Scottish Parliament, 12 September 2024

340 contributions from 67 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would appreciate succinct questions and responses.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it plans to achieve its net zero and just transition goals. (S6O-03709)

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

The Scottish Government continues to develop Scotland’s next climate change plan, which will provide strong and credible policy action to deliver emissions reductions. Those policies will be underpinned by our enduring commitment to a just transition to net zero and supported by the development of just transition plans for sites, sectors and regions to ensure a greener and fairer future for Scotland’s people. Pending the passage of legislation in the Parliament and the setting of carbon budgets, we expect the next climate change plan to be laid in draft in summer 2025.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the minister for that answer; that is useful timetabling. Given this morning’s announcement by Petroineos that 400 workers will lose their jobs in Grangemouth when it shuts its oil refinery, what support will those workers—with their skills, knowledge and experience—be given to ensure that we see a real just transition?

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

Sarah Boyack is right to point to the importance of Grangemouth and the concern, which the Government shares, about Petroineos’s announcement of its plans to cease refining in Grangemouth and the impact that that will have on many workers and their families.

I have made clear to the business community in Scotland, including that sector, the importance of a just transition for Grangemouth. The workforce there is highly skilled and perfectly equipped to support the deployment of new technologies at Grangemouth in the coming years. The first meeting that the First Minister had with the Prime Minister focused in part on the criticality of securing just such a just transition for Grangemouth.

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

Full delivery of our ambitious net zero agenda will require full funding, and yet the Scottish Government faces an almost 9 per cent cut to its capital budget. Given the significant up-front cost to reaching net zero, to what extent will achieving our climate goals be contingent on the United Kingdom Government reversing capital cuts?

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

Audrey Nicoll is quite right. Needless to say, the real-terms cut of 9 per cent to Scotland’s capital budget has had an incredibly damaging effect on Scotland’s ability to provide essential funding to a number of important projects and programmes, including those in the net zero space. The Scottish Government and other devolved Governments depend on the UK Government coming to appreciate that fact if we are to drive forward meaningful and impactful net zero policy.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Funding will be crucial to achieving our net zero targets, but part of that will come from resources from the ScotWind leasing round, which are to be diverted from that objective, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government announced last week. The GMB Scotland secretary, Louise Gilmour, condemned that as the money being “squandered” and said:

“Scotland’s future in renewables is now being frittered away.”

Does the minister agree?

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

The Government is considering carefully how remaining ScotWind funding can be deployed. We wish to minimise the use of ScotWind money and put moneys back in the future, as we did in 2023-24. There is a 10-year just transition plan of £500 million for the north-east, for instance, which indicates our commitment to the future.

We appreciate—as I hope Liam McArthur does—the position that Scotland has been put in by the UK Government. I know that he, and other members, would not wish to see more money come out of public services to try to cope with that eventuality. Scotland has no levers available mid-year to deal with the difficulties that are imposed on us by the UK Government, other than through the reduction of spending on public services or through making sensible use of such resources as the one that Liam McArthur mentioned.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the most recent recorded crime in Scotland statistics, which showed a 22 per cent rise in crimes recorded under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 in a single year. (S6O-03710)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Domestic abuse is abhorrent. Although any case is unacceptable, the figures demonstrate that Police Scotland has been able to utilise the new domestic abuse offence powers proactively. I hope that that will further increase public confidence in reporting incidents of domestic abuse. I encourage anyone who is affected, whether they be a victim or a witness, to contact the police.

We are committed to working with a range of partners in the statutory and third sectors to tackle domestic abuse, bring perpetrators to justice and ensure that victims receive the support that they need. Our equally safe strategy, which is backed by annual funding of £19 million, aims to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls and focuses on early intervention, prevention and support.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Domestic abuse is an appalling crime that ruins so many lives in Scotland. The figures are shocking. Some 95 per cent of such crimes involve female victims. Current Scottish National Party Government policies are not protecting women sufficiently. I recently proposed the creation of a new violence against women unit in Police Scotland. Will the Government consider that proposal?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I am pleased to hear that Ms Gosal is meeting the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs next week. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would be happy to consider all proposals to make the lives of domestic abuse victims easier.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It is important to highlight the women whose courage has brought into the open the misogyny and sexism that underpin domestic violence against women and girls and still exist in society today. With that in mind, what can the Government and the Parliament do to change such societal attitudes?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The member raises a valid point. Those who perpetrate violence and abuse—the majority of whom are men—must change their actions and behaviour. It is only through fundamental societal change that women can be protected. We must root out and tackle the toxic masculinity and gender inequality that lead to violence, harassment, misogyny and abuse against women. We should stand against it and call it out whenever we see it.

As we announced in our programme for government, we will introduce a bill to create a new offence of misogynistic conduct. The bill will be informed by the report of the working group on misogyny and criminal justice and the subsequent consultation on draft legislative provisions to implement the report’s recommendations.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the renewables economy in the north-east of Scotland, including through the retraining of energy workers and enhancing supply chain development. (S6O-03711)

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

As our programme for government set out, the Scottish Government continues to take significant action to grow our renewables sector and to ensure a just transition. Through our just transition fund, we have already allocated £75 million to projects in the north-east and Moray, including £11 million for skills and retraining initiatives. We are investing up to £500 million over five years to anchor our offshore wind supply chain in Scotland. We are kick-starting that commitment with an investment of £67 million in the sector this financial year. Those investments form just part of the approach that we are setting out through our new “Green Industrial Strategy”, which was published yesterday, and the energy strategy and just transition plan, which we will publish shortly.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Instead of investing £460 million of ScotWind money in supply chain development and training in the north-east, which would have represented an investment for the next 30 years, the Scottish National Party Government has squandered it on simply getting through the next three months. The minister says that the position has been created by the United Kingdom Government, but he chooses to ignore the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Fraser of Allander Institute and Audit Scotland, all of which say that it is down to SNP incompetence.

Surely the minister cannot ignore the views of the Deputy First Minister, who, in the chamber on 27 March, told the finance secretary that she wanted to ensure that the Government would not lament the money raised through ScotWind being poured into the SNP’s black hole. Does he agree that the situation is indeed of the SNP’s own making?

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

Needless to say, all of that was nonsense. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

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

I say that because the United Kingdom Government itself has pointed to a black hole in its finances and has indicated that it intends to see things getting worse. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Again, let us hear one another.

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

As I have indicated, there is a very significant cut to our capital budgets in the coming years. If the member has any influence with the UK Government, he will perhaps indicate those facts to it and suggest that it might be better if things got a little better in the future rather than worse, particularly when Scotland is in a position of seeking to meet public sector pay deals and to provide public services in the teeth of austerity from the UK Government.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish National Party and Labour Governments are failing to support the oil and gas sector in the north-east. The SNP has a presumption against new oil and gas exploration, while Labour’s disastrous windfall tax will risk 35,000 jobs and wipe £13 billion of economic value off the sector. Neither Government has a plan for a just transition. Will the minister end the SNP’s attack on the oil and gas sector, stand up for the north-east and support the Scottish Conservatives’ plans to create a national centre for green jobs in Aberdeen, deliver a jobs-first transition and give everyone the right to retrain?

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

The Scottish Government is committed to giving people the right to retrain. As I have indicated, some of the areas in which the Scottish Government is active on that—not least in terms of the £500 million being allocated for offshore wind—

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

What about the presumption against oil and gas?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I would be grateful if members did not interrupt when people were speaking. In that way, we can all hear.

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

I presume that the member also does not want to hear about the £500 million just transition fund.

The Scottish Government appreciates the stresses that the north-east economy has experienced because of the changing situation in the North Sea basin and the changes that our economy will face. We are committed to reskilling and providing opportunities to people to make that transition a just transition into the future.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the latest achievement rates for modern apprenticeships across all frameworks. (S6O-03712)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Modern apprenticeship official statistics covering quarter 1 were published by Skills Development Scotland on 6 August. It is encouraging to see that the modern apprenticeship achievement rate is now 83.2 per cent, which is an increase of 5.7 percentage points, compared with the same quarter last year.

So far this year, just over 5,000 individuals have achieved their modern apprenticeship qualification, which is allowing them to continue progressing in high-quality employment opportunities within their chosen career path.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Housing is critical infrastructure. It is critical for achieving net zero, critical for economic growth and critical if we are going to tackle the housing emergency. The minister quotes the figures overall, but those are not the figures for the construction industry. The latest figures show that, of those who are in building modern apprenticeships, only 62 per cent left having completed their apprenticeship. That is down from 71 per cent seven years ago. What plans and targets does the Government have to correct that? Ultimately, we need to improve achievement rates if we are going to take growth, transition and tackling the housing emergency seriously.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I absolutely agree with Daniel Johnson on that point: we need to improve those numbers for that particular sector. We are working very closely with the Construction Industry Training Board, among others, to address some of the issues.

Daniel Johnson will be aware that there was an apprenticeship backlog emanating from the Covid pandemic. There have been issues about how we have addressed that, but considerable work is on-going in that regard and I am optimistic that that will be addressed. However, as I said, I absolutely agree with the point that he makes.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to protect the provision of instrumental music tuition in schools. (S6O-03713)

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

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

Local authorities are ultimately responsible for ensuring access to music tuition for pupils in schools across Scotland. The most recent instrumental music survey, which was published in December 2023, showed that the number of pupils participating in instrumental music tuition is at a record high since the survey began.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In East Ayrshire Council in my area, the plan is to move music tuition from local authority control to a trust. Concerns have been raised by constituents that the definition of “free tuition” pertains only to those in secondary 3 to 6 who are doing Scottish Qualifications Authority exams and whose tuition will remain within council control as statutory school education. Music tuition for those out of that cohort will not be deemed to be statutory education, so after being transferred to the trust it will be outwith the council’s control and therefore under threat.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that music tuition is a statutory service, that it should remain within council control and that it should be delivered by local authorities? Does she further agree that offering music education is crucial to a well-rounded education experience?

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

The member raises a really important point. I am aware of the issue in East Ayrshire. There is another local authority—I think it is Highland Council—that delivers music tuition in a similar way. Ultimately, it is a matter for East Ayrshire Council in setting its budget. It is ultimately responsible for ensuring access to free instrumental music tuition.

However, I accept the principle of the member’s question. I have asked my officials to engage directly with East Ayrshire Council and its proposals. It is really important that there is no dilution of young people’s access to free instrumental music tuition as a result of the changes. I am happy to keep the member updated on that engagement, and I will speak to my officials again directly in relation to the proposals.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent Centre for Social Justice report, “Where Have All the Children Gone?”, which found that there has been a 72 per cent increase in severe school absence rates in the last five years. (S6O-03714)

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

School attendance plays an essential role in supporting our children and young people to reach their full learning potential. Our own data on persistent absence, which was published in March, paints a concerning picture, and I have been clear that there must be a renewed drive across Government and our education agencies to address that and improve the situation.

I have tasked Education Scotland with working directly with directors of education to improve attendance as a matter of priority. Education Scotland launched an online package of support for schools only last month, which included guidance, professional learning and exemplification. The interim chief inspector is ensuring that persistent absence is addressed in every school inspection and is identifying successful approaches that can be shared more widely.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

“Severely absent” means children missing 50 per cent or more of classes. In Scotland, 20,000 children have avoided school for two or more days, and 3,000 primary school children missed 50 per cent or more in a school year. One in three children is persistently absent from school. That is a truly shocking picture.

Worse than those dire statistics is the fact that the Scottish Government has not bothered to monitor severe absence, which means that it has no idea of the true extent of the problem. So-called ghost children are out of sight, out of mind and abandoned by the Scottish National Party Government. Is it any wonder that Scottish education is crumbling under this inept SNP Government? Will the Scottish Government finally begin to collect information about children who are severely absent from school?

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

The member will recall that the children to whom he refers are those who lived through a global pandemic and lost out on two years—

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Dear, dear!

