Scottish Parliament, 11 September 2024

283 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what the return has been on any anticipated community, biodiversity and environmental outcomes resulting from the £17.6 million public purchase of Glen Prosen by Forestry and Land Scotland. (S6O-03685)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The acquisition at Glen Prosen links neighbouring parcels of public land and provides opportunities for landscape-scale restoration. Forestry and Land Scotland is working on creating new woodland and montane scrub, restoring peatlands and rivers, improving biodiversity and ensuring resilience to climate change. Preparatory work over the past 20 months has included carrying out ecological surveys to better understand the landscape and guide interventions; extensive public, community and stakeholder consultation; clearing windblow; and beginning deer management and fencing. The land management plan is expected to be produced next year.

Forestry and Land Scotland is pursuing promising opportunities to create new jobs and economic benefits, including proposals for a tree nursery, an education offer, a manufacturing business, a recreation proposition, a field studies centre and plans for residential use.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is certainly one way to look at the matter. Local reports say that, since FLS outbid private bidders a couple of years ago, the top of the glen has, in effect, become depopulated. Families have been turfed out of their homes, which lie abandoned and decaying, and the local school is at risk of closure. Angus already has a problem with rural depopulation and mothballed schools. Meanwhile, the deer population is virtually extinct on unmanaged heather moorland.

What precisely is the Scottish Government doing to turn the situation around? Does the cabinet secretary agree that the experiment should never be repeated in Angus?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

First, we need to set some facts straight in relation to some of the completely baseless claims that Liam Kerr just made. He made an accusation about the houses being in disrepair. The houses, as well as the other built assets that exist in Glen Prosen, are in good condition and are actively maintained. They currently provide homes for two families. An expressions-of-interest exercise engaged the market on ideas for the future development of the wider portfolio of built assets. Discussions are now under way with interested parties about the possibility of a range of future uses that would lead to community benefits. Local communities have also been fully engaged in the land management plan process.

Liam Kerr also levelled an accusation about the employees of the estate, and it is important to set the record straight on that. The seller who previously had Glen Prosen ran it as a sporting estate but wound down the business, which included making the workforce redundant. Termination of the previous employment was undertaken by the seller with no involvement of FLS, and the full-time employees had service occupancy agreements for their homes.

There were five full-time employees and one part-time employee at Glen Prosen prior to the sale, and FLS engaged with them as soon as it was able to do so. Two of the former estate employees moved on before the acquisition was completed, and the part-time role ended when the business activities of the estate were wound up. Upon FLS acquiring the estate, three former estate employees were given tenancies. One has since moved on, another has a part-time contract with FLS on the estate and the last is employed elsewhere but continues as a tenant.

I hope that that clarifies the situation for Mr Kerr.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Will the cabinet secretary set out the strategic value of acquiring Glen Prosen with regard to the outcomes mentioned? Will any specific proposals for the management of the land be subject to a form of consultation?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I thank Colin Beattie for asking that important question and for allowing me the opportunity to set that out.

The Angus glens project, which includes Glen Prosen, involves a strategic cluster of land in the Cairngorms national park, which offers scope to deliver on the Scottish Government’s commitment to nature recovery and climate resilience, as well as to benefit people through the economic, educational, social and wellbeing opportunities that are being considered. The project is large and will take time to deliver, but it is of crucial importance to tackling the climate and biodiversity crisis that we face.

I assure Colin Beattie and other members that FLS has been actively engaging and consulting on the terms of the draft land management plan with all local stakeholders, especially the local community, neighbouring landowners and land managers. That will continue during the finalisation of the plan for the area, and it will ensure that the potential opportunities that the acquisition will afford are understood and provided for.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Let us get the facts and figures correct. Expenditure at Glen Prosen has outstripped income by 25 per cent, 18 members of FLS seem to be floating around and consulting on various things, and we still do not have a management plan two and a half years after the purchase. What is the promise for this autumn? Will the plan be delivered, or is it still as far away as it seemed to be in August?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I do not know whether Edward Mountain listened to my previous responses, in which I outlined when the land management plan would be coming forward. As I have also already outlined in my previous responses, there is no getting around the fact that this is a very large project. FLS wants engagement to take place to ensure that the land management plan is made in consultation with the local communities. That takes time, as do all the various other assessments that have to be undertaken as part of the process. I have said that the plan will come out next year, and there will be engagement as part of that.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support animal welfare. (S6O-03686)

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

The Scottish Government is fully committed to improving and protecting the welfare of animals in Scotland. We have delivered, or are on course to deliver, several of our programme for government commitments, including consulting on extending licensing legislation to animal care services, consulting on phasing out cages for laying hens and banning the export of livestock for fattening or slaughter.

We are committed to working with our United Kingdom counterparts to deliver welfare improvements whenever it is appropriate to do so. However, we will not hesitate to act independently if it is needed in order to improve animal welfare.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The minister will be aware of my long-standing concerns about the safety and treatment of greyhounds that are used in racing. Shawfield stadium in my constituency was the last licensed track in Scotland, but, thankfully, no races have taken place since the pandemic. In my view, and that of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, as well as that of numerous other animal welfare organisations, greyhound racing is inherently unsafe, so I believe that a phased ban is required sooner rather than later. Will the minister provide an update on any representations that he has had in recent months with stakeholders regarding greyhound racing?

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

There have been no meetings to discuss greyhound racing in recent months, but I understand that the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee will report on petition PE1758, which calls for an end to greyhound racing in Scotland, and Mr Ruskell’s bill is to be introduced. I will consider both carefully before deciding on how to proceed.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, as I am a farmer.

One of the increasing threats to livestock welfare is attacks from dogs. Despite the introduction of harsher penalties in November 2021, livestock worrying continues to be an issue across rural Scotland. What more can the Government do to address that issue? Will there be a commitment to reviewing the Scottish outdoor access code, as Scotland’s Rural College has recommended?

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

I know that the issue has been raised before, but we will have to consider balancing that with allowing people to have a right of responsible access. Mr Eagle rightly points out that livestock worrying is a disaster for livestock farmers in Scotland. The fact that the Scottish Government supported Emma Harper’s livestock worrying bill was a crucial step forward. We now have a maximum penalty of a fine of up to £40,000 or jail, so we are taking the issue very seriously.

I and other members of the Government continue to put out the message that we should keep our dogs under control, particularly when they are among livestock, because they should not be there.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The greyhound racing industry’s governing body recorded that more than 100 dogs died and more than 4,000 were injured while racing at regulated tracks in England and Wales last year. Does the minister recognise that the nature of that activity, with dogs running against each other at speeds of up to 40mph around sharp bends, leads to a similar rate of collision at any track, regardless of whether it be in Newcastle or Fife?

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

I recognise that the member has a long-standing concern about greyhound racing. As I have said, we will wait to see the result of the petition and the member’s bill, and we will take our decisions from there.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what interaction and correspondence it has had, regarding matters related to Scotland’s rural economy, with the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including relevant officials, since their appointment in July. (S6O-03687)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I have met Steve Reed, the new UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, once so far, when we discussed a range of issues of mutual interest. My officials regularly meet his officials.

I welcome the resetting of the relationship between Scottish and UK Government ministers that has taken place since the general election, and the reinstigation of the interministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs, which will meet for the first time in a year on 16 September. I look forward to continuing to build a more open and, I hope, constructive relationship in the coming months.

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

Even this city boy knows that agriculture is a long-term endeavour, with plans sometimes being made years in advance. So far, the new UK Government has not said very much about future funding, which has led to concerns that there is not enough clarity and certainty, and that the new UK Government might be just as bad as the previous UK Government.

Will the cabinet secretary commit to write to the UK Government well ahead of the UK budget to reiterate the calls for clarity and certainty over future funding settlements, which both the industry and the Scottish National Party have said that Scotland’s agriculture sector needs?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Bob Doris raises a hugely important matter. As he will undoubtedly be aware, no commitment to agriculture funding has been made by the UK Government beyond next year. The UK Government must commit to urgent, meaningful engagement on a future multiyear programme funding settlement to provide the certainty and assurance that are needed in order for us to be able to deliver future agriculture policies.

The uncertainty that has been created by the lack of clarity is having a direct impact now. An opportunity has been missed to deliver public good and to take urgent measures to meet the current and future climate change emissions reduction targets for Scotland and the wider UK. I intend to raise the issue with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when we meet at the IMG meeting on Monday.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason rainforests were excluded from the deer management incentive scheme pilots. (S6O-03688)

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

The purpose of the pilots is to explore incentives for deer management in different local circumstances. The pilots were designed around a number of criteria, including access to data on current cull levels and the potential barriers to increasing deer management. The focus of the pilots is on red deer in Cairngorms national park, roe deer in the central belt and sika deer in south Loch Ness.

We also provide support for projects that help to restore and expand Scotland’s rainforests, as part of which funding is available to reduce deer impacts, alongside other activities, including rhododendron control.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister will know that deer are a natural part of the rainforest ecosystem, but the increasing number of deer and their mobility mean that they are one of the main barriers to rainforest restoration.

Given that the Scottish Government has committed to restoring Scotland’s rainforests, I ask the minister to reconsider his current position and to ensure that the deer management incentive scheme will be extended to key rainforest locations.

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

We will not expand the current pilot scheme, but it is part of a package of looking at how we will manage deer across the whole country. Rainforests are crucial to what we will look at as we go forward.

Although the deer management incentive scheme pilots are looking at a specific set of circumstances, Graham Simpson can be assured that rainforests are very much part of our longer-term thinking.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that deer management plans should consider biodiversity? What progress is being made towards reintroducing Scotland’s native Eurasian lynx to help to control deer populations naturally, as has successfully happened over the past 50 years in Austria, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland, without any adverse impact on people, pets or livestock?

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

There are no intentions to allow the introduction of lynx in Scotland.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to ensure that any future Galloway national park will work in the best interests of local communities. (S6O-03689)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

If there is to be a new national park in Galloway, it must be focused on helping to meet the needs of local communities. NatureScot has begun its investigation into the proposal, which will involve extensive public consultation.

We want local people, communities and businesses to have their say on whether Galloway should become Scotland’s next national park, as well as on what role a new park could play in supporting economic growth, community development, visitor management and environmental protection.

When we receive NatureScot’s report next spring, we will carefully consider its findings before setting out or deciding on any next steps.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

As it has taken the Government two years to get the nomination for a national park on the table, and almost 10 years for the Galloway National Park Association to make its case, does the cabinet secretary feel that sufficient time has been given to NatureScot to prepare a consultation document, which it will then have only 12 weeks to consult on, not to mention that those 12 weeks will take in Christmas and new year? I am aware that there would be further consultation if the Scottish Government then decides to designate, but that would be only on the finer detail.

Given that the national park designation will have significant impacts that will last generations, does the cabinet secretary agree that the people of Galloway should be given a significantly longer opportunity to make their feelings known, even if that pushes the decision to designate, or not, and any subsequent legislation, into the next parliamentary session?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I understand the concern that Finlay Carson raises in relation to the issue. That is why I have set out that the period of investigation and reporting that NatureScot is undertaking is hugely important, and why I encourage everybody who lives in the proposed area to ensure that they have their say.

I believe that the timeframe that has been set out is enough time. As I set out in a response to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee this morning, although there is a formal consultation time, as of yesterday, NatureScot has published an online resource that sets out where all that information will be available and how people will be able to have their say. I also know that there will be a number of engagement and other events outwith that consultation that communities can attend to ensure that they make their voice known and heard.

I will not commit at this stage to extending a process when I do not know whether that will be needed. I am happy to consider that as we move through the investigation, if it appears that more time may be needed. However, again, I think that it can be delivered within the timeframe, which is why it has been set out as it is. I encourage everyone to take part.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I reiterate that the Galloway national park proposal has caused controversy locally, with my office receiving more than 200 representations of people’s views. It is important that communities, small and large, are consulted so that their voices are heard and that any decision that is taken works in the best interests of Galloway’s diverse communities.

Will the cabinet secretary provide further assurance that NatureScot will come to all communities in the region and speak to everyone who would like to be heard?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I say at the outset that I fully agree that every community in Dumfries and Galloway should be able to have their say on the proposal as to whether to establish a national park. As I outlined in my previous answer, yesterday, NatureScot launched a dedicated information website and online engagement hub for local residents and communities to find out more information.

I know that NatureScot is planning further engagement later this month, when it will be issuing a leaflet to all households within and close to the proposed area, explaining what the consultation process will involve as well as explaining how people can take part. Information will be available on NatureScot’s website.

Everyone with an interest will be able to make their views known through the consultation paper. There will also be surveys and a series of public meetings, events and drop-in surgeries. There will also be engagement and events with local businesses and organisations, community councils, young people and equality groups.

I hope that that provides the assurance that Emma Harper and other members who represent the south of Scotland are looking for.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in many ways, we have a blank sheet of paper here, that there is no single model of a national park, and that local people should take part in the consultation not only to give their view on whether they support it, but to shape the powers, boundary and vision of any proposed Galloway national park?

If the Government decides to go ahead with the proposal, will she give an assurance that any national park will be made in Galloway, for the people of Galloway?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Yes. I absolutely give that assurance. I thank Colin Smyth for raising that hugely important point.

