Scottish Parliament, 31 October 2024

357 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work that it is doing to support those affected by historic forced adoption. (S6O-03870)

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

I start by saying how sorry I am for the profound pain and loss of historical forced adoption and the lifelong impact that it has had on people’s lives. I extend my deepest sympathies to everyone who has been affected.

Most recently, we held five lived-experience sessions with mothers and adoptees, and we are taking forward actions based on what we heard in those sessions. We continue to fund the charity Health in Mind to offer specialist peer support to those who have been affected by historical adoption, and we are funding Birthlink to manage the adoption contact register for Scotland, which helps to support connections between families who have been affected by adoption.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Since the first anniversary of the formal apology that the former First Minister delivered to those who have been impacted by historical adoption practices, I have been in contact with some campaigners who have shared with me their subsequent concerns. I know that the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise is aware of those concerns, having met the campaigners in June.

As the apology in itself is not the end point for those who are impacted, what is being done, and what more can be done, to ensure that the voices of those with lived experience are at the heart of the post-apology work that the Scottish Government is currently undertaking?

Natalie Don-Innes

As I mentioned, we held five lived-experience sessions with mothers and adoptees, and I thank everyone who participated in those sessions for sharing their views on such a sensitive subject.

In response to what people told us about the importance of information and awareness raising, we are, as a first step, developing dedicated historical forced adoption pages on the mygov.scot website so that all the information about post-adoption services and help can be found in one place. We are also developing commemorative copies of the national apology, which will be available very shortly; that is in direct response to asks from the affected groups.

We are committed to continuing our engagement with people with lived experience to inform our approach. We heard directly from people involved about the importance of being clear about what is realistically achievable, so we propose to undertake targeted engagement on specific key policy proposals as we go forward.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Great work has been done by the Movement for an Adoption Apology group, and it was a welcome development to see victims receive a formal apology from the Scottish Government.

However, a constituent of mine has expressed concern that, given the passage of time, the truth about the experiences of those who have been impacted will be lost. Has the Scottish Government given any consideration to working with mothers to enable their oral histories to be recorded and archived?

Natalie Don-Innes

I understand the concerns of the member and her constituent, and I would be happy to consider ways in which to raise awareness of mothers’ experiences of historical forced adoption and the lifelong impact that they have endured, whether that is through oral histories or by any other means. I would be open to discussing any proposals that the member has in that regard, further to her recent letter to the First Minister.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S6O-03871)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Ministers and Scottish Government officials meet regularly with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to patients and the services that are provided.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

This week, Unison reps at the Royal Alexandra hospital came to me with serious concerns about the possible closure of ward 36, which has 22 beds for older people with complex needs. There appears to be no thought-through plan for the ward, staff or the patients. One thousand signatures have already been gathered in a petition opposing the move, which one can only assume is a result of budget cuts.

Has the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care been made aware of the proposal to close that ward and cut 22 beds from the RAH? Does he agree that the move should not go ahead, given the concerns that have been raised by the national health service staff who work there?

Given the statement yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which not only increases bed numbers in England but gives the Scottish Government an extra £3.4 billion, will the cabinet secretary ensure that resources are made available to the health board to protect those vital local services?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Neil Bibby for raising that point. To answer his question directly, I note that that proposal has not been brought to me. It is obviously a local decision to be taken. I respect the local proposals and the local decision making regarding them, but I also respect the issue that Mr Bibby has raised with me on the concerns that have been raised by staff and by the trade union. I would expect NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, if it is taking forward such a proposal, to be consulting on that. There are clear consultation pathways and the Government has clear expectations of boards when they look at service redesign. I do not have the full picture because this is the first that I have heard of it, but I will look into the matter further and make sure that I contact Mr Bibby and other local representatives on it.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether the £12.5 million of funding that it plans to provide for education in Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia was set out in the budget for 2024-25. (S6O-03872)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Supporting international development remains one of the most important ways that Scotland can be a good global citizen. I confirm that those programmes are supported by the international development fund of £11.5 million in 2024-25, as published on 19 December 2023 and approved by Parliament in March. The budget for year 1 of our inclusive education programmes for Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda, which was announced on 15 October, amounts to £1.65 million in 2024-25. Over five years, subject to the usual parliamentary approvals in relation to the annual budget act, we expect the total value of the programme to be £12.5 million.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

In Scotland, classroom standards are plummeting and violence is rising. Teacher numbers are declining, secure full-time posts are scarce, and cuts to school hours and assistant numbers are at risk. Currie community high school parent council is writing to the City of Edinburgh Council to express its deep concern regarding the proposed cuts to additional support needs services in our education community. It states that the cuts could significantly affect the quality of education and support for those students who rely on ASN services and wider learners.

Foreign aid is reserved and public cash should be spent at home rather than abroad. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government should be prioritising the education of Scotland’s young people first?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scotland’s international development programme is now entering its 20th year and it has—until now, it would appear—had cross-party support. Spending on international development on inclusive education is minuscule when compared with spending on education in Scotland. I hope that Sue Webber will reflect—as, indeed, will her colleagues behind her who were nodding—on the intervention that has just been made and support the modest but impactful way in which Scotland demonstrates its commitment to being a good global citizen.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work that it has been undertaking with disabled people’s organisations regarding the delivery of its disability equality plan. (S6O-03873)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

We remain committed to addressing the significant challenges that disabled people are facing following decades of austerity and a cost of living crisis. This year, we committed £6.1 billion to benefits, including an additional £300 million for adult disability payment. That represents an investment of more than £1.1 billion over and above what we receive from the UK Government.

However, it is clear that disabled people continue to face significant barriers. That is why we committed to delivering the disability equality plan, which lays the foundations for meaningful change. The limitations of our devolved budget mean that it is not always possible to meet the full extent of everyone’s ambitions in this first phase. However, we will continue to work with disabled people’s organisations to build towards a fairer Scotland.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Disabled people’s organisations including Disability Equality Scotland, the Glasgow Disability Alliance and Inclusion Scotland have been in contact with evidence that underlines how disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis across the United Kingdom. Will the minister speak to the existing support that households in Scotland are able to access this winter? Will she outline what further work is being done alongside the DPOs to ensure that disabled people are not left behind in the Scottish Government’s mission to end poverty in Scotland, in light of the disabled people demand justice campaign?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I can give the member that assurance. We introduced the pension age disability payment, which is worth between £290 and £434 a month to people of state pension age who are disabled. The child winter heating payment will help households with severely disabled children to manage the additional costs that they face this winter.

We have secured the agreement of energy suppliers, consumer organisations and DPOs to co-design a social tariff mechanism to evidence its viability. We also reopened the independent living fund, helping up to 1,000 more disabled people to access the support that they need.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

This week—almost exactly one year on from telling me that my bill to support transitions for disabled people was not needed and a whole eight years after the Scottish National Party first promised it—the Government delayed the transitions to adulthood strategy, which affects a number of young disabled people. The Government said that it had done that in order to allow sufficient time to support meaningful engagement.

Blaming the people who need that strategy for the Government’s delay is a new low. How many more years will young disabled people have to wait until the Government gets its act together?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I understand the member’s frustrations, and I commend the work that she did on the bill. I reassure her that we are not delaying. I have already outlined the investment and some of the tasks that we are taking forward, and we will continue to progress that work.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

To ask the Scottish Government when the health secretary last met the Scottish Ambulance Service to discuss rural ambulance provision. (S6O-03874)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I met the chair of the Scottish Ambulance Service on 5 June 2024, when rural ambulance provision across Scotland was discussed. In addition, my officials meet Scottish Ambulance Service management regularly to discuss a range of topics, including ambulance provision across the country. We receive weekly performance reports, which are scrutinised and reported on accordingly.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Earlier this month, a family in Torphins had a terrifyingly long wait for an ambulance during a mother’s labour, after a call was answered by someone in Yorkshire who could not locate their rural address. As was reported in the Sunday Post , the father and the grandmother had to be talked through delivering the baby and then had to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the newborn baby for half an hour before the vehicle arrived. Thankfully, both mother and baby are healthy, but this was a completely horrifying experience that no family should have to endure.

In Aberdeenshire, journeys to Aberdeen royal infirmary can take up to two hours—not including the time waiting for an ambulance to arrive. Does the cabinet secretary think that that is acceptable? What support will be provided to ensure that rural communities have an ambulance service that meets their needs?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am aware of the media reports, and I give my apologies to the family in that case. As a father, I can understand the difficulty that the family would have experienced and the challenge of going through that process. I recognise that and I understand it.

I have recently corresponded with Alexander Burnett on ambulance provision in his area, and I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss the case and ambulance provision in his area in general.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In recent months, I have been approached by a number of constituents who have highlighted examples of what appear to be unnecessary delays in tasking ambulances in Orkney. I am due to meet the chief executive of the Ambulance Service next month to discuss the issue. Will the health secretary support steps to adopt a more tailored approach in island communities to reduce delays in ambulance call-outs wherever possible?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I know from visits to Orkney, the Western Isles and Shetland that work is under way to take the approach that Liam McArthur sets out. Innovative work is being done in island communities, where there must be an adaptation to the demography as well as to the geography that we are dealing with, to ensure that we are resourcing ambulance services as well as primary care and urgent care need. I would be more than happy to discuss that further with Liam McArthur after he has had his discussion with the Ambulance Service.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The Scottish Ambulance Service is a vital component of emergency care throughout the year, but particularly in the colder months. Will the cabinet secretary outline the efforts that the service is making to prepare for this period, including in rural areas?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Clare Haughey is absolutely right. I thank the Ambulance Service for the critical work that it does, alongside giving my thanks to all health and social care staff at this time of year in particular.

The Scottish Ambulance Service will play a critical role in the delivery of various aspects of healthcare throughout winter, with its key focus being on maintaining a fast and effective response to those who need emergency care and support. Ahead of winter, the service’s management team has been engaging with chief executives and chairs of all health boards across Scotland to plan at a more local level, including by developing plans for urgent care in rural and island communities.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on Police Scotland’s extension across Scotland of the north-east pilot of not investigating “low-level” crime. (S6O-03875)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

All incidents that are reported to Police Scotland are individually assessed on the basis of threat, harm and risk, investigative opportunity and vulnerability. To suggest otherwise is incorrect. When there is no threat, harm or risk and no line of inquiry, officers will issue the caller with a crime report number and file the incident, with scope to return to it should investigative opportunities emerge.