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

I hear heckling from the Conservatives. I am mindful that there is a school class right behind the Conservative benches today, and those young people—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the cabinet secretary.

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

Those young people had their education disrupted for two years. There has been an increase in anxiety, and there are a number of other reasons why young people might not be able to engage in their school education.

It is worth pointing out that a number of actions have been taken. I have been engaging with the member’s colleague Liam Kerr in relation to children who are persistently absent from school.

The challenge needs sustained effort, not just from Government but from local authorities, which have the statutory responsibility for ensuring that our young people attend school. Last year, I commissioned Education Scotland’s report, which was published in November and was focused on improving attendance. As part of our response to that report, and as I intimated in my initial response, I have tasked the interim chief inspector to work directly with directors of education. That includes ensuring that persistent absence is addressed in every school inspection.

We have asked for additional data.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Briefly, please, cabinet secretary.

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

The member speaks about missing children, but that is not how it is characterised in Scotland; our measures are quite different. However, we have added in a new data measurement, which specifically concerns persistent absence. That additional—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Cabinet secretary, I must ask you to conclude.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to strengthen its fair work first guidance to support and promote the good-practice example, referenced in the guidance, of providing a private, healthy and safe environment for breastfeeding mothers to express and store milk. (S6O-03715)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Our fair work first guidance provides good-practice examples of supporting women at work, including providing safe spaces for breastfeeding mothers. Parent Club, which is our national online parenting platform, provides practical advice and information on rights for breastfeeding mothers on returning to work.

I am happy to consider how best to provide advice to employers on supporting breastfeeding mothers in the workplace and to strengthen action, as required, to address labour market inequalities that are faced by women and other groups in our society.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I want to briefly share the experience of one of my constituents, who recently returned to work. She said that she was disappointed to find that the lactation room was being shared with blood donation and first aid. She added that there were overfilled yellow hazard bins and blood splatters on the pillows, and that the fridge that she was supposed to store her breast milk in was being used as a surface for blood collection. She felt that that was unhygienic and that it was a possible health and safety issue. When she raised the matter with her employer, she was told that it was that room or nothing. Thankfully, an office space has been reallocated for her.

Does the minister accept that, although there is existing guidance, some women are still not provided with a private, healthy and safe environment to express milk at work? Is he prepared to meet me to discuss how the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Act 2005 can be strengthened?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I recognise the concerning set of circumstances that Rachael Hamilton has narrated to Parliament. We are in a period of refreshing our fair work guidance. I am happy to take on board the issues that the member raises and I am more than happy to meet her to discuss them in more detail.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time.

First Minister’s Question Time

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to concentrate my first question today on the announcement this morning that the Grangemouth refinery will shut after 100 years of operation. The decision to close Scotland’s only refinery will see 400 jobs lost directly at Grangemouth. That is a devastating blow to the workforce, the Falkirk area and the entire Scottish economy.

Supporting the employees at this difficult time must be the priority of both of Scotland’s Governments. A PWC report that was published this morning says that the economic contribution of the refinery, supply chain and employee spending was £403.6 million in 2023 and that the refinery is estimated to support 2,800 jobs across Scotland. Will the First Minister outline his Government’s response to the announcement and say what support the Scottish Government will put in place to support the employees at this difficult time?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is a profoundly serious issue. My first thoughts at the outset of the handling of the issue are with the workforce, who will face great uncertainty as a consequence of the announcement that has been made this morning by Petroineos.

There has been extensive engagement and dialogue between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government with Petroineos about the issue. Both Governments have made the case for refining to be continued for as long as possible, and certainly not for the announcement to be made today that refining will end in quarter 2 of 2025. Mr Ross is correct: that will raise significant economic implications for Scotland. It was for that reason that I raised the issue in my first conversation with the Prime Minister after the election, on 5 July, and there has been good and sustained engagement with the UK Government on the question.

This morning, both Governments have announced the approval of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. That will see the investment of £100 million in the locality, which will provide assistance for it to recover from this significant economic shock. Secondly, immediate tailored career support for workers will be made available to support employees to find employment should they face those issues. Thirdly, there will be investment in the site’s long-term future. The Scottish Government and United Kingdom Government have jointly funded the project willow study, which has identified a shortlist of credible options to begin the building of a new long-term industry at the refinery site, including low-carbon hydrogen, clean e-fuels and sustainable aviation fuels.

We will put in all the effort that we can to support the workforce at this difficult and worrying time. There will be intense dialogue with the trade unions, the company and Falkirk Council on those questions. I give the Parliament the assurance that we will update members as the events take their course. The Government’s commitment to that and to working collaboratively with the United Kingdom Government is absolute. We will support the workers of Grangemouth in their time of need.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is right that the Parliament is united in supporting those workers at this difficult time. Scottish Conservative members for Central Scotland and, indeed, our entire group will work with both Governments to assist in any way that we can.

I will move to another issue that has been dominating many of the conversations that we have all been having with constituents in the past few weeks. The winter fuel payment, which was shamelessly cut by the Labour Government at Westminster, was devolved to the Scottish Government. In Scotland, the decision not to pay that money to pensioners is for the Scottish National Party Government. In announcing its decision to scrap the winter fuel payment, the SNP must have known the impact that that would have on 900,000 pensioners in Scotland. Labour said that that policy would kill thousands of pensioners across the United Kingdom. Due to our colder climate, a disproportionate number of those are likely to be in Scotland. Does the First Minister accept that his Government’s decision will lead to unnecessary deaths in Scotland? If so, how many?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I deeply regret the fact that the Scottish Government finds itself in this position. We fully expected the winter fuel payment to be devolved to the Scottish Government, and were planning to pay that support to pensioners in Scotland universally. That was our plan, and that is what we were working on. With 90 minutes’ notice, we were abruptly told that our budget would be cut by £160 million because of the United Kingdom Government’s decision. That is not of our making or planning, and it certainly is not our choice.

Mr Ross also knows that, once the Scottish Government has established a budget for the year, we cannot increase the size of that budget unless there are positive consequential funding decisions from the United Kingdom Government. In this case, we have had a negative consequential financial decision that cuts our budget by £160 million. I very much regret the fact that we will not be able to make those payments universally, but we have suffered a budget cut from the United Kingdom Government, and the Scottish Government is responding to that accordingly.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It was a straightforward question, so I will ask it again. Does John Swinney believe—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does John Swinney believe that, as a result of the decision that was taken by SNP ministers in Scotland, there will be unnecessary deaths? If so, how many? He must know. John Swinney also said that it was always the plan to continue to deliver the payment universally. That is not true. The Scottish Government’s response to the consultation on the pension age winter heating payment, which was published in May, long before the Labour Government’s announcement, said that it would

“continue to review the eligibility and scope of the pension age winter heating payment moving forward.”

The SNP was considering cutting that payment back in May. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is in black and white in its own document.

Politics is about choices, and John Swinney’s Government has chosen to pass on Labour cuts that could see 900,000 Scottish pensioners losing out. The SNP could have mitigated those cuts. It has a budget of more than £50 billion, and just this week—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Can we have a question, Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—the number in Scottish Government’s bloated civil service has reached a record high. Why are public sector pen-pushers more important to John Swinney than stopping pensioners from freezing in their homes?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In his last weeks in office as Conservative leader, Douglas Ross really is plumbing the depths in the questions that he puts in Parliament today. His interpretation of the document is, I think, a vindication of that comment.

Douglas Ross knows full well the way in which the Scottish Government’s finances operate. If we suffer a cut of £160 million in our budget courtesy of the Labour Government, we have to respond to that, and we have to act accordingly.

I need no lessons from Douglas Ross about mitigating decisions of the United Kingdom Government, because the Scottish Government is currently mitigating a series of decisions that were taken by Douglas Ross and his colleagues on an on-going basis on the bedroom tax and other measures. We picked up the pieces because of the odious decisions that were taken by the Conservative Government in London, so I will take no lessons from Douglas Ross on that point.

Douglas Ross says to me that there are choices. Of course there are choices. If we followed the Conservatives on what they have said about tax and spending, I would not be cutting the budget by £160 million—I would be cutting it by £2 billion, because that is the reality of the position that the Conservatives put to Parliament. I will take no lessons today from Douglas Ross, as he desperately clutches at straws in his last weeks in office.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Standing up for Scotland’s pensioners is not clutching at straws.

Is it not telling that John Swinney has now twice been asked how many in Scotland could die as a result of his policy, and he refuses to answer? It is in black and white that the SNP was considering that in May this year. The SNP repeatedly calls for more powers, but when it is given the chance to act, it runs in the opposite direction and blames Westminster.

Surely the point of devolution is to make different choices, especially when lives are at risk—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am finding it very difficult to hear, as I am sure other members are, too. Let us conduct ourselves in a courteous and respectful manner, and let us hear one another.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I was saying that surely the point of devolution is to make different choices, especially when lives are at risk. You cannot oppose Labour cuts at Westminster and simply pass them on at Holyrood by pretending that there is nothing that you can do about it.

Scotland is colder than the rest of the UK, and winter fuel payments must be an even greater priority here. The £160 million cost of the payments is just a fraction—0.3 per cent—of the Scottish Government’s £50 billion budget. Surely the SNP Government can find the money, if that is important to it. Why is keeping pensioners warm this winter not a priority for John Swinney?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Douglas Ross raised a question about the exercise of new powers. When this Government acquired new powers, we took decisions to, for example, ask higher earners in Scotland to contribute more in taxation. I think that that was the right decision to make, because it has enabled us to fund the expansion of early learning and childcare so that families across the country have the best childcare offering in the whole United Kingdom. I am very proud that our Government has put that in place.

That decision has also enabled us to spend more than £400 million on ensuring that we deliver the Scottish child payment, which is contributing—among other measures—to keeping 100,000 children out of poverty. Those are the choices that we have exercised as a Government, and I am very proud of them.

The difficulty that we face on the issue of winter fuel payments is that—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

That is not a priority for the Scottish Government.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Within this financial year, our budget is being cut at the same time as we are affording pay increases for public sector workers—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The point is about priorities.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—such as nurses, teachers—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

First Minister.

To be quite frank, members know that they are not conducting themselves in a courteous and respectful manner. Where there have been previous opportunities to put questions, I would ask members to focus and listen.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

At the same time as we have a budget cut of £160 million around winter fuel payments, we are affording more than £800 million to meet the additional costs of pay bills so that teachers, nurses and other members of the public services who are delivering vital services in our country—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

This is about pensioners.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Why are you still shouting at me, Mr Hoy? You have to listen to the Presiding Officer—[ Interruption .] You have to listen to the Presiding Officer, and stop behaving badly.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I assure the First Minister that I am wholly prepared to chair this meeting. I will not allow any members to shout at one another, so let us start to conduct ourselves in a manner that is appropriate for this Parliament.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In the financial year that we face, in which we have an acute budget cut in relation to the winter fuel payments, this Government has been left with no choice.

I will take absolutely no lessons from Douglas Ross, who supported every act of financial vandalism of the previous Conservative Government and every act of austerity that led to suffering among pensioners and families in our country. The Conservatives have no lessons to teach us.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

This morning, Petroineos confirmed its decision to decommission the refinery at Grangemouth. For the workforce, its families and the wider community, this will be a time of great anxiety.

Since the refinery closure was first proposed, Labour has called for both of Scotland’s Governments to get round the table to find solutions. That is why Keir Starmer raised the issue with the First Minister during his first visit to Scotland after the election, and that is why the clear message this morning is that the United Kingdom Labour Government is ready to support the workforce and secure a viable long-term future for the site. I am sure that the First Minister, like me, welcomes that assurance. Will he join me in committing to continue that work, with the UK Government, in the interests of the Grangemouth community and Scotland’s energy security?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very happy to give that confirmation to Parliament today. That has been the spirit in which the Scottish Government has operated since Petroineos raised the issues some months ago. There was sustained engagement before the change of Government in July and that has carried on under the new Government.