Our current national parks are very different from each other. Again, the proposal would be starting from a blank sheet of paper in relation to the overall powers that the park would have, such as those over planning. There are issues around what the boundary looks like that could be discussed. Galloway is obviously of a very different nature from our other national park areas, as agriculture is so vital to the area as a whole. It is vital that all that is recognised.

I absolutely encourage everyone who lives in the proposed area in Galloway to have their say through the events that I mentioned. All that information will be published and circulated to them.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact its recently announced budget reductions will have on investment in infrastructure that supports agriculture in remote and island communities. (S6O-03690)

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

The rural affairs, land reform and islands—RALRI—portfolio has supported the response to financial pressures by identifying small reductions, but none of those relate to investment in infrastructure that supports agriculture in rural and island communities.

We continue to invest in agricultural communities. Last week, we announced that support payments of more than £243 million will start to be paid to more than 11,500 farming businesses.

We are also driving an ambitious programme of vessel and infrastructure upgrades and replacements in the coming years, including port projects that are near completion, the six major vessels that are currently under construction and the seven small vessels that Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd is progressing through procurement.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business. On back British farming day, I thank farmers across the country, and particularly those from my region of the Highlands and Islands, for all that they do.

It is now more than six years since Orkney’s abattoir closed and, despite the efforts of local stakeholders and warm words from the Scottish Government, no solution has yet been found for a new facility. Local abattoirs play an important role in supporting local rural businesses in agriculture, ensuring animal welfare and reducing food miles.

On back British farming day, will the minister advise whether the Scottish Government is playing any role in supporting the establishment of a new abattoir in Orkney?

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

The loss of small abattoirs across the country has been a huge issue, and I fully accept that I was concerned about the issue long before I came to the Scottish Parliament. I am prepared to meet Jamie Halcro Johnston to discuss the Orkney issue specifically. Funding has gone in from the small producers pilot fund, but I do not want to specify where that will go. However, I absolutely take on board the fact that we have an issue with small abattoirs.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware that auction marts are beginning to leave islands, forcing island farmers and crofters to take their livestock off island to sell. That means that they accept lower prices, because otherwise they have to take those animals back on island. What can he do to help islands to continue to have their auction marts locally, so that they can sell their animals at the highest price?

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

Unfortunately, agricultural markets are private businesses that take commercial decisions. However, the rural economy is absolutely founded on livestock markets. The auction houses that I have dealt with know that they have a responsibility to ensure that island communities can continue to trade. I am happy to have a conversation with Rhoda Grant and the auction market in question if there is a specific issue.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It has been suggested that local abattoirs are an integral part of the infrastructure that supports our farming community. Orkney has felt keenly the loss of the abattoir in the islands, but there are plans to develop a more bespoke abattoir, and assessments have been made of its viability.

I echo the plea that the minister has already received that he engages with that and ensures that the Scottish Government gives whatever support it can to the delivery of an abattoir that is much needed in the islands that I represent.

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

I give the assurance that I am more than happy to meet Liam McArthur, and I am absolutely prepared to engage in whatever we can do to support any small abattoir.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how its procurement powers can encourage the availability of healthy, local food. (S6O-03691)

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

The Scottish Government recognises that public procurement plays a key role in ensuring that everyone has access to healthy, fresh and seasonal food. That understanding is reflected in our draft good food nation plan, which outlines how we seek to maximise the impact that procurement can have through the application of relevant legislation and policy.

Our cross-cutting approach is also supported by the ministerial working group on food, which enables ministers to work collectively to drive cross-portfolio engagement on food-related issues and ensure that food policy is co-ordinated and cohesive.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Many third sector organisations, such as Grow 73 in my region, do great work and support local healthy food provision. They often rely on commissioned grants from the Scottish Government or from local government. I ask the cabinet secretary for her assurance that her Government is using all the powers in its control to support the procurement of good local food, and I ask her to give a guarantee that third sector organisations that provide access to it will get funding decisions in a prompt and efficient way.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Pam Duncan-Glancy raises a really important point, which we recognised in our draft good food nation plan. There are a number of mechanisms in the plan that I could set out—and I could follow up on them with her—as to how we can encourage local procurement within our existing powers. There are difficulties with procurement, including cross-cutting pieces of legislation to which we must adhere, but we know that there are places where it is working, and we can make it work within the current framework.

We undertook a consultation on the draft good food nation plan earlier this year. We received a significant response, which I am really encouraged by, and I hope that we can strengthen some of its provisions. I look forward to having a discussion to see what more can be done. If there are specific organisations that Pam Duncan-Glancy would like me to engage with, I am more than happy to do that to see how we can strengthen the plan.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Some 85 per cent of the British public support increasing our self-sufficiency in food production in the United Kingdom. Today is back British farming day, and NFU Scotland is at Westminster, supporting MPs to mark this important day. Will the cabinet secretary support Scottish Conservative calls to hold a back British farming day here in the Scottish Parliament, so that we can celebrate the importance of Scottish farming?

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I would hope that we are supporting our farmers in the job that we do every day. That is hugely important. I know the work that is being undertaken by NFUS, which does sterling work in raising the profile and importance of our industry. I have been heartened by some of the questions that I have received from across the chamber today from members who recognise that the funding that we put into agriculture is hugely important, because of food production. It is such an essential, basic need, which we require in order to survive, and that is why I am proud to support our farmers.

I am, of course, more than happy to enter into discussions with Rachael Hamilton if she has specific celebrations in mind. As ever, I am privileged, in this job, to travel across the country to meet our farmers and crofters and those who are involved in producing our food. I am, of course, happy to celebrate their achievements.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We now come to question 8—time is marching on.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing for new entrants to farming. (S6O-03692)

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

The Scottish Government continues to invest in new entrants into farming and crofting. From 2015 to September 2024, around £9.5 million of young farmer and new entrants support funding has been paid under the national reserve. The Scottish Government has helped to identify 134 land opportunities through the farming opportunities for new entrants group, it has facilitated more than 250 joint ventures through the Scottish Land Matching Service, it has offered a range of consultancy advice to new entrants through the Farm Advisory Service and it has supported the machinery ring pre-apprenticeship programme and the next-generation practical training fund to create opportunities for new entrants and young people.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware of the issue that is having an impact on one of my Fife constituents, who, as a new entrant, was given a 10-year starter farm tenancy from Forestry and Land Scotland and built up a business but, at the end of that 10-year period, found it impossible to find alternative land to farm and now faces having to leave the industry altogether, which is a dismal outcome for everybody involved. What can the minister do to help my constituent and any others who are caught in a similar situation?

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

I am aware of the individual case that Murdo Fraser has raised. It is not a discussion that I would like to have in the chamber, but I am more than happy to meet him after this question-time session.

The new entrants scheme was paused, because it was not having the desired effect, although some successes came out of that. As has just been released in the programme for government, we are asking our public authorities to consider what land they have so as to create more opportunities for new farmers and new entrants to farming.

Speaking as someone who had an awful job trying to get into farming myself, I am absolutely committed to that. We will ensure that the Scottish Government is doing what it can to get young people into farming.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next portfolio is national health service recovery, health and social care. Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to Dr Stephen Smith’s evaluation of the alcohol-related brain damage residential rehabilitation service in Edinburgh. (S6O-03694)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is currently reviewing the evaluation of the Penumbra Milestone alcohol-related brain damage—ARBD—unit that was undertaken by Dr Smith. The report highlights the improvement in cognitive function for people who were assessed in the evaluation period as well as reduced attendance rates at emergency departments. The Scottish Government will review the report’s findings and recommendations and will consider them in future policy development.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

This week, we learned that 1,277 people tragically lost their lives to alcohol in 2023—a 15-year high that is, quite frankly, nothing to celebrate. That is 1,277 people who have lived with years of poor health and who have left behind families and friends—the effects are felt by so, so many. We now have 40 per cent fewer people accessing alcohol services than a decade ago and, when people do access those services, they are much older and, as a result, have increasingly complex problems.

The ARBD unit that is run by Penumbra at Milestone house saves lives, yet it is facing the withdrawal of funding. Given that the service reduces NHS Lothian hospital bed days by nearly 2,000 a year, what impact assessment has been carried out on what would happen if the service were to close?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would like to put on record my sympathy and my condolences to all the families who have been impacted in the past year due to alcohol deaths of their loved ones.

As Sue Webber will know, decisions on funding and service provision are made at a local level by NHS Lothian and, although we have no official contact with the health board on this issue, ministers would have to consider the implications of such a move very carefully.

The Scottish Government has set out a clear definition of what counts as residential rehabilitation and has used it consistently. We are working with members of our expert residential rehabilitation development working group to assess whether the ARBD unit meets the definition and we will provide an update to the service manager in due course.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Following a Public Health Scotland report from February this year showing that the Scottish Government is on track to hit its target of 1,000 individuals per year being publicly funded to go to rehab by 2026, can the minister outline the key steps that are being taken to ensure that the target is met?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government is taking a number of actions to increase access to residential rehab and meet our targets. That includes providing alcohol and drug partnerships with £5 million per year for residential rehab; creating a £2 million residential rehab additional placement fund for local areas that have an increased demand for placements; and expanding residential rehab capacity by making £38 million available to eight projects across Scotland to provide 140 more beds by 2025-26.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Given the recent news that alcohol-related deaths are at a 15-year high and that the number of people who are accessing planned alcohol care and treatment has been declining for a decade, healthcare professionals in my region, South Scotland, tell me that the prevalence of ARBD unplanned presentations at emergency departments is increasing. That is not good for the patients, for the families or for the staff. Does the Government recognise that, and what measures is it taking to ensure that early intervention and support for those patients and families can be achieved right across Scotland?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes, the Scottish Government absolutely recognises that and we have asked Public Health Scotland to investigate the recent fall in numbers of referrals to alcohol and drug specialist services. We are giving funding to alcohol and drug partnerships for both alcohol and drug treatment services, because those services are integrated. We have made £112 million available to them, which is being used to ensure that they can make the right local decisions. I absolutely recognise that there has been a fall in numbers. We need to look at the reasons behind that, whether that is to do with stigma or a lack of understanding of where those services are.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with NHS Lanarkshire regarding the progress of the Monklands replacement project. (S6O-03695)

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

The business case remains under development and NHS Lanarkshire has been invited to provide an update to the Scottish Government’s capital investment group later this month.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Clearly, the financial circumstances are extremely difficult, with an austerity agenda being pursued by the United Kingdom Government. However, that said, I have had contact from many constituents who are worried that there may be further delays to the new hospital, which is badly needed. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Neil Gray, will have had similar representations in his role as a constituency MSP, and I appreciate that that is why he cannot answer the question. To reassure my constituents, will the minister confirm that the Monklands replacement project remains a top priority for the Scottish Government?

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

Yes, I understand the concerns of the member’s constituents. As we have made clear, the capital funding position is extremely challenging. All capital projects are under review to ensure that they are affordable and deliverable. The Scottish Government is in on-going discussions with NHS Lanarkshire and the impact of the budget settlement on the proposal to replace Monklands hospital. Further clarity on the health capital programme, including Monklands, will be provided following the 2025-26 Scottish budget and the review of the infrastructure investment plan.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on funding allocations to ensure the best possible cancer care for patients, particularly in their local communities. (S6O-03696)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government has disbursed cancer service allocations for this year to local health boards, including £4.6 million for systemic anti-cancer therapy and £11.3 million for cancer waiting times, in line with our overall strategic aim that, where possible, diagnostic tests and treatment are situated close to home and travel to specialist care is fully supported.

In addition, we are working in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support to improve the service that we offer patients in local communities through the transforming cancer care programme. It is the first programme of its kind in the United Kingdom and ensures that every patient with cancer in Scotland has access to a specialist key support worker who can assist them in accessing wider local services.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank the minister for her comprehensive response. I am sure that she, like me, was pleased to see the results of the Scottish cancer patient experience survey, which was published yesterday and shows that 95 per cent of cancer patients viewed the care that they received positively. However, an area for improvement, and I know that the minister will share my view on this, is that cancer patients often tell us that they want a single point of contact throughout their cancer journey who can provide advice and support. Can the minister outline the support and funding that the Scottish Government is providing to embed single points of contact across Scotland’s national health service and, in particular, in the Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board area, which affects my constituents in Glasgow Pollok?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I reiterate the point that Humza Yousaf has made about the positive survey from Macmillan. I agree on the importance and effectiveness of a single point of contact to provide advice and support during a person’s cancer journey. In 2024-25, we have continued to invest in our single point of contact programme, including in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, where we have invested more than £250,000 to support people with gynaecological, prostate and lung cancer. We are working with Healthcare Improvement Scotland to review the programme to consider how we best scale the approach across Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Yesterday, the Scottish cancer patient experience survey for 2024 found that more than one in five cancer patients felt that they should have been seen much sooner for diagnosis. I think that we would all acknowledge that early intervention and treatment is key to beating cancer, but the Scottish Government’s continued failure to meet waiting time targets is putting lives at risk. Can the minister tell me what outcomes will be achieved by the additional £11 million that she mentioned? By when will that money improve the missed 31 and 62-day cancer waiting time targets?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Jackie Baillie is right to say that we have room for improvement on waiting times for cancer, and we are doing work in that regard. Some £1.2 million of the funding has been directed specifically towards diagnostics, and we continue to focus on improving timely access to cancer services, which is why our programme for government has committed to opening a further rapid cancer diagnostic service, bringing our national total to six.

