £1 billion. It is up by 25 per cent—that is a fact. This year, the Scottish Government’s budget for rail services has been cut by 10 per cent and is now below £1 billion. It has been slashed by 10 per cent—that is a fact. And, this year, the Scottish Government has put rail fares on ScotRail up by nearly twice the rate of inflation, by 8.7 per cent—that is a fact. Peak fares pilots or not, price-sensitive travellers, including some of the poorest passengers, will have stopped using public transport.

Just two weeks ago, the new First Minister, in his first major speech, told us all of his commitment to transparency and openness, highlighting

“the importance of Parliament in scrutinising our record and our plans.”—[Official Report, 22 May 2024; c 24.]

But when it comes to Transport Scotland’s evaluation of this policy, which was presented to Parliament two days ago, I have to say that it is completely lacking in crucial detail and lacking in critical evidence, meaning that Parliament can scrutinise neither the record nor the plan.

So, six months into the trial, we do not know whether there has been an increase in rail travel at peak times, in particular, or, if so, whether it has varied by region. We do not know the impact that the pilot has had on rail travel for passengers who already travel off peak. We do not know to what extent it has got people out of their cars and on to public transport. We do not know because there were 50 million train journeys over the period that was covered by the Transport Scotland report and yet there were fewer than 1,500 responses to the Transport Scotland survey. So, we do not know.

What we do know is that, because of the 8.7 per cent rise in ScotRail fares on 1 April this year, if peak fares were reintroduced to our railways, ticket prices would skyrocket. It would mean that a day return between Dundee and Edinburgh would go up by 22 per cent during peak times. From Ardrossan harbour to Glasgow, the fare would go up by 38 per cent, and, on Scotland’s flagship service between Glasgow and Edinburgh, the price of a day return ticket would shoot up by as much as 48.4 per cent—a near 50 per cent rise overnight. That would, in my view, be reckless, but it would also be heartless, and it would be completely unnecessary.

Back in March, in Parliament, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport spoke of

“medium to longer-term rail fares reform”,

of

“our ambitions on net zero”,

of the need for

“more radical and bold initiatives”,

and of public transport as

“a key enabler for growth and opportunity”.—[Official Report, 28 March 2024; c 54-55, 95.]

These are all reasons why the off-peak fares trial needs to be made permanent and why there can be no going back.

Finally, there is something else. The “Fair Fares Review” report concluded this year that

“Rail fares are extremely complex with a range of products (sometimes as many as ten fare types for one journey depending on where and when the journey is being made).”

It reasoned:

“Passenger research has shown that confusion over buying the right ticket type is acting as a barrier to encouraging modal shift from car to rail.”

That is why the integration of ticketing, which has been promised for the past 12 years but is still awaited, must be introduced. It is why the staff on our trains and in our railway stations must stay. It is why the scrapping of peak fares on our railways must stay, and it is why our ticket offices must stay open as well.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Richard Leonard quite rightly referred to his entry in the register of members’ interests, which made me realise that I had not done so. I should put on the record that my voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests includes a financial donation from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which was made before the last Scottish Parliament election.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Greer. That is now on the record. I invite Fiona Hyslop to respond to the debate.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I thank Mark Ruskell for lodging the motion and all members for their contributions. I, too, recognise the role of trade unions in calling for this policy, as did Alex Rowley and others.

Our public transport system is a key enabler of growth and opportunity, providing the vital links between where people live, learn, earn and socialise. Access to affordable and reliable public transport services helps people and communities to unlock opportunities to connect to jobs, education, retail, public services, leisure, recreation, friends and family networks. Our national transport strategy vision is for a sustainable, inclusive, safe and accessible system that helps to deliver a healthier, fairer and more prosperous Scotland. As a key public service, our public transport system also plays a vital role in supporting our economy, reducing poverty and meeting our ambitious emissions reduction targets.

I say to Emma Harper that there are frustrating UK-wide timetabling issues that currently prevent Scottish services in some areas, as she set out, and we do raise that issue with the UK Government.

The return of rail services to Leven and Cameron Bridge this week is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to investing in improving public services as a means of growing the economy and tackling the climate emergency by encouraging people to shift towards more sustainable modes of travel, such as rail. Seeing the faces of members of the community in Leven and Cameron Bridge when celebrating the reopening of that line over the past week has been fantastic. That is part of a wider investment of more than £116 million that the Scottish Government has made in sustainable transport in the Levenmouth area to connect the surrounding communities to the new stations, and it will help to transform the lives of families and young people in the area for the better.