As I explained in my first answer to Mr Ross, this morning, the UK and Scottish Governments announced a series of measures that are designed to address the immediate issues. I assure Jackie Baillie that the Scottish Government will concentrate and focus on meeting the needs of the workforce at what I acknowledge will be an extremely worrying time.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I very much welcome that commitment from the First Minister.

The plan that was announced today delivers a £100 million fund to drive growth in Grangemouth and to support the workforce. There will be investment in new energy projects; a new technology centre to support the use of low-carbon technologies; career and skills support for the existing workforce; and an employment hub to support emerging energy sectors and explore potential opportunities for Labour’s national wealth fund in clean technologies, such as hydrogen and clean aviation fuel.

All that has been pulled together in the first nine weeks of a UK Labour Government, and it gives hope that there will be a strong industrial energy future at Grangemouth. I welcome the joint investment by both Governments. Does the First Minister agree that that shows how the people of Scotland benefit from the Labour Government’s approach, which is one of co-operation rather than conflict?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As a matter of fact—I have to be absolutely fair on this question—there was a lot of dialogue with the previous Conservative Government on the issue. The issue has been taken seriously by the United Kingdom Government of whatever colour, and it has certainly been taken deadly seriously by the Scottish Government.

The project willow study, which is a really important part of research about viable alternatives for development of the site, predates the existing UK Government, but I am glad that it has been supported as a consequence of the announcements today.

I very much agree about the basis of co-operation. It is no secret that the Scottish Government would like the United Kingdom Government to move faster on the authorising of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. It has been of deep concern to me that promises about the authorisation of that scheme, which ministers in the previous United Kingdom Government made to me directly, have not been fulfilled. I feel deeply let down by the fact that that has not happened. Promises were given but not fulfilled.

I have made the point to the Prime Minister that an early authorisation of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project would be a significant boost to the efforts to find new opportunities at the Grangemouth site. I hope that the United Kingdom Government is listening carefully to the words that I am saying to Parliament today.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I think that the First Minister will find that the UK Labour Government has been not only been listening carefully but acting in the interests of the people of Scotland. The new national wealth fund did not exist before the Labour Government came to power, and that can make change happen.

A UK Labour Government working with the Scottish Government is part of the promise that we made to Scots at the general election. Labour made a commitment that we would not leave communities behind. That is why we have got on with passing the legislation to set up Great British energy; awarding a record-breaking number of clean energy contracts; announcing the £100 million support package for Grangemouth alongside the Scottish Government; protecting Scotland’s industrial base; securing the well-paid jobs of the future—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

—and delivering the transition to net zero.

The new consensus does not appear to have lasted long on the Scottish National Party back benches.

There is more that we could and should be doing here in Scotland. It has taken three years for the SNP to publish a green industrial strategy. Although I welcome the enthusiasm with which the First Minister has engaged with the UK Labour Government in the past few weeks, does he agree that, to deliver new investment, good jobs and energy security for Scotland, we need to step up action here as well?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is plenty of action on green energy and green opportunities in Scotland. One of my first engagements as First Minister was to announce the investment at the Ardersier port near Inverness. That was followed by the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy announcing the investment at Sumitomo in Nigg, which is another formidable investment in the renewables sector. On Monday, I had the pleasure of being in Buckie to inaugurate the operations and maintenance facility of Ocean Winds, which is leading the development of the Moray East and Moray West offshore wind farms. That is all happening on the watch of the Scottish Government, and I am delighted that it is happening.

Jackie Baillie is right that we must intensify the pace, which is why the green industrial strategy has been published. We would also be helped if we had control over the £150 million war chest that the Secretary of State for Scotland apparently has at his disposal. If the funding arrangements were working properly, we would have the money here for us to invest in the Scottish economy, to accelerate developments and, perhaps, to put even more than we have already have into the carbon capture and storage project that I was talking about a moment ago.

I am all for working together, but let us make sure that we have the resources here to end austerity, which would allow us to invest in the economy.

While we are on the subject of promises and what has been delivered by the Labour Government, Labour promised that it would reduce people’s fuel bills by £300, but they are going to go up by £149 on average. That is not the change that people in Scotland voted for.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I certainly agree with the First Minister and others that our thoughts today must be with the workforce and the community affected by the announcement about Grangemouth. However, the truth is that the Government has been well aware for years that Grangemouth urgently needed a just transition plan, and yesterday’s so-called “Green Industrial Strategy” contained nothing new to achieve a fair transition away from polluting industries.

The workforce and the community have been failed by the private owners, but they have also been failed by both Governments. Why has the Scottish Government produced a green industrial strategy that looks like it was written by oil and gas lobbyists and that contains no transition plan for Grangemouth?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I welcome the comments that Mr Harvie has put on the record about the workforce at Grangemouth—[ Interruption .]

I say to the Conservatives that I do not think that the hardship that is faced by the employees at Grangemouth is a laughing matter, to be honest. I welcome Mr Harvie’s comments about the workforce because it is important that Parliament acts with solidarity when members of the public face difficulties.

In relation to the green industrial strategy, the first of the five opportunity areas in the strategy is about investment in the wind industry, which is a formidable contributor to that strategy. I know that Mr Harvie takes a different view from the Government on carbon capture and storage, but that is also an important element of our strategy, as is the development of financial products that will enable investment in the self-sustaining renewable energy industries that I have talked about, and the development of hydrogen-related possibilities, which have enormous significance, along with the export potential that can arise out of the investment that we are making in offshore wind.

I hope that that detail gives Mr Harvie confidence that the green industrial strategy is meeting the needs of the workforce at Grangemouth and that it also applies across the Scottish economy by providing new opportunities for transition.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The news about Grangemouth this week makes it all the more important that the Government is truly honest about its climate action. However, the Government did not even want to tell Parliament about its legally required plan to make up for its missed targets. It slipped it out on Friday with no debate, no statement to Parliament and not even a press release about that legally required report.

No wonder that the Government is embarrassed by it. It is supposed to show what new climate action it will take to make up for falling further behind on the climate, but it contains no new policy whatsoever. That comes after it has spent the past few weeks abandoning policies that the Greens achieved in Government: it has raided the nature restoration fund and the ScotWind money, and it is planning a big increase in rail fares, which the Greens had cut.

How can the Government publish that report with no new policy in it and still expect to be taken seriously as it is rushing through a new climate bill that kicks this ever more urgent issue into ever longer grass?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is important that we look at all the detail that is relevant in this area. For example, in the programme for government that I announced last Wednesday, we set out our investment programme for a just transition fund in the north-east and in Moray, and we set out our plans to significantly enhance the Scotland’s capacity to generate renewable energy. We have made formidable progress on the decarbonisation of electricity since this Government came to power and achieved significant improvements in that process. The programme for government includes material about the restoration of 10,000 hectares of degraded peatland and the creation of 10,000 hectares of woodlands. A variety of other measures in the programme for government also support our work on climate change.

I want to be crystal clear to Mr Harvie that the Government is absolutely committed to the journey that we have to take on climate. That commitment has underpinned our activities since we came to office in 2007, and it will underpin our activities in the years to come.

The transition has to be made, and it has to made fairly for all communities involved. That is the approach that the Scottish Government will take.

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

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to improve the planning and consenting regime for renewable energy generation can support the journey to net zero. (S6F-03346)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Robust and timely planning and consenting of renewable energy projects and infrastructure are key to growing our economy and delivering on our net zero commitments.

The steps that we take in relation to providing clarity and confidence to support renewables development and investment are critical to enabling Scotland’s transition to net zero. That is why I set out in the programme for government last week a set of actions to deliver the improvements that we need to see in the current regime. Those include establishing Scotland’s first ever planning hub to build capacity and skills in planning teams, with an initial focus on hydrogen applications; making consenting faster and more consistent for proposals for projects over 50MW; introducing new guidance for transmission developments; and updating our marine planning framework.

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

The green industrial strategy will be key in the context of Scotland’s drive to net zero by 2045 and promoting a just transition. How will the actions that are set out in that strategy help Scotland to secure growth and investment?

Net zero also goes beyond renewable energy. What details can the First Minister give about what is contained in the strategy that will support the decarbonisation of the built environment and the construction sector, given that they generate 40 per cent of emissions?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Doris makes a number of important points on the green industrial strategy and the steps that we have to take. As I outlined in my answer to Patrick Harvie, there are five key opportunity areas in which we need to take further action on the transition in relation to investment, innovation and entrepreneurship in a number of sectors: wind, carbon capture and storage, professional financial services, hydrogen and clean industries. We already have formidable leadership in that area, but Mr Doris is right to raise the construction sector and the need for it to reduce its emissions. We are working on decarbonisation in collaboration with the construction sector, through the Construction Leadership Forum and its codes, which set out agreed actions on decarbonisation.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am keen to allow as many members as possible to ask supplementary questions, if we can keep those concise.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The north-east is experiencing a dramatic increase in new transmission infrastructure to serve offshore wind. The affected communities deserve proper consultation, but that has been far from what has happened. For residents who bear the brunt of the new infrastructure, it feels like an unfair and unjust transition. As the Scottish Government looks to improve the planning and consenting regime for renewables—which the First Minister described as “making consenting faster”—is the First Minister willing to meet community representatives and campaigners to listen to their concerns and ensure that they are not left behind?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is important that there is high-quality community engagement on all developments of any nature. If those who are taking forward developments engage in good dialogue and engagement with individual communities, that helps to make the consenting and planning process more efficient.

I am familiar with the issues that Tess White raises, and I am sure that ministers would be happy to meet campaigners. Of course, ministers have to be careful about engaging on particular developments because of the need to observe the ministerial code in taking decisions on such questions.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome the fact that the Government seeks to make consenting faster, because the First Minister is aware that delays have affected such things as the Berwick Bank offshore wind project. In his role as First Minister, will he facilitate a meeting on the Eskdalemuir seismic array in Dumfries and Galloway, which is causing problems for Community Windpower’s development there?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On individual applications, I generally take the view that I will not say anything in Parliament, because that keeps me on the right side of the ministerial code. I am not sure of the status of the application that Mr Whitfield has raised, but I will take it away and consider whether it is appropriate for ministers to engage. I do not know the stage of that application, and it would be careless of me to say otherwise.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Shetland is the windiest part of the country so, for obvious reasons, it attracts both onshore and offshore wind developments. Islanders are aware of the contributions that such projects make to reaching net zero, but there is a view that onshore developments should not be built near existing properties and communities. Does the First Minister recognise the concerns about the proximity of wind turbines to homes and the impact of turbine noise and shadow flicker? What can the Scottish Government do in terms of planning and consent to ensure a specified minimum distance between properties and future onshore wind developments?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the significance of the issues that Beatrice Wishart has put to me. My view is that the issues that she raises should be properly and fully considered in any planning process. I am happy to consider whether enhancements to the process need to be undertaken to provide the reassurance that she seeks.

From some of the dialogue that I have had with representatives of the community in Shetland, I am also conscious of some of the concerns that are raised about developments and about the relationship between power generation in the Shetland Islands and the cost of energy for local residents, which I recognise as a very significant issue.

I am happy to have further dialogue with Beatrice Wishart on that question.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to recent reports regarding Police Scotland’s policy on gender self-identification for individuals charged with or convicted of serious sexual assaults. (S6F-03340)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is clear that violence against women and girls is abhorrent. Through our equally safe strategy, we aim to prevent and tackle such violence and abuse and to address the underlying attitudes and behaviours that perpetuate the violence that too many experience.

It is only through fundamental societal change that women can be protected. The Parliament is well aware that the Scottish Government does not determine or interfere with operational matters of Police Scotland, which is accountable to the Scottish Police Authority and not to ministers.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

In a letter to a Holyrood committee, Police Scotland said that it would allow a serious sex offender to self-declare their gender. That opens the door to a grotesque situation in which a male rapist can demand to be called a woman and further traumatise his victim. Echoing the language of the Scottish National Party, Police Scotland said that that was “consistent” with its values and promotes

“a strong sense of belonging.”