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

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent outbreak of mpox in Africa, which was declared by the World Health Organization on 14 August to be a public health emergency of international concern, what plans it has put in place for any potential outbreak of mpox in Scotland. (S6O-03697)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are aware of the recent outbreak of mpox in Africa, which has been declared as a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization. Currently, there are no cases of clade I mpox confirmed in the United Kingdom, and the risk to the UK population is considered low.

The Scottish Government and Public Health Scotland are working closely with public health colleagues across the UK, including other UK ministerial colleagues, as well as national health service boards in Scotland, to monitor the situation and prepare for any cases that we might see.

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

Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on how the general population is being informed about the disease and assure the public that transmission rates are, as he said, a low risk to the general population?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for raising that important issue. Colleagues will have received a letter that I sent to all MSPs on 28 August. I have offered a meeting and a briefing for all Opposition colleagues next week to discuss the issue and to make sure that, from a public information perspective, we, as local leaders, are able to provide reassurance that Public Health Scotland continues to work closely with UK Health Security Agency colleagues to update a range of guidance for health professionals and the general public on mpox, in relation to the existing outbreak of clade IIb mpox, which has been present in the UK since 2022, and investigation and planning for the new strain, clade Ib, which has been spreading in parts of Africa. The guidance includes updates to the Public Health Scotland website and NHS Inform, which provides information to the general public on mpox, including on how it is transmitted, symptoms, who to contact, treatment and dos and don’ts for travellers, as well as updates for the fitfortravel website for travellers to central Africa.

The overall risk to the public is considered low, and, to date, there have been no cases of clade Ib in Scotland.

We are reminding people who have travelled recently to the affected areas to be aware of the signs and symptoms and to contact a health professional if they are concerned.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support specialist neonatal intensive care units across Scotland. (S6O-03698)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government commissioned independent modelling of neonatal intensive care in Scotland, and the report was published on 29 May. We have asked the regional chief executives to progress with development of implementation plans, with the expectation that implementation of the new model is phased over the next one to two years. Additionally, the Scottish Government, with the support of Health Improvement Scotland and Bliss, has consulted families on implementation of the new model. We are sharing the outputs of that consultation with regional chief executives to inform development of pathways and processes for the new model of care. Jointly with national clinical leads, we are considering Scotland-level actions required.

The Scottish Government continues to provide funding to the boards hosting the neonatal intensive care units to build the capacity required.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for her reply, but let us get the facts straight here. The proposal to downgrade the neonatal unit at Wishaw hospital is based on inconsistent, old and inaccurate data, a flawed methodology, and excluded any consultation with parents and families.

This morning, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee considered a petition from those same parents and families. As a result, the committee has agreed to go on a site visit. Why has Scotland’s Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health never done the same? Will she now visit the Wishaw specialist neonatal intensive care unit, speak to staff and listen to their concerns? Will she review again her decision to downgrade the unit in Wishaw in the light of deliverability, capacity and resilience issues that risk not only the human rights but the human lives of those affected?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am sure that Richard Leonard would like to correct the parliamentary record, because I have visited the Wishaw neonatal unit. I have also visited Ninewells hospital and the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and I have been gathering evidence from people across the health boards and the neonatal and maternity services that Scotland provides.

I am completely focused on ensuring that we make the right decision for the smallest and sickest babies in Scotland. I have read on numerous occasions the expert advice that we have received and I have spoken to the people who were involved in producing it, and that advice shows that reducing to three the number of intensive neonatal care units is the correct decision to support families with the smallest and sickest babies.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Can the minister speak to the success of the implementation of “The Best Start: A Five-Year Forward Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care in Scotland”, and advise how the Scottish Government will continue to ensure that women and babies receive the highest quality of care according to their needs?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The plan set out our vision of a transformation of maternity and neonatal services, and the vast majority of its recommendations have been implemented. Health boards have embedded the plan in local maternity and neonatal care, and that has been supported by national initiatives such as the young patients family fund, improvements to adverse events investigating and the national bereavement care pathway.

Work continues to establish the new model of neonatal intensive care and to deliver continuity of carer, which is highlighted as a programme for government commitment.

I thank all the people who have been involved in helping to achieve the best start vision, and we will publish a full programme report later this year.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact reductions to mental health budgets will have on child and adult mental health services. (S6O-03699)

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

Following the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer’s July statement, the Scottish Government continues to face the most challenging financial situation since devolution.

We have sought to protect mental health funding despite difficult decisions about reductions, which affect the whole Government. Although any reduction is regrettable, we remain committed to taking forward our work across mental health and working closely with key partners. Our collective focus has to be on making as much difference as possible with our funding.

We will continue to pursue our commitment to addressing waiting times backlogs, through our direct engagement with national health service boards, and to drive forward the delivery of our mental health and wellbeing strategy and associated delivery plan, by investing in prevention and early intervention as well as in services.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Regrettable is one word, but disgraceful is another, because, in some areas of the country, 60 per cent of children and young people are not being seen until between 19 and 35 weeks after their referrals to child and adolescent mental health services. How does the minister intend to tackle CAMHS waiting lists when funding for those services has been disproportionately cut by £18.8 million? Does she feel that those cuts are proportionate?

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

To be clear, CAMHS funding has not been cut by £18.8 million. The reduction in mental health portfolios has been achieved largely through programmes being adapted or by taking back money from programmes that have come to an end. In some cases, when it has been possible, work has been reprofiled.

We have a really good news story to tell about CAMHS. I am very proud of the sustained progress that we have made over the past few years. That has been down to enormous effort from staff all over Scotland. However, in the first half of this year, we have seen the best national performance against CAMHS waiting times since the 18-week standard was introduced 10 years ago, in 2014.

In the quarter up to June 2024, 84.1 per cent of CAMHS patients started treatment within 18 weeks of referral, and that proportion was up from 73.8 per cent in the same quarter in the previous year. For the second quarter in a row, eight out of 14 of our territorial boards met the 90 per cent standard, and one in two children and young people who are referred to CAMHS now start treatment within six weeks.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, minister. We need to go to supplementary questions.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Will the minister advise on the Scottish Government’s progress towards meeting the child and adolescent mental health services waiting times national standard?

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

As I made clear in my previous answer, I am really proud of the progress that we have made. Eight out of the 14 boards met the 90 per cent standard for the second quarter in a row. That is a substantial improvement on where we have been in the past. One in two children and young people who are referred to CAMHS now start treatment within six weeks, compared with within 12 weeks before the pandemic. During the past few years, there has been real and sustained improvement, which was not apparent prior to the pandemic.

However, we are not complacent, despite the progress, and we continue to be absolutely clear that long waits are unacceptable. Performance varies across health boards, and enhanced support is available from the Government to individual health boards that are not on track to meet the standard.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister says that she has been trying to protect mental health funding, but I am afraid that the Government does not have a good track record. The health budget for mental health has been frozen or cut in-year for the past two years, with almost £20 million in cuts announced just last week. In the programme for government, the Government said that it would commit to £120 million of funding for mental health. Will that be new money, or is it just a repackaging of existing funding?

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

The £120 million commitment was apparent from the budget that we, as a Parliament, collectively passed earlier this year. I have been clear that the savings have been made largely, but not solely, by reprofiling spend. We will slow down the pace of our delivery on commitments by removing some marketing funding and by pulling together the funding, for example, in the mental health enhanced outcomes framework, which brings together a number of previous mental health funding streams. We now offer a single flexible funding stream to NHS boards and integration joint boards, which means that they can use it significantly more flexibly. It is no longer ring fenced, and we have taken a saving back from that. I think that that will work better.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide any additional funding to NHS Highland, in light of the reported overspend in excess of £50 million by the NHS board in its 2023-24 revenue budget. (S6O-03700)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We provided increased investment of £0.5 billion for national health service boards in 2024-25, which took funding to more than £14.2 billion. That is an increase of almost 3 per cent in real terms, with NHS Highland seeing £39 million of increased investment for 2024-25.

Notwithstanding that investment, NHS boards, like other public services, are under unprecedented pressure as a result of spiralling United Kingdom inflation—which has eroded our spending power—Brexit and Covid, and we continue to work with them to address the financial challenges this year and beyond.

The Scottish Government recognises the continued financial and operational pressures that the health and social care sector faces and the need to recover, reform and improve services.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In short, I think that that means no. As there will be no additional funding and there is no way for NHS Highland to save additional funds by reducing its biggest cost, which is staff costs, will the cabinet secretary reveal which elective surgeries the Government suggests that NHS Highland should cancel to allow it to remain financially solvent?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Through our finance directorate, we are supporting NHS boards, including NHS Highland, to work through the financial pressures that they are facing and to work to their financial recovery plans. I have a good working relationship with the new chief executive, Fiona Davies, in relation to meeting those financial plans. We will continue to work to protect front-line NHS provision rather than, as Edward Mountain suggests, seeing it stripped back.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have two requests for supplementary questions. I intend to take both, but I ask that they are both kept brief.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

General practitioners in the Highlands assure me that £6 million could be saved every year if NHS Highland were to return to GPs the service of providing vaccinations. Adopting that approach across Scotland would lead to savings of £100 million. I have been pressing for that to happen for two and a half years. Why will the cabinet secretary not order NHS Highland to make those savings?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Fergus Ewing and I have engaged previously on that point, including with local GPs in his constituency. He will be aware that the 2018 GP contract was agreed between the Scottish Government and the British Medical Association following a poll of the profession. The transfer of vaccinations was a key element of that contract and allows GPs to focus on what only they can do. That does not mean that GPs should never deliver vaccinations; the contract provides flexibility in rural situations.

I have asked NHS Highland to make full use of all the flexibilities in the GP contract to ensure comprehensive delivery of our vaccination programmes. I understand that the latest NHS Highland vaccination data demonstrates improved rates.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It was good to hear the cabinet secretary lay out the increase in funding that NHS Highland received from the Scottish Government this financial year, and that the Government is willing to support it in light of further financial challenges. What level of cut would have been delivered to the health board if we had followed the real-terms cut to health resource spending that was laid out by the then UK Government?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

In 2024-25, NHS Highland’s resource budget increased by 3.7 per cent in real terms, compared with last year. In cash terms, its budget increased by £39 million, which is 5.1 per cent, in the same period. Had the Scottish Government followed the then UK Government’s spending for the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS Highland would have had a real-terms cut of 0.2 per cent.

That highlights the importance that the Scottish Government places on increasing the resources that are available to us through more progressive taxation, which is opposed by both Labour and the Tories. Had we followed their advice, our health boards, including NHS Highland, would have been in a much worse situation.

Free School Meals (Primary Pupils)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14406, in the name of Liam Kerr, on free school meals for all primary pupils. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I warn members that there is no time in hand so they will have to stick to their speaking allocations.

I call Liam Kerr to speak to and move the motion. You have up to seven minutes, Mr Kerr.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

How times change. Do members remember the then First Minister promising in 2015 to completely close the attainment gap? Now, this Government simply aspires to reduce it. We have had warm words from the current First Minister, who has stated that the eradication of child poverty is

“the single greatest priority for this Government.”

However, last week’s debate highlighted not only that the child poverty rate has remained largely unchanged since 2007, but that the Scottish National Party’s multiple failures have had a detrimental impact.

I bring that up because of another promise. This one was made in the SNP’s 2021 manifesto, which said that

“Over the course of the next parliament”,

it would make sure that

“no child is hungry in the classroom by providing free school breakfasts and lunches to every primary school pupil, all year round”,

yet we heard last week that the provision will be only to primary 6 and 7 pupils whose families are in receipt of the Scottish child payment. Let us be very clear about what that means.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

[ Made a request to intervene .]

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will take Monica Lennon’s intervention later.

Last week, John Swinney confirmed in this Parliament that he was scrapping the SNP’s pledge to introduce universal free school meals for P6 and P7 pupils. A promise was made, and that promise has been broken.

Here is the issue: we know that the Scottish Government has never seriously tried to close the attainment gap. It does not know how to do that; it has not forensically worked out what interventions would be required to do it. However, everyone knows that our kids need food in order to be ready to learn. As the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said yesterday,

“Going to school hungry is not only a barrier to learning and educational achievement but it can severely impact development in childhood and into adulthood”.

The mission of eradicating child poverty will be set back by the Government’s decision, as it has been told by Save the Children, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Child Poverty Action Group.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome Liam Kerr’s motion and hope that the whole Parliament will back it today. All primary school pupils in Wales and in London have free school meals because that has been made a political priority. Does Liam Kerr agree that the SNP needs to drop the spin and the excuses in its amendment and put the needs of Scotland’s children first?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I absolutely agree with that—it is a good point well made. The amendment is as predictable as it is shameful and, indeed, ignorant.

On 5 September, in this chamber, in a rare moment of self-awareness, John Swinney said:

“We will not be able, in this parliamentary session, to roll out universal eligibility across primary 6 and primary 7 pupils, because our budget has been eroded by ... fiscal mismanagement”. —[Official Report, 5 September 2024; c12.]

