Scottish Parliament, 20 February 2025

332 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon—morning, actually. The first item of business is general questions.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency regarding how it will address any environmental concerns that arise from new waste incineration sites that have already received approval. (S6O-04330)

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

As a statutory consultee to the planning process, and Scotland’s environmental regulator, SEPA considers the environmental operation and management of waste facilities. That is a duty that is independent of the Scottish Government.

Through SEPA permits, waste incineration facilities must apply best available techniques, which were recently reviewed, to limit emissions. The new limits are now in force at all operational facilities. SEPA requires incinerator operators to publish emissions results and undertake their own monitoring to verify them, and it addresses non-compliance, in accordance with its enforcement policy.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for that helpful update. He might be aware of a new site in Irvine on the west coast that was given planning permission before the moratorium came into play. The permission was granted during Covid, and many local campaigners felt that the consultation process was not quite adequate. SEPA has yet to grant an operating permit for the site’s opening.

I recently met outside Parliament campaigners who are concerned that local voices and concerns about the site have yet to be answered and that consultation and information sessions are not taking place with the new site’s operator. Will the minister encourage the site’s owners to engage with local community activists, and will he ask SEPA to take that into account when it assesses whether to grant a permit?

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

It is fair to say that I would be reluctant to intervene in a conversation that SEPA is already having about an operating licence. Suffice to say, I would expect communities to be involved in all those conversations.

The member alludes to the fact that no new planning permissions have been granted since the publication of the review on the matter. That continues to be the Scottish Government’s policy nationally.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Alongside Blantyre, Cambuslang and Halfway community councils, I campaigned successfully against a proposed incinerator in Hamilton. I know that many local people welcomed the Scottish Government’s announcement of a moratorium on new incinerator sites. Can the minister update Parliament on the actions that the Government is taking to limit and reduce the amount of waste sent to existing incinerators?

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

We have met our target to reduce total waste in Scotland by 15 per cent against 2011 levels, and in 2022, our recycling rate in Scotland was 62.3 per cent, which is the highest since records began. The Government has made a significant investment in modernising recycling in Scotland.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Protecting our environment and communities from pollution and waste should be a priority of the Scottish Government. The waste management hierarchy lays out how waste should be prevented first of all, then reused, recycled, recovered and only then disposed of. Energy from waste incinerators should be the last step before disposal. During the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, Scottish Labour fought for a legal requirement to adhere to the waste management hierarchy, but how is the Scottish Government working to ensure that that hierarchy is followed in managing Scotland’s waste?

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

As I have mentioned, there are independent mechanisms by which some of that is overseen. The Scottish Government has set itself exacting targets, and Scotland has made significant progress in reducing waste; the overall recycling rate in Scotland of 62.3 per cent is the highest since records began, and official statistics show that we now landfill less than a quarter of all waste. As the member has mentioned, there is much still to be done, but I believe that Scotland is making significant progress in the right direction.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration is being given to increasing community resilience and supporting communities’ ability to respond to storm-related disruption such as power outages. (S6O-04331)

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

The Scottish Government supports communities by providing national guidance to Scotland’s statutory emergency response organisations, as well as advice and online learning through the Ready Scotland website and the public information campaign, and convening online and face-to-face events with communities and voluntary organisations to support the sharing of best practice.

Within Scotland’s established resilience partnership arrangements, local authorities are the main link to communities, supporting them in developing emergency resilience activities and plans, including those for significant power outages. During storm Éowyn, local authorities, power companies, voluntary sector organisations and other local responders rose to the challenge and supported communities across the country.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Storm Éowyn left many people without power for days, and communities relied heavily on local authorities, energy companies and charitable support during that time. What steps are being taken to help communities support themselves during significant power outages?

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

As I have mentioned, support exists through a number of channels, but supporting and building community resilience is key to all of that. As a Government, we recognise that communities are best able to address their own priorities. It is worth saying, too, that, at national level, the Scottish Government, through agencies such as the civil contingencies division, facilitates that conversation and that work in the voluntary sector resilience partnership.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it can provide to Dundee Heritage Trust to ensure the long-term future of the organisation. (S6O-04332)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am aware of the challenges facing Dundee Heritage Trust, which is a very important organisation that is responsible for the RRS Discovery and the Verdant Works museum. I also recognise the challenges faced by heritage organisations across Scotland, which is why we are continuing to support the sector through the awarding of £4.2 million of funding in the draft 2025-26 budget to Museums Galleries Scotland and the development of a new £4 million culture and heritage capacity fund. We are continuing discussions with the trust and Dundee City Council with a view to the future.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the conversations that I know the cabinet secretary has had with Dundee Heritage Trust. It does vital work in preserving Dundee’s key tourism landmarks, including RRS Discovery and the Verdant Works museum, and, importantly, my community’s heritage, for the next generation. Without the trust, Dundee City Council will be left with a very beautiful and very large old ship, but no one to care for it and no money to preserve it. Given that the budget for the organisation is being set today, will the cabinet secretary set out what he can do to give it some assurance that the Government can assist?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Michael Marra makes powerful points that have been the subject of discussions with Dundee Heritage Trust, the leader of Dundee City Council, Mark Flynn, and the constituency MSPs and MPs. I will make sure that Mr Marra is updated on progress, but I hope that he appreciates the important additional funding allocations for Museums Galleries Scotland and the new £4 million culture and heritage capacity fund, and that he will vote for those in the budget process next week.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