That is an insult to the victims of rape and serious assault. The only strong sense that that should inspire is disgust. Does the First Minister agree with me and women across Scotland that male rapists should not get their own way, or is he content to let another Isla Bryson situation happen?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me be absolutely crystal clear with Parliament. I have never in my life believed, nor will I ever believe, that a male rapist should, in the words of Rachael Hamilton, get his way. I will not be associated with that language. Our law and legal framework make that abundantly clear.

In relation to the specific question about the guidance from Police Scotland, those are operational matters for Police Scotland. There would be outrage if I were to interfere in the actions and decision making of Police Scotland. The law is clear that I cannot do that. I am sure that Police Scotland will have heard the exchanges in Parliament today and will consider the issues, if there are any that it wishes to address.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Behind the recording of crime statistics are real victims, such as the women who had to sit through court proceedings last year and hear the rapist referred to as a woman. I do not think that the First Minister can ignore responsibility. As Rachael Hamilton said, Police Scotland has said that that is consistent with its values, but the Government needs to be clear whether it is consistent with the Government’s values. If a message is to go from the First Minister today, does it not make a mockery of the Government’s violence against women strategy if violent male offenders can present as women and that could be accepted by the police? It is that critical.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government’s strategy in relation to the tackling of violence against women is absolutely crystal clear that there is no place for violence against women in our society. The perpetrators of that violence must be confronted with and held to account for their behaviour. That is the foundation of our legal system.

Pauline McNeill is an experienced commentator and parliamentarian on issues in relation to justice policy. She knows that I cannot interfere in the operational business of Police Scotland. The law prevents me from doing so. However, the issues have been aired in Parliament today, and Police Scotland will have the opportunity to consider them.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

Just to further underline the issue that we are discussing, stories have been running in the media this year discussing the increase in “women” committing sex crimes, when the reality is that those crimes are committed by men and are being recorded as women’s crimes. That is offensive to women, and it is grossly disrespectful to the victims of those crimes. Why are Scottish institutions still acting as if self-identification is the law when it is not?

Institutions, however, have legal obligations, through the public sector equality duty, to record sex accurately. Will the First Minister show leadership and address this horrible situation urgently?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In the most recent year for which published data is available—2021-22—in all convictions of rape or attempted rape, the crimes were perpetrated by males. That is a statement of fact in relation to the most recent data that is available.

I acknowledge the concerns that are being expressed in the Parliament today, but I return to the fundamental point that the recording of information on those who commit crime is an operational matter for Police Scotland. It must be accountable for the decisions that it takes, and it is not for the First Minister to interfere or specify in operational matters of Police Scotland.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking in response to the reported rise in hospice care costs, including to ensure that employees in that sector have pay parity with NHS staff. (S6F-03333)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Independent hospices are highly valued and provide vital support to people and their families, as well as supporting other local health and social care services and teams delivering palliative care. I understand the pressures that hospices are currently facing, and the Scottish Government strives to support independent hospices where possible.

There has been engagement and dialogue with the hospice sector, and the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health is meeting Hospice UK and the chair of the Scottish hospice leadership group next week to discuss support options in more detail.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Given that hospice care is so valued, does the First Minister recognise that urgent action is needed? The sector is under serious financial constraints, with threats of closures. The Government must ensure that the hospice workforce does not conclude that it is undervalued and leave the sector. Hospices simply cannot take that impact. What action will the First Minister take today—right now—to reassure hospices and the workforce?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me make it clear that I deeply value, and the Government deeply values, the work of the hospice sector. I understand the financial challenges that are faced because of the wider pay deals that are being put in place or consulted on in relation to the agenda for change, and that creates difficulties for the hospice sector. There is ministerial engagement to address those questions, and that will be taken forward as a consequence of the points that have been raised by Carol Mochan.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In 2012, ministers put in place a chief executive letter for hospices across Scotland. That resulted in a welcome situation, with the Government and the hospices mutually agreeing a funding calculation of 50 per cent of agreed costs. Since the integration of health and social care, the letter is now not taken into account and that figure has collapsed to around 25 to 28 per cent of costs for hospices across Scotland. That needs to change. What future models of funding will the Scottish Government look at to ensure that we have a built-in mechanism to take into account the increased pay and additional costs that the whole hospice sector faces?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Miles Briggs is correct that the arrangements that were previously in place were superseded by the introduction of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. As a consequence of the act, it became the responsibility of integration joint boards to plan and resource adult palliative care services, including hospice services, for their area, based on local need. That is now the route by which the funding arrangements are resolved.

We will continue to engage on these questions to determine what is the best approach to take to meet local needs, which will vary in different parts of the country. The minister’s meeting next week will provide us with the opportunity to reflect further on the questions.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

My thoughts are first and foremost with the workers at the refinery in Grangemouth, for whom today’s announcement will be a shock, if not a surprise. I am also mindful of the community, for whom a just transition will feel too far away. As a constituency MSP, I will do everything in my power to sustain the life of the refinery and to ensure that it and the important chemical cluster around it can be supported.

I note that the £100 million that has been quoted by the United Kingdom Government and the Labour Party includes £80 million that was already agreed as part of the growth deal for the wider Falkirk district, which included £50 million from the Scottish Government, and that those funds will not be solely focused on Grangemouth.

However, I can today make members aware that I have been working with a third party that hopes to purchase the refinery in its entirety. The matter is, of course, commercially sensitive and confidential, but will the First Minister meet me so that I can share what information I can, with the permission of the potential buyer?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy to do so. This is an unnerving time for the workforce and it is important that we all act to ensure that there are good and positive opportunities for members of staff as they face such an anxious time. I am happy to explore all possibilities, but I reiterate what I have already put on the record today, which is that the Scottish Government stands to support the workforce at Grangemouth to find the best way forward in difficult circumstances.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that the Commonwealth games will no longer be taking place in Australia in 2026. However, Australia has offered £100 million to underwrite the cost of the games if they come to Scotland and a further £50 million is available from ticket sales and sponsorship. There is also a guarantee from the Commonwealth games council that the games will be fully funded without the need for any Scottish Government intervention.

Does the First Minister agree that bringing the games back to Scotland would be fantastic in promoting Scotland to the world and highlighting sporting excellence to the Scottish public?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We all have fond memories of the Commonwealth games in 2014, which were a marvellous spectacle, but it is important that everyone who is considering and discussing the issue is aware that the proposal that is being brought forward would not replicate the Commonwealth games of 2014, but would be a significantly reduced proposition in comparison.

There are also practical issues about the length of the preparatory time for the games. We had seven years to prepare for 2014, but there is just short of two years to prepare for any games in 2026. There are, of course, significant financial issues and Mr Whittle knows the pressures on the public purse at this time.

Discussions are under way with Commonwealth Games Scotland. The Government is engaging in good faith and will continue to do so.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The link between population growth and economic growth is of particular importance in the region that I represent. Keir Starmer has said that he wants to work on common ground with the Scottish Government. What indication has the First Minister had from the United Kingdom Government that it will devolve powers to this Parliament so that a rural visa pilot can be taken forward for sectors such as social care and hospitality?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have put that proposition to ministers in the United Kingdom Government and discussed it specifically with the Deputy Prime Minister when she visited me in the summer.

As Emma Roddick will know from her constituency experience, there are acute shortages of workers in a number of sectors and a rural visa pilot would help us to address some of the challenges that exist in the Highlands and Islands, and which she fairly puts to me. I assure Emma Roddick that the Scottish Government is pressing the UK Government to act on those issues because, if it did, that would contribute towards stimulating further economic growth in Scotland, which I think we would all welcome.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the public gallery to do so before the next debate begins.

The Late Rev John Ainslie

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-13909, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the late Rev John Ainslie. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises the enormous contribution to the debate on nuclear weapons that was made by the late Reverend John Ainslie in the Glasgow Anniesland constituency, the Parliament and throughout Scotland; celebrates the publication, in an accessible and searchable digital form, of the archive of all of his reports by the Nuclear Information Service, and welcomes the return of the physical papers for safekeeping by the National Library of Scotland.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Today, we are here to recognise the remarkable contributions of the late Rev John Ainslie to the debate on nuclear weapons. John was not just a leading figure in Scotland’s anti-nuclear movement; he was someone whose life’s work and deep commitment to peace profoundly shaped the discourse on disarmament here and abroad. I hope that his legacy will be honoured not only in words but in actions as we go forward. Although today’s debate pays tribute to John’s invaluable work, it also provides an opportunity to renew our commitment to nuclear disarmament and to a nuclear-free Scotland.

I welcome to the public gallery representatives of the Nuclear Information Service and the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Their efforts are vital, given the continued existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons here in Scotland and around the world. The Nuclear Information Service plays an essential role in the on-going effort towards nuclear disarmament, as it provides rigorous and reliable information on the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons programme. It is through such efforts that we can engage in informed debates and challenge the dangerous and costly status quo of nuclear armament.

After the debate, there will be a meeting of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament and, later, an event at the National Library of Scotland to celebrate the return of the John Ainslie archives. That event will feature a panel discussion with Scottish CND, the Nuclear Information Service and journalist Rob Edwards, and it will further highlight the importance of the Rev John Ainslie’s work.

John’s life was a journey defined by courage and conviction. Born in Aberdeenshire, he joined the Army in 1971 and studied international relations, becoming a junior officer. However, by 1980, his conscience led him to resign his commission, as a conscientious objector, and he became a passionate advocate for nuclear disarmament. On returning to Scotland, he pursued a degree in divinity and joined the Church of Scotland as a youth worker, while also emerging as a prominent figure in the disarmament movement.

In 1992, as the co-ordinator of Scottish CND, John made headlines by protesting against the arrival on the Clyde of the first submarine armed with Trident nuclear missiles. He did so with action, not just words, by paddling a canoe to confront the submarine—an act of bravery that led to his arrest by Ministry of Defence police. That moment symbolised his unwavering commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons.

John combined rigorous academic inquiry with grass-roots activism, which ensured that his contributions had both intellectual and practical impacts. He famously coined the phrase “Bairns not bombs”, which is a powerful slogan that captures his vision of investing in our children and communities rather than in weapons of mass destruction. That simple yet profound message continues to resonate today as we advocate for a nuclear-free future.

The reports and research that the Rev John Ainslie produced, now digitised by the Nuclear Information Service, remain vital in shaping international discourse on nuclear weapons. Those documents are living tools that continue to inform global efforts towards nuclear disarmament, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The return of those original documents to Scotland’s National Library is more than symbolic; it is a reaffirmation of Scotland’s role in the global peace movement.

Nuclear disarmament is not just an idealistic goal; it is a practical necessity. Nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to humanity. Their use, whether by design, accident or miscalculation, would have catastrophic consequences, and it is our moral duty to work relentlessly to eliminate those weapons from our world.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021, represents a historic step forward. Supported by a growing number of nations, the treaty explicitly bans the development, testing, production and possession of nuclear weapons. Scotland, through its people and its leaders, has consistently supported the treaty and the broader movement for disarmament, and John’s work laid much of the groundwork for that support.

However, significant challenges remain. Nuclear-armed states, including the UK, continue to resist such efforts, and they often cite deterrence as a justification. However, the doctrine of deterrence is fundamentally flawed. It perpetuates a cycle of fear and insecurity and increases the risk of nuclear conflict.

For as long as the UK maintains its nuclear arsenal on Scottish soil, we find ourselves complicit in that dangerous status quo. Yet Scotland has the potential to be a beacon of hope and a nation that leads by example, by advocating for disarmament and striving for a future where bairns not bombs is a reality.