Police Scotland confirmed to the Scottish Police Authority in June that the proportionate response to crime approach has been adopted across all divisions as of 24 June. That is an operational decision for the service, similar to many forces in England, and the SPA will receive an evaluation report in December.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The people of the north-east have to live through this experiment. Alongside reports of the 16-year-old who, after drinking alcohol on the streets of Elgin, killed Royal Air Force veteran Keith Rollinson after being refused admission on to his coach, we hear reports of Inverurie residents being intimidated by gangs of teens using the town centre as a personal playground, and of Oldmeldrum, Balmedie and Pitmedden residents reporting youths brandishing knives at passers-by. Does the cabinet secretary concede that electing not to investigate certain crimes, coupled with officer reductions and budget cuts, creates a haven for more antisocial behaviour issues across our communities?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I draw Mr Kerr’s attention to the comments and contribution of Assistant Chief Constable Bond, who has said that the impact of the proportionate response to lower-level offences gives

“officers more time to focus on local policing, keeping people safe from harm, protecting the vulnerable, bringing criminals to justice, solving problems, and reducing”

reoffending. The impact of the north-east pilot saw public satisfaction rates increase and freed up 2,657 police officers, all to good effect for communities in the north-east.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on how many genders there are. (S6O-03876)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Scottish Government’s position is that of the law. In law, people are either male or female.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am pleased to hear that Kaukab Stewart agrees with the First Minister that there are two genders but, in official guidance that was published this month, the Scottish National Party Government claimed that there are dozens of different genders—I repeat, dozens. That does not make sense to people in mainstream Scotland. It seems ridiculous for that issue to be the Scottish Government’s focus. Why is the Scottish Government wasting so much time and resource on fringe obsessions?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Scottish Government did not claim that. The Scottish Government recently updated its guidance for public bodies on collecting data on sex and gender to include a coding framework for free-text responses. The framework is there to help official statistics producers to categorise people who identify as trans and have completed an open-response question about their trans status. The categories were developed on the basis of the most common responses to the question in the 2022 census. The framework should not be interpreted to mean that there are a particular number of genders; it should be used only as a guide to classify responses to the recommended trans status question in surveys.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There are five questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Ivan McKee is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Ross Greer will fall.

The first question is, that amendment S6M-15086.3, in the name of Ivan McKee, which seeks to amend motion S6M-15086, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on Scotland’s commissioner landscape, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Ivan McKee is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Ross Greer will fall.

We move to the vote on amendment S6M-15086.3, in the name of Ivan McKee, which seeks to amend motion S6M-15086, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on Scotland’s commissioner landscape. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I cannot connect. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Sweeney. We will ensure that that is recorded.

I am aware that Beatrice Wishart would like to make a point of order. I can confirm, Ms Wishart, that you have voted and your vote has been recorded.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-15086.3, in the name of Ivan McKee, is: For 84, Against 25, Abstentions 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Ross Greer will fall—it has fallen already. [ Laughter .]

The next question is, that amendment S6M-15086.2, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which seeks to amend motion S6M-15086, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on Scotland’s commissioner landscape, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-15086.2, in the name of Sarah Boyack, is: For 24, Against 92, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-15086, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on Scotland’s commissioner landscape, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My screen is stuck. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I can confirm, Ms Slater, that your vote was recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-15086, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on Scotland’s commissioner landscape, as amended, is: For 92, Against 24, Abstentions 0.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament welcomes the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 7th Report, 2024 (Session 6), Scotland’s Commissioner Landscape: A Strategic Approach (SP Paper 642); agrees with the recommendation that a dedicated committee should be established to carry out a “root and branch” review, with the purpose of creating a clear strategic framework to underpin and provide more coherence and structure to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) supported body landscape, which should complete its work by June 2025, and further agrees that, while this review is undertaken, there should be a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies, while recognising that, for proposals within bills that have already been introduced, these are now for the Parliament to take a decision on, respecting the lead committees’ roles in scrutinising legislation within their remits.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-15088, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, which is a legislative consent motion on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted to abstain.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Cole-Hamilton. We will make sure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-15088, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, which is a legislative consent motion on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, is: For 87, Against 26, Abstentions 4.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024, so far as these matters alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

First Minister’s Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Labour increased taxes by £40 billion in yesterday’s Halloween budget—the biggest tax heist ever. Anas Sarwar’s party put up national insurance, whisky duty, inheritance tax and North Sea taxes. It brought in a family-farm tax, pension tax and VAT on independent schools. Labour has chosen to hammer workers and to declare war on business, but the Scottish National Party’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government described Labour’s budget as

“a step in the right direction”. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

If a £40 billion tax rise is just

“a step in the right direction”,

how much does the First Minister think the rise should be?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have sympathy with the Labour Government in the United Kingdom in that it has inherited an entirely unsustainable set of circumstances in the public finances, because of the absolutely menacing agenda of the Conservative Government for 14 years. It is the ultimate deceit for Mr Findlay and the Conservatives to criticise those of us who must take difficult decisions to clear up the mess that the Conservatives have created.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

It is nice to hear the First Minister defending Labour for shamelessly breaking its promises not to raise taxes on working people. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the vast majority of Labour’s national insurance rise

“will be passed on to workers.”

That comes after years of crippling SNP tax rises. Scotland’s taxpayers cannot afford and do not deserve more taxes next year—they need a break after years of the SNP swiping their cash. Is it not about time that John Swinney considered reducing income tax for hard-working Scots?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Russell Findlay misconstrues the remarks that I am making. It is up to the Labour Party to defend its position.

I will set out my analysis of the horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on this country through their management of the economy for the past 14 years. It is an absolute horror show that the Conservatives have inflicted on our public services, on working people in this country, on people with any vulnerability and on anybody who is paying a mortgage. Every one of them has been punished by the incompetence of the Conservative Government. Mr Findlay—I know that he does not like this—was one of those who told me that I had to follow in Liz Truss’s footsteps. Thank goodness I never did that in any of my decisions.

I say to Russell Findlay that we have taken decisions to increase tax in Scotland because we wanted to invest in our public services. That investment has improved our public services to meet the needs of people in Scotland. We have faced the reality. If Mr Findlay wants to stand here and defend spending cuts to the people of Scotland, he is welcome to do so. I will not follow in his footsteps.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I tell you what, John Swinney has got some front. He is the man whose dirty fingerprints are all over the trams scandal, the ferries scandal, the Salmond inquiry scandal and the named-person scandal. How much have this man’s mistakes cost all of us? I am on the side of Scotland’s taxpayers, who want fairness and justice.

The same goes for Scottish business, which has been quick to cast its verdict on Labour’s tax-raising budget. The Scottish Hospitality Group, the Scotch Whisky Association, Offshore Energies UK and the NFU Scotland have all hit out. Labour has broken its promises to businesses. Will John Swinney keep his pledge, which was made in last month’s programme for government, to support Scottish business owners? Will he now act decisively to cut taxes on Scottish business?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is part of my duty as First Minister to ensure that Parliament is properly informed about its history. That has been part of my duty since I have been here—since the very beginning.

On the question of trams, I did not want to spend a single farthing on the trams. I wanted to spend that £500 million on dualling the A9, but the Tories forced me to spend it on trams. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is so important that Mr Findlay does not do anything that might mislead Parliament, and it is part of my duty to correct his mistakes when he comes to the chamber.

When it comes to working with Scottish business, I am delighted with the engagement that the Deputy First Minister is taking forward in leading the Government’s approach to investment and dialogue with business. I look forward to discussing those issues when I attend Scottish Financial Enterprise’s annual event tonight in the city of Glasgow. I look forward to discussing the success of the financial sector in the competitive climate that we create in Scotland. That is what business will get from my Government.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I think that I have touched a nerve. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney protests his honesty, but let us not forget that the trams inquiry found that he was responsible for a “lack of candour”.

The tax burden on Scottish workers and businesses is far too high, but the SNP and Labour think that they are entitled to keep taking more and more, while Scotland’s public services get worse and worse. That drives the disconnect between politicians and people. John Swinney could go another way with the Scottish budget: the SNP could stop raising taxes and let people keep more of their own hard-earned money. Why will John Swinney not look to bring down bills for Scottish workers and businesses?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay is standing in front of me arguing for a reduction in taxation. The problem with what he and his colleagues bring to the Parliament is that that would involve a reduction in public expenditure.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

That is not correct.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am being told that that is not correct, so I will say it again, because that is what is involved.

If we reduce taxation, we must reduce public expenditure by a commensurate amount, because we have to balance the budget. Of course, we have done that for 17 continuous years as the Scottish Government. The problem is that Mr Findlay is talking about tax cuts. Every other day of the week, the Tories are demanding that we spend more money on various aspects of public services. When Mr Findlay talks about touching nerves, the issue is not that he has touched a raw nerve in me; the issue is the nerve of Mr Findlay, who comes to the Parliament calling for reductions in tax when he wants us to spend more. That takes some nerve.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Yesterday, Rachel Reeves announced the first Labour budget in 14 years. After 14 years of Tory chaos, division and decline, it was a transformative and game-changing budget for Scotland. It delivers on the promises that were made in the election—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar. [ Interruption .] Are members quite finished? Can we please hear Mr Sarwar? No one else has been called to speak.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

After 14 years, the budget delivers on the promises that were made in the election, ends the era of austerity, provides vital new investment for our public services and prioritises economic growth. It includes the largest block grant settlement for the Scottish Parliament in the history of devolution: £1.5 billion of additional funding for the Scottish Government this year, and a further £3.4 billion next year. That means that the block grant will be £47.7 billion next year—a Labour Government delivering for the people of Scotland. Will the First Minister welcome the transformative budget, welcome the end of the era of austerity and welcome the new investment for Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that any of us is surprised that Mr Sarwar is so excited in asking his questions in the Parliament today. Let me provide a calming influence in this afternoon’s parliamentary discourse. The budget is a step in the right direction. I accept and welcome that.

The increased funding for this financial year largely accords with the Scottish Government’s expectations with regard to dealing with the issues of pay and inflation pressures, which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has shared with the Parliament.

The funding for next year is welcome. The budget delivers an increase in funding for Scotland as a result of the Barnett consequentials for health and education, but we must be conscious that negative consequentials will arise as a result of the budget’s financial implications for areas such as culture, environment and transport. Therefore, we need to consider the net implication of the budget for Scotland’s public finances.

Significant uncertainty remains about the impact on public spending in Scotland of the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We have to publish a budget on 4 December, and there is currently uncertainty about whether our finances will be compensated in full for all that is involved in that regard. The cost of the change to national insurance contributions is not an insignificant sum; it is a £500 million question.

We will engage constructively with the United Kingdom Government on those questions. I suppose that my regret comes from the fact that, in the financial estimates that the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out yesterday, she indicated that, over a three-year period, there will be a £10 billion surplus in the budget. That is encouraging, but she was unable to find a single penny to lift the two-child cap, which is forcing families into poverty in our country today, and I deeply regret that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The Scottish public accept that we cannot fix every problem with one budget. John Swinney was desperate to be disappointed with this budget, and it is very much through gritted teeth that he is having to welcome the record level of investment in Scotland and the fact that this is a historic budget rise for the Scottish Government, delivered by a Labour Government. On top of that, the budget delivered a £1.4 billion investment in Scottish infrastructure; a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid workers; an extension to the fuel duty cut, which will benefit 3.2 million Scots; massive investment in the publicly owned Great British energy company, which will be headquartered in Aberdeen; a Covid corruption commissioner to get our money back from dodgy Tory deals—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The budget also delivered compensation for the infected blood victims and the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal and an end to the pension injustice for miners. There is just so much for Scotland in this budget—I could go on.

Does the First Minister therefore accept that this change is possible only because Scotland voted to get rid of the rotten Tory Government and elected a Labour Government that ended the era of austerity and is changing the lives of people across Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Sarwar is very, very excited today. I have the sense that he doth protest too much. There are many welcome measures in the budget. I am particularly pleased that a reliable source of funding is being made available for the victims of the infected blood scandal—both those affected and infected—because I have constituents who have demonstrated tenacious leadership in ensuring that that injustice was corrected. I think of my constituent Bill Wright whenever I think of this issue. I am very pleased—and it is to its credit—that the Labour Government has done that.

