Scottish Parliament, 3 October 2024

318 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general questions. To get in as many members as possible, short and succinct questions and responses would be appreciated.

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting childcare providers. (S6O-03806)

The Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise (Natalie Don-Innes)

The Scottish Government is taking a range of actions to support a diverse, thriving and sustainable sector. Despite the financial challenges that we are facing, the Scottish Government has prioritised funding to enable childcare workers in the private and third sectors who are delivering funded early learning and childcare to be paid at least the real living wage from April 2025. We are the only part of the United Kingdom to do so. That was backed by £16 million of investment in 2024-25.

In parallel, we continue to work with the sector and local government to progress the longer-term reforms to the sustainable rate-setting process that were recommended by last year’s joint rates review by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We have also legislated to continue the nursery rates relief scheme, which is estimated to be worth about £11 million a year to childcare businesses.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The data that was published alongside the early learning and childcare expansion interim evaluation report highlighted that, between 2018 and 2022, there was a 19 per cent decrease in the number of childcare providers in Scotland. In England, that reduction was just 10 per cent. That indicates a lack of adequate support for the sector and the providers.

The minister has previously stated that the Government is assured that the childcare sector is, in fact, economically sustainable. Will she confirm today that that is still the case? Will the Government publish the evidence that supports that view?

Natalie Don-Innes

I am very confident in the economic model. We continue to monitor the sector’s financial sustainability through our financial sustainability health checks. I want to be clear that ensuring such sustainability is a priority for me. I have been clear that private, voluntary and independent providers are an integral part of our childcare sector in Scotland.

As for further work, that fits in quite well with the rates review, which as well as being about updating sustainable rates guidance is about working with local government and funded providers to consider options for obtaining more robust and reliable cost data to direct future approaches. I would be happy to meet the member if he would like to discuss the progress on that further, but I hope that I have answered his question.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

What level of national uptake has there been of the Scottish National Party’s initiative of giving three to five-year-olds up to 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare a year, following the support that has been given to childcare providers?

Natalie Don-Innes

Recent evidence shows that the estimated uptake rate remains very high, with more than 92,000 children accessing funded ELC in 2023. That includes 97 per cent of three and four-year-olds. Further to that, Improvement Service reporting shows that, in September 2023, 90 per cent of three and four-year-olds who were accessing funded ELC were using their full entitlement of 1,140 hours a year. I think that Ms Dunbar will agree that that is extremely positive and directly contributes to the Government’s mission to tackle child poverty, given that every family who utilises the universal offering is saving roughly £5,000 per year per child.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Given the brief conversation that I had with the minister beforehand, I thought that it would be remiss of me not to come in with a brief supplementary question. A constituent contacted me regarding the eligibility criteria, as their child was not able to start obtaining the 1,140 hours after they turned three years old. That would suggest a lack of support for private providers, which Martin Whitfield raised. What conversations is the minister having with local government to ensure that children can access 1,140 hours when they turn three years old?

Natalie Don-Innes

I appreciate Ms Gallacher’s question. I want parents and families to be able to receive their entitlement as soon as possible. I appreciate that different local authorities have different guidelines around the offer. I emphasise that it is for local authorities to set those guidelines, but of course I encourage local authorities to ensure that they are not only speaking to parents and consulting them on their needs but doing their best to ensure that children can receive that offer as quickly as possible once they are entitled to it.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Government’s recent report, which has been referred to, indicates that there has been a significant shift of workforce from the private, voluntary and independent sector to the council sector. Does that mean that the minister needs to act with more urgency to close the gap in funding, which the former First Minister Humza Yousaf promised that he would do?

Natalie Don-Innes

Since coming into post, I have worked with urgency, and I have regularly and passionately spoken about how valued our PVI sector is and about the fact that I want to do everything that I can to ensure the sector’s financial sustainability. I go back to the guidance on sustainable rates for early learning and childcare, which includes key measures on setting rates, whether that means looking at the process for two-year-olds or at whether meal rates reflect true costs. We are also looking at how local authorities are supporting private settings for children with additional support needs. A range of actions that are under way will make a real difference to the sector, and I have had positive feedback from the sector on them.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the provision of levelling up funding for areas of multiple deprivation such as Drumchapel in the Glasgow Anniesland constituency. (S6O-03807)

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

I raised that very issue with the Deputy Prime Minister when I met her last Friday. That was on top of our regular contact with the United Kingdom Government on a range of issues, including the future of levelling up and other funds.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

People in my constituency feel betrayed. Westminster promised funding for projects in communities across Scotland, only for people to see those promises abandoned, first by the Tories and now on Labour’s altar of austerity. I have today written to the Secretary of State for Scotland to urge him to deliver the funding that was promised to Scotland’s Parliament in order to properly fulfil the promises that were made to communities such as the one that I represent in Drumchapel. Does the minister agree that that funding cannot be a casualty of Labour austerity and that, rather than bypassing Scotland’s Parliament and undermining devolution, any funding should be for this Parliament to deliver for the people of Scotland and their priorities?

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

The member makes a compelling case for decisions being made as close to those who benefit as possible—namely, being made here in the Scottish Government. As I mentioned, I raised the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister last week. I reiterated our concerns about the levelling up fund and how it has been overly politicised under previous regimes.

As I understand it, the big risk is what will happen on 30 October, when the UK Government makes its budget statement. We sincerely hope that decisions will not be made in that budget that impact Scotland, and the community in Drumchapel, negatively.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The manner in which projects were put forward by Glasgow City Council for levelling up funding was extremely opaque and involved gate keeping. Notwithstanding that, will the Deputy First Minister confirm when the Scottish Government’s regeneration funds, such as the vacant and derelict land investment programme and the regeneration capital grant fund, will be reopened, given that other projects are critically dependent on that funding?

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

The member understands how essential the Scottish Government’s regeneration funding has been. He will also understand that, if I cannot get any clarity from the UK Government on its schemes, it stands to reason that it will be very difficult to give him any commitments in advance of the UK Government’s budget or our Scottish Government budget. Our sincere hope—I hope that he will use his offices to put pressure on his colleagues—is that there will be a fair settlement to allow us to continue to support communities and that, when it comes to levelling up funding, it will be less opaque, less politicised and more impactful.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact on public services of an increased population in areas such as Midlothian. (S6O-03808)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Our population strategy, published in 2021, includes a more balanced population component, which is focused on a sustainably distributed population. Localised population growth has been discussed at the joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities population round-table meeting, which includes representatives from all local authorities.

The ministerial population task force has considered exploratory research about the factors that drive population growth and its impact on public service planning and delivery.

At a future round-table meeting, we expect COSLA to bring forward an overview of local challenges that stem from population growth to inform the work of the task force and further collaborative delivery of the population strategy.

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

I thank the minister for her comprehensive answer. According to the most recent census, in 2022, Midlothian’s population had increased by 16 per cent since 2011, which is five times higher than the Scottish average. That will be an underestimate of the current position, with more substantial housing developments being built month after month. Pressures on nurseries, schools and medical practices—let alone roads—can only get worse.

I hear what the minister has said and I ask her, in her representations with COSLA and so on, to suggest that Midlothian is a special case, given the population explosion in the area.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Christine Grahame for putting her question on the tensions that are faced in the areas that she represents.

Each local authority receives its fair share of the total funding that is provided by the Scottish Government. The needs-based distribution methodology is kept under constant review and is agreed each year with COSLA on behalf of local authorities. Although the formula takes into account a range of factors, it is primarily based on population. It follows that, all other factors being equal, if the population of a council area grows faster than those of other local authority areas, it will receive an increased share of the available funding.

The Scottish Government is always open to suggestions to improve the funding formula. However, the proposals must come through COSLA in the first instance, as is correct.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with senior representatives from the Scottish hospitality industry. (S6O-03809)

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

The straight answer is less than two hours ago, when I met the Scottish Hospitality Group to discuss the challenges and opportunities that the industry faces.

I use this opportunity to commend and endorse the work that Scottish hospitality does as an industry. It is often the linchpin of local economies, and it is a major and vital employer, offering many excellent skilled career paths to people all across Scotland. It is the pride of Scotland, offering high-quality service and excellent food and drink.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am glad that my question was a prompt for the minister to meet the industry. As the recent report on brand Scotland by the Parliament’s cross-party group on beer and pubs confirms, 2 per cent of Scotland’s pubs closed last year, compared with 0.9 per cent in England. The report makes a number of recommendations on how to stem losses.

In my area, the Goblin Ha in Gifford, which is an iconic heritage pub that forms almost half of the village’s main street, now lies shuttered and in darkness, having closed twice under two different tenants in the past 12 months. The local community is rightly concerned about the impact, not just of the loss of a local community gathering place but of vital jobs and tourism revenues.

Rural pubs are paying a heavy price for the Government’s failure to provide adequate support, particularly in relation to business rates. Will the minister therefore agree to meet me to discuss the findings of the CPG report and to explore how the Government can provide a lifeline to struggling pubs such as the Goblin Ha in Gifford?

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

Craig Hoy makes a compelling case about the importance of hospitality businesses, in terms of not just their economic impact but their being, often, a centrepiece for local community activity. The stats make that clear. Last year, Scottish hospitality comprised 14,815 businesses, accounting for 9 per cent of all businesses in Scotland and contributing £4.7 billion in gross value added. They are a major employer, employing 216,000 people in 2022, which is 8 per cent of all employment.

Although Craig Hoy has homed in on the specifics of a local case, I take him back to the macro impact and why it is on us all to support Scottish hospitality to ensure that it has a thriving future and to do everything within our power to save our high streets, as well.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its long-term ferry strategy to ensure reliability for communities. (S6O-03810)

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

We published our updated vessels and ports plan earlier this year, and Transport Scotland published the consultation report and its initial responses on 3 September. That confirmed that reliability and resilience were the first priority of the plan. To support that, we are delivering six new major vessels for CalMac Ferries and are procuring seven new small vessels. The plan also confirms that we will retain a “resilience vessel” to cover planned and unplanned outages and that we will introduce a two-vessel summer service on the Little Minch, which will add capacity and resilience to Western Isles services and the network as a whole.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It seems that a day does not go by without further delays to the new ferries and breakdowns of vessels in the existing fleet. South Uist is again bearing the brunt of the cancellations, and businesses are again being failed. Added to that, we are now in the fleet’s annual maintenance period.

I see that the Hebridean Isles vessel, which is due to be scrapped next month, is to provide cover for lifeline services. Will the minister now admit that there is a requirement for standby capacity for the fleet and that, if it is possible to retain the Hebridean Isles in the fleet beyond November, the Government should do that? Will he provide compensation to businesses before they are forced off island due to ferry failures?

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

I do not think that there has ever been any lack of recognition of the fact that a resilience vessel would be required. However, it will not be possible to retain the boat to which Rhoda Grant refers beyond this point, because it would need a major overhaul. Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and CalMac Ferries anticipated that it would be out of service for many months as a result of such an overhaul, only to be disposed of when the new vessels come into play early next year.

As I said, the plan that has been set out looks at the resilience of all sectors. I will be happy to meet the member to discuss what that will look like as we go forward.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recommendations in the recent Oxfam Scotland report, “Cleared for Take-off: A Private Jet Tax for Scotland”. (S6O-03811)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government welcomes the contribution from Oxfam Scotland, and we will consider the taxation of private jets as part of our work to introduce air departure tax.

We continue to explore all options to implement ADT in a way that protects lifeline services in the Highlands and Islands, and we will work with the United Kingdom Government on how that can be achieved in compliance with its subsidy control regime.

The UK-wide air passenger duty, including the higher rate, which already applies to private jets, will apply in Scotland until ADT is introduced.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that constructive answer.

Oxfam has calculated that introducing a tax on private jets in Scotland could raise nearly £22 million a year, which would be enough to deliver the fairer fares on trains that commuters really need. Last week at First Minister’s question time, we heard that the First Minister would be

“very much in the spirit of”—[Official Report, 26 September 2024; c 17.]

embedding such a tax on luxury travel in a future air departure tax.

Would the minister support such an initiative? Can he provide more detail on the discussions that his Government is undertaking with the UK Government on the introduction of an air departure tax for Scotland and, in particular, on the intricacies around the details of an exemption for the Highlands and Islands? How much progress can we see being made on that in the months ahead?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government continues to engage constructively with the new UK Government, and we will report back on progress on that issue in due course. We are very keen—as, I am sure, the new UK Government is—to make progress on the issue, in compliance with state aid rules, and to ensure that we continue to support connectivity for the Highlands and Islands.

With regard to the specifics of the Oxfam report, I have asked officials to engage with Oxfam on the substance and the details of its calculations. Having had a quick look at the report, I have to say that it does not appear, at first glance, to have taken into account behavioural impacts. That is interesting, given that the primary thrust of the report is to reduce travel by private jet in the interests of tackling climate change.