On 16 May, the SNP Scottish Government extended the ScotRail peak fares removal pilot. It is a bold initiative that was possible only due to the Government bringing ScotRail into public sector control. As part of the fair fares review, the pathfinder pilot was established and has received £40 million in Government funding. The pilot aims to simplify complex fares and ticketing options and to assess the price sensitivity of car commuters in order that we can encourage them to shift to rail. Simplifying ticket prices is a key factor in helping people to shift to public transport and to rail in particular—I agree with Graham Simpson and Mark Ruskell on that.

The cross-party interest in the pilot shows our collective desire for progress. I have heard directly from people about the positive benefits of removing peak fares. People are saving, on average, 34 per cent on return tickets, which can significantly relieve household budgets during the current cost of living crisis. To counter Richard Leonard’s perhaps glass-half-empty analysis, I will give some examples. People travelling between Cowdenbeath and Edinburgh save £6.70 per day, which equates to saving £1,536 annually if they are commuting five days a week. Those travelling from Montrose to Aberdeen save £5.90 per day, which is £1,356 per year if they are commuting five days a week.

Transport Scotland published its interim report on the peak fares pilot on Tuesday 4 June, and I encourage members to read it. It is preliminary research that needs to be set against a background of increasing passenger numbers prior to the pilot. However, the data so far show that, although the initial impact of the pilot was promising, with a 4 per cent increase in rail demand, any impact appears to have faded since the new year and demand is now close to what it was before the pilot started.

There is some emerging evidence of behaviour change, including shifting of travel from off-peak to peak times and modal shift from car to rail. Results suggest that around one third of existing rail users have made at least one rail journey that was previously made using another mode. Two thirds of those journeys were a switch from car. Of the new passengers who switched to rail, 53 per cent had previously used the car and a third had switched from bus. The final report will, of course, have a much higher response rate, which is what Richard Leonard was asking for.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, however much information the assessment, or a final report, can currently give us, it will be an assessment only of the effect of the temporary nature of the pilot? If we want people to make changes to their travel patterns, they need to have confidence that those prices will not be increased again, which would throw them back into confusion or cost them more money. If we want to see the benefit of the impact that this change can make, permanence will give people that confidence.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Patrick Harvie makes a reasonable point. As he knows, it was after the Bute house agreement ended that I took the decision, along with colleagues, to extend the pilot even further. The point about permanence and the temporary nature of the pilot will need to be analysed as part of any future decision making.

To date, there has been only a small increase in demand and the vast majority of passengers are existing rail users. By extending the pilot for a further three months to a full year overall, we can better understand its impact in encouraging people to opt for rail and understand its benefits.

This autumn and winter were the most severe since 2015-16, with 11 named storms, so we could consider seasonality issues. We operate in a challenging financial climate and need to secure value for money for the people of Scotland. We have to understand the best way to encourage the use of public transport, which is not just about rail—we have to think about bus, too—and we have to set that £40 million in the wider context.

I reiterate that our commitment to achieving net zero by 2045 is unwavering, and the pilot allows us to look at the effectiveness of such measures. I assure members that Transport Scotland will undertake a final, more robust evaluation, before the pilot ends.

I have heard the calls to continue the policy from members across the Parliament, the rail trade unions and environmental groups. If we can improve on the initial success, I would like to see us provide a solid foundation to demonstrate the success of removing peak fares as a means of encouraging modal shift. I emphasise that we need a significant increase in passenger numbers for the pilot to succeed, and I have asked the rail unions to help in that call. As the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, I must consider the wider context of the cost of £40 million against potential alternatives.

I urge all members to continue to support the policy and, more importantly, to join the rail unions and others in encouraging more work colleagues, family, friends and neighbours to switch to rail for more journeys. The cross-party support that we hear about and have seen in the debate is an important and potential bridge to ensuring that we all work together to improve public transport usage. I encourage everyone to spread the word and use the train if they want the removal of peak fares to continue.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the portfolio today is education and skills. As ever, I make a plea for succinct questions and answers in order to get in as many members as possible.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with senior management of West College Scotland to discuss the college’s Greenock campus. (S6O-03532)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

As the member knows, because he accompanied me, I visited West College Scotland on 6 July last year, when I met the college principal, the chair and staff and discussed a number of issues, including the campus. I have since met college principals and chairs in a number of forums, including as recently as Tuesday this week. The specific matter of the Greenock campus is not one that I can recall coming up in the intervening period, but such conversations would, of course, be for the college and the Scottish Funding Council to have.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