There are many welcome measures in the budget. For example, I argued that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to change the fiscal rules. During the election period, she said that she would not do that, but I have obviously been very persuasive in getting her to change the fiscal rules so that we can get more investment—the very investment that Mr Sarwar talked about. It is important to invest in our infrastructure and our housing stock and to ensure that this country’s competitiveness is enhanced by that investment.

I welcome all those things. However, Mr Sarwar will have to try to convey some of his enthusiasm to people other than me—people who are living in poverty and the children of families who will move into poverty because the two-child cap has not been lifted. The Resolution Foundation estimates that, by next April, an additional 63,000 children will be affected by the failure to lift the two-child cap. There will be pensioners who have lost their winter fuel payment who will not be greeting with enthusiasm the points that Mr Sarwar is making.

Mr Sarwar has to recognise that—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Briefly, First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—although there are welcome steps in the budget, there are issues that will prolong the agony of individuals in our society. A Labour Government should address those and right the wrongs that it is presiding over now.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I have always been clear that we cannot fix every Tory mess in one budget; of course we want to make further progress over the course of the Labour Government.

However, let us come back to this Parliament, which will get £1.5 billion of additional money this year and £3.4 billion of additional money next year. That is more money for Scotland’s national health service, schools and other vital public services. More money is one thing, but how the Scottish National Party Government chooses to spend it is another. The fact is that this is an incompetent SNP Government that is bad with taxpayers’ money, so more of the same will not cut it.

With almost one in six Scots on an NHS waiting list, with Scotland’s education system falling down the international league tables and with record levels of homelessness and 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation, we need a change of direction. Will the First Minister finally end the blame game, end the SNP’s financial mismanagement, incompetence and waste, and ensure that Scots benefit from yesterday’s transformative budget?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will go back and look at the parliamentary record of what I have said so far today, but I do not think that I have blamed anybody for anything. Mr Sarwar has blamed the Tories—quite fairly. Actually, to correct the record, I did blame the Tories—I blamed them for 14 years of austerity. That is correct; I agree with Mr Sarwar on that point.

However, let us take a couple of the examples that Mr Sarwar talked about. On schools, when this Government came into office, 63 per cent of pupils in Scotland were educated in good or satisfactory school buildings. That figure is now more than 90 per cent, because this Government did the heavy lifting of investing in the school estate of Scotland.

Yes, there is a housing challenge, and far too many families are living in temporary accommodation, but this Government has presided over more affordable housing being built per head of population than in any other part of the United Kingdom—and, crucially, more than was built when the Labour Party was in government in Scotland before we were. [ Interruption .] My dear friend Christine Grahame gives me some prompted comments from the side, which I shall pick up on. The Labour Government that was in power before we came into office was so incompetent that it could not even spend the money that was available to be spent on behalf of the people of Scotland.

We will continue to do what I have always done as a minister: we will deliver careful stewardship of the public finances to deliver for the people of Scotland, we will balance the books and we will deliver value. That is what people get from a Swinney Government.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Yesterday, the United Kingdom Government presented a budget that it claims will put £1.5 billion back into the Scottish Government’s budget for this year. That money should ensure that some of the most damaging cuts that were announced by the Scottish Government earlier this year do not now need to go ahead.

Spending on the climate and nature emergencies is essential if we are to ensure that our planet has a liveable future. While the Scottish Greens were in government, climate and nature spending reached record levels. Will the First Minister commit to using the additional funding that was announced yesterday for this financial year to restore the funding cuts to the nature restoration fund and active travel budgets? Does that mean that the Scottish Government no longer needs to use up all the ScotWind funding, which was supposed to be invested in our green future?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the importance that Lorna Slater and her colleagues attach to those areas of funding. It was a matter of deep regret to the Government that we had to remove funding from those priorities to enable us to create a path to balance. One of the points that I made in my earlier comments was that the increase in funding for this financial year largely accords with the expectations in our internal planning of what will be necessary to meet the costs of increased pay settlements and the effect of inflation that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has previously explained to Parliament.

My expectation is not that any new capacity will open up in this financial year. I expect that the resources that have been allocated so far will be required to enable us to balance the budget during this year, because of the pay and inflationary costs that we are facing.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

It is very disappointing to hear that about this year.

I will now ask the First Minister about next year. One of the proudest moments for the Scottish Greens during our time in government was the rolling out of free school meals for all children in primary 4 and 5, because we know that that is a simple and effective way to address the impact of child poverty and to ensure that every child has the best chance at school.

We were on course to expand that to every child in primary school by the end of this session of Parliament, until the Scottish Government put an indefinite delay on that roll-out as part of this year’s programme for government. Given the predicted £3.4 billion that is due to be added to next year’s Scottish budget, will the First Minister reinstate the promise to deliver free school meals for primary 6 and 7 pupils by 2026, as endorsed by the Parliament a few weeks ago?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We will certainly give consideration to that proposal as part of the budget process for the next financial year. Lorna Slater puts to me a substantial proposition that can certainly be considered for the next financial year. We will look at whether the resources are available to support that as part of the whole budgeting process, but I give Lorna Slater the assurance that we will look at that question.

I recognise that Parliament resolved on the issue, but that obviously has to have financial support within the budget. I give her the assurance that the issue will be considered. The finance secretary is engaged in detailed discussions with all political parties in Parliament to secure the passage of the Government’s budget for next year and we look forward to discussion on that, and other questions, with Ms Slater and her colleagues and with other parties in Parliament.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has undertaken of the impact of the UK Government budget on Scotland. (S6F-03477)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I called on the United Kingdom Government to prioritise increased investment in public services, infrastructure and tackling poverty. Although the measures announced by the chancellor yesterday are a step in the right direction, we still face significant future cost pressures, which is hardly surprising after 14 years of underinvestment by the previous United Kingdom Government.

We are assessing what the UK budget means for Scotland’s public finances and, in particular, whether the increased cost of up to £500 million for higher national insurance contributions in the public sector will be fully funded and when we might receive reimbursement. There is a danger that we will not have that certainty in time for the 2025-26 Scottish budget process. It is clear that we will need to see continued investment in the coming years to provide the funding that our public services need.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Does the First Minister agree that the UK budget fails to deliver the transformative change that the people of Scotland were promised and that, in fact, it continues the same broken austerity ideology of the Tories—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Brown.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

—especially for those who are losing their winter fuel allowance—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Brown.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

—and for those suffering under the hated two-child cap?

In particular, does the First Minister agree that the UK Government’s decision to increase national insurance contributions could have a severe financial impact on Scotland’s public sector, potentially costing the Government, the national health service, schools and the police and fire services hundreds of millions of pounds? Does he agree that the UK Government must, at the very least, fully mitigate any negative impact on the Scottish Government and on public services in Scotland and that any mitigation must be provided in addition to, not as a substitute for, increases to Scotland’s block grant?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Brown used a couple of examples that illustrate some of the many remaining challenges that we face. Pensioners have lost their winter fuel payment as a consequence of a decision by the United Kingdom Labour Government, and the persisting maintenance of the two-child cap is forcing more and more children and families into poverty. It is beyond me to understand why, when there is a projected budget surplus in a three-year period, the two-child cap has not been lifted immediately by the UK Government. We were told in the summer to be patient until the UK budget, but we have been patient and the Labour Government has not delivered what people expected.

I recognise the need to increase taxation in the budget and, during the election campaign, I argued that that issue had to be confronted. However, I believe that some of that increase could have come from the UK Government following the Scottish Government’s tax approach in asking people on higher incomes to pay more in taxation, which could have generated about £20 billion in increased revenue and avoided some of the punishing business taxes that have been applied, particularly to the Scotch whisky industry and other sectors of the Scottish—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

First Minister, I am aware that, as I try to listen to your response, a conversation is carrying on across the benches. I ask members to stop.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The point that I was making is that there are tax choices to be made, and I am one who has argued for taxes to increase. We have actually increased taxes, and there was a way in which the UK Government could have done that, by asking people on higher incomes to pay more in taxation. That would have generated about £20 billion of revenue and would have avoided some of the damaging tax increases, such as the one that is going to undermine the competitiveness of the Scotch whisky industry. I understand why the Scotch whisky industry and business are aggrieved at the Labour Government, because they were promised economic stability, but they are not getting that from the Labour Government.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Michelle Thomson has a brief supplementary question.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

After the budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility significantly downgraded its economic growth forecasts, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the vast majority of the national insurance tax hike will hit working people through lower pay. To what extent will the UK budget usher in the new era of growth that the Secretary of State for Scotland promised?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Some of the data that has been published is illustrative of the economic impact of the budget. The information from the Resolution Foundation indicates that, over the course of the UK parliamentary session, there is likely to be about half a per cent increase in average household incomes as a consequence of the measures that have been taken in the budget. That will leave a lot of people feeling that their living standards have not increased in any meaningful fashion over the course of the parliamentary session. That reinforces the point that Michelle Thomson made, and the Labour Government will have to explain that to the public.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had with Police Scotland officials who are responsible for investigating whether the actions of Professor Eljamel amounted to criminal conduct. (S6F-03468)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The investigation of any crime is an independent matter for Police Scotland, and the Scottish Government has no involvement in such matters. Scottish Government officials met Police Scotland in June this year to discuss the establishment of the public inquiry and other developing work, and they had further engagement with Police Scotland in September.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In his letter to me, Willie Rennie and Michael Marra on 17 October, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care rightly referred to the independent status of any Police Scotland investigation, and we respect that.

However, in November 2022, Police Scotland detectives appealed to Scottish Government health officials for help, and that was four years after the first complaints were made to police. Officials made a plea for support to Craig White, a senior health director, who, as the Parliament knows, was later assigned to help set up the public inquiry into the Eljamel scandal. Mr White replied to the Scottish Government officials that he would be happy to help investigating detectives. As a matter of public interest, and based on what the First Minister has just said in his first response, can he tell me the exact basis on which that advice was sought?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I might need to have further exchanges with Liz Smith to understand exactly the point that she wishes me to address.

Police Scotland must properly and independently conduct a police investigation, and Liz Smith accepts that point. Whatever information Police Scotland wishes to obtain from the Scottish Government, I expect Scottish Government officials and ministers to engage fully and substantively with Police Scotland on that question. If there are any concerns about that, I will happily address them, but my expectation is for the Government to engage in addressing any request for information or assistance from Police Scotland in order to support its independent investigation.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The First Minister will understand the deep anxieties that are felt by Professor Eljamel’s ex-patients, especially as some of his constituents are in that position. There is deep anxiety among them about the circumstances with the police asking for help from Craig White. Will the First Minister explore what can possibly be done to restore the confidence of those ex-patients in the process and to ensure that they see that the process is above board?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Willie Rennie is familiar with the fact that I, too, have constituents who are affected by the issue. I engage with them in my constituency capacity.

On the question of engagement with Police Scotland, what I said to Liz Smith was an attempt to be helpful in that respect. I would expect the Government to provide Police Scotland with whatever information it is looking for in relation to its inquiries. If there are deeper anxieties, I am happy to meet Willie Rennie, Liz Smith and any other members who wish for me to intervene on the question. I am happy to do so if there are any outstanding issues following my answers today.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the reported rise in sex crimes. (S6F-03488)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me state strongly, as I have done previously, that violence against women is totally abhorrent.

Although I want to see a reduction in the number of sexual crimes, we all know that sexual crime is underreported. One of the multiple factors behind the rise includes a greater willingness among victims to come forward, alongside increased support for survivors, including the use of pre-recorded evidence and a greater consistency in approach and the use of specialist police officers.