However, as I said, I have asked my officials to engage constructively with Oxfam to understand the basis of its calculations. We will continue to engage with all parties in the Parliament with regard to discussions on what will be included in the forthcoming Scottish Government budget.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We have time for a concise question 8.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will be concise, as always.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that school meals meet or exceed existing nutritional standards. (S6O-03812)

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

We expect all local authorities to comply with the high standards that are set out in the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020, which are accompanied by supporting statutory guidance. Education Scotland health and nutrition inspectors monitor school food and drink provision as part of the school inspection programme.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

School meals are a crucial way to offer the balanced nutrition that is so important in tackling hunger, malnutrition and issues relating to behaviour, attainment and physical and mental health. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the current nutritional standards are sufficiently high to meet those criteria?

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

I am cognisant of time. There is a technical working group that has independently advised on the development of nutritional standards. That group’s primary focus is on the health and wellbeing of children and young people. I am more than happy to engage directly with the member about that, because I know that he has previously raised the issue here.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The Scottish National Party’s plan for a national care service has already wasted £28 million of taxpayers’ money. Four parliamentary committees have warned about its flaws, national health service bosses have serious concerns and Scotland’s council leaders and unions have pulled their support, so why is the First Minister pushing ahead with a plan that no one seems to want?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Before I answer the substance of Russell Findlay’s question, I welcome him to his post as leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. I look forward to our exchanges, which will take their course over the coming weeks, months and years.

The national care service is a product of consultation and dialogue with members of the public. It follows the Feeley review of adult social care, which concluded that across the country there was such variation in the quality and effectiveness of social care that there was an argument, and a necessity, for a national care service to ensure that, wherever in the country an individual is in the social care service, they are able to receive the highest-quality support. That is the foundation of the national care service and it is on that basis that the Government will pursue the proposition that have we put to Parliament.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for his kind words and look forward to our exchanges: I have counted 60 until election day.

I really hope for some answers from the First Minister. One in five care homes has closed in the past decade and the NHS is paying the price, with almost 2,000 people trapped in hospitals—the highest number on record. Scotland’s care sector is collapsing today. People need action today. Every penny should be spent helping them today, rather than wasting years on yet another SNP pet project that is doomed to failure. Why can the First Minister not see that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is for many of the reasons that Mr Findlay puts to me that I support having a national care service. I am very concerned about the level of delayed discharge in our hospitals today. That has been the focus of significant attention from me as First Minister, from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and his team and from those who act on our behalf.

I will give Mr Findlay an illustration of the problem in the country. Almost 2,000 people are delayed in leaving hospital at the moment. We have been putting in a sustained effort, and I think that the situation would have been significantly worse had we not done so. However, per 100,000 of population, the number of delayed discharges in each area ranges today from 9.3 in one local authority area to 108 in another, which is 10 times as many. If one local authority area can secure a delayed discharge level of 9.3 per 100,000 of population, I ask myself why the position is 10 times worse at the other end of the spectrum. That is unfair, it must be addressed and that is what a national care service will deliver.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister’s own figures reveal that this is a today problem, and it is classic SNP—wasting time and money and neglecting what people really need. Government ministers are yet again grabbing power from local communities. The national care service will cost billions of pounds, and that is just to set it up. How will another expensive, bloated and wasteful quango help anyone?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

One of the factors that Mr Findlay will be calculating in the cost assessment that he has just put on the record is the fact that, as part of this exercise, we intend to increase the pay and remuneration of social care workers around the country. No wonder he objects to that, because the Conservatives have objected to every attempt on our part to improve pay for social care workers the length and breadth of the country.

I assure Mr Findlay that, at the present moment, significant pressure is being applied to improve the delayed discharge position in local authority areas where it is poor. We maintain that pressure on a constant basis and it occupies a huge amount of my attention as First Minister and that of the health secretary. Some areas are improving, but not nearly fast enough. If we have a situation in which, in one local authority area, it is possible for there to be only 9.3 members of the public in delayed discharge per 100,000, how is it justifiable for there to be 10 times that number in any other part of the country? That is why we need a national care service.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

This really does sum up what is wrong with politics in Scotland. There are plans for a national care service that are costing a fortune but not caring for anyone, just like the ferries that do not carry passengers and prisons that free criminals early. This Government needs a reality check. It has become disconnected from the people that it is supposed to represent, like the thousands who are in need of care today. Surely it is basic common sense to ditch the SNP’s national care service plan and just put the money directly into front-line care.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This Government is investing in our social care system and investing in the provision of care services throughout this country in a more significant way than is provided for by the financial allocations made to Scotland by the United Kingdom Government. Mr Findlay, of course, was a supporter of Liz Truss. We can—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Carry on, First Minister. [ Interruption. ] Members!

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Conservatives obviously do not like being reminded that Mr Findlay—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will hear the First Minister. Many members wish to put questions today. I would like us to continue.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Conservatives obviously do not like hearing that Mr Findlay was a supporter of Liz Truss, whose economic and fiscal policies have undermined the public finances of Scotland. That is the reality that I point out to Mr Findlay.

This Government has taken the hard decisions to invest more in our public services and more in our health and social care services than would have been the case if we had followed the United Kingdom Government’s budget allocations to Scotland—£1.5 billion more invested in our public services.

If Mr Findlay wants a lesson in reality, I will tell him that I will not follow the discredited and failed policies of the Conservative Party. We will make our choices here in Scotland to invest in our public services and to protect the people of our country.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We have known for years that delayed discharge is exacerbating the crisis in our national health service. Delayed discharge is when someone is medically cleared to leave hospital but is unable to do so due to the lack of a care package. Almost a decade and countless health ministers ago, the SNP promised to eradicate this dangerous practice, but new figures show that, on average, 2,000 patients were needlessly stuck in hospital every day in August—the highest number on record. That is the equivalent of every bed in NHS Lothian or every bed in Ninewells, Raigmore, Wishaw and Inverclyde hospitals combined.

More than £1.3 billion has been lost to delayed discharge since the Scottish National Party promised in February 2005 to eradicate it. Why has the SNP Government spectacularly failed to tackle the crisis?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Mr Sarwar will know, there has been a significant increase in demand on our health and care services as a consequence of the Covid pandemic. That is the reality of what we are wrestling with.

In addressing that reality, the Government has delivered on our commitment in the programme for government to increase social care spending by 25 per cent over this session of Parliament—two years ahead of our original target. We have put in those extra resources because we were prepared to take the hard decision on tax in order to increase public investment and public expenditure.

I do not in any way diminish or dismiss the significance of the problem of delayed discharge. I have recounted and put on the record the disparity in the performance of health and social care partnerships around the country, which is a source of great concern to me.

The Government has invested in the system to ensure that we can support it and deliver on expectations. However, we face higher demand as a consequence of Covid.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister fails to measure the outcomes of what is happening in our health and social care system. The Government has a track record of failure on outcomes, with devastating consequences. There are record levels of delayed discharge on its watch.

Scottish Labour has called for a national care service for more than a decade. When the Government finally agreed to support one, we welcomed that, but we also warned that it had to be more than a slogan. Half a decade later, the SNP’s plans are in disarray. The fact is that its plans are for a national care service in name only, which will do nothing to fix the problem and will not fund a single extra care worker or improve services. That is why care unions, councils and national health service leaders are now withdrawing support and raising concerns.

The SNP’s plans could now cost £2.2 billion. Surely, that money should be spent on care packages, additional workers, better pay and conditions and reducing delayed discharge.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That is precisely what the Government is doing. I have just put on the public record the fact that the Government has increased social care spending by 25 per cent—which was our target—and has delivered that early.

Members of the Parliament must accept that we have to operate within a budget that is agreed by this Parliament. Within the commitments that we have made, we have increased social care expenditure so that care workers are paid more, which they are, and so that more care workers are employed, as they are being, to make sure that we can deliver that care.

However, there is a challenge from rising demand, which is why the delayed discharge figure is so high, and we have variations in performance among the different areas of the country. Those are the realities that we are wrestling with.

Reducing public expenditure or not continuing to invest in that service will not help us. Mr Sarwar now represents the position of wanting to change what we have done on tax. He does not support the extra investment that we have generated from tax decisions; he supports a United Kingdom Government that is carrying on with austerity. We have to break out of the austerity cycle—we need investment. This Government is committed to that, but I do not think that Mr Sarwar is.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister does not live in reality and does not accept that, on the Government’s watch, outcomes are getting worse for people in Scotland. He can try to spin the facts and blame others all he wants, but the truth is that his plan is an absolute disaster. Workers do not want it, experts do not want it and warnings have been ignored for years. The Government’s botched plans are just a power grab. They will waste money, will not improve care and will not address delayed discharge, which is a key factor in the NHS crisis.

We support a proper national care service, but no good idea ever survives the incompetence of the Government. Will the First Minister wake up to the reality in our NHS and care service, ditch the costly and unworkable National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, and bring forward a credible alternative plan to fix the crisis that the Government has created?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am interested in all that Mr Sarwar has said today. Unless I misheard him, I do not think that he spoke at any stage about service users. They are the people who want a national care service, because they are deeply concerned by the issues that we are wrestling with.

The Government will engage constructively with all interested parties about the establishment of a national care service, because we want to improve outcomes for members of the public. We are committed to doing exactly that. We will engage constructively with the Labour Party, and anyone else, on their ideas for establishing such a service. However, members must be aware that when they come here to demand investment in our public services, they have to be prepared to support the means to make that happen. That does not happen if they oppose what we are doing on tax. Neither does it happen if members of Parliament say that there will be no austerity, as Mr Sarwar told me during the election campaign, but then deliver austerity when they are in power in the United Kingdom Government. That does not add up. It will not meet the needs of patients in our country, and it will not deliver better outcomes for our people.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The world’s failure to address Israel’s impunity, to protect civilians or to prevent war crimes has made the escalation of violence in the middle east inevitable. Through devolved funding decisions, the Scottish Government has a role to play here. There have been far too many deaths: there were the brutal killings that occurred on 7 October 2023; genocide has been inflicted on the people of Gaza; we have seen the bombardment and invasion of Lebanon; and now the world faces the imminent threat of full-scale regional war. We need an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and de-escalation in the wider region. However, the Prime Minister continues to provide arms and political support to Israel regardless of the consequences.

Given that devolved funding decisions are involved, what is the First Minister’s response to the crisis? Will he join the Scottish Greens in calling for de-escalation and for the United Kingdom Government to end its complicity in the war crimes that are being inflicted on Palestinians and others?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I share the deep concern that Patrick Harvie has expressed to Parliament about the situation in the middle east. The calls that my predecessor and I have made for a ceasefire in Gaza—which we have done for some considerable time, dating back to late October last year—have highlighted the danger of escalation of the conflict, which is exactly what is now happening. If there had been intervention to deliver a ceasefire a long time ago, we could have avoided being on the very dangerous course that we are now on.

I reiterate my call for there to be an immediate ceasefire and for all parties of good will to exercise their influence and responsibility to ensure that that is brought about and that there is de-escalation of the conflict in the middle east. All of this, of course, goes back to the atrocities that were committed by Hamas in early October 2023. All hostages should be returned, a ceasefire should be applied to resolve the issues, and a two-state solution should be developed to ensure that Palestinians can live in safety in their own sovereign, independent nation.

Mr Harvie raises with me issues of devolved responsibility. He and I had an exchange about that on 30 May 2024. This morning, I reread that exchange to satisfy myself that all steps that we can take within our legal responsibility are being taken, to ensure that the concerns that Mr Harvie puts to me are properly pursued.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

There is a responsibility on all Governments to act in the face of so much violence and destruction, and I welcome the fact that the First Minister has repeated his calls for a ceasefire and de-escalation and for statehood for Palestine, and I hope that he continues to oppose the sale of arms to Israel.

However, the Greens have repeatedly raised the Scottish Government’s track record in giving grants to the companies that are producing those weapons and are profiting from the killings. Tens of thousands of people have been killed, yet companies that are arming Israel have received hundreds of thousands of pounds from Scottish Enterprise. The First Minister has repeatedly defended that by saying that his Government does not fund the manufacture of munitions, but that is not the point. The Government is funding the companies that profit from those atrocities. Will the First Minister finally send a clear signal today by immediately banning those companies from receiving grants and support from the Scottish Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand why Patrick Harvie put that question to me, and I understand the basis and substance of his point.

What I said back on 30 May 2024 was:

“we have to have a legal basis for saying, for matters that are not related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, that we are not providing a grant.”—[Official Report, 30 May 2024; c 18.]

That is the key legal test that the Government must satisfy. Whatever else is happening in the world, the Government has to act within the law, and, under my leadership, it will do so, because I believe fundamentally in the rule of law in all circumstances—it would help if many other people believed in the rule of law as well with regard to resolving some of these issues.