As the minister is very much aware, the Finnart Street campus in Greenock is past its sell-by date and needs to be replaced or to have significant investment. I understand that the preference is to have a new building to replace it, but I appreciate that budgets are tight, with the capital grant from Westminster having been cut. Can the minister outline the current Scottish Government position in relation to the future of the Finnart Street campus?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am obviously aware of the issues at Finnart Street. The Funding Council last engaged with the college regarding its estates plans, including on managing reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—on 6 March. The SFC is currently developing a college infrastructure investment plan and, as part of that work, it is asking each college to provide up-to-date baseline information on its estate in order to establish a robust understanding of the entirety of the college estate.

Additionally, we are working on a revised asset disposal process, so that colleges can sell unwanted land or buildings and retain a significant proportion of the value realised to invest locally. In taking up that enhanced flexibility, however, colleges should be thinking creatively about how to maximise the value of their estates through innovative approaches, including the exploration of collaboration and shared facilities.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to address any issues regarding the implementation of the presumption of mainstreaming, as set out in the recent Education, Children and Young People Committee report on its inquiry into additional support for learning. (S6O-03533)

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

I welcome the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report on additional support for learning, and I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the committee’s inquiry and gave evidence to inform that important work.

Education authorities have a key role in delivering provision for additional support needs, and it is therefore important that we engage fully with our key partners who work with us to deliver education before responding.

I made a commitment to the committee to pause our work on a progress report and an updated ASL action plan while we consider the recommendations from the committee’s inquiry. I will provide a formal response to the committee by 10 July, at its request, and I will then publish an updated action plan in the autumn of this year.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I have been contacted by a number of constituents in recent weeks regarding placement requests that have been considered, then refused, by the local authority. One of the frustrations of my constituents that is highlighted in the committee’s report is the lack of information that is provided in refusal letters, as well as the lack of information for parents as to how their children’s learning and support needs would be accommodated in mainstream education. The committee’s report recommends that the code of practice and the ASL action plan be updated to require local authorities to

“clearly set out to parents and carers the grounds for refusal”

and, crucially,

“what support is being made available to their child”.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm that she will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other agencies to ensure that those updates are made swiftly?

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

I thank the member for her interest in the matter. Those frustrations were voiced in the committee inquiry’s evidence sessions, of which I took cognisance. I have been keen that we in the Government listen to the committee’s findings and reflect them in our updated ASL action plan. To that end, I was clear in my own evidence to the committee that there is a need to provide more clarity for parents and carers, particularly in relation to the placing requests to which the member alludes. The action plan has a very strong focus on improving the consistency and visibility of our communications on ASL policy and the legislative position, which will address the points made by the member. We are also committed to refreshing the ASL code of practice, and work is on-going in that area, too.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

This morning, I visited CALL Scotland at the University of Edinburgh and had the opportunity to see the fantastic work that it does. A particular concern that it shared was the fact that none of the 76 actions in the ASL action plan is on inclusive digital learning, and it mentions assistive technology only once. The Doran review made recommendations on that 12 years ago. I understand that the Government is focused on the Morgan review, but it would be a lost opportunity if the Doran review were shelved. What is the cabinet secretary doing to ensure that inclusive digital learning can happen in every school where it is needed? What reassurance can she give to CALL Scotland that inclusive digital learning will remain a key part of her response to the intolerable circumstances that pupils with additional support needs face?

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

Pam Duncan-Glancy has raised a really important matter in relation to the role that digital technology can play, particularly in supporting those with additional support needs in our schools. I am more than happy to write to her on the specific point that she has made.

It is important that the Government listens to the findings of the committee’s inquiry. We had hoped to publish the ASL action plan in advance of the committee’s report, but I paused that so that I could listen to the committee’s challenge on that. It is important that we do that.

I will write to Pam Duncan-Glancy in more detail about digital learning. She is correct to say that the ASL action plan is predicated on the Morgan review, which was published more recently, in 2020. However, it is important that we do not lose the learning from the Doran report.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has reconsidered collating information on the number of children who are “missing from education”, in light of its reported failure to do so to date. (S6O-03534)

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

“Children missing from education” is different from persistent absence. That measure relates to children of compulsory school age who are not on a school roll and are not being educated otherwise.