Hasn’t it just? The Government is sitting on the largest cash-terms block grant in devolution history and, as Monica Lennon says, it makes choices about how it spends that budget. We should never forget that the Scottish Fiscal Commission said just last week that the SNP’s financial woes are largely the result of its own spending incontinence.

Nowhere can I find an official costing for the extension of free school meals. To assist, I have done a very rough calculation. I think that the cost to deliver free school meals for P6 and P7 pupils would be, at worst, around £110 million. In breaking its promise, the Government chooses not to cover that.

What choices has the Government made instead? It chose to spend £400 million on ferries, of course. However, no one will forget the figures that were released in July that show that Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP spent more than £180 million on spin doctors, foreign trips and hospitality. By total coincidence, £110 million of that was spent on press officers, social media and internal communications. Just last week, we also heard about the special advisers that have cost millions. There are then the more than 120 ministerial overseas trips that have been made in the past two years alone to more than 30 different destinations, despite foreign affairs being reserved to Westminster. Maybe those trips were made to visit the nine Scottish Government overseas offices, which cost £9 million, or to get away from the £16 million in losses and special payments that have been made by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Perhaps they were made to get away from the £82.95 million in last year’s consolidated accounts for losses and special payments.

If it is priorities that we are after, some may have missed that Angus Robertson’s budget of £347 million—for the portfolio that covers such things as external affairs and the constitution, which are not actually devolved—was spared the axe in last week’s cull by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. Interestingly for those who worry that £110 million is a lot of money for the Government to find, when Shona Robison was asked why she had not cut that £347 million budget, she said:

“It is a small budget by comparison”.

By axing the universal roll-out of free school meals in primary schools, the SNP has shamefully betrayed Scotland’s poorest pupils. It has abandoned any pretence that it knows how to eradicate the attainment gap and/or child poverty, and it has played fast and loose with the trust that the people of Scotland invested in it.

When, in September 2020, the Scottish Conservatives first pledged to introduce free school meals for all primary school pupils, we were supported by all parties across Parliament, because some things are just more important than party politics. Two months later, John Swinney, who was then the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, announced that that would be SNP policy. I therefore call on MSPs from all parties to put party politics aside today and send the strongest possible message to the SNP that it cannot—it must not—abandon the young people of Scotland. Let us in this Parliament back the roll-out of free school meals for all primary pupils by voting for the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that free school lunches should be provided for all primary school children, including provision in the school holidays, in this parliamentary session, as promised by the Scottish Government.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jenny Gilruth to speak to and move amendment S6M-14406.3.

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

Last night, I met the world schools debating champions at Bute house. Team Scotland was represented by Portobello high school, St Columba’s high school from Kilmacolm, Broxburn academy and Dollar academy. As education secretary, I put on the record my congratulations to them on their success, and I am sure that the Parliament sends them our best wishes, too.

Liam Kerr said that some things are more important than party politics, and I agree. Last night, I told the young people about the topic at hand for today’s debate. I explained that it would be a challenging day for the Government, because we do not disagree on the principle of the motion that is in front of us. As the motion recounts, in the 2021 election, the SNP committed to delivering universal free school meals. Today, I want to put on record our recommitment to that delivery because, as a politician, I believe emphatically in the principle of universality and, as a teacher, I know that hungry children cannot learn.

The amendment in my name seeks to provide the necessary financial context to the situation that we find ourselves in. Let us be in no doubt that more children in Scotland today are receiving free school meals thanks to the Scottish Government: every child in primaries 1 to 5, those in special schools, as well as all eligible pupils from primary 6 right up to secondary 6. Free school meal provision in Scotland is saving families on average £400 per child per year. In total, Scottish Government funding is providing free school meals to more than 270,000 children every single year from primaries 1 to 5. We are now focusing our efforts on pupils who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment, which will see an additional 26,000 children benefit. However, I understand the deep disappointment that universal roll-out to primaries 6 and 7 has been delayed and, frankly, I share that disappointment. It is in that spirit that I will listen to and engage with the Opposition today.

Only last week, Parliament heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government the full extent of the budgetary challenges that the Scottish Government faces. As Sir Keir Starmer has stated on the issue of free school meals,

“The money is a big factor, I won’t shy away from it.”

The Prime Minister is right. Of course, it is a painful matter of fact that, under the current devolution settlement, in the absence of any clarity on additional consequentials, any emerging in-year costs have to be funded by cuts elsewhere.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I share the cabinet secretary’s deep disappointment in the Scottish Government’s decisions, but can she help us to understand what representations she made to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to say, “Don’t take it out of my budget”?

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

I made strong representations to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. If the member is interested, he can speak to her directly about that.

We are in a Parliament of minorities, and this next question is not really one that is reserved for the First Minister or for me as education secretary. How do we fund the approximate £256 million funding gap that I am presented with in order to deliver universality in this parliamentary session? Right now, the Government simply does not have the resources to deliver that, so I want to hear alternatives for where I should draw the additionality that I need.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

Pam Duncan-Glancy is attempting to make an intervention. I am conscious of time, and I would like to make progress, but I am going to name Pam Duncan-Glancy, because she has reassured me over Twitter that the cavalry is en route. However, I cannot accept a tweet from Ms Duncan-Glancy as confirmation of the extent of the consequentials that Scotland will receive from London. Those who hold the purse strings have offered me no such confirmation.

Liam Kerr quoted the Scottish Fiscal Commission. It has noted that there is “significant uncertainty” on the level of funding that we will receive from the UK Government ahead of the UK Government’s budget on 30 October. I would welcome confirmation today from any Labour MSP in the chamber on the totality of consequentials that they expect to flow to Scotland from the new UK Labour Government.

As I referenced earlier, we know that the combined capital and revenue costs of universal expansion will total £256 million. My question to Parliament, and particularly to the Labour Party, is simple: where would you find the money? Like its friends in the Conservative Party, the Labour Party has opposed just about every revenue-raising measure that the Government has put in place. Just like the Tories, Labour seek to slash taxes on higher earners, leaving us with less money to invest in our public services.

What is the answer? If members want to commit to the immediate universal expansion in primary schools, which the Scottish Futures Trust’s independent research estimates will cost £256 million, what £256 million of cuts would they make? Would they make cuts elsewhere in our schools, such as to additional support needs provision, the school clothing grant or the Scottish attainment challenge? Would Labour stop funding to the eight new schools that are being built? Would it make cuts elsewhere? Would it make cuts to the national health service, childcare or the Scottish child payment, or would it do what it has been desperate to do since 2007 and reimpose tuition fees on Scottish students?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude, cabinet secretary.

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

The reality is that austerity is a political choice. It matters not one iota whether it is red or blue. The result is less money for Scotland, less money for education and less money for our children. In a Parliament of minorities, it is incumbent on the Government to engage with the Opposition on the facts, so I will listen today with the interests of Scotland’s children and young people at the forefront of my mind.

I move amendment S6M-14406.3, to insert at end:

“; notes, however, that the impact of the austerity agenda pursued by the previous Conservative and current Labour UK administrations has reduced the value of Scotland’s budget, meaning that the required combined capital and revenue funding of £256 million is not available to deliver fully during the current parliamentary session; recommits the Scottish Government to full universal delivery for all primary pupils when the budgetary position allows; recognises the progress that has already been made with the delivery of free school meals to all children in P1 to P5, special schools, as well as eligible pupils in P6 to S6; welcomes that the Scottish Government will now make further progress with expansion to P6 and P7 pupils in receipt of the Scottish Child Payment, which will see an additional 26,000 children benefit, and calls on the UK Government to change its fiscal rules to end austerity and allow increased investment in public services to eradicate child poverty.”

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am pleased to open on behalf of Scottish Labour in the debate and to speak in support of the motion and the amendment in my name.

I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: education is a great leveller. It can smash the glass, class and step ceilings in the way of opportunity, and any barrier to its full potential and power is a barrier to that opportunity for Scotland’s young people. However, sadly, with its litany of broken promises and incompetence in delivery, one such barrier to opportunity in Scotland is the SNP Scottish Government.

The Government has now promised but not delivered free school meals for every primary school pupil for four years. Although child poverty is stagnant on its watch, people across Scotland will be baffled at the choices that it has made. Experts are, too. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said:

“Any rollback or dilution … can only be seen as a broken promise”.

The Child Poverty Action Group said that the Government is

“falling behind in … actions that”

it

“has already committed to and that families so desperately need.”

Children 1st said that it is

“deeply concerned that the drastic cuts to public spending will throw many children and families already in crisis over the edge”.

It is not just lunches; it is breakfasts, too. As the chief executive of Magic Breakfast pointed out last week,

“Despite being the minister who announced it, John Swinney is now the third First Minister in a row to exclude ... universal breakfast provision from their Programme for Government.”

Alone, broken promises to young people on food would be bad enough—but they are not alone. In 2007, the SNP promised to cut class sizes to 18. It abandoned that promise in 2009 and primary classes have not been below 23 while it has been in power.

The SNP manifesto in 2021 promised an increase in the number of teachers and classroom assistants. Teacher numbers have fallen and, in Glasgow alone, against the Parliament’s will, 450 might go. The same manifesto promised to reduce contact time for teachers, but a recent Government-commissioned report found that it will not do that, either.

It does not stop there. Pledging to end the digital divide, John Swinney announced in 2021-22 that every child in Scotland would get a digital device. That commitment was dropped this year. Then there are the free bikes. This year, Transport Scotland confirmed that just over 6,000 bikes have gone out to the approximately 250,000 children who are in poverty.

On 11 June, the First Minister said that, where families have free school meal debt, we have written that off, but families are still being pursued and the Government cannot tell us how many families have had their debts written off.

Thousands of Scotland’s children and young people who were promised all of that by the Government have now left school. That matters not only because people are sick of being promised stuff that they do not get but because broken promises to young people impact education and stifle opportunity. Because of the SNP’s litany of broken promises and incompetence, attainment is down and the gap is up. Fewer young people are in jobs, education or training after leaving school.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will Pam Duncan-Glancy give way?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am sorry, I do not have time.

Young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are five times more likely to be unemployed. Those are not just numbers: they are young people denied opportunity.

Scotland’s once world-renowned education system is on its knees after 17 years of the Government’s mismanagement, and the SNP cannot keep blaming someone else. I find the Government’s amendment and the speech from the cabinet secretary to be tiresome. People watching are tired of the Government’s excuses for not delivering the things that it said that it would deliver. The SNP can point the fingers all it likes, but people in Scotland see the missed opportunities for reducing child poverty and the incompetence and waste that cost us £5 billion and they can hear the experts when they tell the Government that that is because of its own spending decisions.

It is clear that the path to change does not and cannot lie with this incompetent SNP Government. It must fall to Labour members, who are already delivering, to reduce poverty through a new deal for working people, create jobs in GB Energy and improve finances for working people. That is the change that Scotland needs, that is the change that young people deserve and that is the change that we will deliver.

I move amendment S6M-14406.2, to insert at end:

“, and regrets the Scottish National Party administration’s repeated broken promises to Scotland’s children and young people.”

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I should start by thanking the Conservatives, not just for using some of their time this afternoon to debate free school meals, but because the topics of their debates are a defence of green policies from the Bute house agreement era. I am delighted that, having spent so long trying to bring down the Bute house agreement, our Conservative colleagues are now the first to defend the legacy of the Greens in Government.

I will try to be collegiate, but I need to start by making the point that there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the Conservatives talking about ways in which we can tackle child poverty. The single biggest driver of child poverty in modern British history is the Conservative Party and the decisions that it has made, whether it be introducing the two-child cap, slashing universal credit or decimating public services. They cannot pick and choose when they want to lift children out of poverty and when they want to push more children into it without accusations of hypocrisy being flung at them.

On that point of collegiality and consensus, I want to talk about a visit in the previous parliamentary session that Oliver Mundell and I and some other colleagues made to multiple schools in Finland, which has had universal free school meals for some time. It was an experience that we all gained a great deal from. We saw almost every pupil sitting together and staying in school at lunch time for a healthy, warm, free meal. That did a whole range of things. It tackled inequality and helped those families who needed it and who would have struggled with paying for school meals. It improved attainment, because hungry children struggle to learn and behave. It eliminated stigma, because we know that, even with the best will in the world and with the most subtle systems of means testing and entitlement, children can find out who is and is not entitled to a free school meal. Even if they do not find out, those children who are entitled under our current system are worried about people—even members of staff—knowing that their family’s situation means that they are entitled. No one misses out under a universal system.

The Finland system also increases social cohesion, because, as we saw, all children eat together, including the children of families who can afford to pay for meals but who otherwise would have probably gone out of school at lunchtime. A very different culture is created as a result of universal provision. Finland is the gold standard. It is all the proof and all the evidence that we need that universal provision works.

It is outrageous that, here in Scotland and across the UK, we have children sitting in school hungry in one of the richest countries in the history of the planet. I am proud that, during the final budget agreement of the previous parliamentary session, just a few weeks before the pandemic brought a lot to a halt, the Scottish Greens managed to secure the Government’s agreement to immediately expand universal provision of free school meals to primary 4 and 5 and then move on to primary 6 and 7.