One way of providing resilience to Dundee Heritage Trust, and heritage sites more generally, is to boost visitor numbers. In that regard, will the Scottish Government explore a visitor incentive scheme for Tayside, as well as share best practice on interactive displays and exhibitions from iconic venues ranging from the national museum of Scotland to smaller venues?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am open to any suggestions of the kind that Maurice Golden has made. Indeed, I welcome them very much, and I would be grateful if he could forward to me any further thoughts.

There is also the potential for integrated travel with visitor opportunities and the work that we are doing with festivals. I know that the question was specifically about locations rather than festivals, but I think that bringing together public authorities to support the heritage and cultural scene is part of the answer to the challenges that they face, as are the additional funds that I hope Maurice Golden will vote for in next week’s budget process.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to local authorities to sustain and expand Gaelic-medium education. (S6O-04333)

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

We are committed to supporting the growth of Gaelic-medium education throughout Scotland. A range of measures are in place to promote that growth, including capital and revenue funding, the provision of resources, professional support for Gaelic-medium education teachers, guidance for local authorities and support for parents. In addition, a range of additional measures will be included in the Scottish Languages Bill, which is making progress through the Scottish Parliament.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Falkirk Council is due to decide on the removal of transport provision for pupils who attend GME in neighbouring local authorities and is engaging on the implications with Bòrd na Gàidhlig. As ever, costs are a consideration. Although the Scottish Government provides £13,000 directly to cover costs, the actual cost to the authority in 2024-25 was £83,000. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to enhancing opportunities for GME, what specific measures can the cabinet secretary outline to combat the significant shortfall in transport funding, which threatens opportunities for learners?

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

I say at the outset that I hope that the issue can be resolved in a way that allows young people from the Falkirk Council area to continue to have access to Gaelic-medium education provision. My officials have been in touch with the council on the matter. As Michelle Thomson says, I understand that any decision has been delayed for at least a month.

The Scottish Government provides £13,000 directly to Falkirk Council to support transport costs. Further to that, we have invited the local authority to work with us in relation to its Gaelic grant bids for next year, including in relation to school transport. Local authorities will receive additional support based on their need to transport Gaelic-medium education pupils to neighbouring authorities. For Falkirk Council, that support equates to an additional £19,000 in its local government settlement for 2025-26. I am happy to keep Michelle Thomson updated on the progress of the discussions.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what impact trade barriers have on the Scottish economy. (S6O-04334)

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

Trade barriers can pose significant challenges to our economy by restricting international trade—that depends on the countries and the products or services that are affected. Addressing trade barriers is important for economic growth, making it easier for Scottish businesses to trade, improving efficiency and reducing costs and prices.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Recent analysis suggests that Scottish exports could be approximately 7 per cent lower than they would have been if we had continued to hold European Union membership, which equates to a loss of about £3 billion for sectors such as chemicals and pharmaceuticals, with output down by 9 per cent, computer and electronics equipment, with output down by nearly 8 per cent, and agrifood, with output down by 5 per cent. What representations has the Scottish Government made to the United Kingdom Government about forging closer co-operation with the EU to mitigate those impacts and reduce the trade barriers that are in place?

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

As Gordon MacDonald sets out, it is clear from the statistical evidence that Brexit has had a severe impact on Scotland’s economy. Economic analysis such as that provides further evidence of the scale of that impact. It has been a major contributor to food prices going up and has wiped billions of pounds from the economy and tax revenues compared with EU membership—money that could and should have been spent on our national health service.

We continue to engage with the UK Government as it attempts to repair EU relations, and we support action to improve the trading environment, especially through a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement for our food, drink and agriculture sectors and regulatory co-operation to improve conditions for trade. However, as I am sure the member will agree, the best relationship that Scotland can have involves being in the EU.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the cost to the Scottish economy of ripping us out of the UK single market and erecting trade barriers, such as a different currency, with our nearest neighbours and our largest marketplace?

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

It is a classic Conservative approach to ignore the damage that is being wrought on our industries and businesses—the very same industries and businesses that the Conservatives like to proclaim that they represent—and turn a blind eye to the damage being done to Scots and our workers, which is, indeed, a major contributor to the cost of living crisis that we are all grappling with.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the representations that it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding reimbursements to the public sector in Scotland due to the increase in employer national insurance contributions. (S6O-04335)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have raised with the UK Treasury our concerns about the impact on public services if the reserved tax increase is not fully funded. On 3 January, the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with their concerns. They were supported by 48 public and voluntary sector organisations, which demonstrates the wide-ranging concerns across Scotland.