The current approach in Scotland is that someone who is deemed to be “missing from education” would be a welfare concern, and that should be followed up by local authorities, in line with their statutory requirements for the delivery of education locally. However, I continue to consider further the need for national-level data on the matter. To that end, I have requested further detailed advice from my officials on the legalities of gathering further data of that nature. I will update Liam Kerr in writing on that point in due course.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am very grateful for that, and I look forward to receiving that update, but I am disappointed that the issue has not moved on since I first raised it before Christmas. Does the cabinet secretary agree that one of the key ways to tackle child poverty is through education? If so, should the Government not be moving heaven and earth to collate that information and remove any of the barriers to its collation so that solutions to help children who are missing from education can be found?

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

I absolutely agree with the sentiment behind Liam Kerr’s question. Of course, the law in Scotland is slightly different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why that data measure is not currently captured in the same way in Scotland as it is in other parts of the UK. However, there is an urgency here.

Last year, I undertook greater information collection in relation to persistent absence. We now have the new measure. That data set was introduced in our data for the first time this year. It is important that Liam Kerr recognises that, because we have seen an uptick in persistent absence, particularly post-pandemic, with young people not engaging with the formal education system.

Liam Kerr has raised a hugely important point. I have more detailed data on the legalities involved, which I will write to him about later today. I hope that I can put that on the record to update the rest of Parliament.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for confirmation of the welfare issue that arises from that lack of data. How does she intend to comply with article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child next month, when the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 becomes active law in this country?

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

I am more than happy to write to Martin Whitfield about the specifics of his points on the UNCRC. It is important that our actions in Government marry up the requirements of that legislation. I will take official advice on that matter, but I imagine that our approach would need to be in line with the UNCRC’s requirements.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions that it has had with universities across Scotland about how public money is used, including in relation to any activities that may impact the on-going conflict in Palestine. (S6O-03535)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The requirements that institutions are expected to comply with in return for public funding are set out in the Scottish Funding Council’s financial memoranda for colleges and universities. The Scottish Government regularly meets the SFC and Universities Scotland to discuss any issues of importance, including how we can work together to manage public spending to ensure that public money is fully focused on delivering a wellbeing economy.

The Scottish Government’s position on the conflict in Palestine is clear: we call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire by all sides. We expect universities, as autonomous bodies, to have in place measures to safeguard students and staff, and to continue to build interfaith relations on campus.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The minister will be aware of several Palestine solidarity camps on campuses across Scotland. Supported by Aberdeen University Students Association and folk across Aberdeen, the encampment at the University of Aberdeen is calling for the university to divest from all investments relating to the arms industry. No money intended for education should be used to fund war, directly or indirectly. Until it fell at dissolution, the university was using the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, which is anti-BDS—boycott, divestment and sanctions—legislation, as an excuse for not divesting.

I ask the minister to confirm whether the Scottish Government stands by its policy note from 2014, which states:

“Exploitation of assets in illegal settlements ... is likely to be regarded as constituting ‘grave professional misconduct’”.

Does he therefore believe that no institution in receipt of public money should be financially engaged in Israel?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I am aware of the campus encampments and fully support their right to freedom of expression.

On the procurement policy note that Ms Chapman raises—I hope that she will realise that procurement is not my area of expertise—the substance of that note remains unchanged. Ms Chapman is correct to say that that means that the exploitation of assets in illegally occupied territories may constitute grave professional misconduct for the purposes of procurement legislation.

Equally, it is true that any decision to exclude a bidder from a procurement process must be taken on a case-by-case basis, be proportionate and be compliant with our international obligations in relation to procurement and trade.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it will increase the take-up of modern foreign languages in schools. (S6O-03536)

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

The Scottish Government is committed to language learning in our schools, which is why, since 2013, we have provided local authorities and third sector partners with funding of more than £50 million to support the implementation of the one-plus-two languages approach. A 2021 survey of local authorities confirmed that pupils across Scotland are now learning languages from primary 1. That is an important change since the policy was introduced 10 years ago.

We continue to promote the uptake of modern languages through the support that is provided to schools by Education Scotland and the funding of the University of Strathclyde, which hosts Scotland’s national centre for languages.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

In the long distant past, when I was at secondary school, more than 12,000 of my fellow Scots studied a higher modern language. By 2003, that number had dropped to 8,000 pupils. Ten years later, it was 7,000. Last year, just 5,500 students did a modern language at higher level. That is no coincidence, because we have lost more than 500 language teachers in the past decade.