That was part of a wider package that we worked on together with colleagues in the SNP to do things such as cancel school meal debt. The Scottish Greens were the first to uncover the scale of school meal debt in Scotland. We did the research, we campaigned and then, with the support of the cabinet secretary and the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, we secured funding to cancel that debt.

This afternoon’s debate is a bit odd, because we are debating something that we all agree on. The real question is about money. I agree with Liam Kerr that it is a question of priorities, although his priorities and mine are very different. I believe that the Greens have proposals for making the scheme financially affordable. For a start, there are ways of minimising costs using shared catering facilities and timetabling.

The problem that I have with the Government’s amendment is that it presents, quite rightly, the scale of austerity delivered by the Conservative Party—and not reversed by the Labour Party—as a challenge. However, it then makes out that that challenge makes austerity inevitable. It is not inevitable. There are a range of ways in which the Scottish Government can save money in-year in this financial year. On the capital side, we would freeze spending on trunk roads and motorway expansion. On the revenue side, we would scale back on tax breaks for shooting estates, for example. It is a question of political choice. I want to hear more about the choices that all colleagues would make this afternoon if we genuinely had a consensus on the priority of delivering the policy.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Marcus Rashford made a big impact on this whole debate in 2020 and before that. He has left a lasting legacy that has been credited, quite rightly, across the United Kingdom. At that point, the SNP was a victim of its own spin and approach to politics. It is now still a victim as a result.

At the time, John Swinney sought to exploit that campaign and to draw a difference between the Conservative Government at Westminster and the Scottish Government. He said that hunger “doesn’t take a holiday” and that every child, every minute and every school day are incredibly important for learning. He committed the SNP to delivering that promise by August 2022—two years ago—but it is clear that the SNP did not have a costed plan. It was evident from almost the point that the SNP agreed that commitment and put it in its manifesto that it was retreating from it.

Initially, the SNP blamed local authorities for being unable to deliver the commitment in 2022, then it blamed the Westminster Government, and now it is blaming the Labour Government, even though it has been in power for only a few weeks, as opposed to the 17 years for which the SNP has been in government. The SNP hunted around almost from the very beginning for an explanation and an excuse for its failure to deliver the solemn promise that it put in its manifesto in 2021.

It was clear at that point that the SNP refused to accept that there was a looming financial crisis at the heart of the Scottish Government, which successive finance committees and the Scottish Fiscal Commission have been telling us about for years, and it made endless promises, jumping on the headlines that had been created—quite rightly—by Marcus Rashford, but doing so without having a costed plan. I have no problem with the Government meeting the needs and desires of the electorate, but it must be honest and straightforward from the very beginning, rather than using such promises as election gimmicks.

Today, the education secretary has challenged us to say where we would find the money. If she had been at last week’s meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, she would know the answer to that, because Graeme Dey knows exactly where all the money is. Apparently, he has worked it all out. He made an agreement with the college unions across the country, and he told us that he did not have a clue where the finance was going to come from. I suspect that he knows everything about the finances of the Scottish Government and that he has the money tucked up his sleeve. Therefore, all that the education secretary needs to do is to reach over to Graeme Dey, who will have the answer to everything.

We will take no lectures from the SNP about the need to say where we would find the money, because it plays that trick against the Opposition every single time. The Government knows the finances back to front. If it did not, why did the SNP make that promise in 2021? Surely it would have had a costed plan that was worked out over the years. Surely it would have known that the Conservatives were going to have austerity for years and that the successive Labour Government was going to be dreadful. Surely it had worked all that out before it made that promise. However, we know that it had not, because it has played fast and loose with Scotland’s public finances by making endless promises that it simply cannot keep.

Today, the education secretary faces a challenge, because it is clear from what my colleague Ross Greer said, and from what Conservative and Labour members and I have said, that all of us will vote against the Government’s amendment, so she will lose. She must decide how she will respond to the will of Parliament, because the will of Parliament is incredibly important, as we have heard from her bosses—previous First Ministers—over many years. We would expect the Government to make a statement on how it will meet that promise—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is not only our promise; it is the Government’s promise, and it is for the Government to deliver it. We deserve an answer from the Government today.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I declare an interest in that my eldest daughter is a teacher. She is head of guidance as well as being a physical education teacher.

When I came into Parliament, I led with the statement that I thought that education was the solution to our health and welfare problems, and I believe that even more now. In fact, as I have said in the chamber many times, I think that education should be the cornerstone of every portfolio. However, the biggest disappointment that I have experienced in this Parliament has been the Scottish Government’s failure to drive the changes in education and health that it could have made, given that those portfolios are entirely within the Scottish Government’s control. It could have been bold, taken its own path and delivered solutions to some of the country’s biggest issues, but it has seemed content to stumble along behind the crumbling excuse, “It’s not our fault.”

The Government’s usual fallback position is, “We need more money,” but here is the thing. If you invest in education, you are investing in health, justice, welfare and the economy—the economy that is required to pay for all the services that we need.

We need to define the issues we are trying to address. In education, those are poor physical and mental health, declining behavioural standards, declining attendance and the attainment gap, as well as hunger and malnutrition. Today, we are talking about free school meals for all primary school children. If we are tackling malnutrition and hunger for children coming into school, why are we not talking about free school breakfasts? Logic tells me that that is the meal that we should be targeting, although I am not against also having free school lunches for those children from the most deprived areas.

If we want the uptake of free school meals to improve and the queues outside the chip shop to go down, we need to offer pupils more reasons to be in school. I have put forward the idea of offering some kind of activity prior to the start of the school day that happens to have breakfast included and of offering extracurricular activities at lunchtime to keep children in school and active. Those initiatives would tackle all the issues that I previously highlighted and the costs associated with them.

The Scottish Government’s approach is one of crisis management rather than tackling the long-term needs of our educational environment. It has been funding increases in salary by cutting support staff and reneging on a manifesto promise of free school meals.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member take an intervention?

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am afraid that I do not have time.

Ploughing that furrow simply digs a deeper and deeper hole for our educators, heaping ever more responsibility on to our already stretched teachers.

It is increasingly obvious that, in SNP Scotland, if a pupil is not academically inclined, school offers less and less for them. Sport, art, music and drama are all in decline despite all the mental and physical health benefits that they deliver. Now, the SNP wants to cut back on school meal provision. It is a false economy. It will disincentivise pupils further, leading to more absenteeism, unhealthier pupils, poorer behaviour and a widening attainment gap.

The biggest inequality is the inequality of opportunity, and this decision by the SNP Government is just another element of that inequality. Instead of its delivering the rounded education that we desire, we see short-termism that will just hand on the problems to the next Government.

At some point, we need to halt the continuous decline in our public sector and recognise that, by getting education right, we can start tackling all the other crises that the SNP has presided over. Education used to be the SNP’s number 1 priority. Unfortunately, when it failed to deliver on that pledge, it just moved on to another of its priorities, leaving our education system much worse off than when it inherited it.

The Opposition parties might not agree with some of the solutions that I have put forward, and that is perfectly acceptable—as long as they come up with their own solutions. However, as we know, the SNP’s solution is inevitably yet another consultation that leads to yet more inaction. It will not do. Cutting school meals is yet another symptom of a Scottish Government without a clue.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I find myself back on the back benches, freed from the shackles of Government, able to say what I really mean and what I really want to say. However, you are all gonnae be extremely disappointed, because sometimes I find Opposition business extremely tedious. Here we have the classic attempt by them to get that “gotcha” moment, talk down the Government and offer no ideas about delivery or what they would do.

The Presiding Officer will remember that we used to discuss the big ideas here, during all parts of this chamber’s business. We used to talk about them all the time—but no longer. It now seems to be about a very simple “gotcha” and trying to get the next headline from the Opposition parties.

Liam Kerr said that we should “put party politics aside”. I would quite gladly do that. If people genuinely want to work with me and others in the SNP to make a difference to young people’s lives, I would say, “Let’s go for it.” However, he made the most partisan political speech that I have heard for some time.

Free school meals are there to support many families who are struggling. I am happy to work with the Government and others to achieve all our ambitions on school meals. This is more than just an academic discussion for me, given my background. My family are from Feegie—which, for the Official Report , is Ferguslie Park, in Paisley. It is an area that has had its challenges with poverty over the years, and that is what this is all about. I am here to represent the people of Paisley and the people I grew up with.

Like other parts of Scotland, Ferguslie Park, in Paisley, has had to deal with those challenges with little support from successive UK Governments. The Scottish Government has invested to support those families as much as it can. A perfect example of that is the £400 million-worth of measures such as the Scottish child payment that have brought 100,000 children out of poverty.

The Scottish Government has had to focus on those things while dealing with the constraints of the Westminster settlement. The problem is that the Scottish Government cannot keep propping up continually failing UK Governments. As I have stated, our on-going challenge in Scotland is that we have been continually hampered by successive UK Governments. I am sure that, with the full powers of independence, we could change all of our children’s futures for the better and move away from 14 years of Westminster failure on top of decade after decade of Westminster failure.

Keir Starmer has been in office for two weeks and has chucked it already. He says that things can only get worse, but the Scottish National Party’s vision is greater than that. When Westminster says, “The game’s a bogey; we might as well chuck it,” we offer hope. We want to empower the people of Scotland to make their own decisions on the future. Even with the devolution settlement, the SNP has managed to bring 100,000 children out of poverty while the Tories, Labour and Westminster accelerate further austerity.

I am here to represent the great town of Paisley, as you may have guessed, and its many buddies. They are my people, and it is my town and my place in the world. When Westminster offers more of the same, I and my colleagues in the SNP offer hope. When they say that things can only get worse, we say that there is another way. I hope that we get further down the road to independence and make things better for the people of Scotland.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

In 2021, the First Minister, then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, said that free school meals were a landmark policy. Successive First Ministers committed and re-committed to the policy. Those empty promises are now coming home to roost. If it is not school meals, it is the pledge to give an electronic device to every child, which then became every household, being cancelled, or the pledge to give bikes to children in poverty being cancelled after only 6,800 were delivered—that is less than 3 per cent of the 250,000 children who are in poverty. The Scottish Government promised an increase in teachers and teaching assistant numbers by 3,500, but we now have 250 fewer.

Make no mistake, our children are suffering because of these failures. While we have had this SNP Government, education standards have undoubtedly fallen. The programme for international student assessment results from last year made it clear as day. Our science and maths scores in 2006 were 515 and 506, and they have now fallen to 483 and 471. The poverty-related attainment gap grew in the most recent exam results. For a Government that seemingly sees the issue as a priority, that should be a mark of shame.

Another broken promise on increasing non-contact time by 90 minutes is placing teachers under more pressure. A WPI Economics report found that that would be possible only by raising teacher numbers, but they are now falling. Twenty per cent of teachers are leaving during their probation year, with many reporting stress as a factor. Children will experience the consequences of those broken promises, with large classes and overworked teachers. That will serve only to entrench inequalities and increase the attainment gap that the SNP says it wants to eliminate.

The social attitudes survey this year showed trust in the Scottish Government at the lowest it has ever been, and U-turns such as this are fuelling that perception. The public wants the Scottish Government to succeed and to improve people’s lives, but announcing policies and then going back on them is eroding trust. When politicians make promises and fail to deliver, it reflects badly not only on the Government but on us all. We must understand that headlines are not a replacement for good governance. Governments should do what they say they will do; they should not over-promise and then cry foul when they are unable to deliver.

We need tangible action to give children the best start in life. We need a real living wage to ensure that parents have money to put food on the table, an end to zero-hour contracts to allow stable work, and lower energy bills that are not at the mercy of the global market. That is how we can truly deliver.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills said that she wanted some context and to engage with the Opposition. Like Willie Rennie, I will take her back a bit in the journey. I will talk specifically about how opinions have changed over time.

When I was first elected to the Parliament, in 2007, the first committee session that I went to on the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee was a debate about whether free school meals were necessary and, if they were, on what basis. We took extensive—and I have to say, very interesting and, in some cases, surprising—evidence about whether that was the right thing to do. It came not just from Scotland—I remember a big study from Hull City. What was then called the Aberlour Childcare Trust warmly welcomed the committee’s engagement, but the trust said that it was “yet to be convinced” about universal school meals.

Barnardo’s said the same, and Tam Baillie, who was the Commissioner for Children and Young People at the time, said:

“I am not at all sure that introducing free school meals would be the best way of achieving the desired objective amongst our most vulnerable children.”

He also said that many felt that the problems that the committee was trying to address would be far better addressed by giving assistance to those in the earliest years and not necessarily to those who were further into their primary school years.

That was then, and this is now. Fourteen years on, my very strong view is that tackling the problems of unhealthy eating among our schoolchildren—for all the reasons that Brian Whittle set out—should be a major priority during this session of Parliament.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Will the member take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will, in a minute.

I presume that that is why the SNP made the manifesto commitment that it did in 2021. It made that promise, which we are debating this afternoon. As we all know, election promises are very important. If voters are attracted to those promises, as they were to those of the SNP, it is wrong to remove them. If the SNP cannot see that, it need only look at the general election, when other parties—mine included—were soundly taken apart in relation to some of the promises that we had broken.

What matters here, of course, is our young people’s health. Evidence consistently shows that Scotland’s public health is very poor. It also shows that there is a very strong link between poor health and poor attainment. My goodness, the current state of attainment in Scotland is nothing of which to be proud.