As we honour the life and legacy of the late John Ainslie, let us commit ourselves to continuing his work. Let us strive for a Scotland and a world where peace, justice and human dignity are not overshadowed by the threat of nuclear weapons. John’s example inspires us to challenge the status quo and to work tirelessly for a safer and fairer future. Let us use this moment to act, to renew our dedication to nuclear disarmament and to build a future where our children inherit a world free from the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am pleased to speak in this important debate, which I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for bringing to the chamber. His commitment to nuclear disarmament is well documented. He is the co-president of the global organisation Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, and I applaud him for his unstinting work to get rid of the abomination of nuclear weapons from Scotland’s shores and from the world.

I also applaud the subject of today’s debate, the Rev John Ainslie. As we have heard, he was a son of the manse in Aberdeenshire who joined the Army in 1971, studied international relations at Keele University in Staffordshire and became a junior officer. By 1980, he had fallen out with the Army and resigned his commission, as a conscientious objector, and he became an active campaigner. After paying back his university fees to the Army, he undertook a divinity degree and entered the ministry of the Church of Scotland as a youth worker. He was one of Scotland’s foremost disarmament campaigners, along with the late Canon Kenyon Wright.

In 1992, when the first submarine armed with Trident nuclear missiles arrived in the Clyde, John—by then the co-ordinator of Scottish CND—was in a canoe buzzing the submarine when he was arrested by the MOD police. As we have heard, John did not just pay lip service to disarmament; he acted with bravery, and his arrest was a watershed moment in highlighting the absurdity of these weapons of mass destruction.

The Scottish National Party has a long-standing commitment to ridding our shores and the world of nuclear weapons. Until today’s debate, I did not realise that the oft-used phrase “Bairns not bombs” was coined by John Ainslie. For me, that slogan says it all. We want our children to grow up without the threat of nuclear weapons. Scotland does not want them; they have no place here. I have been a lifelong supporter of nuclear disarmament, having visited Faslane and Greenham Common back in the day. In fact, I think that I still have the “Protest and survive” badges and other memorabilia from then, which I am keeping to pass on to my grandchildren.

The money that is spent on these useless weapons is staggering. We could use that money in so many ways to build a fairer, greener Scotland. For me, their presence here is symbolic of having paid no heed to what the majority of Scots want and believe. Nuclear weapons are morally reprehensible. As Bill Kidd said, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021, represents a historic step forward, along with the research produced by John Ainslie, which is now digitised by the Nuclear Information Service.

I again thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate. I thank all peace-loving citizens and organisations for their work to end the abomination of nuclear weapons. The most fitting tribute to John Ainslie would be to rid the beautiful shores of Scotland of them—something that I am confident will happen when we are an independent country.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I, too, congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing this debate to the chamber. He and I have spoken in numerous debates on issues such as this one over the years.

I might be a strange choice to speak in this debate, for a number of reasons. I am an MSP with a keen interest in the work of our armed forces; I have the Faslane nuclear base in my parliamentary region, which I have visited multiple times; and I would describe myself as a supporter of our continuous at-sea deterrent. However, I would like to think that the Rev John Ainslie, if he was here, would cherish this debate and all speakers’ participation in it. I have much that is positive to say about his work, even if he and I would perhaps have disagreed eye to eye on some of the substantive issues. The underlying premise of his desire for peace across the world is one that I hope we all share, irrespective of our views.

The Rev John Ainslie was co-ordinator of Scottish CND from 1991, when I was just 11, right through until his untimely death in 2016. In doing my research for this debate, I was interested to read that he trained to be an officer in the 1970s and he completed a degree in international relations, specialising in NATO’s nuclear strategy. He went on to serve in our armed forces in Ireland. I am reliably told that he possibly even worked in military intelligence, although I am not sure about the truth of that. Famously, he left as a conscientious objector, and he suffered and paid a price as a result of that. He faced tribunals and was forced to pay back some of his university fees.

At the time when Vanguard, which was the first of the Trident submarines, sailed up the Clyde, right in front of my home town of Greenock, he led a flotilla of around 50 small craft, with swimmers and canoeists in the water. The sight of that huge submarine of mass destruction alongside the tiny canoes and the swimmers must have been an iconic vision of that epoch.

In his many reports, which were very well received as being evidence based and well argued, he aimed to persuade the public of his convictions. Whether one agreed with his work or not, he provided a significant base of information about Britain’s nuclear capabilities. Indeed, I would go as far as saying that it enriched the debate on Britain’s nuclear deterrent. They are weapons of mass death and destruction. He was right about that. Of course, some would argue that that is their very purpose.

His campaign was born in a very different world. Let us look back to 1992, when his first report was published. The cold war was just over, the Berlin wall had just come down and the USSR had just collapsed. There was a feeling that a united Europe was giving way to a more united world. There was optimism at the time that the move towards an anti-nuclear world was gaining momentum and that disarmament would be universal.

However, that optimism and that sense of global unity have not lasted or stood the test of time. I believe that we are now in a far more dangerous and perhaps volatile world than we were in in those days. I think that the on-going conflicts in Ukraine and the middle east and the tensions in the Taiwan Strait and elsewhere reinforce the role that Britain plays in global affairs and the support that we give to and receive from our global allies. The nuclear deterrent is undoubtedly part of that. However, what the Rev John Ainslie did was challenge its existence through substance. He scrutinised the standards of the deterrent and challenged the risks associated with it. The many reports, which I do not have time to go into, were fascinating to read, and I look forward to seeing the archive at the National Library of Scotland.

I would even argue that the UK’s deterrent, as it is today, is all the safer as a result of much of the work that those who opposed its existence did. That work is clearly on-going, and those in the public gallery today are testament to that. Bill Kidd summed it up nicely. The Rev John Ainslie challenged the status quo. He asked difficult questions of people in power—perhaps questions that no one else was asking at the time—about the price of security, the meaning of deterrence, the legalities around its potential use and the realities of our global capabilities and those of our allies and our opponents. I believe that we are all safer for some of that research and work.

He made his arguments not through the prism of ideology, but through research and thought-provoking analysis, and he was never afraid to question the safety or indeed the costs of our nuclear deterrent. One thing that I am sad about is that he is not here to participate in this debate. Nonetheless, the movement, his friends, his family and those who continue to fly the flag for him, including Bill Kidd, who I have much respect for, keep alive his cause and the memory of those bold figures of the early CND who were never afraid to challenge the status quo. We should never be afraid to challenge the status quo, and that is something that we should all cherish in a democracy such as ours.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Bill Kidd for leading the debate on a motion that celebrates the life and work of John Ainslie. Last month marked the 30th anniversary of a publication that I do not think is in the archive. It is a pamphlet that John and I co-authored—a coproduction between the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Scottish Trades Union Congress: “Trident—Not Safe, Not Economic, Not Wanted” is its title. In it, we exposed the huge hidden costs of Trident and exposed the huge safety risk that it posed to the whole of central Scotland. It is a piece of work, three decades on, that I am proud of, not only because we were on the right side of the biggest moral question of our age—and I still firmly believe that to be true—but precisely because I worked on it with John. We would meet at 15 Barrland Street, on the south side of Glasgow, and at 16 Woodlands Terrace, in the grandeur of the STUC’s offices, with its views redolent of the cityscapes of Oscar Marzaroli.

John’s job title at Scottish CND at that time was administrator, but John Ainslie was no bureaucrat. He was an activist, a thinker, a campaigner, a writer, a protester, and a man of the highest principles. Just listen to his simple, but arresting, opening line in that pamphlet:

“A Trident submarine is designed to destroy a continent and to kill 200 million people.”

In the ensuing years, he became an internationally respected authority on nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament, and no one knew more about the road convoys of warheads that were travelling through Scotland than John. Acutely aware of the dangers, the risks, the hazards—the unintended consequences—as well as the illegal and immoral intended ones, of the nuclear arsenal on our doorstep, he warned that central Scotland, from the Clyde to the Forth, could become a desert because he knew that a nuclear war could start by intent, but it could also start by accident.

The replacement of Polaris with Trident was controversial on its own terms. By 1994, when we wrote the pamphlet, according to the National Audit Office, there had already been an £800 million overspend, but Trident did not just bring about the proliferation of public money—it brought about the proliferation of public terror and, of course, it brought about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Now, 30 years later, we are drifting towards Trident’s replacement with the Dreadnought programme. We are doing that

“in conjunction with the United States”,

we are told, working closely to ensure that it is it is compatible with the Trident strategic weapon system. In other words, we remain a client state to the US, and this at a time when we know that there is a possibility of the return of Donald Trump to the White House.

Looking back 30 years ago, at the time I wrote:

“Trident is a triumph of the military complex over the needs of the impoverished. It is a triumph of foreign policy over social and industrial policy.”

I stand by those statements. I cannot think of a better time to launch John Ainslie’s archive than now, because he did ask the critical questions. He pioneered the use of freedom of information laws in search of truth and transparency. What better way to honour his memory than to continue with his work?

Finally, John knew that nuclear weapons do not bring stability; that they corrode the very foundations of our civilisation; that if we do not destroy these weapons of mass destruction, they will destroy us. I remain an inveterate and unrepentant supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament. In John’s memory, we rededicate ourselves today to that great cause.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, to respond to the debate.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am delighted and honoured to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. I sincerely thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion and I express my appreciation to him and the wider cross-party working group on nuclear disarmament for their continued work on this important issue.

I realise that I am at risk of repeating some of what has already been said, but it is important to begin by recognising the work and the legacy of the subject of Bill Kidd’s motion and the debate, namely that of the Rev John Ainslie, who sadly and prematurely passed away in 2016 after a battle with cancer. Today’s debate is a testament to his years of campaigning and his research on nuclear weapons and disarmament.

As others have mentioned, he was a former British Army intelligence officer. He worked tirelessly for many years as part of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he was appointed its co-ordinator in 1992. That was also the year of the first of the Rev John Ainslie’s 20 reports on nuclear policy, the last of which was published in 2016. The reports covered a range of issues, including the practicalities of British nuclear disarmament and Scotland’s contribution to it, the costs and risks of the UK’s nuclear weapons modernisation programme and the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom.

In addition to authoring reports, the Rev John Ainslie collected a vast number of documents—more than 3,000 of them—primarily related to the UK Government’s nuclear weapons programme. It is fitting that this debate is taking place on the day when we celebrate the return of that archive to Scotland, with events here in Parliament and at the National Library of Scotland, including an exhibition of some of the original documents. The whole of the collection is being added to the National Library. All those who are involved in digitising the archive and returning the physical files to Scotland for permanent storage are to be commended.

I will briefly reflect on members’ contributions, and I begin with Bill Kidd. I think that everybody in the chamber, regardless of their views on nuclear disarmament, unilateral or multilateral—I think, or certainly hope, that we are all committed to one or the other—would agree that Bill has been an unceasing campaigner for nuclear disarmament and that he deserves recognition from us all. Some years ago, I was pleased to be able to attend the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons with him, and I can attest to his deep commitment to the issue.

Rona Mackay rightly reminded us all of the phrase “Bairns not bombs”, which many of us have had on bumper stickers and which we closely associate with the feeling of relative priorities when it comes to nuclear weapons against social policy.

I have to say how gracious and thoughtful Jamie Greene was to make the contribution that he made. Notwithstanding the differences that he has with those of us who support a different approach to nuclear disarmament, he found a way of graciously marking his respect for John Ainslie without taking issue with his commitment to how we can secure a more peaceful world.

On the joint publication that Richard Leonard co-wrote with John Ainslie 30 years ago—Richard must have been a very young man then—I hope that, if it is not already in the National Library, it will be. I encourage him to check the inventory there—let us make sure that that is part of the wider collection.

The Scottish Government’s position on nuclear weapons is clear and long standing. We are firmly opposed to the possession, the threat and the use of nuclear weapons. They are strategically and economically wrong, undiscriminating and devastating in their impact. Their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage.