I studied two languages at higher level, which is a bit of a luxury these days. This is a Government that proclaims to be international and outward looking, so how did we let things get so bad in Scotland?

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

When the member and I were at school in the dim and distant past, the curriculum required us to study a language up until the end of secondary 4. It was mandated. The challenge that the member puts to me today is about the level of mandating that the Government has in the curriculum. I discussed that with the Education, Children and Young People Committee earlier this year. I will come to the chamber shortly to update Parliament on the Government’s response to the Hayward review.

Let us look at some of the more recent statistics on languages uptake. We have seen entries in the senior phase in national 4 and national 5 increasing between 2022 and 2023, and entries at higher level have remained relatively stable. Entries for the modern languages for life and work award at Scottish credit and qualifications framework levels 3 and 4 have quadrupled since 2013. Across SCQF levels 3 to 7, entries to all languages qualifications increased by 3.4 per cent between 2022 and 2023. There are signs of progress.

I accept the challenge from the member, and I hope that he also accepts that the wider challenge to Scotland’s curriculum is whether we need to go back to a system that mandates languages learning to a certain level.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The opportunity to study and to go on exchanges abroad is an immense benefit to learning a foreign language, no matter when someone is studying that language, whether it is at school, in the past, now or in the future. However, Brexit has robbed many young people of that opportunity, and the Erasmus+ programme has been axed. Meanwhile, Labour and the Conservatives have rejected the European Commission’s proposals that would have made it easier for young people to study in the European Union up to the age of 30.

What steps is the Government taking to support students who wish to undertake study and exchange abroad?

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

Exposure to native voices and the opportunity to enjoy the cultures of different countries are hugely beneficial for language learners. That is why the United Kingdom’s decision to withdraw from the popular and successful Erasmus+ programme was so self defeating. Its replacement, the Turing scheme, is much less effective because it helps fewer students and does not help staff at all. In addition, it does not enable overseas students to come to Scotland.

In 2023-24, the Government has piloted a re-established scheme to explore the opportunities that Erasmus+ provided us with. Although that project will not be able to deliver the full benefits of the Erasmus+ programme, it will support student and staff exchanges and help to develop stronger partnerships between educational institutions.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the national plan for action announced in November 2023 to tackle violence in schools. (S6O-03537)

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

As Ms McCall will be aware, since I made the announcement in November, I have been working with members of the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools to develop the national action plan. The plan has been informed by representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Education in Schools, Education Scotland, the main teaching unions, educational psychologists, and parents and carers organisations. As I confirmed when I met Opposition spokespeople in April, my intention was that the plan be published in late May or early June. However, as the member will be aware, we are currently in a pre-election period, as a result of which I am currently considering officials’ advice on publication timescales.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As the cabinet secretary alluded to, we are now six months on from the announcement of the plan. However, we are no further forward. I accept that there is a general election going on, but I am still receiving emails that highlight rising instances of violence in classrooms across Fife. A constituent who is also a secondary school teacher got in touch with me recently to say:

“Two of my colleagues have been verbally and physically assaulted in the last couple of days. It is clear that there is a significant problem within all Fife schools at the moment ... pupil indiscipline and the abuse faced by staff is the worst I have ever experienced.”

Given the First Minister’s statement earlier this year that we need to focus on

“what can we do, rather than what can we write down”,

what action will the Scottish Government take to address the issue now? Will the cabinet secretary agree to look at this particular case with me?

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

Roz McCall has taken a keen interest in those issues over a number of months, and I commend her for that. On the specific challenge in Fife, a new director of education has recently been appointed there—I know that as a constituency member for part of Fife. I am more than happy to work with Ms McCall on that issue.

The behaviour action plan is part of the solution, but we are talking about achieving fundamental cultural change in our schools. Action plans in themselves do not drive the change that we need. Although they will help to give impetus at national level, we need to see cultural change in our schools in the form of changed behaviour and relationships following the pandemic. I commit to working with the member and meeting her on that.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Prevention of violence is always preferable to mopping up its consequences. What work is the Scottish Government funding to support schools in the prevention agenda?