However, it is the ending of such violence that should be our goal. Those who perpetuate sexual violence and abuse, the majority of whom are men, must be held to account. It is only through fundamental societal change in the behaviours and attitudes of men that women can be protected.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Police Scotland received more than 7,000 reports of sexual crimes between the start of April and the end of September this year, showing the upward trend. That also included a 20 per cent rise in the number of reported rapes. I acknowledge what the First Minister said—more people are reporting, which is progress. Of course, the rise is indicative of the fact that male violence against women remains endemic, which the First Minister and I agree on. There is no part of the world where women are safe from such crimes—I am sure that we agree on that, too.

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland should be a leading country in tackling the issue and in how our criminal justice system treats victims of rape and sexual violence? However, the Government voted to extend the limits for trials until the end of next year. Given that one of the most distressing aspects for victims of sexual assault is the length of time that cases take to come to court, can the First Minister give the Parliament a guarantee that the Government will not seek any further extensions to court time limits, as it did yesterday, to give victims some comfort that delays in our courts will continue to be reduced?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Pauline McNeill has said, if not all of it. I commend Police Scotland for the work that it has done in driving some of the increase in reporting through the very successful “That guy” campaign, which I think is acknowledged across the parliamentary chamber as one of the most effective means of communication.

The Government is still dealing with the implications of the Covid pandemic on the criminal justice system, and we have sought approvals from the Parliament for further extensions. However, we will not seek any further extensions to those arrangements—I give Pauline McNeill that assurance.

Obviously, there are other steps that we can take. Indeed, yesterday, the court of appeal determined on the Lord Advocate’s reference in relation to corroboration, which will obviously have an effect on questions in relation to prosecution.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Figures that were released earlier this week show that 1,400 rape allegations were made in Scotland between April and September this year, which represents an increase of around 20 per cent on the same period last year. Although it is encouraging that more survivors are coming forward to report such abuse, more needs to be done.

Last year, I worked with a rape survivor, Ellie Wilson, to urge the Scottish Government to introduce guidance on how higher education institutions should handle cases of sexual misconduct. What progress has the First Minister’s Government made to ensure that such guidance is issued?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will have to write to Pam Gosal with the definitive answer to that question. During my time as education secretary, with my ministerial colleagues I undertook work on what has become known as the Emily test, in response to the terrible case of Emily Drouet, who was a victim of sexual violence. That approach was rolled out across our higher education sector. I will look carefully at the point that Pam Gosal makes. We must make a range of interventions to ensure that individuals are able to come forward in such circumstances. However, we must also take steps to change the culture among men and their attitudes towards sexual violence. That will have to happen if we are to improve the lives of women in our society.

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

As convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, I have heard much testimony from survivors of sexual violence and what they perceive to be barriers to their cases getting to court. Will the First Minister outline whether yesterday’s appeal court decision on corroboration will improve access to justice for victims of sexual crimes?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Lord Advocate’s view of yesterday’s decision is that it has the potential to transform the way in which all offences, and in particular sexual offences, are prosecuted, and that it will contribute to the

“development of a progressive and humane justice system.”

I welcome any decision that will do so, as, I am sure, all members will. As Audrey Nicoll will recall, I served on the Criminal Justice Committee, under her convenership, last year, and I heard much of the powerful testimony to which she refers. The Government is taking forward the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which commits us to having a trauma-informed justice system that puts victims and witnesses at its heart. We want to ensure that anyone who has been a victim of a sexual crime has confidence in our justice system.

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

The First Minister will be aware that, without any notice to the Scottish Government, NHS Lothian has withdrawn its share of funding for the Veterans First Point service—some £200,000 or thereabouts—thereby leaving the Scottish Government alone to fund it. As Glencorse barracks is in my constituency, I am aware of how vital that specialised service is for veterans, to whom it provides mental and emotional support, both through professional interventions and with the help of peers. Does the First Minister agree that that is a very wrong decision on the part of NHS Lothian, which seems particularly cruel and thoughtless as we approach remembrance day?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand that there is currently engagement with NHS Lothian on that very question. Such services are vital. It is important that our veterans community is well supported at all times, but particularly in the period around remembrance day. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, along with the Minister for Veterans, Graeme Dey, will take a close interest in the issues that my colleague has raised.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Last week, the health secretary and the Deputy First Minister met local people who were campaigning to keep open Moss Park care home in Fort William. However, since that meeting, there has been no announcement of any progress. Social workers have begun to contact residents’ families to tell them that their loved ones are to be moved. I am sure that the First Minister will appreciate the fear and frustration that that is causing those residents and their families, and that he will agree that they deserve answers on what efforts are being made to keep them in the place that many of them now call home. Can the First Minister advise me, and those who today are protesting outside Highland Council about the closure, what role the Scottish Government has played in efforts to keep Moss Park open? What support has the Government offered Highland Council and NHS Highland to make that happen?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the significance of the point that Mr Halcro Johnston raises. I am concerned about the delayed discharge situation, especially in Highland, where it is particularly acute. The proposed closure that Mr Halcro Johnston raises will only exacerbate that situation, so it would be moving things in the wrong direction. The Government has engaged substantively. The health secretary, along with the Deputy First Minister in her local representative capacity, have been engaged in those discussions, and all possible options have been explored by the Government. I understand that the issue that Mr Halcro Johnston puts to me is being considered by Highland Council today. The Government stands ready and willing to engage on finding a solution, because the impact of the proposed closure would mean matters moving in entirely the opposite direction to the one that I want to see happening.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

At the weekend, the Loganair chief executive said that the flight from Stornoway to Inverness is “difficult to sustain”. That flight is a lifeline service for people who need to access healthcare services that are not available locally. We have already seen patients no longer accepting treatment due to the downgrading of the Uist flights. That would also happen if the Stornoway to Inverness flight were to stop or become less accessible.

I appealed to Scottish ministers to find a solution to the situation with the Uist flight, but nothing has changed. Therefore, I ask the First Minister to intervene personally to ensure that the Uist flights are fit for purpose and to protect all those flights with a public service order. If he does not, lives will be lost.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Some weeks ago, I had a discussion in Stornoway with an organisation that provides support and care to patients who require access to cancer treatment—the name is not at the front of my mind just now—about the substantive challenges that Rhoda Grant has raised with me regarding the practicalities of accessing hospital treatment from the islands when a sustained period of care is required.

I give Rhoda Grant the assurance that the health secretary and the transport ministers are looking closely at the situation to ensure that we are providing all the support that we can so that individuals who require to access healthcare needs are able to do so, regardless of their location.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

A number of third sector organisations across Edinburgh Pentlands, including the Dove Centre, the Health Agency in Wester Hailes and the Community One Stop Shop in Broomhouse, have been notified by the Edinburgh integration joint board that their funding will soon be cut by more than £800,000, as part of a £4.5 million cut across Edinburgh. If those cuts go ahead, how will the Scottish Government ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency are supported to lead healthier and more stable lives?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the significance of the issue that Mr MacDonald raises. I am familiar with the Broomhouse area of the city. I grew up very close to Broomhouse, so I know its challenges and circumstances.

The Government attaches great importance to supporting the third sector in the delivery of services and the impact that they can make. I understand that, on this particular issue, decisions have not yet been made by the Edinburgh integration joint board, and that those proposals will be discussed tomorrow.

I stress to Mr MacDonald the importance that the Government attaches to ensuring that we have in place the proper services that will meet the needs of individuals and communities.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that Stephen Flynn lobbied for an offshore wind project, which the Scottish Government approved, and that, one month later, he received a £30,000 donation from one of the beneficiaries of that project. A Scottish Government official acting on behalf of Gillian Martin appeared to fast-track a ministerial reply in response to Flynn’s request and, a few months later, the project was approved.

If the First Minister has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear, so will he order an investigation into the handling of that consent process by the Scottish Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have no intention of doing that, because the process has been properly conducted, and information—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that it should be a surprise that a Government that, in its policy position, is supportive of renewable energy developments has taken a decision to authorise a renewable energy project.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Fast-tracked.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Lumsden, you have put your question. I would like to hear the response.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Earlier this year, information was released under freedom of information requests that showed that there had been no breaches of protocol.

I really do not think that it is a big surprise that a Government that has had a consistent policy position for 17 years in favour of renewable energy development should take a decision to grant consent to a renewable energy development. What the question represents is the grubbing at the bottom of a barrel by Douglas Lumsden and the Conservatives. It debases this Parliament, it debases the Conservative Party and it shows that it has nothing constructive to say in Scottish politics.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the GMB trade union.

In 2019, a job evaluation process for district nurses working for NHS Tayside resulted in their jobs being upgraded. Thus far, NHS Tayside has refused to honour that pay rise and pay the women what they are due. GMB Scotland has appealed to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to intervene, but he has refused, citing the fact that the job evaluation process is an independent process. He is right, of course, but that process is long since complete. The question now is whether the health board pays the workers the money that they are due. I ask the First Minister to take a personal interest in the matter to ensure that those workers at NHS Tayside, which serves his constituents, get the money that they deserve.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand all the issues that Mr Marra puts to me. The complication here is that there is a due process to be gone through, which involves the possibility of a tribunal. I understand that the issue is going to tribunal, which is a material part of the process of determining the issues. I know that that is cold comfort to anybody who is affected by the matter, but it is the process that we have to go through to determine on the issues. If there is anything further that can be added to that, I will consider whether there is a case for it.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time.

Point of Order

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At decision time last night, Parliament was tied 62 to 62 on my colleague Alexander Burnett’s motion to annul the Local Services Franchises (Traffic Commissioner Notices and Panels) (Scotland) Regulations 2024. With Deputy Presiding Officer Liam McArthur in the chair and the other Deputy Presiding Officer voting according to her party’s whip, the Scottish National Party was already granted an artificial boost in its voting numbers, compared with what the situation would have been if you had been in the chair, Presiding Officer. I also raised an eyebrow at the exact number of SNP MSPs voting, which was one more than I had thought there would have been, considering the pairing arrangements.

That aside, the Deputy Presiding Officer cast his deciding vote against the motion to annul and stated that the reason was to protect the status quo. As Alex Cole-Hamilton pointed out in his point of order yesterday, preserving the status quo would actually have been achieved by voting in favour of the motion. That is because a negative instrument—which is still a new law—is subject to less democratic scrutiny and can only be stopped by a motion to annul it.

If the vote had been on an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument, a legislative consent motion, an amendment at stage 3 of a bill or even the final vote on a bill, the Deputy Presiding Officer would have cast their vote against creating the new law. On this occasion, the Deputy Presiding Officer cast his vote to pass a new law and, in doing so, created a majority in Parliament where one did not exist.

I seek your guidance as to whether parliamentary protocol was followed correctly in the chamber last night. From where I am standing, it seems as if the SNP has passed new regulations against the clear will of both the relevant committee and the Parliament, with the backing of the casting vote from the chair.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Lumsden. The Parliament was asked whether the instrument should be annulled, and it was unable to decide that matter. Therefore, the Presiding Officer in the chair cast a vote against that change. Last night’s vote means that the motion to annul fell, and it means that the negative SSI stays in place.