The Treasury has confirmed that we will receive only a Barnett share of funding for UK departments, which will undoubtedly fall far short of what is needed. I will raise that further with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when we meet next week.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that a delegation from Inverclyde Council, including the chief executive and the council leader, recently travelled to London to discuss support for Inverclyde with the UK Government. With increases to employer national insurance contributions affecting every council budget, including that of Inverclyde, will the cabinet secretary advise whether she has received feedback showing that the issue has been raised in that way, and whether there has been any movement from the UK Government on the policy?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am not aware of any outcome of the meeting that Stuart McMillan refers to but, to provide some certainty for councils in Scotland, I announced an additional £144 million for local government, which is equivalent to a 5 per cent rise in council tax. That still clearly leaves a shortfall, and I repeat my call to the chancellor to fully fund the costs of the Labour tax rise, which will harm services and the third sector. As I said earlier, I will raise the issue further with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when we meet next week.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the impact that the United Kingdom Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions will have on Scottish public services and the economy of Scotland. (S6O-04336)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The UK Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions is undermining our efforts to support businesses in Scotland, jeopardising jobs and hurting employees’ pay packages.

On 18 February, the Scottish Government published updated estimates of the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on the Scottish public sector. Those estimates indicate that the combined impact on the public sector and commissioned services is more than £700 million. If the UK Government’s reported allocation is all that is provided, the UK Government will be short-changing services that the public depend on by more than £400 million.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Labour Government’s employer national insurance hike is not only a tax on jobs; it is also a tax on Scotland’s public services, if the UK Government continues to refuse to fully compensate the costs of the increase for our health services, our care providers and our schools. In her previous answer, the cabinet secretary said that the First Minister and the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities were joined by 48 organisations to pressure the UK Government to see sense on the issue. What can the cabinet secretary do to increase that coalition of concern, relay our thoughts to the UK Government and get it to see sense on the issue and pay up for our public services?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with Kevin Stewart that that coalition of concern, as he describes it, is very important to keep the pressure up on the UK Government and the Treasury. As I set out in my answers, the hike in employer national insurance contributions places a higher burden on businesses, the public sector and the third sector and is fundamentally a tax on jobs that will impact the Scottish economy. My concern, particularly around commissioned services, is that the hike will impact on the public sector at the end of the day, and that is not acceptable.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Christine Grahame to ask the briefest of question 8s.

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

I anticipated your request to be brief, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what research it has recently completed into the efficacy and standardisation of the presumption of inclusion in mainstream education. (S6O-04337)

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

Our young people should learn in the environment that best suits their needs. We continue to seek ways to improve the experience of inclusion for all our young people, and the draft budget sets out an additional £29 million for additional support needs.

Our most recent relevant analysis, which was undertaken in the Morgan review in 2020, found no deficit in the legislative framework for additional support for learning. Indeed, the Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 has clear exceptions to the presumption of mainstream education to enable children and young people to learn in a special school or in a specialist unit if that best suits their needs.

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

I fully support the presumption on inclusion that was introduced in legislation more than two decades ago. However, I know of several cases in which it simply is not working in the interests of the child or of the class. I know that there is a balance, so I ask the minister to keep it under review. We want the child and the class to get the best out of the situation.

Natalie Don-Innes

Last year, the Education, Children and Young People Committee led an inquiry into additional support for learning and considered the issues thoroughly. We accepted the committee’s recommendations and are taking further action. I will keep the points that Ms Grahame raises in mind.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There are four questions to be put as a result of today’s business.

I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Liam Kerr is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Pauline McNeill will fall.

The first question is, that amendment S6M-16532.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16532, in the name of Angela Constance, on an independent review of sentencing and penal policy, 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 Liam Kerr is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Pauline McNeill will fall.

We come to the vote on amendment S6M-16532.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16532, in the name of Angela Constance. Members should cast their votes now.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-16532.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, is: For 28, Against 69, Abstentions 14.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that amendment S6M-16532.2, in the name of Pauline McNeill, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16532, in the name of Angela Constance, on an independent review of sentencing and penal policy, 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-16532.2, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is: For 16, Against 97, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-16532, in the name of Angela Constance, on an independent review of sentencing and penal policy, 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 motion S6M-16532, in the name of Angela Constance, on an independent review of sentencing and penal policy, is: For 70, Against 42, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament notes that Scotland has one of the highest proportions of prisoners in Western Europe; recognises the action that has been taken to establish a sustainable prison population and shift the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community, while protecting the public from harm; acknowledges the need for an independent review of sentencing and penal policy to consider how imprisonment and community interventions are used; further acknowledges the key role that the third sector can play in the effective delivery of justice services that reduce reoffending, and support rehabilitation and reintegration into society; agrees that there is a need for strong partnership working and co-ordination between third sector organisations, justice social work and the Scottish Prison Service to provide support and improve outcomes for those leaving prison, and believes that the Parliament has an important role to play in discussing the use of imprisonment and the best means for addressing offending behaviour, by both effective prevention and appropriate rehabilitation, and for reducing crime and keeping communities safe.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The final question is, that motion S6M-16526, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on a legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy 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.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] Oh—I apologise; I can see that my app has now connected. I wanted to check that my vote had been recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I confirm that your vote has been recorded, Mr Gray.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-16526, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on a legislative consent motion on the Great British Energy Bill, which is UK legislation, is: For 84, Against 28, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that all relevant provisions of the Great British Energy Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 25 July 2024 and subsequently amended in relation to sustainable development (clause 7A) on 11 February 2025, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes decision time.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Despite sustained efforts by my party, Scotland’s Parliament does not want to talk about a case that everyone across Scotland is talking about. We are going to talk about it right now.