There are several issues to be debated. Are free breakfasts better than free lunches? At what age do pupils see the best results from free school meals? Is universalism the way forward? What do we do about the significant waste of food that far too many of our school dining rooms have every day? Those questions are all important but, for the purpose of this afternoon’s debate, the SNP made a clear and unequivocal promise, and to suddenly remove it is both disingenuous and deeply worrying to the parents who are finding it difficult to make ends meet. On that basis, I support the motion in Liam Kerr’s name.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

No child should go to school hungry; I think that we can agree on that across the chamber. I grew up receiving free school meals, and I know how important they are to life chances. As I came from a very poor background, they were essential for my development in every way. However, to be clear, universal school meals have not been axed, and currently the Government provides free school meals for nearly 278,000 pupils. The Scottish Government is reducing the cost of the school day by saving families £400 per child, per year. That provision is being expanded even further to those in primary 6 and 7 who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment.

The decision to delay universal roll-out beyond the 2026 target has not been made lightly, and we must consider the financial backdrop to why such a decision was made. It is impossible to explain the choices that are made in Scotland without looking to the finite and unpredictable budget that is handed down from Westminster each year. It is impossible to divorce the size of that budget from the economic situation in the UK, which has been damaged by years of austerity, the catastrophe of Brexit and the 49 days of Liz Truss.

To place the blame squarely on the Scottish Government is to deliberately and disingenuously obscure the national and international contexts. To justify austerity, successive Westminster Governments blame their predecessors for the conditions that they have inherited, but austerity is a political choice. Since 2019, the Scottish Government has spent £750 million to directly mitigate the effect of UK policies such as the bedroom tax and the two-child benefit cap in order to protect our constituents from the draconian policies that were introduced by the Conservatives and are now being continued by Labour.

Of course, to be in a position where the roll-out of universal free school meals must be delayed is deeply upsetting to me. However, we must work together—cross-party and cross-Government—to find solutions not only to the financial situation that Scotland and the UK are facing but to poverty and inequality more broadly.

The Scottish Parliament’s think tank, the Futures Forum, had an event last night at which the very issue of inequality was discussed, with wide-ranging views and with passion, and one thing was clear—we need to work together to tackle inequality. We have been elected to make people’s lives better, not to participate in a race to the bottom. Austerity has left the poorest even poorer, yet the wealth of the rich soars. The richest 1 per cent of Britons hold more wealth than 70 per cent of the population combined, and 60 per cent of the public think that the rich are not being taxed enough.

The chancellor has been hinting at large cuts ahead without providing the detail that is necessary to plan appropriately. I fear that that may be the first of many difficult decisions, but it does not have to be. The predecessors of our Labour colleagues founded the welfare state as they believed that those in need should have a safety net, and now their Westminster colleagues have the power to end austerity should they choose to do so. Universality is the goal, if we work together.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We now move to closing speeches.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

In its programme for government last week, the Scottish Government made the welcome commitment that tackling child poverty would continue to be one of its top priorities. The challenge, however, is how the Government expects to hit its existing child poverty targets while rolling back on the very commitments that were key to doing so.

I acknowledge that the Scottish Government’s budget is, frankly, hopelessly overcommitted, and no party in Parliament’s hands are clean on that. We have all made extensive spending demands of the Government—my party, in our time in government, secured a number of those demands and has contributed towards that. Far too often, such debates in Parliament—especially when they are about an issue that we all agree on when it comes to the policy—involve quite a lot of fantasy finances.

I have spoken before about my frustration at other Opposition parties for not putting forward proposals, but I am also frustrated by the Government’s line this afternoon that it is somehow powerless to act in this situation. That is not true and I will run through some of the proposals that the Scottish Greens would make for how we could fund this. I do not expect there to be widespread agreement for many of them, but this is our position on how we could afford a policy that we acknowledge is expensive.

In the first instance, we would reform and reduce the overall scale of the small business bonus scheme—that is a quarter of a billion pounds a year, and we all acknowledge that many of the businesses that are in receipt of the money are not small businesses. In fact, they are large and profitable businesses, as the Government’s own review found; they are simply in low-value property. As I mentioned earlier, every year, between £3 million and £5 million of that scheme goes to give shooting estates tax breaks.

We could condition additional tax breaks on companies meeting fair work and climate standards—at the very least, that would give savings for a few years while those companies made the necessary changes to hit those standards.

We could increase the additional dwelling supplement so that we are raising more from those who have the good fortune to be able to afford a second or holiday home.

We could introduce a levy on supermarkets that sell alcohol and tobacco. The Fraser of Allander Institute’s model for that says that it would raise just under £60 million a year. Granted, those in the alcohol health charity sector who have pushed for that believe that money raised from that should be spent specifically in that area, but equally, we could argue that spending on something such as free school meals is preventative health spend.

We could lower the threshold for advanced and higher rates of income tax, which would raise a considerable amount. We could stop standardised tests, which would save us about £5 million a year on the contract with the company that provides them. I note that the Parliament has voted before to end standardised testing, at least in primary 1, yet it still takes place.

We could stop providing grants and other forms of support through our enterprise agencies for the arms dealers that are currently funding the Israeli genocide in Gaza. We could give new powers to councils, such as a demolition levy and a carbon emissions land tax, which would allow them to raise money to fund the policy directly.

We could update council tax valuations from 1991—that is before I was even born, yet it is the foundation of our second most significant form of taxation in Scotland. We could save a fortune by diverting all those who do not need to be in prison to community sentencing options instead.

I could get really niche here—I am sure that everybody is thrilled already—but we could repeal section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which ring fences parking fine proceeds only for public transport and road network purposes. If we took away the ring fencing, we could spend that money in other areas, such as school meals.

All parties should put forward proposals, perhaps in a more interesting and invigorating way than I just have. It would help the Parliament if we were all honest about how we expect to fund such policies. I disagree with the Conservatives’ constant attacks on the Scottish Government’s international offices, which I think provide value, but the Conservatives have at least proposed a saving with that, although it is more than cancelled out by the tax cuts that they would introduce.

The Scottish Greens are honest. We want universal free school meals and we want them for children up to S6, which is why our proposed amendment called for a pilot in high schools to be completed. That is an expensive policy, but we have laid out a range of options for how we would pay for it. We all agree at least on the principle of universal provision in primary school, but the debate has not taken us any further forward on the key question of how we can afford to do that.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

This have been like a canteen in a high school, as people have rushed through the debate with their four-minute slots. There have been some interesting contributions that I will pick up on. I start by returning, not quite to Liam Kerr—my apologies—but to the cabinet secretary, as I, too, congratulate the debating team winners. It is important that our young people see that their successes are celebrated.

I am slightly disappointed that the SNP Government cannot agree to the motion. We have heard a number of speeches that go around it. I will address Evelyn Tweed’s contribution and her point that the Scottish Government is reducing the cost of the school day but that it is impossible to separate the choices that are made here from what the UK Government is doing. I think that there is a step before that, which is what the motion is about. To disagree with Mr Adam—although it is welcome to see him making his contribution unfettered from the back benches—the debate has been about what it means to promise: to promise in a manifesto, in speeches and in debate.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I will, simply because of the courtesy in the way in which it has been asked for.

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

At last, I have been called courteous. I think that the member has just walked into a bear trap: the great big promise from Anas Sarwar was that there would be no austerity under Labour. How is that for a broken promise?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The member talks to the heart of what this interesting cross-party debate has been about. We will always hold others to the highest level, but we will forgive our own.

The Scottish Government promised young people free school meals—[ Laughter .] No. A promise is to assure someone that they will definitely do something.

At lunch time, I had the great privilege to sit at a round-table event when I listened to people discussing promises that have not been kept and what the effect of that was on them. We heard what the effect of being told that something was going to appear in—strangely enough—the programme for government but then seeing that it had been omitted.

Of course, here we are, having a debate about a promise that the Scottish Government made not once, not twice, but on many occasions; a promise that is supported and recognised as being important by members across the chamber, as could be seen in the powerful speech that Liz Smith made about the movement that there has been in the view and the value of free school meals from where we were in 2007.

The Scottish Government promised children free school meals. It assured children that it would definitely do something, but it cannot now deliver that and it wants to address the issue by pointing to challenges from other places—a variety of speeches have pointed to a lack of support from the UK Government down the road, and others have pointed to other areas. However, the question is, did the Scottish Government mean to keep that promise when it made it? The reality is that it has failed to do so. The lived experience of our children is of an SNP Government that has made promises—on bicycles, which Foysol Choudhury mentioned, on iPads, on smaller class sizes and more teachers—that it has failed to keep.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member take an intervention?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Unfortunately, in this vast canteen of delivery and debate, I do not have time to take the intervention.

Maybe the Scottish Government should stand up and say what consideration it actually gave to the matter before it made its promise of free school meals, which it is now unable to keep.

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

This afternoon’s debate had the potential to shine a light on how a minority Government can work with the Opposition to deliver improvements for our young people. At times, it failed to live up to that expectation. Nonetheless, I want to respond to some of the points that have been made in what was sometimes quite a frenetic, but important, debate.

Ross Greer spoke to the Finnish example of free school meal provision and the impacts on improved learning outcomes for young people that he and Oliver Mundell observed. I am delighted that he and Mr Mundell benefited from that overseas opportunity. Of course, as education secretary, I do not quite get the opportunity to take part in international travel, but this morning I was at a school in Dundee, where I talked to a number of teachers and young people about their experience of the cost of living crisis in that school. Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke about schools being on their knees and, to some extent, I would agree with that assertion. Today, schools in Scotland such as the one that I visited this morning in Dundee have food banks and clothing banks. They have staff supporting families with the exorbitant costs that are associated with increases in their heating bills. That is austerity in our schools, and it is being challenged by support from the Scottish Government in the form of extra funding for the school clothing grant and the £1 billion investment through the Scottish attainment challenge and funding to remove core curriculum charges.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

We do not need to travel internationally to find good practice. For example, Inverclyde Council is a Scottish local authority that has rolled out universal free school meals to all primary pupils. We have examples of local producers and young people with ideas. At the round-table discussion that the cabinet secretary and I held, we heard that many councils are ready to go in that direction, but we need leadership, direction and a wee bit of pulling people together. Will the cabinet secretary pick up the phone to some of those who are doing it already?

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

I am more than happy to engage with them. I appreciate the member’s interest in the issue and acknowledge that we have worked well together on it in the past. However, what I have not heard from the Opposition thus far—with the exception of Ross Greer this afternoon—are any credible contributions on where the money to fill that funding gap of £256 million will come from. Willie Rennie believes that Graeme Dey has the £256 million up his sleeve. However, I have checked and it is not there, so that is not quite accurate. He went on to traduce the SNP without offering me an answer on the exam question set.

What is our context in Scotland? That context matters. There has been a block grant cut of nearly 9 per cent, which means £1.3 billion less capital for Scotland. [Interruption.] I hear the unionist parties heckling from a sedentary position. This is their union. They should take ownership of the cuts that are coming to Scotland—a £1.3 billion cut that we are having to fund to mitigate Westminster austerity in the shape of things such as the bedroom tax. Further, inflationary pressure is largely driven by Liz Truss’s disastrous 49 days in office. [Interruption.] I hear anger from members on the Conservative benches. However, this is their union: they should own it.

That context is what the unionist parties have bequeathed to the children of Scotland. The Scottish Government is in a financial straitjacket, and there is never a scintilla of recognition that maybe—just maybe—decisions that are taken elsewhere are harming the decisions that are taken in this Parliament.

Let us listen to some of the organisations that are involved with child poverty, because we discussed them last week at length. As CPAG has noted,

“Holyrood policies are working”,

but the UK Government

“must also invest in social security to reverse long-term damage to living standards, starting by scrapping the two-child limit and benefit cap, and restoring the value of child benefit.”

I did not see or hear any commentary on either of those issues this afternoon.

Liz Smith was right to point to the dial shifting on free school meals. It is fair to say that her party has been on somewhat of a journey on that topic, and I note some of the comments from her former colleagues. In 2020, when someone tweeted at Ben Bradley about free school meals, saying

“£20 cash direct to a crack den and brothel really sounds like the way forward with this one”,

Ben Bradley responded:

“That’s what FSM vouchers in the summer effectively did”.

Mark Jenkinson, the former MP for Workington, said:

“I know in my constituency that, as tiny as a minority it might be, food parcels are sold or traded for drugs.”

Therefore, the Conservative Party has been on a journey in relation to its views on free school meals.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

I am conscious that Mr Kerr would like to make an intervention, but I have five seconds to go, so I will not take it.

It is very clear that, while Westminster takes away, the SNP Scottish Government is investing in Scotland’s future. Child poverty rates are lower than the UK average, and the Scottish Government policies, such as the Scottish child payment, are helping to keep an estimated 100,000 children out of relative poverty this year. Investment in the school clothing grant is worth up to £150 per child, and the removal of core curriculum charges is driving down the cost of the school day.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude, cabinet secretary.

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

I could go on, but I look forward to engaging with the Conservatives and, of course, the Labour Party on these issues through the budget process and on how they intend to meet that £256 million budget gap in order to deliver universality of free school meals in Scotland’s schools.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am delighted to close the Scottish Conservative Party debate on free school meals for all primary school pupils in Scotland.