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

The member is right to highlight the role of prevention. That is why, this year alone, we are investing more than £2 million to implement the violence prevention framework to help to divert people from violence. That framework is supporting the Medics Against Violence school education programme to deliver strong anti-violence messages to pupils. It is also supporting mentors in the violence prevention programme to train 1,000 young mentors to provide gender-based violence prevention sessions in schools across Scotland. We will report on the implementation of the framework later this year.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its cross-government support for learning disabilities, autism and neurodiversity, what discussions the education secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how its proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill will help people into work. (S6O-03538)

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

The proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill aims to ensure that the rights of neurodivergent people, including autistic people and people with learning disabilities, are respected, protected and championed. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills supports the bill and the Scottish Government’s on-going work in that area. Officials will continue to explore wider education and employability policy and practice to further support people with learning disabilities and neurodivergent people to access fair and sustainable employment.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I want to know how the Government will ensure that there is a holistic approach across Government—education, health, social care, skills—to create opportunities to allow LDAN people to work. How do we garner the voices of lived experience to get all of that right for people?

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

Mr Stewart raises some really important points. A range of policies across Government holistically support neurodivergent people and people with learning disabilities. Those include employability actions under our no one left behind delivery plan, Skills Development Scotland’s work with schools to support young people with additional support needs, and our fair work action plan.

Scottish ministers have also committed to introducing Scotland’s first national transitions to adulthood strategy to ensure that there is a joined-up approach so that all young disabled people can experience a supported and positive transition to adult life. It is an absolute priority to continue to embed the voices of lived experience in our work through public engagement and consultation.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

As we have a wee bit of time, I will call Pam Duncan-Glancy for a supplementary.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank you for your indulgence, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The minister is right to point out the importance of transitions for this group of people. Will the minister say, on the record, whether the Government is considering that elements of the transitions to adulthood bill could now be part of the LDAN bill that the Government will bring forward?

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

Pam Duncan-Glancy will be aware of the most recent update that I have provided on the transitions strategy. I would be happy to update her on the exact points in relation to the LDAN bill in writing.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of how it is working to ensure free music tuition to pupils in schools across Scotland. (S6O-03539)

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

The Government has transformed instrumental music tuition in Scotland’s schools by funding councils to eradicate unfair music tuition charges. This year alone, we are providing £12 million to local authorities to support the continued delivery of free instrumental music tuition as part of the record funding of more than £14 billion that has been provided to local authorities in the budget.

The most recent instrumental music survey, which was published in December 2023, shows that the number of pupils participating in instrumental music tuition is at a record high since the survey began.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Several councils, led by different parties, have cut funding to music lessons, so the Scottish Government’s funds cover the whole cost of lessons rather than just the removal of fees. Councils have control of their own affairs and deal with tight budgets, but can the cabinet secretary outline how a new Scottish education agency will ensure that there is equal access to music tuition across all of Scotland, so that the postcode lottery of music provision does not return?

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

I alluded in my original answer to the record levels of funding that the Scottish Government is providing to local authorities at the current time. Part of that funding is, of course, the additionality that we are providing to help provide free music tuition across the country.

Foysol Choudhury’s broader point about the new education agency is an interesting one. I will come to the Parliament to bring forward the legislation, which was introduced yesterday, in due course.

Some of the differences in educational delivery across the country is a matter for members all across the chamber, because our local authorities are entrusted to make the right decisions at local level for the children and young people in their care. However, there is an opportunity to look at greater parity of esteem across the board, irrespective of subject choice. We will need to look at music in further detail through education reform.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As I know from personal experience, music education is a wonderful way for children to explore creativity and it can open up avenues into careers in the music sector. However, thanks to Brexit, we have witnessed the music sector being torn apart due to lack of funding, opportunities and freedom of movement.

How has Brexit’s impact on the music sector impacted the likelihood of students pursuing music education, and what more can we do to support them?

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

We can do a number of things to support them. One of the underpinning aims of the culture strategy is to ensure that those who are motivated to realise their aspirations to have a career in the creative sector are equipped with the skills for success. That includes the promotion of creative subjects at all stages of education and learning, and the demonstration of clear pathways that enable people to succeed.

Brexit has put in place significant new barriers that have had a negative impact on opportunities for creative practitioners, particularly in relation to their work internationally. That is why we are calling on the United Kingdom Government to rejoin Creative Europe and are urging it to engage positively with the European Commission’s proposal to open negotiations on youth mobility.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on education and skills. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change position should they so wish.

Motion without Notice

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, to bring forward decision time to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move such a motion.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 4:49 pm.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Business Motion

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13497, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 4: 40 mins

Groups 5 to 7: 1 hour 30 mins.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.