We will now suspend business to enable the chamber and the public gallery to clear before we move on to members’ business.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-15088, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, which is a legislative consent motion on the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024, so far as these matters alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.—[Fiona Hyslop]

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill would remove the presumption in favour of franchised passenger railway services being provided by the private sector and would instead allow train operations to be provided by a public sector company when existing franchise contracts end.

Clause 1 would prohibit the Secretary of State for Transport or the Scottish ministers from extending existing rail franchises or entering into new franchise agreements, apart from in specific limited circumstances. It would also remove the presumption in favour of franchised railway passenger services being provided by a private operator. Instead, these will be provided by a public sector company, under a public sector contract.

Clause 2 would place a duty on the relevant franchising authority to provide or secure passenger rail services by giving a direct award to a public sector company. The secretary of state would also have the power to extend existing franchises or to agree new franchises with the same private sector operator as currently operates the service.

Clause 3 would give the secretary of state the regulation-making powers to make consequential amendments, including to primary legislation.

Ultimately, the aim of the bill is to bring all rail franchises into public hands—

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Hear, hear.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

—and that is something that my party cannot support.

On 17 July 2024, the shadow transport secretary, Helen Whately, described nationalisation as

“a move that can only be based in ideology”,

and said—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Ms Webber.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

She said that

“Nationalising well-run operators won’t bring fares down or make services more reliable”.

Furthermore, Rail Partners, which represents the interests of private sector train and freight operators, has argued that

“full nationalisation is a political not a practical solution, which will increase costs over time”.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Ms Webber seems to be arguing that nationalisation is ideological, and therefore a bad thing. Surely privatisation was the ideological choice that was made in the first place.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

My party believes that the bill would have a detrimental effect on Scottish travellers who rely on key cross-border services such as Avanti West Coast. It would also limit competition. Cut-price rail providers such as Lumo, which planned, over the summer, to provide an increased east coast mainline service from Edinburgh Waverley to London King’s Cross, and which also hopes to expand through to the west in Glasgow, could be prevented from providing such a service once the franchise ends.

Finally, and more importantly, the legislation would tie the hands of Scottish ministers and compel them to keep ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper in public ownership.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government’s policy aims and objectives are for a fully publicly owned railway to deliver for the people of Scotland and to achieve our vision of a reliable, resilient, affordable and accessible railway. The Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill aligns with our policy aims, which is why we support the legislative consent motion and recommend that the Scottish Parliament supports it.

Since ScotRail and the Caledonian sleeper moved into public sector control through operator-of-last-resort arrangements, we have seen continuous improvements as a result. ScotRail has added more than 200 additional services each weekday, offering 7 per cent more seats, and passenger numbers have increased by 75 per cent, from 46.7 million in 2021-22 to around 82 million in 2023-24. On average, ScotRail remains one of the highest-scoring operators in terms of overall passenger satisfaction. It is fully appreciated that the past few months have seen a dip in comparison with the preceding period, which coincided with a reduced service as a result of a temporary timetable.

The changes that the bill will make to the current railways legislation will allow rail passenger services to be delivered by a public sector company as the first-choice option, rather than as a last resort under a franchising model that the Scottish Government has regularly criticised. That will enable current public sector delivery arrangements to be made permanent, providing a stable framework from which we can continue to provide those services.

We are not in favour of returning to the failed Tory franchise system, but any concern that the bill removes the power of any future Scottish Government that may wish to reintroduce the franchise model—a failed model—is incorrect. The Scottish Parliament cannot currently make provision regarding the manner in which rail passenger services are provided; that is a reserved matter, and nothing in the United Kingdom bill will change that. Therefore, it is only through full devolution of rail that any future Scottish Government would truly be able to decide the preferred method of rail service delivery, whether that be publicly or privately operated.

That is one of the reasons why full devolution of rail has been a long-standing objective of Scottish ministers and it is a reason why all members should support that position in consideration of the future UK Great British railways bill. Any future changes to the railways legislation that would impact on devolved powers would also be subject to the convention that the UK Government will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the Scottish Parliament’s consent, which would be sought through a further legislative consent memorandum process, as appropriate.

Therefore, to ensure that we have a publicly owned and publicly run rail system in Scotland, I recommend that the Parliament votes to support the legislative consent motion for the UK Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Invasive Non-native Species

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-13402, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, on invasive non-native species in Scotland. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

I advise members that, as we are resuming business at 2 o’clock this afternoon, I will have to ensure that members stick to their allocated speaking times, to allow our staff sufficient time to clear the chamber in preparation for that.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the publication of the Scottish Environment LINK report, Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action, which collates the thinking of Scotland’s environmental non-governmental organisations regarding invasive non-native species; understands that invasive non-native species constitute one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss and that invasive non-native species are among the most significant pressures on Scotland’s biodiversity; recognises the reported significant negative impacts that invasive non-native species have for Scotland’s marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments, including in the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency; highlights reports of the financial impact of invasive non-native and non-native species on Scotland’s economy; notes the view that it is necessary to effectively tackle invasive non-native species as a prerequisite to successful nature restoration in Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government’s Nature Restoration Fund is providing critical funds to initiate and develop projects, working with communities and volunteers to prevent the establishment, and control the spread, of invasive non-native species, and considers that this is allowing the recovery of biodiversity across Scotland, including river restoration projects addressing invasive non-native plants, controlling invasive rhododendron in Scotland’s rainforest and safeguarding internationally important seabird islands from non-native mammals through island biosecurity action.

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

I am very pleased to bring the debate to the chamber. I thank every member who signed the motion, and every member who is speaking today.

The motion centres on the recent Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”, which takes account of the current status of non-native species in Scotland, the part that they play in biodiversity loss and the urgent action that is required to tackle them. I commend all the organisations that contributed to the report, and I thank the report’s authors for producing a comprehensive review of the non-native species landscape in Scotland. I also thank all the organisations that have shared helpful briefings ahead of the debate, and I extend special thanks to Andrew Marks, Susan Madden, Dr Lorraine Hawkins and Jan Simpson for their insight and support.

As nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, I am pleased to have secured the time to debate this topic. The urgency of the work that is required to shift the dial on habitat and species decline, including tackling invasive non-native species, cannot be overstated.

Invasive non-native species, or INNS, are one of the five principal direct drivers of global biodiversity loss, alongside climate change, pollution, changes in land use, natural resource use and exploitation. Globally, natural barriers such as oceans and mountains restrict the mixing of species from different regions and allow global diversity to be maintained. INNS are species that have been introduced to a country, whether deliberately or accidentally, thereby breaking down those barriers and eroding biodiversity. International trade and the movement of people and goods are the most likely means by which INNS move across borders.

Not all INNS have immediate or detectable environmental impacts, but many of them do. There is no doubt that the pressure of INNS on biodiversity is intensifying across terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Many of us are familiar with Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed, but there are many other INNS that cause issues, including the grey squirrel, American skunk cabbage and American mink, to name but a few.

The greatest threat to Scotland’s rainforest is the rhododendron, with which we are all familiar. It blocks sunlight from reaching the forest floor, stifling the growth of native flora and fauna, which in turn impacts mammals, insects, moss and lichen. In the north-east, the Dee Catchment Partnership has undertaken a number of targeted projects, including in my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, to control giant hogweed, Japanese knotweed and piri piri burr.

Japanese knotweed is highly invasive in woodlands and on riverbanks, forming very dense clumps that overshadow native plants. Dispersal is particularly problematic for riverbanks because fragments of root wash downstream, only to spread further.

As well as the environmental cost of INNS, their economic cost is significant. The cost of INNS to the UK economy is estimated to be almost £500 million per year. The cost over the past 40 to 50 years is estimated to be more than £5 billion, which is one of the highest totals in Europe.

How effectively are we controlling INNS? The Scottish biodiversity strategy notes the spread of 190 INNS across Great Britain during the past six decades, with an estimated 10 to 12 new non-native species establishing themselves each year. Projects such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels and the Alliance for Scotland’s Rainforest are working successfully to tackle INNS in Scotland. However, efforts to control and eradicate non-native species have been patchy, and work to control the spread has been largely inadequate. The existing Great Britain invasive non-native species strategy is not considered to take full account of the unique and, in part, vulnerable Scottish ecosystem.

However, the forthcoming Scottish INNS plan, which was signalled in the draft Scottish biodiversity strategy, presents the Scottish Government with an opportunity to make key strides in the control and eradication of INNS. Scotland could look to the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework for guidance when considering the forthcoming plan. The KMGB framework sets a target to reduce rates of introduction and establishment of INNS by at least 50 per cent by 2030, and it puts forward targets for significant progress on the eradication or control of INNS, particularly at priority sites that are susceptible to them.

On funding, financial support to date has derived from a wide range of sources including the Scottish Government nature restoration fund. It is disappointing that the Government has signalled that that fund is to be withdrawn. I hope that the recent United Kingdom budget affords some flexibility for that to be reconsidered, and I ask the minister to provide some clarity on that point in his response to the debate.

Looking ahead, I trust that the Scottish Government will engage closely with environmental non-governmental organisations to create a Scottish INNS plan that is both clear and comprehensive in addressing the impact of INNS on the ecosystem as well as on Scotland’s native species.

Biodiversity and healthy ecosystems play a key role in tackling climate change, and I am glad to have had the opportunity to bring this debate to the chamber to highlight the threat that INNS represent to Scotland’s biodiversity. I thank everyone who supported my motion and I look forward to listening to members’ contributions.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Presiding Officer, I apologise to you and members as I will have to leave the chamber shortly after delivering my speech.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this topic to the chamber for debate, and I thank Scottish Environment LINK, which produced the report that is highlighted in her motion. Both Audrey Nicoll, by bringing the topic to the chamber, and Scottish Environment LINK, by producing such a strong and compelling report, have clearly expressed the need for comprehensive action to be taken to combat invasive non-native species.

The invasion of non-native species is a serious threat to the environment and heritage of our country. To see the effects, no one need look further than their local patch of woodland. The rhododendron, which was brought to the UK as a decorative garden plant in the late 18th century, not only invades our local countryside but is even found in spectacular temperate rainforests. It flourishes, dominating the woodland environment to the detriment of native flora and fauna.

To many, the grey squirrel might seem harmless, yet this invasive non-native species is a great threat to our native red squirrel population. The grey squirrel’s size and aggressive nature allow it to dominate available resources and habitats. That has caused the native red squirrel population to plummet, with sightings of red squirrels becoming less and less frequent. Where forests full of native trees once grew and thrived, the Sitka spruce now invades our ancient woodlands.

I was reminded of that crisis when Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker submitted a petition to the Public Petitions Committee in 2020. As a member of the committee, I was inspired by their work to protect their local woodland. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to deliver legislation to give Scotland’s remaining ancient native and semi-native woodlands full legal protection. That led me to visit one of Scotland’s unique temperate rainforests, where I witnessed for myself the devastating effect of Sitka spruce and other invasive non-native species on our precious natural heritage.

Although the tangible and visible examples of the danger of invasive non-native species are compelling, they represent only the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface, aquatic life is arguably the most at risk. Managing invasive non-native species plays a major part in Scotland’s economy, because our rivers, wetlands and coastlands are particularly at risk of biodiversity loss and of coastal erosion that affects our local coastal communities. Invasive non-native species also pose a risk to our coastal industries.