I do not in any way dismiss the points that Patrick Harvie put to me, but I simply say that I have to act within the law, and that, as I have assured him, I will explore once again whether there are any actions that we can take that will properly address our legal responsibilities and the moral and ethical issues that he fairly put to me this afternoon, and I will keep the matter under review.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister, in light of the recent reports of an increase in alcohol-related deaths in Scotland, what steps the Scottish Government is taking to reduce excessive drinking. (S6F-03420)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The recent statistics are a stark reminder of the challenge that our nation faces in tackling alcohol harm. The increase in minimum unit pricing of alcohol to 65p per unit this week is an example of concrete action taken by this Government to prevent alcohol harm.

Research has estimated that our policy has saved hundreds of lives and has likely averted hundreds of alcohol-attributable hospital admissions, compared with what would have happened without minimum unit pricing in place.

To support people who are already drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, the Scottish Government provided a sustained record investment of £112 million to alcohol and drug partnerships this year.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Whether we agree with the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing or not, we will agree that it will certainly not be a silver bullet. Many people who are caught in excessive drinking or addiction are self-medicating to counter other traumas. If we are to effectively tackle the scourge of that addiction in Scotland, we need to not only recognise the right to recovery that is advocated by the Scottish Conservatives but work to prevent others from falling into addiction.

Does the First Minister recognise that community activities such as music and drama, and activities provided by youth clubs, sports clubs, the scouts, the guides and all the similar great organisations can also be positive alternative forms of self-medication? If he does, does he further recognise that reducing access to such activities in schools and the community, closing facilities and squeezing third sector funding makes preventing addiction that much more difficult?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is a lot in Mr Whittle’s question with which I agree. The opportunity to have a fulfilling life that does not require any resort to alcohol or drug dependency can often be delivered by participation in many of the organisations and activities that he mentions. I assure him that I strongly support the work of the third sector and many of the organisations that he talks about—I very much practise that in my parliamentary and ministerial activities.

The only note of discord that I would sound is that we have to find the money from somewhere. I keep coming back to the point that it is all very well for members of Parliament to come here and ask us to fund things and make other provision—which I think is totally valuable—but they must say where they would find the resources for that if they are not going to support us with regard to having the means to do so.

Mr Whittle’s party was responsible for the chaos in our public finances with which we wrestle, and the Government is working our way through those challenges. I simply appeal to Mr Whittle to follow through on his commitment to encourage me to support those organisations and activities by supporting us in having the means to invest in them through the budget process.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Does the First Minister agree that the minimum unit pricing of alcohol has already proven itself, given that analysis by Public Health Scotland and the University of Glasgow estimates that the policy

“has reduced alcohol deaths by 13.4 per cent and hospital admissions caused by alcohol by 4.1 per cent”?

Will he outline the actions that the Scottish Government has taken, in addition to innovative policies such as minimum unit pricing, to support people seeking treatment for alcohol-related issues?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I very much agree with Collette Stevenson that minimum unit pricing has been effective. Recent commentary in The Lancet—in a contribution by internationally renowned public health experts—stated:

“Policy makers can be confident that there are several hundred people ... who are alive today as a result of minimum unit pricing.”

That is something that I think we should all welcome as showing the effectiveness of the policy. However, minimum unit pricing is not the only instrument of policy that we have. On alcohol treatment, the Government has made available £112 million to alcohol and drug partnerships, and we have made £100 million available—or will do so over the course of this parliamentary session—to increase access to residential rehabilitation. We will work with stakeholders to create a new national service specification, alongside guidance for alcohol treatment, to address these issues.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The World Health Organization estimates that more than half of children in Scotland have tried alcohol before they turn 13. What progress is the Government making on the issue? Will the First Minister commit to pursuing policies, with some urgency, that deliver an alcohol-free childhood?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree fundamentally with the point that Carol Mochan put to me. The Government is of course pursuing a number of measures under consultation in relation to alcohol marketing, so as to achieve the objective that she understandably put to me. I reassure her that it is part of the Government’s programme to put in place measures that avoid children having exposure to alcohol in their childhood and enable us to achieve more positive outcomes for young people.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is regarding whether teachers are essential to raising educational attainment and closing the poverty-related attainment gap. (S6F-03413)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Scotland’s teachers are vital to driving improvements in our schools, raising attainment and closing the poverty-related attainment gap. That is the reason why we are providing local authorities with £145.5 million in this year’s budget to protect teacher numbers and why the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I are committed to working with our local authority partners to ensure the best possible education for every child in Scotland.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister will know that not a single local authority has agreed to receive that funding. The First Minister says that he believes that teachers are essential, and his education secretary says that she cannot raise attainment with fewer teachers, yet 450 of them in Glasgow have begun to lose their jobs. As the First Minister himself just said, those jobs are essential. Teachers are working 11 hours extra unpaid every week, on average, and new teachers cannot get jobs on the present Government’s watch.

Enough is surely enough, and Parliament therefore voted for my motion for the Government to intervene, save jobs and produce a proper plan. Once again, however, the Government has ignored the will of the Parliament. I therefore ask the First Minister today: when will teachers have the stability that they deserve?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The teaching profession is fundamental to our education system in Scotland. I saw that first hand when I was education secretary, and I reiterate what I have put on the record today, which is that teachers play a critical role in the achievement of the Government’s objectives on education. It is for that reason that we are making available the resources to protect teacher numbers. Pam Duncan-Glancy has said to me that local authorities have not yet agreed to accept that money. A way of stabilising the teaching profession would be for local authorities to agree to accept the money that the Government has put on the table. That would be the simplest way to take things forward. I think that it would help local authority financing to have certainty from the Government about investment in the teaching profession, which has always been our priority.

I am very pleased that we have reached a situation in which the teaching profession has accepted the pay offer that has been made through the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers. That provides further stability for the teaching profession, and it means that teachers in Scotland continue to be the best paid in the United Kingdom.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Time and again, Labour members come to the chamber to demand more spending, while at the same time standing behind Keir Starmer’s and Rachel Reeves’s austerity agenda. Does the First Minister agree that it is vital that the United Kingdom budget commits to investment rather than austerity and that it is for all parties to join the Scottish National Party in making that case to the UK Government?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am not entirely clear that that question relates to the substantive question on the paper. Therefore, I will call Liam Kerr.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Instability with teaching jobs extends to supply teacher posts. Recent figures from the Scottish teachers for permanence campaign suggest that 80 per cent of supply teachers have had little or no supply work this year and, in some councils, more than 60 per cent of those teachers have had less than a month’s work. Taken with Pam Duncan-Glancy’s statistics, that paints a picture of job insecurity, negative impact on pupil experience, financial uncertainty and little encouragement for those who are seeking to join the profession. Can the First Minister provide the Parliament with a published strategy to address the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, or is his Government making it up as it goes along?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Mr Kerr will know, teachers are employed by individual local authorities. [ Interruption .] If we have got to the point that Conservative Party members groan when statements of fact are put on the record, the Conservative Party is in a pretty dismal position. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Local authorities employ teachers, and the Government works with local authorities on workforce planning. All those factors are taken into account when admission levels for initial teacher education are set, which is a collaboration between the Government and local authorities. That is the point that I was going to make before the groaning started from Conservative members. Workforce planning is undertaken in Scotland to ensure that we have a sufficient supply of qualified teachers to contribute to the education profession. I will ask the education secretary to reflect on whether further refinements are required in the light of Mr Kerr’s question. We undertake workforce planning because it informs the admission to initial teacher education, which is critical to ensuring that we have all the skills that are necessary for our teaching profession in Scotland.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementaries.

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

During recent weeks, a number of constituents have contacted me regarding concerning incidents that have taken place on Scottish Government-owned land in Granton. Most worryingly, a fire was started that damaged a substation and left local residents without an electricity supply for many hours. The land is designated for an exciting new development by the National Galleries of Scotland, which I hope will proceed soon. In the meantime, however, my constituents and I would be grateful if the First Minister and colleagues could quickly consider how the Scottish Government can take more action to secure the land to reduce risk, criminality and antisocial behaviour in the area.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the concerns that Mr Macpherson raises on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that we will do all that we can to encourage the site to be secured. We will work closely with the City of Edinburgh Council and Police Scotland to identify solutions to the challenges that are faced in the Granton area. As Mr Macpherson knows, the project for National Galleries of Scotland is an important Government commitment. We look forward to taking the necessary steps to secure the site in advance of its development.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

As part of dyslexia awareness week, Dyslexia Scotland and the University of Glasgow yesterday published a hard-hitting research project report, “Towards a dyslexia-friendly Scotland?”, which looks at the experience of 1,400 adults with dyslexia. The report highlights a number of areas of concern, including challenges in obtaining an adult assessment outwith formal education. A total of 80 per cent of participants said that the cost of getting an assessment was preventing them from having their dyslexia identified, and three quarters said that it was negatively impacting them in the workplace. Those concerns have been raised numerous times, with little progress being made. Will the First Minister therefore agree to meet Dyslexia Scotland and a cross-party group of MSPs to discuss the findings, and will he finally agree that the Scottish Government should fund those important assessments for all adults?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am familiar with the research that Mr Mundell puts to me, and I acknowledge the significance of the issue arising where dyslexia is not identified and, as a consequence, not supported. I am very happy to agree to meet Mr Mundell and Dyslexia Scotland; I have engaged with the organisation in the past, and I would welcome a continuation of that dialogue. There are obviously financial implications of meeting the costs of the assessments that Mr Mundell highlighted to me, but we will have those discussions and identify what further actions the Government can take to support the legitimate aspirations that Mr Mundell has outlined.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The First Minister will be aware of the case of my constituent who died last week in an industrial accident in Southampton. His death will be subject to a coroner’s inquest, which will be months away. An interim death certificate is issued by the coroner as a matter of course, but legislation that was passed in Scotland in 2015 allows only full death certificates to be accepted for burials and cremations in Scotland. That means that my constituent cannot be brought home for burial or cremation, which obviously compounds his family’s distress.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care for his positive engagement on the issue. However, what can the First Minister himself do to resolve the matter urgently? Will he consider specifically whether Health Improvement Scotland, which provides a death certification review service, can act in this case?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am familiar with the case—I sympathise very much with the family involved, and I understand that this circumstance will add to the distress that they are suffering.

Jackie Baillie received a reply on that question from the health secretary last night, and I assure her that we are in touch with the relevant authorities to try to find a way through the situation to resolve the issue. I do not have a solution as yet, but I assure her that we are actively working to try to ensure that that is the case, and to do so as swiftly as we possibly can.

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

On 27 September, the Afghan embassy in the United Kingdom closed, leaving the 280,000-strong Afghan diaspora in the UK, including constituents of mine and families across Scotland, without consular services such as passport facilities, which enable travel.

For the avoidance of doubt, I note that the consular services were provided by a small and committed staff team who remained loyal to the now-toppled democratically elected Government of Afghanistan and who rejected the Taliban completely.

The closure of the embassy will have a detrimental impact on many families who have made their lives and homes in Scotland. Will the First Minister make direct representations to the UK Government to see how it might be able to support the reopening of the embassy and, with it, the restoration of consular services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I appreciate the difficulty that Mr Doris puts to me, and I am happy to confirm that we will make representations to the United Kingdom Government on that basis to see what can be achieved. It is a deeply regrettable situation that the Afghan embassy faced closure following the dismissal of staff by the Taliban Government. Individuals should have access to representation by their Government, and they should be supported in ensuring that their needs are met. I give Mr Doris an assurance that we will make those representations to the United Kingdom Government to determine how those issues can be resolved.

As Mr Doris raised with me the issue of the Afghan population in Scotland, I make the point that their contribution to our country is deeply valued and that they are citizens who are welcome here. We want to do everything that we can to ensure that they can contribute to our society and can be well supported in so doing.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

This morning, police officers from across Scotland have been holding a silent demonstration in front of the Parliament, and many officers are currently in the public gallery. Years of brutal cuts from the Scottish Government have left hard-working police officers doing their jobs with one hand tied behind their back. As a consequence, police officer numbers are at their lowest since 2007. Will the First Minister recognise, therefore, that police officers feel undervalued and overworked, and will he commit to a fair pay deal in line with pay deals for other public sector workers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy to put it on the record that I value enormously the contribution that police officers make to our lives in Scotland. They are essential contributors to the safety of members of the public, and they provide a pivotal and essential role that is highly valued by me, as First Minister, and by the Scottish Government.

Police pay is negotiated through two separate processes—the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland for police officers’ pay, and the joint national consultative committee for police staff pay. Pay claims have now been submitted for both officers and staff and will be progressed through the relevant negotiating processes. That process will resolve the issues that Pam Gosal put to me.

Our police officers in Scotland have consistently been the best paid in the United Kingdom, at the minimum and the maximum of each rank. That recognises their hard work and the valuable contribution that they make daily, as well as our commitment to investing in policing.

With regard to police numbers, recruitment is under way, which is designed to boost police numbers. The statistics on that will be published in due course.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the First Minister, in the light of the disruption that will arise from the closure of the Princess Alexandra eye pavilion for the next six months, what financial support the Scottish Government has committed to providing to NHS Lothian, to ensure that no patient loses out now or in the future.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the significance of the issue that Sarah Boyack puts to me. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has been actively engaged on the issue, and there will be a briefing on it to members of Parliament tomorrow.