I have heard SNP members, including the cabinet secretary, ask repeatedly where the money should come from. Solutions and comments have been given, but the problem is that the suggestions are unpalatable to them, so the response is to deny that they are being made. Mr Kerr and Mr Greer gave us a fair selection of suggestions and I will make more in this speech. The suggestions are unpalatable, so it is being stated that they are not forthcoming, and that is simply not the case.

The Scottish Conservatives were the first party to make this proposal. In fact, in our September 2020 manifesto, we proposed to expand free school meals to all primary school pupils.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On the fact that we had it in our manifesto? I am pleased to do so.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Briefly, Ms Dunbar.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Can the member clarify whether the Conservatives are keen to put food in the bellies of all our bairns or just the first two in a family, because I realise that they are still for the two-child benefit cap.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The proposal was in our manifesto in 2020. I was glad to see the SNP follow suit shortly after that, when the former First Minister announced the same policy at the SNP conference and in the 2021 SNP manifesto. That promise was not only made to the electorate at that conference and in the manifesto but backed up by the next First Minister, Humza Yousaf, in the Scottish Government’s programme for government in 2023-24, when the Government stated that it would

“Work with COSLA in the coming year to prepare schools and infrastructure for the expansion of universal free school meal provision to Primary 6 and Primary 7 pupils”.

Therefore, it is disappointing that the SNP has rolled back on its promise. Yet again, commitments are made and then withdrawn. It is now a pattern. Too many times, we have witnessed the SNP Government promise, with definitive statements, and then underdeliver.

As usual, there was an excellent contribution from my colleague Liz Smith. I note that, back in 2007, Barnardo’s was unsure about the roll-out of free school meals, which is in stark contrast to Barnardo’s report this morning, which highlighted food insecurity and a concern about not expanding school meals to all primary school pupils. That is quite a change. I echo Liz Smith’s comments that unhealthy eating by children should be seen as a major priority.

We also heard very competent comments from Pam Duncan-Glancy, Liam Kerr, Brian Whittle and Liz Smith about breakfasts being included. That is certainly something that should be discussed further.

I was interested in Brian Whittle’s comment that investing in our education is investing in health and our economy and, therefore, in our future. Mr Rennie stated that the will of Parliament is important, so I guess that we will just need to wait to see what happens later.

Today’s debate is about broken promises. It is about more than just the school meal roll-out, as important as that is. In its amendment, the SNP has again cited funding constraints that are halting its ability to stand by its word. One would assume that any manifesto pledge would be fully costed. One would also assume that the priority placed on manifesto pledges was sacrosanct, but it seems that some pledges are more important than others.

There have been no funding cuts for independence papers and staff, so that manifesto pledge is a priority. Why do we not look at year-on-year mismanagement? HMP Barlinnie’s replacement went over budget and £300 million was wasted; £27.6 million was wasted on Scotland’s census in 2022 due to delays and deadline extensions; £57.6 million was wasted by the SNP Government on overdue ferries at Ferguson Marine; and £13 million was wasted on admin for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which we do not actually agree with.

To spin the financial pressures on the Scottish Government as Westminster austerity is simply not correct, and the electorate are wise to it. Over the past 17 years, the SNP has boldly stated its intention with definitive statements. It was not that long ago that education was the watchword. Education was the answer to Scotland’s problems. We have all heard the defining mission—to close the attainment gap, which then became the poverty-related attainment gap. At that time, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, on her Government’s education record, stated:

“Let me be clear—I want to be judged on this.”

I do judge the former First Minister on that, and I believe that she has been found wanting.

We are now told that the Scottish Government will eradicate child poverty—another bold statement—but if it cannot commit to its promise to roll out school meals to all primary pupils, I believe that that is deceitful. I urge members to vote for our motion today.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate on free school meals for all primary pupils. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow members on the front benches to change over.

Rail Fares

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14405, in the name of Graham Simpson, on ending peak rail fares on ScotRail trains. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request-to-speak buttons.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Just before Parliament returned from the summer recess, Fiona Hyslop announced that peak fares will be returning to Scotland’s railways. There was no debate—that was it. Well, here is the debate today, and Parliament can give its view. I hope that the Government listens.

Transport Scotland declared the trial of having a simpler and lower fare structure to have been unsuccessful, even though it led to more people using the trains. With fares having been raised by 9 per cent in April, passengers are to be hit with a double whammy in just 16 days, which will result in someone commuting between Edinburgh and Glasgow facing fares that are nearly double what they were at the start of the year.

When Fiona Hyslop faced a barrage of questions on the topic last week, all she had in her locker was a bizarre claim that people will pay less if they take advantage of season tickets or something called a flexipass, which friends tell me is fiendishly complicated. All that begs the question of the transport secretary, if there is money for her new complicated rail discount schemes, why does she not use some of it to scrap peak fares, which passengers overwhelmingly prefer?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I point the member, who I am sure is a regular rail user, to the position in his Central Scotland region. Take a rail journey from Airdrie to Edinburgh. If people use an annual season ticket four days a week, a single trip will cost £14.44. The pilot fare is £15.80.

On good use of public financing, the self-financing of the discounts is a benefit to the public purse, but, more important, it is a benefit to passengers. I am sure that Graham Simpson and all his colleagues will be encouraging people to use the discounts.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

My fare from East Kilbride to Edinburgh will rocket by 83.8 per cent. That is not a saving.

In March, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, Unite the union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland, Transform Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Just Transition Partnership issued a letter to Fiona Hyslop. It read:

“If you were to restore peak fares it would be a retrograde step that would send exactly the wrong message at the wrong time. We urge you to do the right thing, scrap peak fares permanently to help Scotland meet its climate targets”.

Mike Robinson of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland will be delighted that I am quoting him. In March, he said:

“If we are serious about tackling the climate crisis, along with reducing inequality and improving health and wellbeing, it’s a no-brainer that using public transport should be cheaper than driving.”

I would not want to leave out my good friend Kevin Lindsay of ASLEF, who, in May, said:

“Surely just at the time the Scottish Government has backtracked on its net zero targets they should be doing all they can to make our trains more affordable and reduce CO2 emissions from road travel, which their own policy is committed to.”

Not for the first time, Mr Lindsay is bang on the money, as is Alex Rowley, whose amendment we will support because it calls on the Government to reverse that retrograde step. The Government amendment does not do that, so it should be rejected.

I should say that I would have been happy to support the Greens’ amendment, too, had it been selected for debate, and I give them credit for their work in getting peak fares scrapped in the first place, although, of course, others were also calling for the same thing.

If we want to get greater numbers of people to use public transport instead of driving, we have to make it simple and affordable. However, the service also has to be reliable, and it has not been. Almost 6,000 ScotRail trains have been cancelled since April, and more than a quarter of a million pounds has been paid out in compensation for delayed or cancelled trains. Two million pounds has been paid out since the nationalisation that was supposed to make things better. We have an unreliable service, and now it is to be more expensive. If the policy was to get more people on to the roads, that would be genius.

Fiona Hyslop has not been able to explain how increasing fares will help the Scottish Government achieve its ambition of cutting car miles by a fifth by 2030. Last week, the dire programme for government warned darkly of “demand management” measures. People might be tempted to hop in the car rather than taking the train from now on. However, I say to drivers of Scotland, “Beware: the SNP is coming for you”. The SNP Government is just not saying what it has in store yet. Maybe it is road pricing. It will certainly coin it in on that, at this rate.

It may surprise members to know that I do not always agree with the RMT, but, last week, it produced a critique of the Government’s backward decision that was spot on. It said—quite rightly—that the evaluation of the trial looked at the impact on overall demand and did not assess the impact on demand in peak time only.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

It is a pity that the off-peak fares pilot did not create the greater patronage that was expected to cover the costs.

Did Mr Simpson take full advantage of the full-fares pilot to switch to rail travel from his region to Parliament, did he urge his staff to do likewise, and did he urge others to do so, too?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I regularly use the train, and my staff use the train all the time. It is just going to become more expensive for them now. That is a real shame, and Mr Stewart should know that.

Fiona Hyslop should have sent back the evaluation for the reasons that I have outlined. In addition, the evaluation measured passenger demand in terms of journey numbers rather than distance travelled, which could give a different picture. The transport secretary has said that the trial cost around £40 million. The RMT suggests that the actual figure is nearer to £20 million, because without the trial, passenger numbers would have increased, similar to the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that the RMT is right. It is not small change, but it should be seen as investment.

Public transport should be seen as a service, and it should become the go-to choice. When times are tough for people, we should not be making things harder. The reintroduction of peak fares should be reversed, as the motion in my name says. I call on Parliament to do the right thing and back the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Fiona Hyslop, the cabinet secretary, to speak to and move amendment S6M-14405.3.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Last October, we introduced the ScotRail peak fares removal pilot, supported by £40 million in Government funding. It was a bold and pioneering initiative, which was only possible due to the Government’s bringing ScotRail under public sector control, which has not been done with railways elsewhere in the UK as yet. We initiated the pilot to achieve two objectives: to encourage more people to choose to travel by train rather than by car, especially at peak commuter times, and to make rail travel more affordable and accessible.

On Tuesday 20 August, Transport Scotland published its full analysis of the pilot. I encourage members to read it if they have not already done so. The analysis shows that, although there was a limited increase in the number of passengers during the pilot, at the ultimate level of 6.8 per cent, the pilot did not achieve its original aim of encouraging a significant modal shift from car to rail. The analysis suggests that around four million extra rail journeys were made during the pilot, two million of which would previously have been made by private car. However, that is in the context of around five billion annual private car journeys in Scotland, and it represents a reduction of less than 0.1 per cent of car-based carbon emissions.

Of the new rail passengers who were identified as switching from other transport modes, 54 per cent had previously used a car as a driver and a third had switched from using a bus. The evidence also suggests that the pilot primarily benefited existing rail users, who tended to be of above-average income.

The First Minister set out the Government’s priorities in his programme for government on 4 September. Due to 14 years of austerity—which was driven by the previous Conservative Westminster Government and is being continued by the current Labour Government—sky-high inflation and the failure of Westminster Governments to increase budgets adequately to address inflation, we have to make difficult decisions to address those circumstances.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

When the cabinet secretary announced the decision, she admitted that, in some cases, people had saved thousands of pounds through the pilot. Does she agree, then, that ending it will cost people thousands of pounds?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Although it saved many passengers hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of pounds during the period, it primarily benefited existing train passengers and those with medium to higher incomes, of above £35,000. On the basis of looking at the priorities of tackling child poverty, on which we have just had a debate, and tackling climate change, I made the decision to end the trial of discounted fares from 30 September. It would be difficult to justify such a subsidy, as it did not meet the aims that were originally set out for it.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am sorry, but I cannot give way, as I have limited time.

I wanted the pilot to succeed, and I am disappointed that it did not. The moderate increase in passenger levels, while welcome, was significantly below the 10 per cent increase that was needed to make the scheme self-financing. In the current climate, it is simply not affordable to continue with that level of additional cost, especially when the scheme did not result in a large-scale switch from car to train and so will have had a minimal impact on carbon emissions.

A significant minority of people cannot choose when they travel to and from work and might find the return to peak fares challenging. I have therefore instructed ScotRail to introduce a 12-month discount on all ScotRail season tickets—weekly, monthly and annual ones—and to permanently amend the terms of flexipasses to allow for 12 single journeys for the price of 10, to be used within 60 days. That is a saving of 32 per cent compared with buying six anytime return tickets. Super off-peak day return fares will return, offering even cheaper fares for those who can travel at less-busy times.

Those measures will offer significant savings from previous peak fare levels for many and may still encourage people to make the switch from car to train for their daily commute. Should Labour rediscover its purpose and recognise that we cannot cut our way to prosperity or to improved public services, and should UK Government budget allocations significantly improve, I remain open to reconsidering future investment to fund the removal of ScotRail peak fares.

I move amendment S6M-14405.3, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:

“notes that the pioneering Scottish Government 12-month trial removal of peak rail fares has not been introduced anywhere else in Britain; regrets that the trial, which cost up to £40 million of Scottish Government support, was only a partial success in encouraging rail use; notes the reluctant decision by the Scottish Government to end the trial due to the fiscal constraints chosen by successive UK administrations; encourages rail passengers to take advantage of the new range of reduced season, flexi and super off-peak tickets, and calls on the Scottish Government to make use of the valuable data from the trial in further developing its rail fare policy.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Alex Rowley to speak to and move amendment S6M-14405.2.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

First, I want to highlight the difference in approach between the Scottish National Party and Scottish Labour on the issue of peak rail fares. The SNP’s view seems to be that withdrawing peak fares was giving a subsidy to workers who travel to and from work by train at certain times of the day. Scottish Labour views peak fares as a tax on workers who use the train to get to and from work. In other words, workers are penalised if they have to use the train between certain hours of the day to get to and from work.

The cabinet secretary says that the pilot mostly benefited those with medium to higher incomes, and we need to talk about what that means. The phrase “middle earners” might mean one thing to the SNP, but I have been contacted by nurses, teaching assistants, a janitor and a hotel worker, all of whom are front-line workers who would fall into the category of middle earners—according to the SNP—and none of those workers felt that it was fair to be charged a premium for overcrowded and unreliable train services that they rely on to get to and from their work.