A female nurse with 30 years of dedicated service to the NHS faces the sack for her concerns about a man using a women’s changing room. The employment tribunal will rule in due course, but there is absolutely no reason why MSPs cannot discuss the wider issues. Women’s spaces must be for women and girls. Does John Swinney agree that every woman in Scotland should be entitled to that, and to say that, without losing their job?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Before I answer Russell Findlay’s question, I want to take the opportunity to place on record the fact that, on Monday, I will attend a commemoration service in Edinburgh to mark the third anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine. I am certain that when I go to the service, I will go with the whole-hearted support of every member of the Parliament who is repulsed by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

I have, of course, been paying very close attention to the issues that have been raised by Mr Findlay and by Conservative members of Parliament. The Government has taken the view that we cannot comment on the on-going proceedings that Mr Findlay raises. The reason for that is set out in section 1 of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008. Section 1, titled “Guarantee of continued judicial independence”, says:

“The following persons must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary—

(a) the First Minister,

(b) the Lord Advocate,

(c) the Scottish Ministers,

(d) members of the Scottish Parliament”.

Section 1(2) goes on to say:

“In particular, the First Minister, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers must not seek to influence ... judicial decisions through any special access to the judiciary”.

If I was to comment on this case, I would be in danger of breaking the law. I believe in the rule of law, and nobody will persuade me to break the rule of law in the Parliament. [ Interruption .] No questioning from Mr Findlay, no barracking, no heckling—nothing will stop me from protecting the right to ensure that the law is upheld in this country. [ Interruption .]

The guidance that is in place in relation to the issues that Mr Findlay raises on a general level explains:

“The Equality Act 2010 does allow the provision to exclude a trans person from single or separate sex facilities. These kinds of decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Managers must balance the needs of the trans person to use this facility against the needs of other members of staff. They should also consider if other staff members will experience any disadvantage if the trans person is allowed to use the facilities.”

That is the position in guidance that is supported by law. I hope that that answers Mr Findlay’s question.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I, too, look forward to attending the memorial service on Monday, and I whole-heartedly agree with the First Minister’s comments in that regard.

We can, indeed, talk about the generalities of this case, despite the First Minister’s selective legal interpretations. The Scottish National Party health secretary was warned directly last year about the NHS ignoring women’s fundamental rights under the 2010 act, but he did nothing about it.

Just weeks ago, Scotland’s NHS published what it described as a “Gender Transitioning Guide”. That official document confirms that women’s rights to single-sex spaces are not protected in the NHS. However, the document has now disappeared from the NHS website and the page appears to have been deleted. Has that guidance been scrapped? If it has not, will John Swinney scrap it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that it is good enough for Russell Findlay to say that I have selectively expressed the basis of my position that I cannot comment on live legal proceedings. The law requires me not to do so. If Russell Findlay cannot respect and accept that, the Conservative Party is in a pretty dismal place.

I come back to the point that I made in my first answer. I am reading from the guidance that Mr Findlay is talking about:

“The Equality Act 2010 does allow the provision to exclude a trans person from single or separate sex facilities. These kinds of decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Managers must balance the needs of the trans person to use this facility against the needs of other members of staff. They should also consider if other staff members will experience any disadvantage if the trans person is allowed to use the facilities.”

That is the second time that I have put that on the record openly and candidly to Parliament. Mr Findlay should now start to adjust his questions, because I have answered the point that he has put to me.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will repeat this again and, for the First Minister’s benefit, I will do so very slowly. At no point have I asked him to comment on this specific case, although I note that his health secretary did exactly that yesterday.

This madness is happening not just in the NHS but in schools, prisons and rape crisis centres. Female pupils are too scared to use shared toilets over fear of sexual intimidation or assault. A male prisoner is serving life for murder in a women’s prison and is able to get an operation to reduce his Adam’s apple. Rape victims are being told that they are bigots for wanting to know the sex of their counsellor. Scotland’s public services waste too much time, energy and money on that nonsense, all because of SNP gender self-identification policy and legislation, with the backing of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens.

Yesterday, astonishingly, John Swinney said that he has no regrets. Does he really have no regrets about causing all that harm to women and all that cost to taxpayers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The point that Mr Findlay skates past is the significance of the Equality Act 2010, which was enshrined in the legislation that this Parliament passed on gender recognition. It had to be enshrined; the 2010 act is a reserved piece of legislation, so we cannot change the law.