We are in discussion with NHS Lothian about the arrangements to ensure continuity of service to individuals who will be affected by the closure because of the structural issues that we have to confront. The health secretary will keep members of Parliament updated about the steps that are being taken to ensure that the concerns that Sarah Boyack puts to me are properly and fully addressed.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Almost two thirds of teachers who were surveyed in Fife are considering leaving the profession, as a result of violence in schools. What can the First Minister say to those teachers to keep them teaching? What, precisely, has changed as a result of the recently published Government guidance on behaviour?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the concerns of members of the teaching profession, and those concerns are taken seriously by the Government. That is why we brought forward the proposals and mechanisms that were made available to the teaching profession at the start of the school year. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills announced all those changes. There are now a greater range of responsibilities and opportunities for the teaching profession to exercise, to ensure that schools remain safe places for all, which they should be in all circumstances. The local authorities have been part of the process of formulating those proposals and, as the employers of teachers, they are available to support teachers in exercising the responsibilities that they need to exercise to keep schools safe.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is vital that we continue to take action to tackle the housing emergency, and the £22 million investment this week into the charitable bond programme to increase investment in affordable homes will play an important role in that. Can the First Minister outline the impact of the UK Government’s savage cut to the availability of the type of funding that is known as financial transactions on the Scottish Government’s wider ability to invest in housing under the limited powers of devolution?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The specific point on financial transactions is very important for the affordable housing supply programme budget, because we experienced a 62 per cent cut to financial transactions by the previous United Kingdom Government. That financial mechanism was crucial in enabling the affordable housing programme to be sustained at the previous level, and it has largely accounted for the falls in available investment. We have made representations to the UK Government—I have raised the issue with the chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister—to secure a change to that approach. We will get the answer to that point in the budget on 30 October.

I say to Emma Roddick that those investment streams are absolutely crucial in enabling us to sustain our investment in affordable housing, but the Government is also deploying innovation with other mechanisms that we have developed, such as charitable bonds and the work on negotiation around providing financial support to bring void properties back into use, which demonstrate some of the flexibility that we are putting in place to address the housing challenges that we face around Scotland.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is now more than three years since the Scottish National Party Government announced a review into the dualling of the A96. The review is nearly two years late and the Government’s delaying tactic has cost taxpayers almost £6 million. On Friday, an air ambulance had to be called to yet another harrowing collision just outside Huntly. Will the First Minister stop playing political games with people’s lives and tell us when the review will finally be published?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has made clear our commitments in relation to the A96, including dualling the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and in relation to the Nairn bypass. A review is under way in relation to the remainder of the route. That will be concluded in due course, and Parliament will be advised of its implications.

The Government is committed to ensuring that we take measures to address road safety in all parts of the country. The transport secretary is focused on those measures and has put in place a range of practical steps to ensure that that is the case.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Ardrossan Harbour

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-12723, in the name of Katy Clark, on Ardrossan harbour. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament understands that it has been seven years since the Scottish Government decided to retain Ardrossan as the service’s mainland port for the Arran service, citing connectivity, reliability, overall operational cost to the public purse and socio-economic considerations; further understands that it has been six years since Transport Scotland approved proposals to redevelop the harbour, which it understands includes major works necessary to run the MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa vessels from the port; understands that a refreshed business case to redevelop the harbour is yet to be finalised; considers that the daily Ardrossan-Brodick service is critical to the economic development of both Ardrossan and the Isle of Arran, and that this is the quickest, shortest route, with supporting infrastructure already in place, and notes the belief that the Scottish Government must provide a clear commitment that Ardrossan will be retained as the mainland port to serve Arran in the long term.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am grateful to all the members who signed the motion to enable the debate to take place.

Ardrossan has been the main ferry port for services to Arran for 190 years, because the Ardrossan to Brodick route is the shortest, quickest and most convenient way to get to and from Arran for most people. Infrastructure has been built around the port at Ardrossan, including transport infrastructure such as railway links, and the town’s economy is heavily dependent on the ferry route.

Eight years ago next month, MSPs and local councillors from various political parties joined members of the public and businesses to demonstrate fierce backing for retaining the Ardrossan to Brodick ferry route. The keep it A to B campaign was launched in response to the announcement by Humza Yousaf, then the Minister for Transport and the Islands, that there would be a wide-ranging feasibility study to examine the future of the Arran route, following a bid to remove the service from Ardrossan and give it to Troon. The study looked at the options under four broad pillars: connectivity, reliability, overall operational cost and socioeconomic considerations. After all the evidence was considered, the decision was taken to retain Ardrossan as the main land port for the Arran ferry service, as that was clearly the best option.

Fast forward to now, eight years after the launch of the keep it A to B campaign, and local residents, businesses and groups in Arran and Ardrossan still do not have any certainty that their lifeline ferry service will continue from Ardrossan harbour, due to the disastrous failure to commence the work at Ardrossan.

The two new ferries, the MV Glen Sannox and the MV Glen Rosa, should have come into service in 2018 and 2019. Despite both ferries being delayed for more than five years, the harbour work has not started and there has been no tender process to ascertain costs. The Scottish Government decided to commission the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa with a design that required the reconfiguration and upgrading of Ardrossan harbour to enable the vessels to berth. It knew that the infrastructure in terms of ports and fuel was not in place. The commissioning decision meant that decisions had to be made about the future of the port. The port is owned by Peel Ports, and it was obvious to those with experience of that owner that there might be problems with coming to a decision that it would agree with. Now, despite the ferries being more than five years late, no work has started at Ardrossan.

The delay of the two ferries has already cost the local economy millions of pounds on the island of Arran, which is heavily dependent on tourism. In Ardrossan, which has some of the most beautiful beaches and views along our coast, we suffer from some of the worst deprivation in North Ayrshire, and moving the ferry service would surely tear the heart out of the town.

The Glen Sannox started berthing trials at Brodick this week, and I hope that a service from there will start later this year, but it will not be going to Ardrossan—it has been rerouted to Troon—and there is real concern that the ferry service will never come back to Ardrossan.

Last night, more than 340 people—residents, those in businesses and other supporters—met in the Ardrossan civic centre for the inaugural meeting to launch the save Ardrossan harbour campaign. Many more were unable to get into the room. It feels like groundhog day. Eight years on from the keep it A to B campaign and eight years on from the argument being won on Ardrossan, local people still cannot get a cast-iron commitment from the Scottish Government that the Arran ferry service will keep operating out of Ardrossan in the future.

It has also been six years since Transport Scotland approved proposals to redevelop Ardrossan harbour. Constituents rightly feel angry and frustrated. You could not make this up. We have had enough time wasting and enough excuses. I have no doubt that the work would have been completed by now if the port had been brought into public ownership, which is why Labour has been calling for that to happen for a number of years. The future of Ardrossan as a ferry port, with integrated ScotRail train services, must be preserved. We must get that commitment from the Scottish Government.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will Katy Clark take an intervention?

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I am glad to take an intervention from the local member.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Since harbour privatisation in 1992, Labour has controlled North Ayrshire Council for 26 years and Westminster for 13 years. It was in control at the Scottish Parliament for eight years, and the member was the local MP for a decade. Why is the port still in private hands? Will the United Kingdom Labour Government set aside the Subsidy Control Act 2022 to enable investment to be made in Ardrossan harbour?

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

As the member is well aware, this is a devolved matter. As he also knows, the Labour group in North Ayrshire Council asked for a number of years to be allowed to take the port into municipal ownership because of the horrific impact on the local economy of the delay to the redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour.

The lack of investment in Ardrossan harbour and in our ageing ferry fleet is a national emergency. It has been a national embarrassment for the Scottish Government, and it has been a disaster for businesses and residents in Ardrossan and on Arran.

My constituents in Ardrossan and Arran deserve an apology. They deserve a Scottish Government commitment to provide an adequate support package to cover the cost of the delays. They deserve a reliable ferry service on the fastest route—one that they can count on. Most of all, they deserve a cast-iron commitment from the Scottish Government that Ardrossan is the preferred route for the Arran service and a guarantee that the much-needed works to the harbour will get under way as soon as possible. I sincerely hope that the minister can give my constituents that commitment and guarantee today.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I congratulate Ms Clark on securing this important debate on the Ardrossan harbour redevelopment project. Last night, in the Ardrossan civic centre, I was the only MSP to participate in a packed public meeting that was called by the save Ardrossan harbour group, which is made up of local residents. They encapsulated the frustration and strength of feeling about the seemingly never-ending saga of the harbour’s redevelopment. I was the 267th person to arrive and, soon after, the doors had to be closed, with many people left outside. Emotions ran high as local businesspeople spoke passionately about the harbour’s vital importance to the town and North Ayrshire. Ardrossan harbour is not just a port that has served Arran for 190 years but a key pillar of the town’s economy.

Prior to the pandemic, the Scottish Government’s introduction of the road equivalent tariff and the huge increase in traffic that followed the massive reduction in fares, which are still barely half of what they were when the SNP came into office, meant that 850,000 passengers travelled to Brodick annually, supporting 165 jobs. In 2017, when redevelopment was first mooted, with Troon as a potential alternative port, the entire Ardrossan community, backed by parties across North Ayrshire Council, fought a magnificent and successful campaign to retain the ferry service permanently at Ardrossan.

Despite Scottish ministers’ unwavering commitment to Ardrossan since then, the communities of Ardrossan and Arran have been left in the dark and starved of information, as redevelopment has been repeatedly delayed. I know how they feel. I acknowledge that there are some commercial confidentiality issues, but, at last night’s meeting, the lack of transparency and communication was clearly a source of immense frustration for Ardrossan residents and Arranachs, who are reliant on ferry services and understandably feel beleaguered by the abysmal service that they endure.

Cast-iron commitments given by the Scottish Government, North Ayrshire Council and Peel Ports to the harbour project year after year have yet to result in shovels in the ground. The case for Ardrossan should not have to be restated, but it must be. Ardrossan is the shortest route in time and distance, which enables more sailings to be carried out daily. It is the only port with adequate public transport links to the ferry. Essential national health service and care workers are among the many people who commute daily to Arran. Ardrossan is by far the most economic option. In 2017, Peter Brett Associates calculated that switching the service to affluent Troon would cost CalMac 4.9 times more over 30 years than it would to keep the service at Ardrossan—the figure was £118.1 million for Troon compared with £24.1 million for Ardrossan. Since then, inflation has widened that gap.

Given Ardrossan’s deep-rooted deprivation, there is an indisputable socioeconomic case for retaining the service there. Stranraer provides a stark and worrying glimpse of life without the ferry service for Ardrossan. In November 2011, the Northern Ireland ferry service was relocated from Stranraer to Cairnryan. Stranraer’s economy contracted by a staggering 26 per cent the following year, with annual contractions of 3 per cent since.

Why, seven years on, has work still to commence at Ardrossan? I do not believe that it is for lack of trying by North Ayrshire Council or Scottish ministers. The Scottish Government has invested more than £142 million in port and harbour infrastructure across 26 Clyde and Hebrides ferry ports since 2012, including £20 million in Brodick, which was redeveloped six years ago. A tender, which is likely to come in at £8 million to £10 million for a new Cumbrae slip, is being progressed, so why not Ardrossan? The key difference is that the Tories privatised Ardrossan harbour in 1992. [ Interruption .]

I will happily take an intervention from Mr Greene if he wishes to explain what benefits privatisation has brought to Ardrossan, or if he wants to apologise for the selling off of that strategic asset.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

It was not me—I am up next.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

If Ms Clark wants to make an intervention, I am happy to take it.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

It was, indeed, me who was asking for an intervention.

Does Kenneth Gibson agree that the port should have been brought into municipal ownership, because, as he said, there has been considerable investment in ports? Does he agree that Peel Ports seems to be the problem at Ardrossan? That seems to be accepted by everybody in the chamber. We need that port in public ownership, and it would have been better if that had happened some time ago to enable progress to have been made.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

As I mentioned, the Labour Party had plenty of opportunities to bring the port into public ownership. Of course, the local authority, when it was under Labour control, also promised to take into public ownership local banks, bus services and energy services, but it did none of those things. If members speak to the Scottish Parliament information centre, it will tell them that it is dubious whether bringing the port into public ownership can be achieved under devolution. However, if Katy Clark’s UK Government so wished, it could ensure that the port went back into public ownership.

Peel Ports’ lack of investment in its own asset has held Ardrossan hostage while causing operational difficulties and a decline in ferry resilience and reliability. The Irish berth, essential in easterly winds, was neglected until its sudden closure, while the Arran berth has had fenders fall into the Clyde. Despite receiving £15.48 million in harbour dues in the decade since 2013, Peel has failed to maintain and upgrade its harbour or engage with the local community. Of course, if the harbour is not redeveloped, Peel will lose its revenue stream.