Restoration Forth, which is a collaborative project funded by WWF, works in partnership to protect native species in our local waterways. That major marine restoration programme works with communities to restore seagrass habitats and the European flat oyster population in the Firth of Forth. The Ecology Centre, which is based in Kinghorn in my constituency, is a partner organisation on the project. I was pleased to visit the centre during recess to engage with the programme. With a focus on reintroducing native seagrass and oysters to the seabed of the Forth estuary, Lyle Boyle, the seagrass officer, knows only too well how important it is to carefully manage invasive non-native species.

One example of that is the project’s strict oyster biosecurity protocol. Lyle Boyle explained that, although oysters are native, individual oysters and oyster reefs can also be a habitat for a range of other species. To guard against invasive non-native species, the organisation trains volunteers to rid each oyster of any encrusted living animal before moving it to a new environment, thereby getting rid of any suspected hitchhikers.

When working in the Forth, those working for the organisation protectively manage accidental spread using footbaths. Before planting and during the monitoring process, they actively search and remove invasive non-native species. Tank water is eradicated by ultraviolet light, seed-bearing shoots are quarantined and native species are planted and protected alongside a robust monitoring protocol.

As Audrey Nicoll highlights in her motion, the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund has been pivotal in funding community-based organisations to combat non-native invasive species in Scotland. Continued funding is necessary to help those organisations to continue their efforts to improve Scotland’s biodiversity. Like many here today, I find great joy in the outdoors—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Torrance, I need to ask you to conclude your remarks.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I camp with the scouts, holiday in the Highlands and explore the countryside with my dogs. Our environmental heritage is there for us to see, but a walk on a woodland path and a stroll on a beach is at risk from biodiversity loss caused by—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Torrance.

I remind members that those who speak in a debate but wish to leave early are required to seek prior permission from the Presiding Officer and to apologise to members in the chamber. In this case, I am not entirely sure whether the first step has been effected, but perhaps that matter can be pursued in writing with the Presiding Officer.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging this important motion for debate. I will address two invasive species—grey squirrels and giant hogweed—that can be found in Aberdeenshire West and that significantly impact our community.

I am proud to be the species champion for red squirrels, the UK’s only native squirrel species. The introduction and subsequent rapid spread of grey squirrels—or the American tree rat, as it is more correctly known—since the late 19th century has had a devastating effect on red squirrel populations. Although there are more than 2.7 million grey squirrels in the UK, fewer than 287,000 red squirrels remain, and 75 per cent of those are in Scotland. It is very much our responsibility to protect that declining population, whose presence in our woodlands makes a major contribution to Scotland’s nature-based tourism economy.

Grey squirrels are larger, they eat more and they are essentially starving red squirrels out of their habitats. They also carry the squirrel pox virus. Although the greys are asymptomatic to that disease, it is devastating for red squirrels. Outbreaks can wipe out local red squirrel populations, as the disease is usually fatal within two weeks. The competition between red and grey squirrels is a man-made problem, so it is our responsibility to manage it by any means—even, as I did once, daring to cook and serve grey squirrels, Peking duck style, in an effort to encourage a culinary market. Sadly, it did not take off.

The most effective strategy—halting grey squirrels in targeted areas—is practised by groups such as Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels. That group’s project, which has been running for 15 years, demonstrates that centrally co-ordinated, professional control and monitoring of grey squirrels are both effective and necessary.

However, it is no longer sustainable for that vital work to be delivered on short-term funding cycles, with a charity responsible for delivery. Can the minister explain how the Government plans to ensure that strategic grey squirrel control continues into the future? Will the new strategy, which is being worked on by the Scottish squirrel group and shared by NatureScot, contain a detailed delivery plan for how such control will be delivered over its 10-year lifespan?

I turn to the other significant invasive species, giant hogweed. That plant originated in central Asia and escaped ornamental gardens in the UK in the 19th century. Now widespread across the UK, giant hogweed can reach heights of up to 5m, often overshadowing native plants and disrupting biodiversity. It is also a public health hazard, as its sap can cause severe skin blistering, with symptoms that can reoccur for years.

It is crucial to eradicate giant hogweed in the UK. Large infestations generally require multiple treatments of herbicide, along with the removal of flower heads to prevent seeding. For smaller outbreaks, manual removal in spring can be effective. In my constituency, along the River Don, a multiyear programme has successfully controlled giant hogweed through annual treatment, starting at the top of the river. Across Scotland, the Scottish Invasive Species Initiative manages 753km of river to control giant hogweed.

However, eradicating it remains challenging due to the plant’s resilience and to budget constraints, so continued effort and resources are essential. Failing to spend money on its removal now will only lead to greater costs in the future. Worryingly, NatureScot has made no species control agreements in the north-east to deal with giant hogweed. It is essential that we address that and other invasive species in order to protect and restore Scotland’s natural heritage.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also thank Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, two of my constituents, who have been calling on the Scottish Government to deliver legislation to give Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient native and semi-native woodlands full legal protection. Audrey and Fiona have been leading the campaign through the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee since 2020. They are nothing if not determined, and their hard work continues. I believe that their petition is still open, so I thank members of the committee for their support.

Our Scottish historic landscape, which I know that we all value, has been overrun by invasive non-native conifers. The tree of the year competition that is run by the Woodland Trust was won this year by a tree in Scotland, in Lochaber. It is an ancient oak that is—guess what?—surrounded by dark spruces.

It is concerning that the prevention and control of invasive non-native species in Scotland has for so long been so inconsistent. In 2022, the University of Stirling published a report that helps to illustrate the problem, and I commend it to the minister. It discovered that a colossal 56 per cent of all trees that were recorded at the highest altitudes in Scotland are American Sitka spruce—a non-native invasive species. That growth has taken place in just a few decades. That is how fast-moving the issue is.

The report also underlines the fact that past and current efforts have failed to tackle the problem. For too long, we have allowed conifers to self-seed out of plantations, creating new seed sources, which further encourages the takeover of our ancient woodlands.

The reality is that there is a disconnect between what the Scottish Government says it will do to save ancient woodlands and its actions to reverse their disappearance. As Scottish Environment LINK rightly pointed out in its briefing,

“Eradications are not always seen to completion; success is not always assessed at the right ecological scale and best practice is not always followed.”

Given that the spread of invasive non-native species has an estimated economic impact of almost £500 million per year, that failure is costly and unforgivable.

It is time to take that crisis in hand and adopt new measures that actually work, including the recommendations that are outlined in the LINK report. The Scottish Government should quickly agree to a target to reduce the rates of introduction and establishment of invasive non-native species by at least 50 per cent by 2030. It should also outline whether it has any plans to remove those non-native invasive species from sites across Scotland, similarly to work that is being undertaken in other countries such as New Zealand. I agree with Audrey Nicoll that the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund is critical, which is why it is so concerning that funding has been cut.

I hope that the Scottish Government will commit to having a national strategy for Scotland, with targets that reflect the negative impact on our ecosystems of non-native invasive species. It is vital that we take the steps required for successful nature restoration in Scotland. Nature is, after all, our greatest asset, and we must look after our natural assets so that we can protect Scotland’s biodiversity for future generations.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Beatrice Wishart, who is joining us remotely.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this important topic to the chamber.

On its website, the organisation the Wildlife Trusts estimates that wild pollinators are responsible for pollinating 85 to 95 per cent of the UK’s crops. It also anticipates that taking on the job ourselves

“would cost ... an estimated £1.8 billion a year.”

It really is no exaggeration to say that addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, and protecting our environment, is a matter of life and death that impacts our food sources, habitat and way of life.

Pollinators are under threat, with three bumblebee species having become extinct in recent decades. A recent European red list for bees reports that almost

“one in 10 wild bee species face extinction”.

Over the past 50 years, half the bee, butterfly and moth species that were studied in the 2013 “State of Nature” report have declined.

There are many reasons for bee population decline. Asian hornets are a growing threat to Scotland, with the Scottish Government’s pest-specific contingency plan highlighting them as

“one of thirty invasive non-native species identified as having a high risk of arriving, establishing and impacting biodiversity and ecosystems in Scotland in the next 10 years.”

Asian hornets can destroy western honeybee colonies, which have no defence against the threat. Japanese honeybees, however, evolved alongside Asian hornets and surround them in a ball of attack—the heat from the ball of bees overwhelms the hornet.

As has been highlighted, our greatest defence against invasive non-native species is to stop their introduction. However, we need best practice methods to better eradicate invasive non-native species that have already taken hold, such as rhododendron, which, as we have heard, grows in vast swathes of Scotland’s rainforest.

In Shetland, our waters face threats from many species, such as the orange-striped anemone, which has up to 100 long greenish tentacles, is found in brackish and inshore waters and can foul harbour and marina structures, boat hulls, mussel lines and oyster beds.

The Japanese skeleton shrimp is a red to cream-coloured shrimp-like animal with spines along its back. Those shrimps are widespread in Shetland and are found only on man-made structures, with little yet known about their impact. Among others, the orange-tipped sea squirt, which has a U-shaped gut, is found on man-made structures—which it, too, can foul—and in the wild, under rocks in Scalloway.

The Shetland Community Wildlife Group and UHI Shetland recommend that boats and structures be kept

“as free of fouling as possible”

and that personal gear be kept

“clean and dry ... when moving between areas.”

Even the smallest pieces of invasive non-native species should not be put back into the water, as

“some can grow back from tiny bits.”

If people encounter any invasive non-native species, they are asked to contact the Shetland Community Wildlife Group and UHI Shetland, with a location reference and timings, noting what the specimen was attached to. That will help to limit the spread of such species, which can impact businesses and ecological balance.

We may not be able to avoid species habitat expansion as our climate changes, although we should not shy away from the challenge of tackling the climate emergency. We can work together to limit the problems of invasive non-native species that are caused by human actions.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging the motion and for securing the debate, which has been quite fascinating. Members have underlined that non-native invasive species are one of the main drivers of nature loss in this country, but there is also synergy with climate change—the two work together to damage our environment.

In a week in which we have been intensively discussing the budget in the chamber, the issue gives us one of the clearest examples of the impact of preventative spend. If we can tackle non-native invasive species early, we will save society a huge amount of money further down the line.

A number of members have celebrated the work of volunteers, charities and partnerships. David Torrance mentioned the amazing work that is happening with restoration Forth. We are making progress. For example, big progress has been made in controlling grey squirrels, and there is good progress on tackling rhododendron and giant hogweed. All that work needs co-ordination and support, and it needs organisations such as the Forth Rivers Trust in my region, which does amazing work in bringing together landowners and volunteers to take action and tackle issues such as the expansion of giant hogweed. It has done that successfully in the Allan Water, but that has taken a huge amount of effort.

That takes me back to the point about funding that a number of members have underlined. This is about spend to save. If we spend money on tackling non-native invasive species now, we will save later. It is disappointing that there has been an in-year cut to the nature restoration fund, which was established when the Greens were working in government with the Scottish National Party. The minister needs to consider how we can reinstate funding, particularly the council funding strand, which has been cut. The £5 million is an absolute drop in the ocean in comparison with the public pay settlement, and we are stacking up costly problems unless we can empower councils to restore nature and tackle invasive species. It is really important that we do not lose momentum on that.

Members have received briefings from a number of charities that have called for multiyear funding, because we cannot tackle invasive species in only 12 months. Invasive species do not follow budget cycles. We need to look at growing cycles and ecological cycles. That means that multiyear funding is needed, otherwise the money that we spend in one year will be erased by the growth and distribution of species in the years that follow.