I have quoted to Mr Findlay the fact that the Equality Act 2010 makes provision for there to be single or separate sex facilities and for those rights to be put into practice and into place. I do not know why Mr Findlay is determined to keep pursuing his line of argument, which is about sowing division in our society, when the legal position is absolutely crystal clear that the 2010 act protects the ability to have single-sex spaces in our country. Mr Findlay should accept that.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

One of two things is happening here: either John Swinney is in a state of complete denial or he is a very good actor—I am not sure which.

The SNP focus on the issue of gender has harmed Scotland’s public services. It has put its ideology not just before the rights of women and girls, but before NHS waiting lists, justice for victims and our children’s education.

Anas Sarwar and the Lib Dem leader are just as culpable as the SNP. Their collective support for this nonsense confirms how utterly disconnected Parliament has become from the real world.

My party believes that all Government time and money should be devoted to fixing Scotland’s public services, not to radical fringe policies. That is where we proudly stand, so what about John Swinney? Will he do the right thing and bin his gender ideology, which is causing so much harm to our country?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Again, Mr Findlay ignores the point that I put to him about the significance of the obligations of the Equality Act 2010 and the requirement that all legislation is compatible with it and underpinned by it.

Mr Findlay asked me about my priorities. My priorities are absolutely crystal clear. I am in office to improve the lives of the people of Scotland by making sure that we eradicate child poverty, grow the economy, make the transition to net zero and strengthen the public services of Scotland. Next Tuesday, we will put before Parliament a budget that will put that into effect. The people who are standing in the way of the approval of a budget to improve the lives of the people of Scotland—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The people who are standing in the way of that budget being approved—the people who are not interested in improving the lives of the people of Scotland—are members of the Conservative Party, which parades in front of Nigel Farage, whose support it is courting in Scotland today. [ Interruption .]

I will take no lessons from Russell Findlay—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay has no interest in the prospects and the future of the people of Scotland. He is here only to support division; I am here to bring people together.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

One in six Scots are on a national health service waiting list. There is an NHS crisis, with lives being lost. When will John Swinney, Neil Gray and the Scottish National Party Government stop focusing on disciplining a nurse and, instead, focus on supporting NHS staff, getting patients treated, clearing the backlogs, stopping the need for patients to spend thousands of pounds to go private and ending the 8 am rush for a general practitioner appointment?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If Mr Sarwar followed the speech that I delivered a few weeks ago—I think that he did, because he has raised some of those issues with me before—he would know that I am absolutely focused on tackling the issue of waiting times, on improving access to the national health service and on making sure that the needs of the people of Scotland are met by the national health service. That is why my budget on Tuesday will include a record settlement for the national health service. As things stand, Mr Sarwar is not proposing to support the budget on Tuesday, but we have seen the rate at which he is flip-flopping on his positions on a daily basis.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney has had 18 years to get to grips with the issues in Scotland, and the fact is that SNP incompetence has consequences. It promised 800 more GPs, but the number of whole-time equivalent GPs has fallen by more than 200. Everyone across the country will know the 8 am rush for a GP appointment, with many left hanging for hours but getting nowhere. Some will be sick of the daily texts that read, “Please do not call. There are no appointments left. Call tomorrow or go to accident and emergency.” It all comes back to the SNP’s failure to get to grips with waiting times.

As one GP put it to me,

“A patient waiting 2 years for a hip replacement, rather than the legal 12 weeks, means they are repeatedly presenting at a GP practice for pain relief, just adding further pressure and demand on our NHS.”

Why can John Swinney not see that his SNP Government has plunged our NHS into this vicious cycle?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The number of GPs per 100,000 of the population in Scotland stands at 82. In England, it is 64; in Wales, it is 67; and in Northern Ireland, it is 75. There are more GPs available in Scotland as a consequence of the investment that the Government has made, with 307 GPs being added since 2007. We have commitments to increase the number of GPs, and we are working to deliver them.

The performance of the national health service comes down to the way in which we tackle waiting times. According to the most recent available data, between October 2023 and September 2024, there was a 9.5 per cent increase in the number of procedures undertaken in the national health service. That is really welcome.

Over the weekend, Mr Sarwar was making a big thing about the increase in activity in England and Wales since the Labour Government came into office. That increase has been 7.6 per cent, and that is against the backdrop of strike action in England under the Tories, so it is no wonder that the number of procedures has increased in England. In Scotland, there has been a 9.5 per cent increase in the number of procedures. We should welcome that, and I am surprised that Mr Sarwar has not done so.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

More than 800,000 Scots are on an NHS waiting list, and that is the best answer that John Swinney can give. The reality is that he cannot even accept the problem, let alone fix it.

I will give an example. [ Interruption .] I know that the health secretary has been sidelined, but perhaps he should listen to this. An expectant mother in south Edinburgh who should have had a GP-organised midwife appointment within eight weeks was instead left waiting months for an appointment. She said:

“I had to call the GP surgery over 50 times to try to get through at 8 am. It is not sustainable.”

That is the harsh reality of healthcare under the SNP—pregnant women are left anxiously waiting, people in pain are forced to go to accident and emergency departments and people are unable to work because they cannot get the treatment that they need.

That is why, this week, I have set out my plan to end the 8 am rush for a GP appointment and ensure that every Scot who needs to be seen is seen in a GP surgery within 48 hours.