Ardrossan harbour is now at a critical juncture. With the MV Glen Sannox being handed over in the coming weeks, the endless delays and uncertainty must end. We know that the UK Government has cut available capital funding by 20 per cent, that the Subsidy Control Act 2022 limits the room for manoeuvre and that renationalisation is extremely difficult under devolution. Nevertheless, it is time to bring this long-delayed business case to light and lay out a clear and transparent plan, with timescales for action. The people of Ardrossan and Arran deserve nothing less.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I assure Mr Gibson that I will address the issues that he raised in his speech—and I thank him for his speech. There has already been a lot to agree on in what has been said, and I am sure that there will be more of that to come.

I will be honest—I am not going to mince my words today, because people are angry. That palpable sense of anger has been building up over the years. It is not just me who is angry; it is our constituents on the entire west coast of Scotland, who have been let down. They are Katy Clark’s constituents, my constituents and Kenneth Gibson’s constituents. It is our islanders who are most angry. They are angry because we are still debating the delivery of ferries and the quality of our local ports.

I am angry that we always have to use Opposition time to bring up these issues in the absence of any Government debates. I hope that the Government will reflect on that. I am also angry that, seven months after the closure of the Irish berth at Ardrossan, an impasse leaves us no closer to any resolution on that part of the port.

When I brought the issue up last week in the chamber—I was probably standing just about where I am now—the Cabinet Secretary for Transport wanted to stress her sense of “deep frustration”. What an understatement. I can assure members and people in the gallery that no one in the SNP Government is anywhere near as frustrated as the islanders and ferry users themselves. They deserve much more than apologies; they deserve to be treated as every other Scot would be in such a circumstance.

I cannot believe that it has been seven years since the Scottish Government said that it would retain Ardrossan as the main Arran port. The original campaign—the keep it A to B campaign to save Ardrossan harbour—was a genuine cross-party effort by the trade union movement, all the political parties, local businesses and local campaigners and activists, all fighting against the move of the service to Troon, which was a very real threat. Eight years on, it is still not just a real threat but a real possibility.

The campaign made complete sense, because, in Ardrossan, people can step off the Arran ferry and straight on to a ScotRail train to go up to Glasgow, or they can be on the motorway to the central belt in just minutes.

I apologise to the organisers of last night’s meeting that I was not able to make it due to attending two cross-party group meetings. However, there should have been no need for such a meeting. I remember attending the original 2016 meeting; it was held in the same building, which was packed out to the rafters with people with the same concerns that I am sure were elicited last night.

Back in 2017, I asked the then Minister for Transport and the Islands, Humza Yousaf, who went on to greater and bigger things, what would happen in relation to the Glen Sannox and its ability to berth at Ardrossan port. We were reassured that every stakeholder was pulling out all the stops to get that right.

On 11 April 2018, Mr Yousaf said the following:

“The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that the Arran ferry service is fit for the future. These plans will help bring greater resilience and reliability to the link.”

Today, that assurance about “resilience and reliability” is risible, given the vessel breakdowns and repairs, the closure of the Irish berth, the annual overhauls and the late delivery of the Glen Sannox, which, I have just heard, has now been further delayed due to problems with the sea trials. I am sure that members will have more to say about that in the future. We are now relying on a vessel that is approaching the end of its life and another one that has been leased at eye-watering costs, to the extent that a new ferry could probably have been bought for the same price.

There is a comparison that I make when I talk to people about the issue. If a town with a similar population in the centre of Scotland—a town such as Cumbernauld, say—had suddenly had its road or rail access disconnected due to infrastructure failings, those problems would have been remedied in months or weeks, if not days. However, eight years on, Arran, because it is an island, is being forced simply to put up and shut up.

We know the cost of that to Arran’s economy. It is estimated that up to £13,000 is lost to the local economy every time a ferry is cancelled. We need to multiply that by thousands, given the number of cancellations. Members can do the math on that.

I do not want to get into the blame game of whether the current situation is the fault of CalMac, Peel Ports or North Ayrshire Council. All the stakeholders involved have not sat around the table. In addition, of course, the Government cannot simply remove itself from responsibility because it made the promise in the first place. That promise made is a promise broken.

I close with a warning. There is a genuine concern that the current move to Troon, albeit temporary, might become a permanent feature of the Arran route and the ferry will be lost from Ardrossan for ever, which will have a devastating impact on the economy of North Ayrshire. If that happens, the people of North Ayrshire will never forgive this Government.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Paul Sweeney, who will be the final speaker in the open debate.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I congratulate my colleague Ms Clark on lodging her members’ business motion, which I was happy to support. She adequately and comprehensively outlined the situation at Ardrossan, which, as other colleagues across the chamber have hinted at, is a symptom of a broader issue on the west coast of Scotland, in particular.

Scotland is unique among European countries in that our major ports have, in effect, been privatised—that has been the case for more than 30 years. The Clyde Port Authority, which was originally established through the merger in 1966 of the Clyde Navigation Trust, the Greenock Harbour Trust and the Clyde Lighthouses Trust, was managed as a trust port—in effect, a form of local authority—whereby it was democratically managed and democratically accountable until it was privatised under a statutory instrument of Parliament in 1992, the Clyde Port Authority Scheme 1991 Confirmation Order 1992. That happened with no real debate and no real public scrutiny; it was done in a very surreptitious manner. The order transferred the ownership of the entire port infrastructure and all the harbour authority responsibilities to a subsidiary of the Clyde Port Authority, Clydeport Ltd, which was in turn subject to a management buy-out in 1992. It was floated on the London Stock Exchange in December 1994 as Clydeport plc. In 2003, Clydeport was acquired by the private company Peel Ports, which remains its owner.

The difficulty with that is the scale of the company’s ownership. Clydeport is the largest port authority by geographic area in the UK—it covers 450 square miles of marine inshore land. It operates major infrastructure that the west coast economy depends on, including Greenock ocean terminal, the King George V dock in Glasgow, the Hunterston terminal, Ardrossan harbour, Greenock cruise terminal and Inchgreen dry dock, among other assets. Therefore, it is critical not just for the operation of lifeline ferry services, but for the entire economic development of the west of Scotland. A parliamentary debate on the subject has been lacking for some time.

In Scotland, we have a unique system, whereby we have three models of port ownership. We have private ports, of which Clydeport is one example, trust ports and local authority ports. The big problem with the privatised system of ports is that, while other countries are able to plan and invest in new port capacity in a coherent manner, so that they can, for example, align ferry procurement with port infrastructure development, in Scotland the state has, basically, abandoned its regulatory role. That means that private port owners are given port regulatory functions that should be state functions. In the UK, privatised ports have, in effect, been allowed to regulate themselves, which they have done, inevitably, in their own interests. That has been the case in the Clyde, the Forth and the Tay.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I agree that we should have a full and proper debate with more time to look at port infrastructure in Scotland, and there is probably quite a lot to agree on in some of Mr Sweeney’s other points. However, my concern is that even if all our ports were nationally owned and operated and none was held in private ownership, the current state of the public finances would still mean that lack of funds to invest in port infrastructure would leave us exactly where we are at the moment, if not in a worse place. Therefore, I do not see that as the magic solution to the problem.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The member makes an interesting point. It is important to recognise that we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good: we are where we are and must chart a coherent way forward. I would say that we can achieve better equilibrium in Scotland through improved regulation.

There are two key pieces of extant regulation. The Harbours Act 1964 gives Scottish ministers the power to reconstitute harbour authorities through a harbour revision order or, in extreme circumstances, a harbour closure order. The Marine Navigation Act 2013 allows Scottish ministers to remove a harbour authority’s pilotage duties.

Those legislative tools are available for further discussion, but I urge the minister to consider something that would be analogous to the approach that we have taken in recent years to bus regulation. We saw the privatisation of buses in the 1980s but are now using the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 to improve regulation. That is not necessarily about nationalising bus companies; it is about having equilibrium through franchising or some form of oversight.

The new Clyde mission and the Glasgow city region deal might give us a mechanism to establish better oversight and governance of Clydeport. I am sure that Peel Ports would be happy to co-operate with that, given that it might help to cohere investment and to attract pension funds or others to invest in the development of the Clyde’s infrastructure. We have seen a rush of investment in ports on the east coast because of the ScotWind programme, but there has been a dearth of investment on the west coast. There have been recent improvements at the Greenock ocean terminal and hints of possible investment at Hunterston and Inchgreen, but Ardrossan is an investment desert, which has been a disaster for the local community and the wider Clyde economy.

I urge the minister to consider a deeper dive into the opportunity to improve regulation of the west coast ports because it is not only about improving services to local communities but about growing the entire national economy. With 450 square miles effectively part of a private fiefdom, we must look at improving that jurisdiction.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite the minister, Jim Fairlie, to respond to the debate.

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

I congratulate Katy Clark on securing the debate, which raises the important issue of progress on the Ardrossan harbour redevelopment project. The cabinet secretary would like to have been here to talk about this important issue but is in London meeting meeting UK ministers—which we should accept as being a good thing.

Before I respond to the motion, I take the opportunity, as others have done, to acknowledge that the service to Arran has been subject to significant disruption due to the outage of the MV Caledonian Isles this year. Jamie Greene said that the Government does not know the frustration of the locals. I assure the member that I have spoken to locals on Arran and absolutely get it. I have run a business and absolutely get his point about what happens when something that is out of your control causes you major issues.

The cabinet secretary engaged directly with CalMac on that matter to understand what mitigation was being put in place and updated Parliament on that in response to Jamie Greene’s topical question last week. Replacement parts have been ordered and CalMac anticipates that repairs will take up to 10 days following receipt of those parts, noting that the Isle of Arran is now in dry dock, which was pre-scheduled and, regrettably, could not be changed.

Although the charter of the MV Alfred and continued operation of the secondary route has partly mitigated the impact, the Scottish ministers are keen to ensure that the community gets the capacity and level of service that it requires. We thank CalMac and the community for the expedient work to ensure that Arran services continue with the redeployed MV Hebridean Isles.

That change has affected capacity on the Islay route, which will be supported by both the MV Finlaggan and the Lord of the Isles. Unfortunately, that has impacted on the Lochboisdale service, but CalMac has acted quickly to ensure additional services from today, by using the MV Isle of Mull to operate a combined service to Lochboisdale.

I thank the affected communities for their input as CalMac utilises its route prioritisation matrix to consider the available options. Despite people’s obvious frustrations, I hope that members recognise the efforts to support Arran’s services while the MV Caley Isles is repaired, and I hope that it will return to service very soon.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I hope that the minister is going to come on to the issue that we are debating today, which is Ardrossan harbour. We are in a position where Ardrossan harbour is going to lose its ferry service completely. I hope that the minister will have time to respond fully to the issues that have been raised about that.

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

Clearly, Katy Clark has not seen my papers, but that is exactly what I am about to come on to.

I acknowledge the call in the motion for a commitment to Ardrossan. As ministers, we have already given a prior commitment to retain the Ardrossan harbour following the initial 2017 exercise. However, as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has previously highlighted, that must be underpinned by a robust business case, budget availability and commitment from the other funding partners.

I think that it will be helpful if I outline some of the key changes to the project across the timeline. Work commenced with the creation of the ministerial task force to oversee the works in 2016, and that remains on-going. We fully accept that it has taken longer than we hoped.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport said that a statement would be made on the business case “very shortly”. That was 30 days ago, but we still do not have a date for when that statement will be made. The minister talked about the partners. What people are concerned about, including my constituents and those of other speakers in the debate, is that we are all being kept in the dark. What are the issues? What are the bottlenecks? What is the Scottish Government doing to resolve them? When is this going to be resolved?

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

I thank Kenny Gibson for that intervention. If he allows me to make progress, I will, I hope, give him some answers to some of the questions that he has asked.

In 2017, Scottish ministers made a commitment that Ardrossan would remain the long-term port for the Arran service, but further work was required to finalise the project. The design and planning stage progressed following receipt of a commercial case from the partners Peel Ports Group and North Ayrshire Council, with the design of the berth orientation being confirmed in April 2019. The berth realignment was a substantial change to the original design and, although it was agreed by all partners, it meant that significant additional funding was required from the Scottish Government to facilitate the development.

As members are aware, the original proposal was to be fully funded by North Ayrshire Council and Peel Ports, although Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd would fund some elements around the passenger access system and the liquefied natural gas tank.

The project also requires legal agreement to underpin the investment by partners and ensure that the arrangements for future use of the port are robust and reflect the operations at other ports across the network. The funding contribution from the Scottish Government also needs to align with the requirements and the intervention rate restrictions under the UK Subsidy Control Act 2022. Discussions on those elements are progressing, but further work is required to finalise them. Ministers expect all partners to continue those discussions in parallel with completion of the business case.

The project partners worked collaboratively to progress the project to the tender procurement stage. However, in August 2023, Scottish ministers made the difficult decision to postpone the procurement and undertake a business case and cost exercise review.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I ask the member to let me make some progress.