It is worth noting that every single signatory of the non-proliferation treaty—all states, including the United Kingdom—is publicly committed to nuclear disarmament. Frankly, we should get on with it. The Scottish Government has consistently expressed a commitment to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland in the safest and most expeditious manner possible, following a vote for independence. That position was last set out in one of the “Building a New Scotland” series of papers titled “An independent Scotland’s place in the world”, which I launched in March this year.

Nuclear weapons are obsolete, dangerous and impractical, yet in 2021 the UK Government broke its commitment to the international community by increasing the nuclear weapons stockpile to no more than 260 warheads. That is a 40 per cent increase from its 2010 commitment of no more than 180 warheads. In March this year, the Conservative Government published a command paper that set out that the UK’s nuclear weapons are the

“Ministry of Defence’s number one priority.”

It is disappointing, if not entirely unpredictable, that the new Labour UK Government is launching its strategic defence review in July and has reaffirmed its commitment to the UK’s nuclear arsenal.

Breaking the commitment to the cap of 180 warheads is completely at odds with article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which the UK Government is a signatory. Two independent defence experts from the London School of Economics have also concluded that the UK’s increase of warheads constitutes a breach of article 6.

Nuclear weapons do not provide a meaningful deterrent to many modern-day threats, such as terrorist attacks, and nor have they proven to be a deterrent to other nuclear-armed states carrying out atrocious acts, even on UK soil. Rather than making repeated and damaging cuts to conventional military forces and capabilities, the UK Government would do better to use the £41 billion that it is spending on replacing Trident to invest in modern conventional capabilities that are relevant to today’s threats.

The Scottish Government supports the objective of the non-proliferation treaty and the international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We recognise the key role that the international community has in collectively creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.

As I have said, the Scottish Government firmly opposes nuclear weapons. We wish to see the Dreadnought programme to replace Trident scrapped and the £41 billion of taxpayers’ money put to better use. We will continue to call on the UK Government to do just that.

Finally, and most importantly, I again thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion and members for their contributions. The Rev John Ainslie was not a person who sought the limelight but, through his expertise and his commitment to peace, he shone a light on the terrible weapons of mass destruction on our doorstep. I hope that, one day, we can achieve what he fought so long for—namely, a nation free of nuclear weapons.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I suspend the meeting until 2 pm.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio on this occasion is social justice.

Any member who is looking to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. I make the usual plea for brevity in both questions and answers.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and cladding remediation programme, including the Scottish safer buildings accord and single building assessment pilot programme. (S6O-03701)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

With the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and the single building assessment technical specification now in place, we are able to accelerate the pace of delivery. We will shortly provide a timetable for commencement of the 2024 act, prioritising the powers that are urgently needed, including the completion of the SBA standards to sit alongside the technical specification that has already been published.

Pilot assessments have been undertaken for 30 of the pilot entries, with works to mitigate or remediate risks having started on five of those. We continue to work with developers to agree a contract in order to ensure that they can play their part in speeding up progress.

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

I welcome the progress that has been made through passing the 2024 act and undertaking what the minister has set out, and I appreciate the complex work that Scottish Government officials are doing on the issue. However, many of my constituents remain frustrated at the lack of progress and clear information coming both from the Government and from developers on their particular buildings.

Can the minister provide further insight into when my constituents will start to receive more regular, clear proactive information on when remediation work may start in their buildings and, when it has started, on progress thereafter?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank the member for that question, and I am grateful for his continuing commitment to his constituents on these issues. We are taking a number of steps to improve communications with residents, including a regular newsletter; improvement to the content and detail of the Scottish Government website; frequent engagement through the High Rise Action Scotland Group; and the development of a pre-assessment charter.

We are shortly going to be refreshing pilot SBA assessments, as we now have the legislative and robust technical basis on which to do so; we will be writing to relevant owners and occupiers to inform them and to ensure that we undertake engagement pre and post that work. I am happy to meet the member to give a detailed update on developments in his constituency.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I would have expected greater urgency on the matter, because Scotland was quite far behind the curve already, certainly in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. I would have expected that the frustration that Ben Macpherson talked about would have been communicated to the sector and to the Government, and that action would have been swifter.

What will the minister do in the next few weeks to ensure that we get some progress? We will have that frustration for much longer if he does not address that.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

We had a meeting this morning, and I have a meeting with colleagues this afternoon, to talk about that very issue. I previously mentioned the 2024 act, which gives us additional powers to ensure that developers move at a quicker pace. We will continue to meet with developers and officials to pick up the pace. I know that progress needs to be quicker; we have acknowledged that, and we will be ensuring that the work moves at a quicker pace.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of almost 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation and 110,000 households on the waiting list for affordable social housing, what progress it has made towards providing those affected with safe and affordable accommodation. (S6O-03702)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

From 23 March 2022 to 31 March 2024, 21,092 homes have been delivered towards the 110,000 affordable homes target, of which 15,964—76 per cent—are homes for social rent. In 2024-25, we will invest nearly £600 million in affordable housing, the majority of which will be for social rent. That includes up to £40 million to increase the affordable housing supply and to acquire properties in order to reduce the number of households, especially those with children, in temporary accommodation. We are also providing £2 million in 2024-25 to local authorities that are experiencing sustained temporary accommodation pressures in order to support existing housing stock management and minimise void turnaround time.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Scotland continues to be in the grip of a devastating housing emergency and, despite the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackle that national crisis, there has been a 10 per cent increase in households becoming homeless compared with last year. Every 16 minutes, a household becomes homeless and, every day, 45 children become homeless. What does the minister have to say to those thousands of people who have nowhere to call home?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Scottish Government recognises that these are exceptionally challenging times. The member mentioned the challenges, primarily in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh, whose representatives I meet on a regular basis. We are taking action to reduce homelessness and improve the supply of social and affordable housing. The cabinet secretary and I have met and worked with the housing coalition on a number of occasions, and we will continue to meet in order to focus on some of those points.

As I said, we are looking at the £600 million that we have invested. We are working closely with local authorities, specifically on what they need for the housing emergency action plans that they bring forward. We need partnership working at all levels. We need to speak to the United Kingdom Government and local government, as well as housing sector partners, whom we continue to focus on, but a large number of actions are being taken from the meetings that we have been having.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We have a couple of supplementary questions, which I hope will be brief.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

As well as the Scottish Government’s record on the delivery of social and affordable housing since 2007, will the minister detail how the proposed housing bill will build on Scotland’s already UK-leading homelessness prevention policies and help to avoid the stigma and adverse childhood experiences that are caused by not having a safe place to call home?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The new homelessness prevention duties in the housing bill are groundbreaking and involve areas such as health and justice because, through the new ask and act duties, there is a shared public responsibility to prevent homelessness.

We have been told by people with lived experience of the missed opportunities to prevent homelessness through earlier intervention, and we are determined to address those. Earlier intervention by a range of services, including local authorities, to prevent homelessness can mean fewer households with children going through the trauma, stigma and disruption to their lives that homelessness brings, as well as an easing of the pressures on housing supply. We continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that we have the right guidance in place for implementing the new duties.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister is aware of projects in my region that hope to make use of the rural and islands housing fund to develop new homes, including in island communities where two homes can have the same impact as dozens elsewhere. Can he speak to the availability of the fund and the support that is available to local housing providers to make use of it in the coming months and years?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Please answer as briefly as possible, minister.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Supported by our rural and islands housing action plan, we remain committed to delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, of which at least 10 per cent will be in rural and island communities.

As well as considerable mainstream investment, support is also available through the demand-led £30 million rural and islands housing fund and the £25 million rural affordable homes for key workers fund. Between April 2016 and March 2023, we helped to deliver more than 10,000 homes in rural and islands areas and have invested more than £839 million.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment the ministerial task force on population has made of the reported population increase in Edinburgh and the south-east, including any proposals that it has made to address this, since it was established in June 2019. (S6O-03703)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Scottish Government’s population strategy, which was published in 2021, includes a more balanced work strand that focuses on ensuring that our population is sustainably distributed. That work strand recognises the pressures of both population growth and depopulation.

Last year, our ministerial population task force considered exploratory research to expand our evidence base with regard to the drivers and challenges of population growth, the findings of which will inform future policy development.

We continue to work closely with local authorities. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are members of the population programme board and jointly chair the local government population round table.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

We are seeing a historic shift in population in Scotland—from west to east. By 2040, Lothian councils are set to see the largest percentage increase in our populations, and Midlothian is projected to see an increase of more than 30 per cent in its population. Therefore, the Scottish Government and public bodies need to plan now for the increased pressures that our public services will face.

As I said, 84 per cent of Scottish population growth is due to be based in my region over the next 10 years, so it is time for ministers to understand that we need to plan for that population growth and development.

Will the minister agree to take forward a cross-party summit with MSPs and public bodies, so that we can look now at the future challenges and opportunities that will face public services across the Lothian region?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Work is on-going. We take the issue very seriously and our population programme considers the challenges of population growth, as I mentioned. It has been a key consideration for the population round table, which, as I said, is jointly chaired by the Scottish Government, COSLA and representatives from all local authorities. I would be happy to meet Mr Briggs to discuss the issues that he raises in more detail.

The ministerial task force will continue to consider taking appropriate steps to address those challenges, in collaboration with key partners such as local authorities.

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

The huge population growth in Edinburgh is having an effect on both rent and house purchase prices. Given that population growth, is the Scottish Government taking specific actions to address the issue in Edinburgh? Can priority be given to Edinburgh in relation to the £600 million of funding that is provided for affordable housing in the programme for government?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Our affordable housing supply programme investment in Edinburgh has been at a record level over the first three years of the parliamentary session, at £160 million. The allocation for the city of Edinburgh for this financial year is £34.9 million. Nationally, efforts to boost affordable housing supply by acquiring properties to bring into use for affordable housing and to help to reduce homelessness have been given an uplift of £80 million over the next two years. We have allocated a further £14.8 million to Edinburgh, raising the allocation to the city this year to more than £49 million. We recognise the City of Edinburgh Council’s strong track record of affordable housing delivery and we continue to work very closely with it to maximise affordable housing.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its pre-budget fiscal update on 3 September, what the potential impact will be of its “review and reprofile of recruitment” at Social Security Scotland on the agency’s provision of front-line services to clients. (S6O-03704)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government requested all public bodies to identify savings options to balance the 2024-25 Scottish budget. The review and reprofiling of recruitment in Social Security Scotland has protected and prioritised the provision of critical front-line services to clients, which remains the agency’s and the Government’s top priority.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will recognise that the most recent workforce statistics have shown that, following the growth of staffing in Social Security Scotland, those figures have largely stabilised at approximately 3,800. We also know that, despite that, there have been on-going issues with service provision, long processing times, long call waiting times and complexities in the system. Those issues have been well debated in the chamber. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the decision will not have a detrimental impact on the progress that is being made?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am happy to give that reassurance to Paul O’Kane. The agency has reassessed its staffing requirements across the year to ensure that it fills the vacancies at the right time. The updated recruitment plans take account of the seasonal peaks in benefit delivery and the additional staff who are required to deliver pension-age disability payment.

I assure Paul O’Kane that I, the chief executive and everyone working at the agency are absolutely determined to maintain the performance levels. He is quite right to point out that call waiting times and processing times for some benefits were too long. We have seen improvements there, and we are determined that things will stay that way.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

With regard to the front-line provision of services by Social Security Scotland, will the cabinet secretary advise whether the need to mitigate Labour’s bedroom tax and benefit cap is taking away resources that could be spent on further enhancing social security provision in Scotland?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The member raises a very important point. She will know that the Scottish Government is spending around £134 million this year mitigating the United Kingdom Government’s welfare package, which totals £1.2 billion since 2013. There are many ways in which the Scottish Government would like to spend that money. For example, this year’s mitigation alone would pay for 2,000 teachers or band 5 nurses. That demonstrates the difference that it could make to education, the national health service or other anti-poverty measures, including those delivered by Social Security Scotland.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact its national mission to tackle child poverty is having in the Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley constituency. (S6O-03705)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are providing a range of support that will benefit families in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley and across Scotland, including the investment in our game-changing Scottish child payment, early learning and childcare, and free bus travel for under-22s.