Is it not the truth that John Swinney cannot see the problem because he created it, and that he cannot fix our NHS because his SNP Government broke it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On Tuesday, in the budget that Anas Sarwar is currently not going to support, there will be an increase in the resources available for general practice to the tune of £13.6 million. On Tuesday, Anas Sarwar and his colleagues can do the right thing by voting for the budget in order to start making the progress that he is apparently interested in making.

Mr Sarwar set out his commitment on GP appointments. He set out his plans and the promises that he is going to make. However, let us look at the Labour Party’s record on the delivery of its promises. Mr Sarwar stood beside me in a Scottish television debate and promised that he would save Grangemouth—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members!

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—but the Labour Government has not lifted a finger to save Grangemouth. Labour promised justice for the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—and it then turned its back on them. It promised that GB Energy would bring down energy bills, but energy bills have gone up. It promised jobs and stability, but employer national insurance contributions have gone up. The one thing that we can conclude is that Labour says one thing before an election and then does not deliver on it after the election. People in Scotland should remember that.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

This week, US Vice-President JD Vance spread misinformation about laws that were made in the Scottish Parliament. His claims about my colleague Gillian Mackay’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024 are grossly misleading. Emboldened by Mr Vance’s comments, anti-choice groups have already started to target patients outside the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, and more actions are planned in the coming weeks. Last summer, members of the Scottish Parliament agreed overwhelmingly that everyone should be able to access abortion services free from harassment.

What is the First Minister doing to correct false claims and to provide clarity to the public on what buffer zones mean for them? How will he protect safe access to healthcare in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the seriousness of the points that Lorna Slater put to me. In relation to the protests yesterday, those are live issues in the criminal justice system, so I will not comment on them, for the same reasons that I gave to Russell Findlay earlier.

Obviously, the remarks that the Vice-President of the United States made last week about the safe access zones legislation in Scotland were untrue. They were incorrect, so I am grateful to Lorna Slater for providing the opportunity for me to say that to the Parliament openly and to clarify the position. The idea that private prayer in an individual’s home is in any way contradicted or constrained by the legislation is just not correct.

On Lorna Slater’s point about what the Government is doing on the issues, ahead of the act coming into force, we published clear guidance on NHS Inform and the Scottish Government website. We also issued letters to householders who were affected by the zones about what the act meant for their localities. I urge anyone with questions to read the online guidance that is available.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The White House manufactures mistruths, tech billionaires profit from them and bad-faith actors spread them. Disinformation is playing an increasingly dangerous role in our communities and our global politics. Promoting lies and misinformation at home and abroad can have serious consequences for all our communities. Friendly countries do not tell lies about one another.

Does the First Minister agree that political leaders everywhere must stand up to disinformation? Will he ask Keir Starmer to demand an urgent apology from the White House when the Prime Minister meets Trump next week?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Prime Minister is well able to engage in dialogue with the President of the United States. I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement in the European dialogue that took place earlier this week on the situation in Ukraine. That was a very welcome step, and I also welcome what the Prime Minister said last night on the Ukrainian situation into the bargain.

On Lorna Slater’s general point, we are living in an era in which disinformation is regularly circulated in our political discourse, which is harming that discourse. We have plenty of evidence of it in the Parliament, and I want to be one of those individuals who stand up for the clarity of information, who speak truth to the Parliament and who express in detail—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Seriously?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yes, I say to Jackie Baillie, seriously. Speaking truth to the Parliament is what I am about. The Labour Party might want to deceive—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members, let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

For some reason, on an issue on which we are tackling disinformation in our society, Jackie Baillie believes that she should question the integrity of the First Minister speaking truth to the Parliament, which I do at all times. Neither she nor any other member can come to the Parliament and say otherwise, and it is a disgrace that such behaviour takes place in the Parliament.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind all members that they should not shout from their seats.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent labour market outlook survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development on United Kingdom business confidence. (S6F-03823)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That survey of employers across the UK shows just how damaging the Labour Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions will be, with nearly a third saying that they might have to cut jobs and more than 40 per cent needing to raise prices to cope with the additional costs. That affects consumers, who are still struggling with cost of living pressures. It demonstrates further how short-sighted and harmful the Labour tax hike is. It is, in effect, a tax on jobs.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Does the First Minister share my concern that, while the tax on jobs is causing business confidence to plummet, it is also having a devastating effect on our third sector and charitable organisations that do vital work in our constituencies to help people who are vulnerable, in poverty and in recovery, and which are essential to the wellbeing of Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I entirely understand and sympathise with the point that Clare Adamson has put to me. We in the Government are very concerned about the impact on all sectors of the economy, but especially the impact on the charitable sector and the third sector. In particular, we are very concerned about the impact that the national insurance contribution increases will have on the social care sector, which includes organisations such as Clare Adamson has raised with me today. As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government said in general questions before we started First Minister’s questions, we have put those concerns to the United Kingdom Government and will continue to do so.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Audit Scotland has confirmed that, between 2017 and 2022, hard-pressed Scottish taxpayers paid £3.4 billion more in tax as a result of the First Minister’s Government’s high-tax agenda. However, slower economic growth in Scotland means that the net benefit to the Scottish budget over the same period is just £629 million—£2.6 billion is effectively disappearing down John Swinney’s drain. When will the First Minister wake up to the simple fact that everyone else can see that the Scottish National Party’s, and now Labour’s, low-growth and high-tax policies have badly backfired?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I say to Craig Hoy that more people are coming to live in Scotland than are leaving Scotland—that is official data. If we followed the Conservative approach to public expenditure, we would have to cut it by £1 billion. The Conservatives have not come up with a scrap of evidence as to how that would be done. As I have pointed out previously, they have a “£950 million gaping hole” in their tax proposals.