That decision was not taken lightly, but the process of finalising the tender design and documents had highlighted inherent financial and project risks that remain a challenge for the main funding partners. On top of those concerns, the global escalation of construction costs compounded matters, resulting in the Scottish Government’s contribution doubling since the initial estimate. There is still uncertainty with regard to construction risks and cost that needs to be addressed.

As the ferry service will not operate from Ardrossan during the construction period, Scottish ministers invested in Troon to provide a temporary facility, which has had other benefits in supporting the service during recent disruption and ensuring that the port can be used as an alternative port in the longer term as it could offer more frequent services than the current Gourock alternative.

Transport Scotland has led on co-ordination of the business case review and cost exercise and it has continued to work closely with the project partners to progress that. However, it has proved to be a challenging process. Given the scale and importance of the investment, it is essential that we get the business case right. Additional work to support the case includes a socioeconomic assessment and a structural assessment of the stability and integrity of the port infrastructure to support the LNG tank. More recently, a valuation of the terminal building has been commissioned. All that work will help to finalise the position on the financial packages from each of the main funding partners.

Given the changes to the original commercial case and the project cost, the complexity of the project cannot be overestimated. I reiterate the message that the business case is substantially complete and that Transport Scotland is working with funding partners to finalise it as quickly as is practicable. A meeting of the task force will be convened soon, after the business case and the cost exercise review have been submitted to ministers for a decision.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will you clarify that the issue that is holding the whole thing up is the funding partners—Peel Ports, North Ayrshire Council and the Scottish Government—agreeing how much each should pay and agreeing the total cost of the project, which Turner & Townsend estimated last August at £92 million?

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

All that I can say at this point is that a number of factors need to be agreed, but I repeat that a meeting of the task force will be convened soon, after the business case and the cost exercise review have been submitted to ministers for a decision.

I note the calls from some people for a change of ownership of the port, as though that can be made to happen overnight. Although I understand the community’s frustrations, the reality is different and the process is complex. It is important that we work through the current business case to ensure that the case for development is fully considered. The funding requirements, affordability and subsidy control issues all need to be addressed.

I stress that the cabinet secretary is absolutely determined to bring the work to a conclusion as quickly as she possibly can. I hope that my remarks have helped to provide an indication of the active and complex work that is under way to ensure that ministers have all the information that is needed to finalise this important decision. I reiterate that a strong and robust business case is required and that confirmation of the wider funding packages is essential in the process.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

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

I have taken three interventions already, so I will push on.

We fully understand the importance of the matter to ensuring the most resilient ferry service to and from Arran, and I give to the people and businesses in and around Ardrossan and on Arran my assurance of the Government’s absolute commitment to finding a solution that works and progressing it as soon as we possibly can. We will update Parliament and the communities as soon as that is the case.

Portfolio Question Time

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to bring down processing times for the adult disability payment, in light of the most recent high level statistics from Social Security Scotland indicating a reversal in the previous reduction to processing times. (S6O-03797)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Social Security Scotland has made a range of improvements, which have significantly improved processing times, with decisions now being made more than 30 per cent faster than at this time last year. Social Security Scotland is also getting decisions right first time; only 11.7 per cent of decisions result in a request for a redetermination.

The agency’s workforce is managed flexibly to meet all client demand. Along with supporting new applicants, the agency supports 200,000 people who have now had their award transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions. Recent statistics highlighted the fact that more than 40,000 comprehensive reviews were carried out between April and July.

Processing times for new applications will be balanced against the need to support all clients, and will continue to be monitored to ensure that everyone is treated with dignity, fairness and respect.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Members from across parties welcomed the long-overdue fall in ADP processing times earlier this year. However, it is concerning that that trend is reversing. The latest statistics show that median waits have risen by almost 24 per cent since April and are now back at more than three months. That is markedly above the original pledge for decisions to be made within eight to ten weeks—before the target was removed from the Government’s website.

Given the on-going review of recruitment at Social Security Scotland, which we have discussed before, what further assurances can the cabinet secretary give to Scotland’s disabled community that the Government is getting on top of that reversal and ensuring that waiting times across all the payments that are administered by Social Security Scotland will fall?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Paul O’Kane is right to point to the fact that he asked me previously about the assurances that are required on recruitment levels and the Scottish Government’s recruitment freeze. I am pleased to restate my reassurance that the recruitment freeze in no way affects those who directly deliver benefit decisions for disabled clients or anyone else. The workforce is flexible and is managed flexibly, as I said in my original answer. It is important that we have that flexible workforce in the agency in order to ensure that we deliver for all clients. I assure Paul O’Kane that the agency continues to make improvements to the system, to deliver good processing times for both ADP and other benefits.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

For question 2, I call David Torrance, who joins us online. [Interruption.] I am advised that Mr Torrance needs to uncover his camera.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implications of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to reduce the winter fuel payment for the delivery of the winter heating payment in Scotland. (S6O-03798)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The United Kingdom Government’s decision to restrict eligibility for winter fuel payments was taken without consultation or discussion with the Scottish Government and has had a devastating consequence for our planned launch of pension age winter heating payment, reducing the fund that is available for that devolved payment by around £150 million.

As a result, we have had to take the difficult decision to mirror in our pension age winter heating payment the UK Government’s approach. However, this Government remains committed to continuing to press the UK Government to reverse its damaging decision, and we will keep under review every opportunity for making eligibility improvements.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Figures from the Scottish Parliament information centre show that, in my Kirkcaldy constituency alone, as many as 13,700 pensioners could be affected by the UK Government cut. Will the cabinet secretary outline what additional heating support low-income Scottish households can expect to receive this winter compared with the rest of the UK, despite the renewed austerity of a Labour Government in Westminster?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Mr Torrance is quite right to point to the other support that is available to people on low incomes, including pensioners on low incomes who receive eligible benefits. Unlike the UK Government’s cold weather payment, for example, our winter heating payment guarantees a reliable annual payment of £58.75. That is available only in Scotland. More than 134,000 of the winter heating payments that were made last winter supported people aged 65 and over, through an investment of nearly £7.4 million. This year, we are also spending £134 million to mitigate the UK Government’s policies through discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund.

I was disappointed by the proposition, made on Tuesday by a Scottish Conservative member, that we follow what the Department for Work and Pensions does on its cold weather payment, which would see us providing less money, rather than more, to pensioners across the country.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

A freedom of information request made by the Scottish edition of The Daily Telegraph has shown that the Scottish Government undertook no specific assessment of how many additional deaths would be caused by the decision to copy the Labour Party’s plan to cut winter fuel payments. Will Scottish National Party Government ministers now undertake an emergency impact assessment? Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether ministers have considered deferring the block grant adjustment on the winter fuel payment this year so that they could make the payment to pensioners across Scotland?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

If Mr Briggs will forgive me, I will limit my response to the first part of his question. He will be aware that the issue is the subject of live legal proceedings, so I will limit my remarks to saying that impact assessments were published at the same time as the regulations were laid in Parliament. I ask Mr Briggs to forgive me for not going into further detail on that. He will be aware of the support that we continue to provide to households across the country, including pensioners. That is a very important part of our work.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I asked this question on Tuesday, but I do not think that I got an answer on the additional supports that the Government offers. Why did the cabinet secretary take the decision to cut the fuel insecurity fund, which supports people, including pensioners? Why is the cold winter payment set at a standard rate in Scotland? Why has the funding for energy efficiency standards repeatedly been cut? Why has the Government failed to pass on consequentials from the household support fund? Why is that the case?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

There was a lot in that question, so my remarks will relate to one aspect. I alluded to the standard rate, to which Mr O’Kane referred, in my original remarks. If he is also suggesting that we should revert to the DWP scheme, that means that he wants us to pay less money each year and to disinvest from our social security fund. I am sure that that is not what he wants us to do, but that is what would happen if we were to revert to that scheme, which his party’s UK Government is now continuing.

I am aware of the Labour Party’s suggestion that any consequentials in the forthcoming budget could be used to support other pensioners. I cannot base a budget on a wing, a prayer and a promise when, quite frankly, only a matter of weeks before the decision was taken to take £150 million out of the Scottish Government budget, I sat in a meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and no signal—no remote hint—was forthcoming that a change was about to happen. Let us see what comes out from the UK Government in the budget, then the Scottish Government will be able to make decisions on its own budget based on knowledge rather than on a promise.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

On question 3, the member is unavailable due to committee business, which, as members will recall, was approved by the Parliament.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government how its social security policies are mitigating any impact in Scotland of the United Kingdom Government’s so-called bedroom tax and benefit cap. (S6O-03800)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

This year, we are making more than £90 million available to local authorities to spend on discretionary housing payments to mitigate United Kingdom Government policies, including the bedroom tax and the benefit cap. The benefit cap hits families hardest, and the Scottish Government’s funding helps to support around 3,400 families with more than 11,000 children. Our bedroom tax mitigation policy helps more than 94,000 households with more than 20,000 children. We are further supporting families by investing £457 million in the Scottish child payment this year. However, its impacts are greatly reduced by the UK Government’s welfare policies, including the inadequacy of the universal credit system.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Those policies are part of a United Kingdom regime that is a significant drain on the Scottish budget. That regime still includes the two-child policy and its abhorrent rape clause, and has now cut the winter fuel payment to pensioners. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the continuation of those repugnant policies shows that only with the full devolution of social security policy will real change be achieved and the culture of stigma and cruelty that is caused by the UK welfare system be brought to an end?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The member is quite right to point to the stigma and cruelty that were felt by people during the Department for Work and Pensions years, particularly with regard to disability payments. I heard that once again directly from people yesterday, when I visited the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

It is critically important that the Scottish Government does what it can to mitigate the worst excesses of the UK Government’s policies, which were Tory policies and are now, unfortunately, continuing under the Labour Party. That mitigation has cost £1.2 billion during the 14 years that those Governments have been in power.

In a debate yesterday, I gave Mr Sarwar the opportunity to agree with me that the bedroom tax should be scrapped. It was disappointing to see, once again, that he did not take the opportunity to engage in cross-party and collegiate work on that issue.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government how payments made by Social Security Scotland are incentivising people in Fife back into work. (S6O-03801)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Social security is an essential collective investment in the people of Scotland, which any of us could need at any time in our lives. Employment-related benefits such as universal credit are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and we oppose the widespread use of sanctions, as overwhelming evidence shows clearly that they do not work to support people into stable employment.

In 2020, we launched the job start payment to support young people from low-income backgrounds to enter employment. Up to the end of March 2024, we paid almost £135,000 to people in Fife.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I fundamentally believe that creating jobs and getting more people back into the workplace is the best way to tackle poverty, and I thank the cabinet secretary for highlighting job start. However, the employment rate in Fife has remained static for long periods, with almost a quarter of working-age people currently unemployed, which shows that that initiative is clearly having no impact in Fife. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government plans to invest in job creation in Fife, so that thousands of people who are currently out of work have the opportunity to get back into paid employment? How will the social security system adapt to ensure that work is always paid?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Roz McCall raises an interesting point that relates very much to the issue of the powers that we have, which was raised in a previous question.

The job start payment is delivered under further powers under the Employment and Training Act 1973. Those powers had to be agreed by the UK and Scottish Parliaments under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998. Any changes to eligibility, even minor, would require legislative change, which would need the agreement of both Governments. It is therefore a pity that we again have one hand tied behind our back. If only we had the responsibility for all the powers up here, rather than just a bit, we could do more, as Roz McCall suggests.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what its proposed timeline and target date are for the establishment of a leavers fund to support victims of domestic abuse to leave abusive relationships. (S6O-03802)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I confirm that the Scottish Government received the final evaluation of the fund to leave pilot from Scottish Women’s Aid in August 2024. That will inform a wider assessment of the pilot, which will consider how it delivered against its objectives, how it improved housing outcomes for women and/or prevented their homelessness and what lessons were learned during it.

The assessment stage is near completion, and we will then be in a position to set out the next steps.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The number of domestic abuse incidents across Scotland remains high, with nearly 62,000 incidents recorded in 2022-23, according to Police Scotland statistics. That equates to almost 170 incidents of domestic abuse per day. In the case of Dumfries and Galloway, there has been a reported 50 per cent increase in calls to local support services. Statistics show that around 23 per cent of women who become homeless do so as a direct result of violence or abusive behaviour.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s explanation of why we do not have the so-called fund to leave, but I encourage the minister to bring that forward as soon as possible.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Finlay Carson for highlighting the plight of women who are facing such atrocious circumstances in the face of domestic violence. Our delivering equally safe fund is providing £7 million this year to local women’s aid groups to support services for women and children. We have introduced provisions in the Housing (Scotland) Bill that, if passed, will put a duty on social landlords to develop and implement a domestic abuse policy outlining how they will support their tenants who are at risk of homelessness, including by protecting the rights of women to stay safe in their own homes. We will work closely with the housing and violence against women and girls sectors to develop statutory guidance to accompany that duty.