Between February 2021 and this year, our Scottish child payment has been made more than 157,000 times, which has been worth more than £22 million to low-income families in East Ayrshire. East Ayrshire will also be part of one of the five new fairer futures partnerships, which will include Kilmarnock, which is a key area of focus. That will ensure that services are integrated to help families where and when they need it.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

Further to those figures, nearly 9,000 children in East Ayrshire are getting help from the Scottish National Party Government to keep them out of poverty. More than 100,000 payments totalling £13 million make a big difference. Contrast that with the attacks by the Tories that have been continued by Labour, that are meant to keep in place the two-child benefit cap, which will mean thousands more children living in poverty who could have been freed from it.

Nearly 10 years on from our country’s vote on independence, does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland and Scotland’s children cannot put up with the damage that is caused by the union any more? Will she continue to work hard to lift children out of poverty with every means at her disposal?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Mr Coffey is quite right to point to the work that the Government continues to do against poverty—particularly to eradicate children’s poverty—and to the limitations of the current devolution settlement. He would also be right to point out that, according to data published by the End Child Poverty coalition in December 2023, more than one in 10 families in East Ayrshire are impacted by the two-child limit, with families losing up to £3,455 each year for every affected child. That was the Tory United Kingdom Government’s policy. That is now the Labour UK Government’s policy. Mr Coffey is quite right that, with independence, there would be no such policy under the SNP.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Fife Council regarding the impact of its housing adaptation policy. (S6O-03706)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

The Scottish Government has not had any recent discussions with Fife Council regarding its housing adaptation policy. However, we are taking forward a review of the policy and delivery arrangements of the current housing adaptation systems, and we will seek views from councils and other stakeholders. I expect to receive initial recommendations on how best to improve and streamline the system and maximise the impact of investment before the end of 2024.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank the minister for his answer, but it is important for him to know what is happening on the ground. The fact of the matter is that far too many of my constituents wait far too long for even the most basic adaptations to be made to their homes by Fife Council. That means that some cannot wash themselves properly. Some cannot even access a toilet and need to use a commode—in some cases, for years.

Does the minister agree that that is simply unacceptable in 21st-century Scotland? Will he now take up this breach of people’s right to dignity with the chief executive of Fife Council, with a view to the council sorting out that continuing shambles once and for all?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Adaptations make an important contribution to supporting older people and disabled people to live safely, and the member is right to raise those points. Of course they need to be comfortable and independent at home. I note that some of her constituents are waiting for adaptations for their homes. My housing officials will discuss the matter with Fife Council and get back to the member.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will take a brief supplementary question from Foysol Choudhury, on the basis that it is about Fife Council.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

In July, I was contacted by Andrea, who cares for her two disabled daughters. Her home requires adaptations, but it is not large enough for the daughters’ wheelchair or the specific bed that is recommended by the physiotherapist. Andrea’s housing association will not extend the house and has no suitable homes available. Another housing association refuses to fit dropped showers.

How is the Scottish Government working to ensure that housing associations and local authorities uphold their duties to provide essential adaptations, including beds?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am not sure that that was about Fife Council but the minister may wish to respond as far as he can.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

If the member writes to me, I will be happy to pick that up for him and will get officials to contact him.

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

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on the administration of Scottish social security benefits, what information it holds on the percentage of pensioners in Scotland who have not claimed pension credit for which they are eligible. (S6O-03707)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As pension credit is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, we are reliant on Department for Work and Pensions statistics for take-up rates. The latest that are available cover the financial year 2021-22 and show that the take-up rate of pension credit overall in Great Britain is 63 per cent. However, they do not show rates for countries or regions. Approximately 125,136 households receive pension credit in Scotland, which suggests that around 75,000 households in Scotland are eligible for pension credit but do not receive it.

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

Given that the estimates show that thousands of families who are entitled to receive pension credit have not claimed that benefit, and with Labour MPs at Westminster voting this week to remove the winter fuel payment for millions of pensioners, what more can the Scottish Government do to increase benefit uptake and ensure that our eligible pensioners receive the support that they so desperately need this winter?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The decision on the winter fuel payment originated with the UK Government, so it is imperative that it should undertake a benefit take-up campaign. I have asked the Secretary of State to do so, urgently. Scottish Government officials are working with the DWP and stakeholders to promote pension credit take-up, despite the fact that that benefit is solely reserved.

Our welfare advice services, supported by Scottish Government investment, are also working closely with people who might be entitled to benefits—devolved or reserved—but who have not yet applied. Those efforts include increasing awareness and take-up assistance to support people who are struggling financially. That is why we have committed to investing more than £20 million for the provision of free income maximisation support and welfare and debt advice services in 2024-25.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it estimates it will cost to fund the minimum income guarantee scheme proposed in the “Minimum Income Guarantee Expert Group: interim report”. (S6O-03708)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The independent minimum income guarantee expert group’s interim report set out important principles for its work, and the group is currently undertaking further development to consider costs and delivery. Given that the Scottish Government has not yet received a final report, we are not in a position to make any cost estimates. We remain ambitious in looking at innovative ways to tackle poverty and inequality, so we look forward to receiving the recommendations later this year. I take this opportunity to thank the cross-party strategy group, which includes Miles Briggs, for its continued support of that work.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

According to the Scottish Government, under a minimum income guarantee, “everyone in Scotland” would have a minimum income regardless of their circumstances. The Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested that that could come at a cost of £7 billion per year. Given that the Scottish Government cannot put lunch on the table for primary 6 and 7 pupils, and is set to rob pensioners of the money to heat their homes, should the minister not now level with the public, and should she not be cautious of the costs and the complexity of any such scheme and focus instead on a growth-based economy with a fair and focused welfare system at its heart?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

What I am aware of is the costs—and the benefits, of which there are none—of the £1.2 billion that this Government is paying for 14 years of austerity to mitigate some of the UK Government’s welfare policies, which have now been adopted by UK Labour. I make no apology for the fact that this Government will continue to look at innovative ways of tackling poverty. Mr Hoy might be happy to leave those people behind, but I am not.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio questions on social justice. There will be a brief pause before the next item of business, to allow front benches to change.

Drugs and Alcohol (National Mission)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Neil Gray on the national mission to reduce deaths and improve the lives of people impacted by drugs and alcohol. As the cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, there should be no interruptions or interventions.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I would like to update Parliament, following the most recent drug and alcohol death statistics for Scotland, which were published recently by National Records of Scotland. Importantly, I will outline the action that we are taking as part of the national mission to reduce harm and fatalities. Before I do, I hope that all colleagues will join me in wishing Christina McKelvie well in the treatment that she is receiving for cancer in her medical leave of absence. [ Applause .]

In 2023, tragically, we lost 1,172 lives to drugs and 1,277 lives to alcohol. Every single one of those lives lost is a profound tragedy; behind those stark statistics are children, parents and friends who have left behind families and loved ones grieving unimaginable losses. The NRS statistics show that 2023 was the second-lowest figure in six years for drug deaths. However, the rise of 12 per cent from 2022 is, of course, a heartbreaking disappointment and worry. I offer my sympathies to every person who is affected by the death of a loved one to drugs or alcohol. Those losses are shared by all of us and they serve as a reminder of the work that we still have ahead of us.

Deprivation has a clear influence on the numbers of drug and alcohol deaths, with people in our most deprived areas being 15 times more likely to die from drug misuse than people in the least deprived areas and four and a half times more likely to die from alcohol misuse. That highlights that drug and alcohol dependency is not purely medical. It is deeply rooted in social determinants and structural inequalities.

As in previous years, we continue to see a high level of polydrug use. Opiates continue to be the drug that is most commonly implicated in deaths. However, deaths where cocaine was implicated have increased. The increasing prevalence of cocaine, especially injected cocaine, presents new challenges for our services.

We are also confronting a dangerously and continuously evolving drug landscape, with synthetic drugs increasingly infiltrating the market. Those highly toxic and potent substances elevate the risks of overdose and death, and their rapidly evolving composition makes regulation and enforcement exceedingly challenging. Public Health Scotland has recently issued public health alerts for nitazenes and xylazine through its rapid action drug alerts and response—RADAR—surveillance system. I urge colleagues to share those alerts and sign up to the RADAR reporting system.

It remains essential that we continue the work of our national mission to prevent deaths, reduce harm and improve lives. That unwavering commitment is driven by the belief that change is possible and necessary. It is important to acknowledge the significant progress that has been made through the national mission. Our approach has been ambitious, and we have pushed beyond existing levels of service provision, focusing on harm reduction, improving treatment, supporting our workforce and taking a holistic, person-centred approach.

Widening access to residential rehabilitation for people who use drugs and alcohol is a key part of our national mission. We have made £100 million available from 2021 to 2026 to ensure that 1,000 people receive public funding for their placement each year by 2026. We are on track to meet that target, with 938 publicly funded placements approved in 2023-24.

We have also seen significant advances in harm reduction. Police Scotland is the first force in the United Kingdom to issue naloxone kits to all front-line officers, and it has now administered the life-saving drug more than 450 times. Public Health Scotland estimates that, by the end of 2023, take-home naloxone had been supplied to nearly three quarters of all people in Scotland who are at risk of an opioid overdose. Those are remarkable strides, and we will continue to push for more widespread access.

The opening of Scotland’s first safer drug consumption facility, scheduled for next month, is another significant milestone. The evidence-based initiative will provide a safe space for those who are most at risk of overdose and will serve as a model for other areas.

On our 10 medication assisted treatment standards, the progress has been equally encouraging. By July 2024, 90 per cent of MAT standards 1 to 5 were fully implemented, and MAT standards 6 to 10 showed strong early progress, with 91 per cent provisionally green.

Experiential feedback highlights improvements, fewer and shorter delays in accessing treatment, more choice being offered for opioid substitution therapy and an increased sense of care and support from workers. That reflects the heart of our mission, which is to ensure that people receive the help that they need when they need it.

As we enter the delivery intensification phase of the national mission, we are putting in place a strategic framework to consider how we can carefully and collectively drive delivery and monitor progress. As the MAT standards benchmarking report of July 2024 showed, although we see tremendous progress in standards 1 to 5, we need to accelerate our efforts in areas such as psychosocial care and mental health support, which are critical components of treatment, especially for non-opiate substances.

We are developing a national specification for drug and alcohol care services, which will go further than our previously planned treatment target. That will provide clarity on what treatment and recovery services should look like and will ensure that people have access to high-quality, stigma-free, trauma-informed services.

Additionally, we are stepping up our response to the growing threat of synthetic drugs. Public Health Scotland is expanding its surveillance data to help us to respond more swiftly and to identify any sudden increases in the number of overdoses. We plan to establish public-use drug-checking facilities in Dundee, Glasgow and Aberdeen, and applications for the necessary Home Office licences are currently being processed. Those will be complemented by a national testing laboratory, located in and supported by the University of Dundee, to provide further confirmatory testing of samples.

Further, when it comes to the wider health and social care landscape—the national care service, regulation, inspection and funding—we are looking beyond 2026.

Recovery communities provide essential support, hope and a sense of purpose and belonging. During a recent visit to the Scottish Maritime Museum in West Dunbartonshire, I spoke to individuals who are benefiting from the Skylark IX Recovery Trust project, which is funded through the national mission Corra Foundation funds. Witnessing the dedication of the volunteers and staff, I was reminded of the widespread passion that fuels our efforts. The Skylark IX project is just one of 300 local and grass-roots projects that have been supported since the start of the mission. I thank the people who work on the front line, in the vital national health service, local partnership and third sector organisations, alongside the dozens of mutual aid and recovery communities who provide hope in such challenging circumstances. Their dedication is saving lives.