On Tuesday, Parliament will have the opportunity to support a budget that invests in housing, the economy, growth in our public services, the national health service, education and culture. As things stand, the Conservatives will vote against all that benefit for the people of Scotland.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s plans to update the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967. (S6F-03808)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is committed to ensuring that our school environments support every child and young person to reach their full potential for learning. The school premises regulations prescribe the broad minimum standards that school buildings must meet. They were last updated in 1979. It is therefore the Government’s intention to refresh and modernise the regulations to ensure that they meet the needs of pupils in schools in Scotland. A consultation will take place this year.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Too many times in the chamber we have heard the Scottish National Party dismiss concerns about the safety of women and girls. Instead of safeguarding single-sex spaces such as school toilets, the SNP has spent years trying to undermine them, all in the name of dangerous gender ideology.

The case of Sandie Peggie has revealed that the SNP’s dismissive attitude to women’s safety has well and truly infected Scotland’s public bodies. The lack of single-sex facilities puts the rights and safety of women and girls at risk, whether that is through girls being filmed in school toilets or women being forced to share changing rooms with biological males. Does the First Minister regret supporting Nicola Sturgeon’s reckless self-identification law? Does he agree that single-sex facilities in schools should be a basic right for female pupils and staff?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, the regulations that Pam Gosal has talked about were last updated in 1979. My recollection is that, in 1979, there was a Conservative Government. All the issues that are being raised in relation to that regulated environment are in age-old regulation that we need to review. That is what the question was about.

Secondly, local authorities are responsible for the design of their schools, and they take those designs forward through consultation and dialogue with the school community. I would expect them to do exactly that.

Thirdly, as a consequence of our investment programme, the Government has increased the proportion of schools that are in good or satisfactory condition from the 62.7 per cent that we inherited in 2007 from the Labour and Liberal Executive to 91.7 per cent in 2024, which is a tribute to the public sector investment that the Government has presided over.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to reduce the disability employment gap. (S6F-03814)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is committed to halving the disability employment gap. In 2023, the employment rate for disabled people was 52.7 per cent, exceeding our first interim target by 2.7 percentage points. Through the implementation of our fair work action plan, we have reduced barriers and improved recruitment and retention of disabled people. We will take further actions, but we have to be cognisant of the fact that we have only limited powers in this area, as employment powers are reserved to the United Kingdom Government.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The disability employment gap shamefully remains above 40 per cent in Dumfries and Galloway. However, the future of The Usual Place—a community cafe in Dumfries that provides life-changing opportunities for young people with disabilities and additional support needs, and which helps many people into employment—is in doubt because of the difficulty in securing adequate funding.

I know that the First Minister is familiar with the project. Will he make a commitment that the Government and its agencies will urgently consider what support they can give to avoid the proposed redundancies at The Usual Place? Will he arrange for the cabinet secretary to meet me and a cross-party group of MSPs from South Scotland to discuss how, together, we can help to secure the long-term future of that transformative project and the futures of so many young people who depend on it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Mr Smyth knows, I am very familiar with The Usual Place. It is an organisation that I respect enormously. I respect the impact that it has on the lives of young people, so I was concerned to read about, and am familiar with, the challenges that it faces.