As I referred to in my previous answer, as soon as the assessment stage is completed, I will be in a better position to update Finlay Carson and everyone else.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Can the minister say what we can learn, and apply here in Scotland, from the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was introduced by the then Green MLA Rachel Woods, and which created an entitlement to 10 days of paid leave

“for victims of domestic abuse; and for connected purposes”?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Maggie Chapman for raising a very interesting point. Obviously, I will need further time to consider that, and I would welcome the two of us getting together to have further discussions on the matter.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to continue delivering social security provisions, in light of reports that total spending on devolved social security in 2024-25 is expected to be around £1.1 billion higher than the funding received from the United Kingdom Government through the block grant adjustment. (S6O-03803)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Despite fixed budgets and limited powers, we have transformed social security provision in Scotland, establishing a radically different system based on dignity, fairness and respect. We have introduced 14 benefits, and I am proud that we are committing a record £6.1 billion this year for benefits expenditure. That is almost £1.1 billion more than the UK Government gives to the Scottish Government for social security, demonstrating our national mission to eradicate child poverty and our commitment to help low-income families with their living costs, support older people and enable disabled people to live full and independent lives.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The Scottish Fiscal Commission predicts that, as things stand, social security spending will increase to £8 billion in 2028-29. Alarmingly, current figures show that Scotland’s unemployment rate is rising, with more than 120,000 people having never worked.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, when times are tough fiscally, it would be better, and advantageous, to invest in education and employment opportunities, which would not only support people back into paid work, where they can apply and develop their skills, but boost Scotland’s economy?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I recognise the slight widening out of the original question, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary can respond to the member on the theme of the original question.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I would be delighted to, as I am genuinely astounded by the line of questioning. What Sue Webber is actually suggesting that we do is take money away from poor children and their families, from disabled people or from carers. That is where our benefits go. They go to low-income people, disabled people and carers.

Sue Webber might also want to have a word with her colleagues sitting in the row in front of her—Roz McCall and Jeremy Balfour—who, in an amendment to the Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, added £6 million to a policy. That was one of many amendments lodged by Conservative colleagues. I suggest that if Sue Webber wants to have a genuine discussion about how to support disabled people, carers and those on a low income, a good starting point would be for her to have a discussion with her own parliamentary group about whether she wants to support those people.

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

Recent research by the Trussell Trust found that 48 per cent of people who receive universal credit ran out of food in the past month across the UK. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, faced with an inadequate UK welfare system, which has been devastated by the Tories—and now by Labour—the Scottish Government’s £1 billion spend above UK Government funding on social security is an absolutely vital investment in our people and our society?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Audrey Nicoll rightly points out that social security expenditure is an investment in our people and it is a human right. We have had a discussion in the chamber before about the level of expenditure on, for example, the Scottish child payment. I believe that Mr Rennie has previously made the point that the Government should not be proud of the fact that the Scottish child payment is in existence. I am not proud that it has to be there, but I am proud that the Government stepped up to support low-income people. The UK Government may not do so, but the Scottish Government will continue to support those who need us most.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I advise members that question 8 has been withdrawn.

That concludes portfolio questions on social justice. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow the front-bench members to change.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-14689, in the name of Claire Baker, on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, on the just transition inquiry for Grangemouth and the north-east and Moray, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s 4th Report, 2023 (Session 6), Inquiry into a Just Transition to net zero for the Grangemouth area (SP Paper 405), and its 4th Report, 2024, (Session 6), Inquiry into a Just Transition for the North East and Moray (SP Paper 556).

Just Transition (Grangemouth Area and North-east and Moray)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14689, in the name of Claire Baker, on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, on the just transition inquiry for Grangemouth and the north-east and Moray. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I highlight the committee’s two just transition reports, focusing on the Grangemouth area, and on Moray and the north-east of Scotland. I thank all those who contributed their views, the witnesses who gave evidence and the community groups and representatives who met us. I also thank the Just Transition Commission. Its briefings during the inquiries were invaluable and its publications support members’ on-going understanding and scrutiny.

We know that economic transformation is needed to support industry to reduce emissions, phase out polluting sectors, transition to greener jobs and meet net zero targets. We want the process of transformation to create opportunities for new skilled jobs, innovation and investment, but the process also presents risks for workers and communities that rely on emissions-heavy industries and sectors.

The definition of a just transition is important if we are to be able to recognise that it has been achieved. The committee heard a number of interpretations of a just transition, and we advised that, in providing a definition, the Scottish Government should establish

“clear and measurable targets for success.”

The just transition lab in Aberdeen has created a set of indicators, including not only traditional measures but social and community impact measures of a just transition.

In both inquiries, we heard about the crucial importance of communities not being left behind as the industrial transition takes place. In both inquiries, the affected communities called for improved transport links, quality housing and investment in their towns. The communities recognised the impact of changing industry and what that could mean for them. There was clear desire not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Coherent plans must be drawn up in collaboration with communities, and there must be resources to support that.

Although two reports are up for debate, recent announcements from Grangemouth have accelerated its need for a just transition. Our first report was on the Grangemouth industrial cluster. We concluded our report hardly weeks before Petroineos announced the closure of the oil refinery in 2025.

One of the remaining large industrial sites offering significant employment, the Grangemouth refinery has been one of Scotland’s largest manufacturing sites, employing almost 2,000 people. Petroineos has said that its activities in Grangemouth account for around 4 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product. However, that is not sustainable. Parliament has signed up to ambitious targets to reduce emissions. The industrial site at Grangemouth accounts for around a third of total emissions from companies in Scotland, and Friends of the Earth Scotland states that it is responsible for 9 per cent of Scotland’s overall emissions.

The committee published its report in June last year. At that time, recognising the inevitability of change at Grangemouth, the committee reiterated the importance of the Scottish Government setting out a clear vision in a just transition plan. In its response to the committee’s report, the Scottish Government referred to its 2022-23 programme for government, stating that it sets out

“a clear mandate to deliver a Just Transition Plan for the Grangemouth Industrial Cluster”,

and that that commitment is reiterated in its 2023-24 programme for government. The committee is therefore disappointed that the plan is still awaited.

The Scottish Government has committed to bringing forward the plan by the end of this year. However, while we have been waiting for that plan, a transition that looks pretty unjust is happening before our eyes. The committee did not anticipate, so soon after its inquiry, the announcement by Petroineos that the refinery would cease operation with the loss of hundreds of jobs. Although it is recognised that, if we are to achieve a shift to a low-carbon economy, Grangemouth in its current form has a shortened life expectancy, the sudden announcement of the refinery’s closure was a shock.

During the committee’s inquiry, Petroineos declined to give evidence to us, despite a number of invitations and a visit to the site. During our work, the committee was not made aware of the company’s plans for the refinery to close in the timescale that it has laid out.

I acknowledge that, following the announcement last November, Petroineos accepted an invitation to attend the committee, and attended in December. At that time, there were hopes, certainly among politicians and workers, that operations could continue beyond next year to allow more time for a green alternative to be established at the site. However, last month, it was announced that the refinery will close next summer, with the loss of 400 jobs, and, undoubtedly, with many more job losses in the wider supply chain. Converting the site to an import terminal will safeguard some of the workforce but with significantly fewer jobs than currently exist.

Against that backdrop, it is even more important to highlight the committee’s work and to emphasise how crucial it is that the Scottish Government has a meaningful just transition plan for the Grangemouth area. Recent remarks by the Just Transition Commission are sobering. In July, it said:

“the current path will not deliver. The limitations of collective efforts to date are nowhere more clearly in evidence than at Grangemouth, which presents an acute challenge for applying a just transition approach, given the central role of a privately owned company and foreign state-owned enterprise”.

There has to be greater direction and leadership in the bodies that have been established to support the transition locally. There has been confusion over the role of the Grangemouth future industry board. Although the board now has broader membership and is ministerially led both by the Scottish and UK Governments, one of its key roles is to implement plans that are still being prepared. Change is under way but plans risk being out of date before they are published.

Following last month’s confirmation that the refinery will cease operations next year, the committee acknowledges and welcomes the announcement from both Governments of a support package that is focused on local investment and employment support. However, there is an urgent need for a long-term plan. The Scottish Government’s advisory body, the Just Transition Commission, has emphasised the need for effort to be

“adequately resourced and approached as an urgent priority of national importance”.

The Economy and Fair Work Committee echoes that call.

In addition, delays in bringing forward Scottish Government strategies, such as the energy strategy and the just transition plan, regional just transition plans and the climate change update plan, have been frustrating. Delays have an economic impact on business, investor confidence and community action.

Following the committee’s work on Grangemouth, we turned our focus to a just transition for the north-east and Moray, and in particular to the Scottish Government’s just transition fund. The north-east is home to Scotland’s oil and gas production, generating significant economic activity and energy supply, and the sector supports 65,000 jobs in the region. I thank Aberdeen City Council, the Aberdeen arts centre and the Port of Aberdeen for hosting the committee, and I thank all the community activists and members who took the time to share their views.

In 2021, the Scottish Government established a 10-year, £500 million just transition fund specifically for the north-east and Moray. The Scottish Government has no other region-specific fund, either for the Grangemouth area or for any other area, and we wished to scrutinise the effectiveness of that fund.

The stated aim of the fund was to identify

“key projects, through co-design with those impacted by the transition to Net Zero, to accelerate the development of a transformed and decarbonised economy in the North East and Moray.”

During our inquiry, we heard concerns about the future of the fund. A total of £12 million was allocated to the fund during the current financial year, in comparison with £50 million last year. We recognise the Government’s stated commitment to the fund, but there are questions over the fund’s sustainability, given its current reliance on financial transactions.

There were also concerns about the type of funding and how accessible the fund is, especially to not-for-profit and community organisations. The use of financial transactions presents restrictions and constraints for many applicants. The committee supported calls for the Scottish Government to look further at the possibility of multiyear funding to allow for longer-term planning and certainty. It also supported calls for a mix of sustained revenue and capital funding, with sufficient revenue funding to support capacity building in communities to access the fund.

Skills featured in both inquiries, and the committee reiterates its concerns about the 24 per cent cut in the employability budget—concerns that were echoed by the Fair Work Convention at committee yesterday. The suspension of the flexible workforce development fund and the decrease in apprenticeships are also concerning.

The committee recognises the need for greater focus on developing and reskilling our current and future workforce for the transition, and calls on Government to provide greater focus and direction in that area, and for there to be greater coherence across Government to that end.

Both inquiries were concluded before the United Kingdom general election, and we now have a new Westminster Government. In those inquiries, and in the other work of the committee, we have recognised the scale of investment that is required and the need to leverage finance.

We await the impact of GB energy, and I urge the Scottish Government to work co-operatively with the UK Government on the significant challenges that we face in achieving a just transition. I recognise that the cabinet secretary shares that view.

I look forward to the rest of the debate. On behalf of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, I move,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s 4th Report, 2023 (Session 6), Inquiry into a Just Transition to net zero for the Grangemouth area (SP Paper 405), and its 4th Report, 2024, (Session 6), Inquiry into a Just Transition for the North East and Moray (SP Paper 556).

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Alasdair Allan to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government for a generous eight minutes.

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

The Scottish Government welcomes the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s recent inquiries into a just transition for Grangemouth and for the north-east and Moray. I extend my sincere thanks to members and staff of the committee, as well as to all those who provided evidence to both inquiries.

As we are about to embark on a discussion that will, in part, concern Grangemouth, it would be remiss not to start by addressing the on-going situation there, following the recent announcement that the Grangemouth refinery intends to cease operations in quarter 2 of 2025, as Claire Baker referred to. That is clearly concerning for the workforce and the wider community, and I echo the First Minister and the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy in paying tribute to the refinery workforce, which has been critical in maintaining Scotland’s fuel security over many decades.

We are working tirelessly, alongside the UK Government, to do all that we can to support those who have been impacted by the recent announcement. That is why we announced a tailored support package, which included £20 million in additional joint funding from the Scottish and UK Governments—supplementing the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal—as well as immediate tailored career support that will help affected workers, and the £1.5 million joint funded project willow study, which will take forward credible options for low-carbon industry at the refinery site.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Can the minister explain a little more about the £20 million—the £10 million from each of the Governments? Originally, the growth deal was described as the Falkirk growth deal. Ministers have been quoted as saying that the £20 million—£10 million from each Government—is to include Grangemouth, but was Grangemouth not always included? What is the additional £20 million specifically earmarked to do?

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

The name recognises the fact that Grangemouth, as a community, was always included in the deal. As I understand it, that has been the purpose of the funding throughout. I say that because Grangemouth is a critical area for Scotland’s economy, and it is my firm belief that that will continue long into the future.

It is worth underlining that there is a wider industrial cluster, as Stephen Kerr knows, beyond the refinery, which we must not lose sight of. There is a group of businesses that employ some 3,000 people.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

When I was reading the committee’s report, I was struck by how prescient it was about the action that was required. Given that the minister has just highlighted the wider cluster, I wonder whether he remarked on the committee’s report in the same way. Are there any issues that are highlighted in the report that the Government now thinks need to be expedited?