I will mention two species very briefly. According to a briefing from Woodland Trust Scotland, 140,000 hectares of rhododendron ponticum need to be treated, predominantly on the west coast, because the species is continuing to invade.

Funding is important, but it is not just about funding. We have an opportunity in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to place a duty and responsibility on landowners to deal with the species. We could also introduce a national register of ancient woodland. Of course, the Scottish Government could work with the UK Government to put in place a retail ban for the species, which would really help.

We also need to widen the debate. We have a list of non-native invasive species, but there are questions about non-native game birds, such as pheasants and partridges. More than 40 million game birds are released into the environment across the UK every year, yet we know from the science that there are concerns about the spread of bird flu and predation of reptiles, and that there is an ecological imbalance when we so many of these birds are roaming around our countryside and interrupting our natural ecology.

There is much to consider, particularly in the context of the proposed natural environment bill. The minister could and should consider licensing, particularly in relation to non-native game birds. I look forward to the issue coming back to committees of the Parliament and to our considering ways in which we can take on some of the challenges and provide some certainty.

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

Like Mark Ruskell, I think that this is an interesting and important topic, given the £500 million of damage that is caused to the environment per year by the species in question. First, though, I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing the debate to the chamber, not least because I have learned that Jackie Baillie is a defender of ancient woodlands. Her talents are extensive.

Invasive species are, as we know, introduced either directly or indirectly by man. Trade, transport, travel and tourism can move species around the world. Many species have been introduced intentionally for commercial purposes, such as for ornamental gardening, for farming or for forestry or as pets, only to escape and become established in the wild. Other species simply hitchhike, moving to new countries via people and transport. The most recent hitchhiker I can think of was a scorpion that had innocently taken shelter in a pair of trainers ordered online. The lesson is this: we should check inside our shoes, just in case. I once found a dead mouse in one of mine.

But I digress. It is easy for invaders to move around in a world of international trade, at both private level and commercial level, but I want to talk about plants. Plants or seeds that we buy from the garden centre will have undergone tests and certification that are pretty stringent and which have become even more stringent since our leaving the European Union. Before, there would have been, as I understand it, one biosecurity certification at the point of departure; now there is one from the EU export source, one on arrival in the UK and another at the wholesaler. That all comes with additional costs, which are all passed on to the consumer.

The issue was raised at a recent meeting of the cross-party group on gardening and horticulture, of which I am a member. Indeed, a joint letter from the Fresh Produce Consortium and the Horticultural Trades Association called for a meeting with the UK Government over the continued problems that their members face when importing plants, including trees and cut flowers, under the current border system. Notwithstanding that, biosecurity is crucial, and it is endorsed by the HTA.

However, some plants have escaped in the past and are now invading. Some have already been mentioned, but I will repeat a couple of them. The notorious Japanese knotweed, which was once considered an ornamental garden plant, has become established in woodlands, on riverbanks and in coastal areas. Its dispersal is due to both deliberate and inadvertent human activity, as a result of which fragments of the aggressive root system get washed downstream, spread and propagate, changing the habitat structure of riverbanks and thereby impacting on biodiversity, ecosystem structure, conservation efforts and even salmon fisheries. I recall seeing the plant with more friendly eyes some decades ago as it flourished along the riverbank at the bottom of my garden, before we knew that it was up to mischief.

Rhododendron ponticum—the purple rhody—is another non-native garden escapee plant that has become established and has spread across large swathes of Scotland, overwhelming other plants and preventing natural woodland regeneration. Again, I can recall seeing that in my youth just a few decades ago, when it was thought to be really pretty. How times have changed—and it is not the first or last example of a plant moving from being admired to being despised.

Then there is the American skunk cabbage, which is, yes, skunk by name and skunk by nature. It is very smelly. Years ago, when I visited Dawyck botanic garden near Peebles, which is one of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh’s gardens, I thought that the yellow flowers growing in the streams were stinky, although that could be overlooked, because they were beautiful, and I selected one from the gift shop. A few years later, the Royal Horticultural Society told me to destroy it.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing the debate to the chamber. I have found the research engrossing as well as worrying. Grey squirrels are more infamous, through no fault of their own—we brought them in—but we must also consider seeds, plants and the wee beasties that travel on them.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing the debate to the chamber.

As we have already heard from Christine Grahame, curiosity can be a strange thing, especially when it comes to plants. Many plants from various corners of the world have found their way into Scotland’s botanical gardens. For the gardeners among us, some have successfully flourished, despite our challenging weather. However, many of them fall by the wayside and cannot cope with the rain, sleet or freezing temperatures.

Unfortunately, a few do conolise, and we have heard about some conolising the bottom of Christine Grahame’s garden—in Newton Stewart, I presume.

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

Minnigaff.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Absolutely—Minnigaff. I cannot call it Newton Stewart. It is definitely Minnigaff.

The term INNS—invasive non-native species—is not restricted to plant species; it can cover plants, animals and fungi. In areas that INNS conolise—I cannot even say the word; it is “colonise”—the negative impacts range from damage to the ecosystem and reduction in biodiversity to disruption to human activities and, more worrying, damage to our health.

For the past two years, the Galloway Fisheries Trust in my constituency has been running a control programme that covers the whole of Dumfries and Galloway, apart from the River Nith. It was initially supported by the nature restoration fund before funding was cut, even though it scored highly and NatureScot was keen to support it. Thankfully, the programme has now secured funding for the next three years from the National Lottery and Kilgallioch wind farm community trust. The project, which is called the Scottish Solway invasive non-native species control and knowledge programme, has been delivering strategic and co-ordinated control of American skunk cabbage, Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed, as well as some limited Himalayan balsam control. It does that by working with local communities and stakeholders. Having initially controlled the INNS and got them to a manageable level, stakeholders are now encouraged to make long-term commitments to control the species. The Galloway Fisheries Trust is prioritising that work because it is clear that INNS are having serious biodiversity impacts on local habitats and ecology, particularly around fresh water.

If we are to get anywhere near our ambitions to reverse biodiversity loss, it is critical that adequate funding is provided to support INNS control programmes across the country. The Scottish Government needs to help. I will give an example from my own patch—which is probably at the bottom of Christine Grahame’s old garden. The Galloway Fisheries Trust has raised concerns with Amey, the trunk road maintenance company, that knotweed is rife along the A75 and that control has been undertaken, even though it is a notifiable plant and INNS control is supposed to be a Scottish Government priority. The Galloway Fisheries Trust has now surveyed the A75 from Stranraer to Castle Douglas and mapped all the knotweed. On completion of that work, Amey agreed that it will undertake the necessary control from this year.

As we have already heard, the prevention, surveillance, eradication and control of invasive non-native species in Scotland has been inconsistent and, sadly, best practice has not always been followed. Historically, Scotland has suffered a high level of nature and biodiversity loss and, unless we get our act in gear, we will face further species loss in the future. Invasive non-native species remain one of the top drivers of overall biodiversity loss in Scotland and I am sure that members will agree that that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Audrey Nicol for lodging her motion and for providing this opportunity to discuss and welcome the Scottish Environment LINK plan.

As we have heard, invasive non-native species are one of the key drivers of biodiversity loss across the globe. The level of intactness of Scotland’s biodiversity is one of the lowest worldwide, with one in nine species currently at risk of extinction. Not every non-native species is established and not all have an immediate damaging environmental impact, but many do, and that has to be managed.

I want to focus on the impact and how we manage one particular species, which is highlighted as a case study in Scottish Environment LINK’s plan—Sitka spruce. Just over a century ago, 5 per cent of Scotland’s land was forested. Today, forest and woodland cover 19 per cent, but that varies across the country.

In Dumfries and Galloway, 31 per cent of the land is covered with woods and forests, making it the most forested part of Scotland. The geography—close to the motorway and with rail links to the market—means that the 211,000 hectares of forest have a disproportionate focus on tree species that meet the demand for timber; it is primarily Sitka spruce. I recognise the consequential positive economic impact that that has on direct employment in forestry and wood-processing jobs in the area and, crucially, on meeting growing demand for timber when we continue to import so much. However, the scale of planting in such a concentrated area puts pressure on inadequate infrastructure, including on roads that were never built for the 40-tonne-plus wagons that are used to remove the timber. It results in pressure on communities that fear the loss of natural habitats, as one particular area of countryside is planted with more and more Sitka and other non-native conifer species that are being grown for commercial reasons.

A consequence of that growth in such planting is the challenge of those species invasively seeding in neighbouring habitats. In his response to the debate, I ask the minister to outline how the Government intends to respond to the issue of non-native commercial conifers—according to the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland plant atlas, Sitka spruce is the fastest-spreading plant species in Scotland. It seeds from plantations into neighbouring peatland and native and community woodland habitats.

Will the minister say what analysis has been conducted on how and to what extent the seeding of non-native conifers is impacting on carbon sequestration, storage functions and the biodiversity of peatlands and native woodland habitats? I urge the minister to set out who he believes is responsible for removing non-native conifers that have seeded from commercial plantations into neighbouring habitats if they cause ecological or carbon storage damage. Does he believe, for example, that the polluter pays principle should apply to invasive non-native species in Scotland? What is the minister’s response to the recent Royal Society of Edinburgh report on forestry, which recommended that Scottish Forestry should require tree-planting schemes to consider how the spread of invasive tree seed to adjoining land, especially peatland, can be prevented, and should require appropriate steps to be taken to reduce such spread, and, where necessary, impose conditions to remove seedlings when it occurs?

I appreciate that I have asked the minister several questions, which I hope he will address in his closing comments, but if he is not able to do so, I hope that he will write to me to set out the Government’s response. I recognise that commercial forestry has a positive economic impact and that it is vital to meeting a demand for timber, but the concentration of planting in some areas has consequences. There will be an opportunity in forthcoming legislation to consider what more we can do to support commercial forestry in managing the impact of Sitka spreading from its important operations on to neighbouring land.

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

I, too, thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this fascinating and important debate to the chamber, and I thank members for their speeches. I also thank the organisations that were involved in producing the Scottish Environment LINK report, “Invasive Non-native Species in Scotland: A Plan for Effective Action”.

It has certainly been an interesting and useful debate. I never thought that I would find myself mentioning Mr Burnett of Leys and Elvis in the same sentence, but it seems that they have something in common in their alleged taste for eating squirrels. In any case, the debate is timely, given that the 16th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently taking place in Colombia, where countries are working together to ensure that the global biodiversity framework is effectively implemented.

That framework recognises the need, as members have done, for urgent action to tackle the current impacts of invasive species and to prevent the establishment of new ones. It is really important for us in Scotland, as it requires the eradication or control of invasive non-native species in priority sites such as islands—in my constituency, for instance, I am very aware of the protracted efforts to remove mink from the islands and hedgehogs from Uist.

All those efforts are why we are embedding key actions on biodiversity, including controlling and preventing the spread of INNS across Scottish Government policy. We are finalising our Scottish biodiversity strategy and delivery plan for publication later this year. In that delivery plan, we have committed to developing and implementing a Scottish plan for INNS surveillance, prevention and control, and securing wider support measures to enable long-term, effective INNS removal at scale. We are working hard on developing our Scottish INNS plan, which will set out in detail what we intend to do to tackle INNS. We will ensure that resources are better focused on preventing and controlling those species where possible.