I turn to our focus on the prevention of alcohol harm. The Scottish Government has taken steps in its world-leading minimum unit pricing policy, with the minimum price increasing to 65p per unit from 30 September. That is intended to ensure that the public health benefits of the policy—the hospitalisations averted and the lives saved—continue and, indeed, increase. In The Lancet , international public health experts stated:

“Policy makers can be confident that there are several hundred people with low income in Scotland who would have died as a result of alcohol, who are alive today as a result of minimum unit pricing.”

However, we know that we need to do more to reduce harm. The earlier consultation on potential restrictions on alcohol advertising and marketing, which closed in 2023, made it clear that there is a wide range of views. I know that our doctors and nurses, who see harm to health from alcohol misuse every day, want action to be taken on alcohol marketing. I have also listened to business and industry concerns. I take all those concerns seriously. We remain committed to progressing that work to ensure that it will have the greatest impact, particularly on children and young people who are exposed to alcohol advertising and marketing, while striking the right balance when it comes to potential effects on business and industry. We need a route to achieve that.

It is clear that steps to reduce alcohol harm are vital to supporting good public health and to reducing alcohol-specific deaths. It is therefore vital that we are clear on the evidence that proposals would be effective, that action to reduce alcohol harm supports good public health and would reduce alcohol-specific deaths, and that the decisions that we take are led by evidence, balanced with the potential impact on the wider economy. Therefore, I will commission Public Health Scotland to carry out a review of the evidence on the range of options to reduce exposure to alcohol marketing in order to help us in that aim.

That work is for the future. We are also taking action right now by ensuring that people with problematic alcohol use continue to receive the same quality of care as those with problematic drug use. I can therefore confirm that the forthcoming alcohol treatment guidelines will also provide support for alcohol treatment, similar to the medication assisted treatment standards for drugs. In addition, the publication of Public Health Scotland’s review of how alcohol brief interventions are delivered is imminent, and we will incorporate its recommendations into our national treatment specification for drug and alcohol treatment.

We also continue to support innovative pilots, such as the managed alcohol programme and the primary care alcohol nurse outreach service, which has recently been embedded into mainstream services in the Glasgow city alcohol and drug partnership.

We continue to strive to prevent deaths, reduce harm and improve lives, and we do that at a time of unprecedented and significant financial challenge. This Government has consistently warned of the challenge ahead with regard to our public finances, but we will continue to support people in services where they need it most. That is why, this year, the Government has made more than £150 million available to continue the progress that we have made as a result of the national mission. Three quarters of that funding is delivered through local alcohol and drug partnerships, which play a central role in delivery and responding to local need.

It is essential that we continue to address the stark inequalities that exist in drug deaths, particularly in our most deprived areas. We must focus on prevention through education. We must also target the structural and social determinants of health. That will require increased collaboration across Government departments and statutory and third sector partners.

It is clear that no single service can tackle the issue alone. No single intervention is or will be enough. Only by working together to deliver a range of harm reduction support opportunities can we create a Scotland where everyone has the support that they need. We must pull together, harness the incredible work that has already been done and drive forward with a shared sense of purpose.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I encourage members who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak buttons if they have not already done so.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for providing early sight of his statement. I, too, wish Christina McKelvie well and wish her a speedy recovery.

This week’s harrowing statistics expose the total failure of the Scottish National Party to tackle this health crisis. It claims that significant progress has been made through its national mission, yet this week we learned that 1,172 people died from drug misuse in 2023, which represents an increase of 12 per cent on the previous year. In addition, this week’s provisional data revealed that there have already been 589 suspected drug deaths in the first six months of 2024. As that represents a 2 per cent drop from the same period in 2023, some might mistakenly claim that a corner has been turned, but the figure is up 5 per cent on 2022. Nothing is changing.

The SNP came to power more than 17 years ago and, in that time, more than 33,000 Scots have lost their lives to drug or alcohol-related illnesses. That is a damning indictment of the SNP’s continued mismanagement. SNP politicians should hang their heads in shame, but, instead, they carry on, determined to prioritise decriminalisation and harm reduction over recovery. That is the wrong message. Where is the focus on recovery and rehabilitation? The SNP has no idea what it is doing. The University of Strathclyde’s Scottish health equity research unit confirms that there is a “critical gap” between the SNP’s understanding of inequalities—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I need a question, Ms Webber.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

—and what works to tackle them. It is clear that the SNP’s strategies lack a rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness.

Does the cabinet secretary really believe that the right level of response to learning that alcohol deaths are at their highest level for 15 years is to commission a review into adverts?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Sue Webber for her contribution. I do not in any way shirk the responsibility that we have for the harrowing figures that are before us, and I absolutely do not deny the scale of the challenge that is before us. That is why I do not believe that any single intervention or single area of response is appropriate. We need to have a range of responses available to us, which is why we have been increasing the opportunity for support to be provided for recovery as well as for harm reduction. We can see from the statistics that are available from Police Scotland and alcohol and drug partnerships that the likes of naloxone have saved hundreds of lives.

Therefore, rather than focusing on one area at the expense of another, we must ensure that we take a range of approaches, including on alcohol advertising. We know that we cannot continue in the way that we are going. We need to see improvement in our relationships with drugs and with alcohol.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I echo the best wishes that have been expressed to Christina McKelvie for successful treatment.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s visit to the Skylark IX Recovery Trust, as it does great work in my constituency. However, last year’s figure of 1,277 alcohol deaths is the highest number in the past 15 years, and it is a tragedy for each of the families affected. It is clear that what we are doing currently, for both drugs and alcohol, is not yet working. There is a suggestion that the Government’s priority is tackling drugs, and that that is eclipsing the efforts and resources that are needed to tackle alcohol problems.

Those of us with long memories will recall the SNP’s cuts to alcohol and drug treatment services. Some £46 million was sliced out of the budget before the national mission was in place, and now we learn that there has been a 40 per cent decline in the number of people being referred to structured alcohol services.

Will the cabinet secretary separate the alcohol and drugs funding streams so that there is transparency? If he is looking to raise revenue, what consideration has been given to a targeted levy to claw back the money that supermarkets will make from the increased revenue from minimum unit pricing for alcohol?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, I once again pay tribute to the incredible work that is being delivered through Skylark IX and by a range of community and grass-roots organisations across Scotland. Although it was incredibly harrowing to hear the stories of families who have been impacted by losing family members through problematic drug use and drug dependency, it filled me with great hope that the family members in particular focused on the impact that has been made in reducing stigma over recent years, and the impact that the national mission has had on people, with both those with drug dependency and their families feeling that there are services and support for them. I put on the record my thanks to them for that incredible work.

On the investments that we are making into alcohol and drug partnerships, I hope that Jackie Baillie can take from the statement that I have just made that tackling alcohol and drugs is both a shared endeavour and an area of shared priority; it is not one over the other. Furthermore, I hope that the work that we are seeking to do on alcohol services is clear from my statement.

Jackie Baillie will know that consideration has been given to whether a levy should be administered as a result of the increase in minimum unit pricing, and we will give further updates on that in due course.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As members might expect, there is a lot of interest in the issue. Therefore, we will have to have brief questions and brief responses wherever possible.

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

There is absolutely no escaping the deep complexities that are associated with tackling drug and alcohol harm. I know that the cabinet secretary agrees that the commitment of those working in the sphere cannot be overstated.

In his statement, the cabinet secretary made reference to the workforce. Through my engagement with local ADP services, I am aware that concerns exist about workforce planning, specifically in relation to the option of a national qualification and a national training plan. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the work that is being done to address those concerns, thereby ensuring that we develop a highly skilled workforce and secure improved retention?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for her question and for the engagement that she has had with her local ADP services in the north-east. The Scottish Government’s drug and alcohol workforce action plan sets out the actions that we are taking to support improved workforce planning and to ensure that staff have the skills and knowledge that are required to deliver services.

Specifically, the plan commits us to developing a learning pathway to communicate and signpost available training opportunities to the entire drug and alcohol workforce; to facilitate the development of competencies for workers who support people who use drugs and alcohol; to identify training opportunities; and to provide support for the development of continuous career development opportunities.

Across Scotland, training providers provide high-quality education to learners at all levels in support of that. We will continue to fund national health service boards to support their work in that endeavour, too.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have to say that that was a very underwhelming statement on such a crucial issue. Sadly, it follows earlier statements that we have heard from the health team. Asked 10 times whether his Government had failed people who are suffering from drug abuse, the cabinet secretary refused to answer.

Just this week, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health called the level of alcohol deaths “disappointing”. They are not “disappointing”; they are tragic, appalling—and avoidable, with the right policies.

The cabinet secretary will know that my member’s bill, the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill, has been published and is in the public domain. Is there anything in that bill that he cannot support? If not, will he tell us today that SNP members will support the bill?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On Douglas Ross’s point about the stark figures that are before us, I said in my statement that I accept that those are unacceptable and tragic. I echo his words in that regard. There is no hiding from the fact that that is an appalling set of statistics—of course it is. That is why the Government has committed to engaging with Mr Ross on the measures in his bill.

I do not believe that there is a single answer to the questions that are before us; we need to make progress in a multitude of areas. Mr Ross, the First Minister and I have a meeting coming up in order to discuss his bill. We will seek to progress further interventions on both the harm reduction and recovery aspects that I described in my statement. I believe that there is hope and that we will see a difference being made through working together in the way that Mr Ross suggests.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests in that I am chair of Moving On Inverclyde, which is a recovery service in my local area.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Inverclyde has the third-highest level of drug deaths and the highest level of alcohol deaths in Scotland. Recently, I hosted a round-table meeting of third sector and public sector organisations to enable them to share information and understand the issues that my community faces. What consideration will the cabinet secretary give to ensuring that Inverclyde is classed as a priority area for funding and for creating new initiatives to support local organisations in saving the lives of people in my community?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Mr McMillan for all his work to help local partners in Inverclyde to rise to the challenges that people face there. I received incredibly good feedback from Alison Byrne about the round-table meeting that he organised. Although we recognise the innovative approach that is being taken, and the commitment that delivery partners in the area share, we also note the particular needs of people in Inverclyde. With those in mind, we are keen to ensure that all possible support is available to partners in that area, and that will be a major consideration in future planning.

We need to ensure that support is available to people in all parts of Scotland. However, I point out that the distribution of national mission funding, adjusted through the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee—NRAC—formula, takes account of levels of deprivation and specific need.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The first overdose prevention centre in Scotland opened four years ago yesterday. Staffed by volunteers, it supervised around 1,000 injections and saved eight lives. Now, four years later, the state has finally caught up with the challenges that drug and alcohol issues present, but hundreds of people have died unnecessarily in the interim period.

I welcome the opening of the new OPC in Glasgow next month, but can the cabinet secretary assure members that it will not simply involve a box-ticking exercise? Will the centre be progressed to 24-hour operation and full integration with the routes to rehabilitation and other support services that are so critical to people’s recovery?

The first person who came to the OPC four years ago said, “I am sorry—I am not used to people treating me so nicely.” The core principles of our approach must be to ensure human dignity and to support people to access the pathways that they need if they are to survive.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree with Paul Sweeney. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in that area, along with other members, and to Peter Krykant, who led so much of the campaigning for the centre to take shape. Mr Sweeney is right to say that our approach should be to provide person-centred dignified support for people who have often experienced lifetimes of trauma and stigma. We must treat them with dignity and respect, in a way that reduces harm, saves lives and helps them on the path to recovery. I absolutely take on board Mr Sweeney’s questions about how we might further embed and expand such an approach. I will respond to him on those matters in due course.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

In our constituencies across Scotland, we are all aware of the countless unsung heroes and organisations that do so much to support people whose lives have been impacted by drugs and alcohol. Groups such as Men Matter Scotland in Drumchapel support 500 men per week on a variety of issues. Will the cabinet secretary join me in recognising and thanking those unsung heroes for their invaluable work? What support is the Scottish Government providing to such groups, in particular at this time of budget constraint?