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

As I mentioned, the Scottish Government has long understood the criticality of the wider Grangemouth cluster. That is why we made a commitment to develop a just transition plan that set a clear strategic direction for the future of the whole site and recognised the need for that to change in the future. That is what project willow has been about.

Today, I will update Parliament on our decision to introduce a short delay to the development of the Grangemouth plan. It is important to separate all these things out. I have mentioned some of the direct, immediate interventions that the Scottish and UK Governments are making. With regard to the Grangemouth plan, that will allow us time to consider the recent refinery announcement and to incorporate critical evidence from the project willow study, to ensure alignment between those important pieces of work. That is distinct from, and in addition to, the more immediate work that we have just described. We will launch our consultation on the draft plan shortly, with a view to delivering the final plan in the spring of next year.

The Just Transition Commission has said that Grangemouth represents the first “litmus test” of a successful just transition in Scotland. Although the recent announcement is disappointing, I outline the Scottish Government’s unwavering commitment to delivering it, and I trust that members will look forward to engaging with the draft plan in due course.

With its report, the Economy and Fair Work Committee has carried out an essential role in providing scrutiny of all those many efforts. I look forward to discussing the committee’s recommendations and the Scottish Government’s actions in more detail, and whether further steps might be necessary in the interest of working across Parliament on a topic in which we all have a shared interest.

We are certainly under no illusions about the scale of the challenge. As we know only too well from our industrial history, poorly managed rapid transformations cause long-term damage to our society. We are absolutely determined not to repeat those mistakes of the past.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

On the point about rapid transformations, does the minister have any thoughts about the recent Daily Telegraph article that reported that the anticipated volume of throughput reduction, which was set at 5 per cent, is now estimated to be 15 per cent per year, which figures have been confirmed by Ineos, meaning that the viability of the Forties pipeline will come undone much sooner—around 2030 rather than 2040 to 2050? In other words, surely we need to get our skates on even more.

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

The measures that I have set out and the measures that I am announcing now indicate the importance and urgency that both Governments attach to intervention in this area. The Scottish Government has been able to set out its part in doing that.

I say all that because it is part of Scotland’s world-leading approach to just transition. We must make sure that that is embedded in our climate change legislation and in our independent body that we have established to advise on and scrutinise our work. We are now setting out to co-develop just transition plans for our key sectors, sites and regions.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

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

I hope that the member will forgive me, but I have to make progress. Perhaps later on.

There are long-term plans to support long-term outcomes. We have started the journey and must continually refine and develop our approach.

This work sits alongside a wide range of related work, such as our green industrial strategy, which was published last month, and substantial investments, including the just transition fund, offshore wind investment, the energy transition fund and Scotland’s heat network fund.

On the north-east and Moray specifically, I have noted the committee’s recommendations and make it clear that we remain committed to supporting just transition in the region through our fund. We are currently commissioning an independent evaluation of the fund’s impact, but it has already provided hundreds of fully funded training courses and direct investment into 26 supply chain companies in the region, estimated to create more than 1,200 new green jobs in the process. That evaluation will help to inform how funding can be further developed to best serve the needs of the region’s businesses, workers and communities.

We are also providing targeted support to the area through the £125 million Aberdeen city region deal and the £32.5 million Moray growth deal, as well as through the energy transition fund, thereby protecting existing jobs, skills and knowledge while supporting new job creation in the region and across Scotland. However, public funding alone cannot finance the region’s transition, and it is critical that we work closely with the private sector to realise our ambitions. The just transition fund has already directly unlocked a minimum of £10 million of private sector investment, and the £25 million of funding that has been allocated to the Scottish National Investment Bank has helped to leverage around £40 million of additional spend.

It is clear from the committee’s inquiries that both Grangemouth and the north-east are critical regions in Scotland’s energy system and wider economy today. It follows that they should have a critical role to play in the transition to net zero. The Scottish Government is committed to fairly managing the significant structural changes that can be expected to take place, and to support the workers and communities who are critical to the journey that lies ahead.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I echo the comments of the committee convener. I thank the committee clerks for their assistance, the Scottish Parliament information centre and all those who gave evidence to the committee in both inquiries on the just transition.

Like the convener, I think that we have to start by asking ourselves what a just transition is. We are seeing a shift from oil and gas towards net zero and more renewable sources of energy. In that process, we have to ensure that we protect our economy, protect jobs and protect communities. As has already been referenced by the convener and, indeed, the minister, what we are seeing with the current situation in Grangemouth raises concern that workers and the community there are being let down. What we are not seeing there is anything that could be classed as a just transition.

I was not on the committee when it did its report on Grangemouth, but I read that report with interest and I have followed the events at Grangemouth that have been referred to already. I hope that no stone is being left unturned by the UK Government and the Scottish Government in looking at how jobs might be saved.

Ineos is key to that. It is a commercial company that is acting in its own strategic interest. It might well be that not closing that refinery could be in its commercial interest if it can persuade Governments to contribute funds to try to secure its future. It would be good to know from the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Ineos about which serious commercial options it is actively exploring, including whether a sale of the refinery, rather than its closure, is a viable possibility.

I also want to talk more generally about the issues that are faced by Grangemouth and, in particular, the north-east of Scotland, which was the subject of the committee’s second just transition report. I do not think that we should be assuming, at any point soon, the end of oil and gas. Oil and gas are still important, because we will be importing oil and gas for decades to come if we prematurely close down the North Sea. It does not make any sense from an environmental point of view to replace domestic production with imports.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will after I make one more point.

Even when we stop using oil and gas as an energy source, we will still need it as the raw material for a petrochemical industry, because hydrocarbons are required as the basis of the manufacturing of everything that we use in modern life.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Does the member recognise that the oil and gas that is pulled out of the North Sea is sold on the international market? It is not reserved for domestic use. We already import oil and gas, because that is how international markets work. Shutting down oil production in the North Sea, in line with our climate targets—phasing that out—is necessary for us to reach our climate targets, and it will not affect how much oil and gas we import, because domestic production is not related to domestic use.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I note that Lorna Slater did not refer to the point that I made about the petrochemical industry, which is still vitally important and will be for many years to come. If we shut down the North Sea oil and gas sector, we will have to import from elsewhere the raw material for that industry.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does Murdo Fraser agree that the likelihood of an imminent shutdown of the North Sea as a production base for oil and gas has been hastened by the reckless fantasies of Ed Miliband in the new Labour Government?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Kerr makes his point very well. I will return to the committee’s report, because we took some evidence on that issue. Fergus Mutch, who was representing the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, told us that decisions were being taken by Governments that were damaging the sector and that investment was being driven elsewhere following those decisions.

The energy profits levy is a good example of that. The Labour approach to that levy is to remove all allowances. According to Offshore Energies UK, that would reduce the value of the oil and gas sector by £13 billion by 2029, which puts about 35,000 jobs at risk. I say to Mr Johnson that that is not my estimate, but that of the industry itself.

The SNP is little better. Its presumption against new exploration in the North Sea will add to the industry’s woes.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank Murdo Fraser for giving way. One element that has not been addressed today is the just transition that will be required in the Scottish nuclear industry, if the SNP continues to shut it down. We are already seeing Hunterston B and Torness power stations being decommissioned. Is it not the case that it will not be a just transition, given that what we are already seeing at Torness in East Lothian is an unjust exodus, because people with skills are going to work in the nuclear industry elsewhere? That is clearly a loss to the Scottish economy and the Scottish skills sector.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Hoy makes an excellent point. A friend and neighbour of mine in Perth who works in the nuclear industry is now based in Cumbria, because these jobs do not exist in Scotland. All we are doing is driving talent away. Scotland was once prized as one of the centres of excellence of the nuclear power industry, and that opportunity has been lost.

I will return to the committee’s report after these interesting digressions. As Claire Baker said in her introduction, the committee highlighted as frustrating the delays in bringing forward Scottish Government strategies, such as the energy strategy and just transition plan, the regional just transition plans and the climate change update. Those delays are having an economic impact on business, investor confidence and community action.

The committee also noted the lack of clarity with regard to the investment model that is required to achieve a just transition. The model references the leveraging of private capital but makes no assessment of what is realistic or whether that will be sufficient. The committee spent a lot of time looking at the just transition fund of £500 million over 10 years, which is to be administered by the Scottish National Investment Bank. That is very welcome. However, the committee was clear that clarity is needed about the fund’s sustainability. In the first year of the just transition fund, £20 million was allocated and, in the second year, it was £50 million. However, in the coming year, that drops to just £12 million. We and the affected communities need to know that the money will be there.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way if I have time, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Yes. I call the cabinet secretary.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was really just going to listen, but I have to say that it is very important, when we have longer-term funds such as this, that we carry out an assessment of how the funds have worked. That is a fair exercise to undertake at this critical juncture so that we get the most value for our money in the just transition fund.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I absolutely agree with that. Of course it makes sense to assess whether the money is being properly spent. At the same time, the Scottish Government pledged that sum of money—£500 million over 10 years—and if the cabinet secretary is signalling that there has been a retreat from that pledge, that should concern us. She is shaking her head, so I will take another intervention if I have time.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Mr Fraser has maybe taken my intervention in slightly the wrong way. What I am saying is that, when you put funding in place, you must reflect on how it has been spent. When we look at how that money has been spent over the past two years, we will see where there has been most value for money, and that is the exercise that we are undertaking, because changes may be needed to how we deploy a long-term fund in order to get the best out of it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is helpful clarity from the cabinet secretary. We look forward to hearing more from her in due course about exactly how the just transition fund will be deployed, because that money is absolutely vital to ensuring that communities are not left behind.

If I still have some time, Presiding Officer—I see that you are nodding; thank you—I will touch on a couple of other issues in the report, one of which is planning. The committee concluded that planning constraints are one of the biggest barriers to attracting investment. SSE told us that current practice means that it takes 12 years to deliver an offshore wind farm. We will never achieve net zero or a just transition unless we start removing some of the barriers to planning and getting these developments delivered.

The committee also heard that cuts have resulted in a 20 per cent reduction in the numbers of local authority planning staff over a nine-year period. There is an urgent need for more capacity in planning departments if we are to get developments delivered.

The final point is on skills, which is a key component if we are to deliver a just transition. We need to ensure that the skills are there and that, in particular with apprentices and young people, there is a focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects.

We need more apprentices. Before the pandemic, there were 30,000 apprenticeship places in Scotland, but we are now down to 25,500. The Scottish Government has cut employability spend by 24 per cent. If this is going to work, we need a focus on the workforce and we need more apprenticeship places.

These are two very important reports. We need a just transition that is fair to all, but that will not happen without a proper focus. Above all, we should not be prematurely closing down our vital oil and gas sector. We should be providing employment within it for many decades to come.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that, in fact, at the moment, we have some time in hand. Therefore, I can be generous.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the committee members and all those who were involved in contributing to the reports, because they could not have been more timely.

I acknowledge the importance of the UK and Scottish Governments working together. It has been good to hear in recent weeks that the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy has been able to work with UK colleagues. It is good that both Ed Miliband and Michael Shanks have been involved and that the Governments have invested the additional £20 million on top of the £80 million in the Falkirk and Grangemouth deal.

It was also very good this morning to meet Brian Leishman, the MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, and talk to him about the work that he knows is needed now. There are opportunities, but we need action now to ensure that a just transition is delivered, because people’s jobs are on the line. We have known for years that a robust plan was needed for the future of the oil refinery, the town, the community in Grangemouth and the other industries in the area. [ Interruption .]

The committee report on the north-east and Moray could not have been more timely. The committee’s recommendations were published—

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Yes. Sorry—I did not see the member earlier.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Thank you very much. I probably was not loud enough.

Sarah Boyack mentioned Brian Leishman. Is she supportive of his call on Sir Keir Starmer to nationalise the refinery?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

What is critical is that Brian Leishman has been talking to the unions and is representing the area. He wants to make sure that the oil refinery does not go off a cliff edge next year, which is what is currently planned, and that is about getting the two Governments to work together and look at what the opportunities are.

With the north-east and Moray, there is an opportunity to be proactive. I totally disagree with Murdo Fraser on the points that he made.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will Sarah Boyack give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

We will have oil and gas in the North Sea for decades, but we know that it is a declining resource, so it is about how we use that resource most effectively. It is about how we ensure that investments will still be there and that the companies there are still able to operate and, at the same time, transition to renewables.

We have not seen the investment that we really need. The fact that the ScotWind fund has been raided to fill the Scottish Government’s budget hole means that we will not see investment in supply chains in the sector. That is a problem that the Scottish Government has created.

There have been long delays to the Scottish National Party’s strategies, including the energy strategy in the just transition plan, the regional just transition plan and the climate change update. Those delays are having a negative economic impact because they create uncertainty and mean that investors do not have confidence in businesses. They make communities more and more worried.