As we undertake that work, we will engage with a wide range of stakeholders and delivery partners. We will also look carefully at the recommendations in the LINK report. Many of those recommendations are already under consideration or in train, but we recognise that more action is needed. However, Government cannot do that alone. We must work in partnership with and use the expertise of those who manage our land and who know it best. We will need an inclusive, whole-of-society approach that engages communities, businesses and decision makers alike.

I will pick up on Ms Nicoll’s question about funding. We know that tackling INNS requires significant investment, which is why commitments such as our £65 million nature restoration fund are essential. Since its launch in July 2021, the fund has provided more than £7.6 million to support projects to tackle INNS.

I should emphasise that the nature restoration fund has not been withdrawn. There is a continued commitment to the £65 million figure during the current parliamentary session. It is true to say that the local authority strand of the fund has been repurposed under pressures, but I hope that I can reassure Ms Nicoll about the Government’s continued commitment in that area.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister acknowledge the critical role of councils in co-ordinating the work and creating partnerships to do that work? Co-ordination is important here. Without that co-ordinating function, we can do a little bit of work on removing INNS in one area of land, but it can be undone by the extension and expansion of INNS to another area of land.

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

I am happy to acknowledge the important work that local authorities do in that area. I would also mention the £2 million for phase 2 of the Scottish invasive species initiative for tackling invasive plants and mink across the north-east of Scotland, for instance, as well as more than £1.5 million for the Orkney native wildlife project to eradicate stoats, and the £1 million going to the saving Scotland’s red squirrels project to control grey squirrels and reinforce protections for our iconic native red squirrel, as many members have mentioned today.

I will make one specific point about the yellow-legged hornet. Although no sightings have yet been officially recorded in Scotland, we are not complacent about that. My understanding is that we have contingency plans in place should sightings be confirmed.

The nature restoration fund also actively supports a range of other projects, including tackling rhododendron ponticum across areas that are important for nature and enhancing biosecurity for Scotland’s seabirds.

On the point that Jackie Baillie and Colin Smyth raised about Sitka spruce, the Government is aware of the concerns about the self-seeding of the species and it is now reviewing the guidance about buffer zones to seek to address the issue. We appreciate the point being made.

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

In the interests of keeping to my time, I did not mention Sitka spruce, but I lived in Galloway 40 years ago when Sitka spruce was being planted hell for leather all over the place. Could the rest of us be copied into the answer that you give to Mr Smyth about regulation and everything else, which you are not at fault for, because you did not plant them 40 years ago? They are acid forests, though.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Speak through the chair, please.

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

I appreciate the point that Christine Grahame makes, and I will undertake to copy her and others in on the work that is being done on reviewing guidance in that area.

We know that all those measures, important as they are, are not enough on their own to address the problem of established INNS in Scotland. Securing responsible private investment alongside public funds will be critical in supporting long-term plans to tackle invasive species such as rhododendron, giant hogweed and mink more widely and effectively.

However, it is not just about tackling those INNS that are established in Scotland. We must take action to enhance prevention and surveillance for new INNS and to develop robust and rapid response measures to tackle incursions effectively. We have been working closely with other UK Administrations on finalising five GB pathway action plans to raise stakeholder awareness of INNS and of what can be done to prevent them from becoming established in the UK. We are also developing a Scottish angling pathway action plan, which is relevant in that respect. We know that we need to improve prevention and surveillance, which are especially critical to the eradication of predators on Scotland’s seabird islands and in the marine environment, where control becomes challenging.

The Scottish Government welcomes the debate and the insightful report that has been produced by Scottish Environment LINK, and we look forward to working closely with Scottish Environment LINK and our other stakeholders as we develop and implement our INNS plan.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, minister, and thank you to all members for their co-operation in giving the security and other staff sufficient time to clear the chamber.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is net zero and energy, and transport. I make the usual plea for members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question—that would be very helpful.

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce energy consumption from the built environment. (S6O-03862)

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

Heating our homes and workplaces causes 20 per cent of our emissions. We have already made significant progress: emissions from buildings fell by 32 per cent between 1990 and 2022.

The energy efficiency of our homes is increasing across all tenures and more heat pumps are being installed than ever before. More than 150,000 households in Scotland have already benefited from our delivery schemes and we provided more than £210 million to those schemes in the last financial year.

We intend to lay regulations in December 2024 to deliver a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The minister is right about the critical aspect of the heat in buildings programme as part of the transition to a net zero society. Over the past few years, the Scottish Government developed a programme that has been well regarded and even described as something that could be a template for action across the rest of the UK. However, in the past few weeks, I have heard increasing rumours of large-scale job losses in Home Energy Scotland and even one suggestion that the entire grant and loan scheme is going to be put on hold. Will the minister take this opportunity to scotch those rumours and make it clear that those changes will not happen? If there is any danger of such changes taking place, will he immediately begin discussions with Exchequer colleagues to ensure that the additional money that is now available to the Scottish Government, following yesterday’s UK budget, is made available to reverse any changes that have been suggested?

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

The Scottish Government will have to study the implications of the UK Government’s budget for Scotland. We work with suppliers and others to ensure that there is as much certainty as possible on those matters, but we are at the mercy of decisions in the UK about our overall budget. However, we certainly keep in touch with suppliers and agencies to ensure that there is as much certainty in the system as possible.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting local transport authorities to franchise bus services. (S6O-03863)

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

The Scottish Government has delivered all the bus powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 to enable local transport authorities to consider all the powers available to them, including franchising, and we will provide general and statutory guidance on the franchising process. This is currently under development and will be published once the remaining franchising legislation is completed.

It is for local transport authorities to determine what powers, if any, to use to improve local bus services. Any authority considering the franchising powers must ensure that their business case is made robustly and in an evidence-based way to support future decisions.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It should be clear to the minister, following last night’s vote, that he does not have the confidence of the Parliament or stakeholders in the franchising process for Scotland’s bus services. How will he rebuild that confidence in the months ahead? The first decision on franchising is unlikely to take place until summer 2027, so there is time to work constructively with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and other transport authorities on a fairer and more robust process that puts the public interest at its heart.

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

I beg to differ with Mark Ruskell’s assessment of the situation. I am struggling to understand how he can say that there was no agreement on franchising yesterday. In every discussion that I have had and in every debate, everybody talks about how they want franchising to happen. The regulations were set in 2019 primary legislation, but I get the fact that there have been some issues in relation to them over the past week. However, I have contacted my officials to say that I will continue to have conversations with Valerie Davidson and Stephen Dornan from SPT to provide an assurance to the people who are demanding that franchising takes place that the process will stay on course.

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

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 enabled franchising, and the SNP has made significant improvements to public transport in Scotland, including by providing free bus travel for our young people. Can the minister say anything more about the impact of those policies on the affordability and accessibility of public transport and the vision for future improvement?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That supplementary goes slightly wide of the original question, but if the minister is able to add anything, I invite him to do so briefly.

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

Free bus travel is opening up opportunities all over the country for children, families and young people, and it is enabling young people to broaden their horizons by choosing to study further away from home, where that suits. Franchising will be part of that process, and we aim to continue to move forward with that.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Jonathan Bray, who is one of the leading experts on bus franchising development across the United Kingdom, has said that if Scotland adopts the panel-based approach by giving to the traffic commissioner unilateral power to veto SPT’s plans for a bus franchise, that

“will be a serious mistake which ultimately will be seen as such ... It’s hard to see any rational justification for it other than it serves the interests of those who wish to maintain the status quo for as long as is possible.”

He also said that the panel should be “deleted from the process” and that the regional transport authority—SPT—should be given the unfettered ability to implement, democratically, the desired scheme for the region. That has the support of the Parliament, in committee and, I would contend, in this chamber.

Will the minister agree to revise the proposal to have the powers in question vested in the traffic commissioner and to come back to Parliament with a revised scheme and amend the legislation accordingly?

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

SPT agrees that checks and balances should be in place, which is why such a provision was included in the 2019 act.

We are now in a position in which the panel will be put in place, there will be full scrutiny and we will put in place guidance, which the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee will have a chance to look at. If we delay that process, we will have to go back to primary legislation, which, as I have said in a number of debates, will stall it even further.

As I have said, I am preparing to meet SPT. We will discuss the matter further. However, franchising is going forward at the right pace.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it is committed to fully dualling the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen. (S6O-03864)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to improving the A96. In particular, we have recently completed the statutory process for dualling between Inverness and Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, along with the adjacent Inshes to Smithton scheme. We are now pressing ahead with the procedural steps to complete the purchase of land.

The current plan is to fully dual the route. As part of that process, we are undertaking a transparent, evidence-based review of the programme, which includes a climate compatibility assessment and other statutory assessments. Once published, that review will be subject to public consultation.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but that answer shows that the cabinet secretary simply does not get it. She said that the Government is committed to “improving the A96”, but the pledge that she and her colleagues were elected on in 2021 was to fully dual the A96 from Inverness to Aberdeen. Today, communities in Moray and across the Highlands and the north-east are looking for that commitment to be reaffirmed by the transport secretary.

On page 42 of its manifesto, the Scottish National Party said that the dualling of the A96 was required to ensure that

“the road network between all Scottish cities is of dual-carriageway standard.”

Does the cabinet secretary still stand by that? If not, why does she not prioritise businesses and people in the north-east of Scotland as much as she prioritises other parts of the country?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Douglas Ross says that he is sorry, but I am sorry that he did not listen to my answer. I draw attention to my first answer, in which I said:

“In particular, we have recently completed the statutory process for dualling between Inverness and Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, along with the adjacent Inshes to Smithton scheme. We are now pressing ahead with the procedural steps to complete the purchase of land.

The current plan is to fully dual the route. As part of that process, we are undertaking a transparent ... review”,

et cetera. It wastes the Parliament’s time if members do not listen to the original answer and the same answer has to be repeated.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I know that we cannot rehash the debate, but can you confirm that the cabinet secretary’s initial answer was that the Scottish Government is committed to “improving the A96”, not to fully dualling it?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Ross, you will know that it is not for the chair to determine the responses or, indeed, the supplementary questions.

Karen Adam has a supplementary.

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

Significant improvements have been made to road infrastructure in the north-east since 2007 and upgrades to the A96 are an important next step. Will the cabinet secretary set out some examples of how Scottish Government investment has improved connectivity across the north-east?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The north-east demands and deserves good connectivity, which is why this Government has spent more than £1 billion on road infrastructure in the north-east since 2007 and opened two new railway stations. There have been projects such as the A96 Fochabers and Mosstodloch bypass, or the new Inveramsay bridge on the A96 and it was this Government that benefited the north-east through the completion of the Aberdeen west peripheral route, which has reduced journey times and improved journey reliability for those travelling round the city of Aberdeen. Additionally, the Haudagain roundabout project has improved traffic flow. Those are all investments by this Government in the north-east of Scotland.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve public consultation on renewable energy projects by energy companies. (S6O-03865)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government is currently developing pre-application guidance for overhead transmission line projects. That will outline the clear and meaningful opportunities that we expect for affected communities to be fully consulted on the route and design of overhead electricity lines.

We have also worked closely with the United Kingdom Government on a consultation that is aimed at modernising the overall Scottish energy consenting scheme, by proposing updates to the reserved legislation that underpins our decision making. That consultation was launched this week and includes proposed legislative changes to mandate pre-application consultation for large-scale projects.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I was formerly a land agent and advised clients on renewables issues.

During Tess White’s debate, you asked me whether I would support you—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Please speak through the chair.