Even if we accept the SNP’s view that removing peak fares provides a subsidy to middle earners, I ask that we be realistic about the chance of getting more people to leave the car at home and travel by rail. If we want people to move from their car to public transport, ultimately, any measures will have to benefit middle earners, as they are more likely to be driving than people on low incomes. Inspiring modal shifts means targeting those who are driving and giving them a reason to change their mode of transport. That must mean making rail travel affordable, accessible and reliable. It certainly needs to be cheaper to use the train than it is to use the car.

If we do not make modal shifts, we will continue to face an uphill struggle. John Swinney recently said that he believes that the Government will still achieve a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres travelled by 2030. Personally, I think that that is pie in the sky. However, in reality, the SNP is unlikely to be in power by then, and it is easy to make targets for the future and then take little action to meet them.

The Scottish Government is trying to sell the removal of peak fares as a failure but, during an unprecedented time of SNP chaotic mismanagement that included delays, cancellations and the imposition of an emergency timetable—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Will the member give way? It is an important point.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes left.

During that unprecedented time, rail use increased by 6.8 per cent, which was incredible, given all that happened. Just think of the result that could have been achieved if people could have relied on the services and the scheme had been appropriately advertised at the start instead of being hidden due to concerns about overcrowding on trains. The only way that the pilot has been a failure is in its management and execution.

Even with the removal of peak fares, it is still cheaper to drive than it is to use rail. To achieve a modal shift on the scale that is needed, public transport must be the most affordable and reliable option. If we are serious about hitting our net zero targets and tackling transport issues, we have to invest in public transport. It has to be reliable. People need to know that, when they go for public transport, they will be able to access it, and it has to be affordable.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Rowley, you are over your time.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I support the motion.

I move amendment S6M-14405.2, to insert at end:

“, and agrees that making public transport more accessible, affordable and reliable is key to supporting more people to use public transport.”

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the fact that the Tories have chosen the cream of the crop of Scottish Green policies to champion in the chamber. Whether that is just blatant opportunism or a stumble towards one-nation Conservatism, I do not know. However, it is clear that the Tories have noticed the popularity of removing extortionate and confusing peak rail fares.

The Scottish Greens listened to rail unions and championed the scrapping of peak fares when we were in government. Rail union members work with passengers every day, so they know how the railway works, how ludicrously complex the fare system is and how it puts off passengers. The RMT has called the decision to reintroduce peak fares “a retrograde step”. ASLEF said that the decision was “a disaster” for workers. I whole-heartedly agree with the STUC, which said:

“Peak fares are a stealth tax on workers which is bad for the climate, bad for our communities and bad for people’s wallets.”

Public transport is a common good. It is at the heart of everyday life. How we get to work and access learning, how we visit our family and friends and how we engage with our communities delivers tangible positive benefits for all. If the Government is serious about its commitments to cutting emissions from the 5 billion car journeys that are made in Scotland every year and to transforming the way that people travel, we need radical investment into making bus, tram and train travel cheaper and easier than taking the car. A robust route map for reducing car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030 will be vital to that, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary producing that soon.

Nearly 750,000 young people in Scotland now have access to free bus travel, and more than 150 million such journeys have been made in just over two years. The national entitlement card for bus travel goes further than that by offering young people 50 per cent off their train fares, so we are already creating a generation whose first choice is public transport.

However, I say to the cabinet secretary that it takes time to change behaviour. The off-peak fares trial led to an extra 4 million journeys over nine months, and half of them would have been made by car previously. It did not pass the success threshold that the Government set of a 10 per cent increase in journeys, but people take time and need certainty to make changes to their lives. At the end of this month, the only certainty will be that fares will dramatically increase on many rail services.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is there time in hand, Presiding Officer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is no time in hand. It is up to the member whether to take an intervention.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I need to progress. I am sorry.

Ticket prices for the most popular Edinburgh to Glasgow route will more than double, from £14.90 to a staggering £31.40. That is a step in the wrong direction. It cannot be right that it is cheaper, easier and simpler to choose private cars over public transport.

The Government’s fair fares review recognised that rail fares are extremely complex and act as a barrier to encouraging a modal shift from car to rail. Simplification of fares and tickets is key to encouraging people on to public transport, and the off-peak all-day scheme was a great start to that. Returning to a complex picture of multiple ticket prices sends us back in the wrong direction and risks passengers abandoning rail altogether and getting back on the road again. We might also see a return to overcrowding on either side of the peak fare timetable, as passengers scrabble to avoid eye-watering prices, leading to a poor customer experience, which would further fuel frustration and a decline in the use of rail.

If passenger numbers go in reverse because of the decision to bring back peak fares, ScotRail’s fare box income will plummet. The cabinet secretary will then have no option but to finally scrap peak fares permanently. In that context, the Scottish Greens are content to back the motion and the Labour amendment in today’s debate, and I look forward to reflecting on members’ comments in my closing speech.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of Scottish Liberal Democrats this afternoon. We will support the motion and the Labour amendment, but we will not support the Scottish Government’s amendment.

The reintroduction of peak fares comes a few months after the announcement in April of a rise in fares of 8.7 per cent, which was a double whammy for commuters during the cost of living crisis. Some people will now be incentivised to come off the rail network and go back into cars. There will be plenty of real-world experiences out there that illustrate the barrier that the return of peak fares will make to their commute, and there is also a question about the reliability of the rail service. Passengers need reliability. Many experiences highlight commuters finding other means to get to work rather than rail, which perhaps impacted the success of the pilot.

It was hoped that that policy had the climate and sustainable transport in mind. The Scottish Government’s announcement stated that a 10 per cent increase in passenger levels would have made the policy self-financing, which poses the question why the Scottish Government was unable to achieve that magic number. What more spending would have been needed to ensure a successful public engagement programme to develop a self-financing policy and a sustainable rail service?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

There were four campaigns during the pilot, with 4 million views on pay television and a radio podcast. People in my town received an A3 fold-out print. Therefore, there was advertising and engagement, particularly for car radio users, so we cannot say that the pilot was not advertised.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The RMT briefing states that it believes that the methodology that the Scottish Government used to evaluate the trial did not look at demand at peak time, which made it difficult to see the true impact of the trial.

The climate will be the biggest loser from the policy reversal. Scottish Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to get cars and lorries off the roads and to move passengers and freight on to our railways as part of a package to tackle the climate crisis. We also championed reforms to ticket incentives and discounts. Rail fares will now revert to the more complicated tiered system, with super-off-peak, off-peak and peak rail fares. If we were to design a ticket pricing system as a barrier to travel on our railways, that is what we would create.

Since the pandemic, more people have been choosing to work flexibly, with a mix of some days working from home and some days commuting. Rail season tickets for two or three days a week would provide flexibility and reflect the new hybrid models of working while saving commuters money. I note the Scottish Government’s 12-month discount on ScotRail season tickets and the new flexipasses that allow commuters to book 12 single journeys for the price of 10. However, those must be simple to use and purchase, with straightforward terms and conditions, to ensure usability and good uptake. We need to foster a culture of sustainable public transport use that is good for purses and the planet.

We need to invest to cut our carbon emissions, whether by investing in public awareness campaigns on discounts and passes, reopening stations, building new lines or adding new stations to existing routes. It is not just railway infrastructure investment that will help to reduce carbon emissions. Ferries to our island and coastal communities need to be sustainable and, dare I say, for some communities, tunnels to reduce emissions would be a sustainable alternative to recurring cycles of ferry replacements.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. Back benchers’ speeches should be of up to four minutes. There is no time in hand.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Despite his authoritarian misrule, Benito Mussolini is credited with making Italy’s trains run on time. In fact, a look back in time reveals that he did not, because that was a myth. Instead, Mussolini was a showman. He never missed an opportunity to be associated with great public works, and railways were among his favourites. Whenever a big rail bridge, a station or a new line opened, Mussolini was there to take the credit. Whether he would have gone as far as to launch a ship with painted-on windows is another matter, but there is a similarity between the tactics that were deployed by Il Duce and the modern-day SNP.

Last December, Fiona Hyslop was in East Lothian—

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Shameful!

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

—smiling for photographers when she proudly opened East Linton station, which has been warmly welcomed and is much needed by the community.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

A fascist!

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I could hear one of the members at the back of the chamber shouting, “Fascist!” I do not know whether you heard that, Presiding Officer. I think that that is disgraceful—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr FitzPatrick should not comment from a sedentary position. If he has something to say, he should stand up and say it. Otherwise, he should keep quiet.

Are you seeking to make a point of order, Mr FitzPatrick?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I am happy to make an intervention on the member.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You do not intervene on a point of order.

I thank Mr Lumsden for his point of order. I heard what was said, and I had hoped that Mr FitzPatrick would desist from making any further comment.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

On a point of order—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr FitzPatrick, I am in the middle of responding to a point of order.

I note Mr Lumsden’s point of order. I have listened carefully to the content of what Mr Hoy has been saying. In my view, at the moment, he has been making debating points and has said nothing in terms of the substance of the claim that was made from a sedentary position. Obviously, I will listen very carefully.

Before we go back to Mr Hoy, I will take a point of order from Mr FitzPatrick.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Thank you very much. For clarity, I need to make the point that, when I used the word “fascist”, I was talking about Mussolini. It is stretching the point to compare a Scottish Government minister with a fascist in Italy, and I thought that it was shameful to do so.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you for your point of order, Mr FitzPatrick. I did not for one second assume that you were referring to Mr Hoy, so that is all good.

With regard to your second point, I listened carefully when Mr Hoy started down that route. Vis-à-vis the substantive point that you make, my feeling was that Mr Hoy was in no way making such a claim about the cabinet secretary—otherwise, I would have intervened in a heartbeat. I did not feel that that was what he was doing. He was seeking to be humorous. Of course, it will be up to the chamber and members of the public who are watching proceedings to decide whether he succeeded in that, or not.

Please continue, Mr Hoy.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I also read the history books. Let us say, for the purposes of my speech, that Benito Mussolini was a showman. Last December, Fiona Hyslop was a showwoman, because she was smiling for photographers when she arrived in East Lothian to open East Linton station.

However, now, months later, services have been slashed and peak-time fares are soaring. As a result of the SNP’s restricted emergency timetable there are only five trains a day from East Linton to Edinburgh, with only two trains each morning and only a single ScotRail service each day. Anyone who wants to return to East Linton after 5.42 pm will have to wait until 11 pm to get home. The trains are meant to take 20 to 30 minutes, which is half the time of the local East Coast Buses service, but this coming Saturday, a passenger—

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Will the member give way on that point?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will not, because I have had enough interruptions, and I think that I am probably on the clock.

This coming Saturday, a passenger who boards the 6.09 am service bound for Edinburgh will face a journey of two hours and 11 minutes, involving a rail replacement bus south of Dunbar and a one-hour wait on the platform before boarding a northbound London train to Edinburgh. That is two hours and 11 minutes to go just 23 miles. For that shocking level of service, the single fare is £9.90. The only saving grace is that the train is operated by London North Eastern Railway rather than SNP-run ScotRail, so passengers will be able to have a drink to quell their understandable anger.

Under the SNP, service levels on our railways are shocking and ticket fares are scandalous. The residents of East Linton are not alone. Commuters from North Berwick are set to see peak fares soaring despite receiving a reduced service, with ticket prices rising by 70 per cent from £8.80 to a staggering £15.

That is why I urge colleagues from across the chamber to join the Scottish Conservatives in calling on the Scottish Government to reverse its plan to reintroduce peak fares. The decision will be disastrous for passengers and will punish hard-working Scots, who will now have to pay hundreds and—according to the cabinet secretary’s own concession—thousands of pounds more to commute to work.

People are being forced back into their cars, which is resulting in increased congestion on the A1 and damage to the environment. Ticket prices are already up by nine per cent and peak fares are returning. A reduced timetable is causing misery for commuters. Far too many Scottish services are being cancelled—a staggering 6,000 and counting since April alone. Satisfaction levels with public transport are plummeting.

Last week, I spoke in the chamber of the Scottish National Party’s reverse Midas touch—everything that it touches turns to dust. It is a sorry state of affairs, not only for residents in East Lothian but for those across the South Scotland region that I represent. It is a state of affairs that is being played out across our transport network and our public services, the blame for which lies solely at the feet of the SNP Government.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Given the last speech, I note that Conservative colleagues who brought the debate to the chamber should consider that the people whom we represent know what is going on across these isles, and they know about the absolute folly of privatisation of rail services from the 1990s by the Conservative Party, which is having ramifications to this day. For example, there was the very long delay through the night that some of my constituents experienced on the Avanti service just a few days ago, as has been reported in The Scotsman in the past days.

We also know that, compared with elsewhere, the value for money that consumers receive from ScotRail is superior, and that there is strong support across the country for ScotRail’s having been in public hands since 2022.

I am a bit perplexed by members on the Conservative benches who have, in their previous contributions, spoken critically about public ownership of ScotRail but now seem to be demanding continued subsidy that can be utilised and delivered only because of public ownership. What does the Scottish Conservative Party stand for, in this instance? Is it in favour of public ownership or not? It is a mystery.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?