For completeness, I should say—I do not make this point pejoratively, but it is the hard reality of what we are dealing with—that the increase in national insurance contributions has been cited by the company as a contributory factor in its difficulties. I am committed to making sure that we do all that we can to support The Usual Place, subject to all the normal processes that we have to go through. I give the company my commitment that I will encourage and motivate our agencies to make sure that they do exactly that.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I recognise the First Minister’s personal commitment to the project. Will he go one better and come to Dumfries to meet the young people and their families who are at the heart of the project and see at first hand how life-changing it is? Perhaps he will bring his famed deal-making skills and try to pull together a positive future plan for the organisation.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I should have said in response to Colin Smyth that I am very happy for ministers to engage on that, but as Oliver Mundell is inviting me to go to Dumfries to have that discussion, I will certainly do all that I can to do so. He will appreciate that there are many pressures on my diary, but I will try to do that as early as I can. My “famed deal-making skills” will be available that day, although, of course, they could have an early outing on Tuesday. Since Mr Mundell is potentially in a position to be reckless now, as he will be standing down at the next election, I encourage him to break the whip and vote for the Government’s budget on Tuesday. [ Laughter .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will move to general and constituency supplementary questions.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Scottish Government has supported Ukrainian refugees since the beginning of Putin’s illegal aggression on Ukraine. Will the First Minister confirm that Scotland’s support for Ukrainian people living here will continue? Will he make it clear that the Scottish Government continues to condemn Russian aggression and that we stand by the people of Ukraine’s rights to freedom, democracy and self-determination?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I associate myself entirely with Kevin Stewart’s comments on the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Russian aggression needs to be repelled, and the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine must be asserted. We as a country—through cross-party support—have done a lot to welcome Ukrainian refugees to Scotland. I express our solidarity with them and indicate that the Government will do all that it can to ensure their safety and security here in Scotland.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Cairngorm funicular railway opened in January 2023 after four years of repairs that cost £25 million. It closed months later because the repairs were defective. It has remained closed ever since. We were told in November that it would reopen for the 2024 season. The reopening date became 4 December, 20 December, early January and then early February—in time for the school holidays—none of which happened. In fact, it has remained closed. The incompetence of Highlands and Islands Enterprise has cost the taxpayers and local businesses millions of pounds. Will the First Minister support my calls for an inquiry into the fiasco and remove HIE from the management of our Cairngorm mountain after nearly six years of incompetence.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is a difficult project in challenging conditions. The fact that it is a funicular railway in the Cairngorms is an indication of the challenge and difficulty.

I have the utmost confidence in Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It is an excellent organisation. It commands my total confidence. It is well led and committed to doing good things for the Highlands and Islands. I have absolutely no intention of pursuing the approach that is suggested by Mr Mountain. I assure him that HIE is fully focused on securing the reopening of the funicular railway, which would be a great boost to the community in and around the Aviemore area. I know that it has the attention and is a priority of Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be aware that dangerous levels of radon gas have been recorded in parts of the Inverness justice centre. Radon is a radioactive gas that is known to cause cancer. I understand that two areas of the building are subject to time-based access restrictions. However, staff are working in other parts of the building and they remain working there full time. What is the First Minister doing to resolve the difficult situation and to keep safe staff and visitors to the justice centre?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The absolute requirement is that all health and safety legislation in relation to access to the building must be followed while the issue exists. The first assurance that I give to Rhoda Grant is that those requirements must be followed.

The second point is that issues that have to be addressed about the environment in the building will be taken forward by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I am happy to provide Rhoda Grant with an update on the developments that are taking place to ensure that the fundamental issues are remedied.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The First Minister will be aware that the United Kingdom Treasury has forecast that energy bills could soar by more than £100 in April. It is the third rise since Labour came to power, despite Labour’s election promise that it would cut household energy bills by £300. Does the First Minister share my concern about what appears to be yet another broken election promise from Anas Sarwar’s Westminster bosses? Will the First Minister join me in calling on the UK Government to take urgent action to support families across Scotland with energy costs ahead of the next energy cap announcement, which is expected next week?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with Mr Brown. The Labour Party promised a reduction of £300 in energy bills right away. From what has happened since the election and from the comments made by the chair of Great British Energy, we know that GB energy will not be delivering reductions in energy bills any time soon. Mr Brown raises an important point that Scotland should be aware of: the Labour Party says one thing before an election to get elected and does another thing after the election. People should be wary of promises from the Labour Party.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Nearly every public health indicator for Scotland is concerning, and the situation is getting worse, with the pressure on our health service increasing week by week. We now have a report indicating a shocking rise in the number of overweight Scottish youngsters as young as two being referred for specialist obesity treatment.

Scotland is the most obese country in Europe, which is costing the Scottish economy £5.3 billion according to a Nesta report. However, the Scottish Government consistently cuts the budget of those organisations that are best placed to reverse the trend. We learn that, once again, sportscotland has had its budget cut and is looking to cut staff, and there is a continual erosion of council facilities.

There is much talk of a preventative agenda, but evidence shows that that is little more than empty rhetoric. Does the Scottish Government not realise that, by continually eroding opportunities to adopt a healthier lifestyle, all that it is doing is heaping ever more pressure on our health service and the health service budget?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

My Government follows an approach that is designed to support early intervention to address the important issues that Brian Whittle puts to me. I point out to the Parliament that Brian Whittle is arguing for more money to be spent on sport and on local government. [ Interruption .]

Mr Whittle has just asked me a question in which he has asked for more money for sport and for local government. The Government is putting a budget before Parliament on Tuesday. Mr Whittle proposes to vote against it, and his party wants us to cut public spending by £1 billion. That is completely and utterly incoherent. If Mr Whittle wants to make sure that the Government puts forward a budget that increases local authority expenditure, and if he wants to carry those things through, why can he not vote for the Government’s budget and try to make things happen in Scotland?

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

Today is world cholangiocarcinoma day. For those who are unaware, cholangiocarcinoma is a rare and aggressive type of cancer that develops in the bile duct. How are the Scottish Government and NHS Scotland supporting those diagnosed with the condition and raising awareness of it? Will the Scottish Government give consideration to providing full national health service funding for genomic testing necessary for patients to access all Scottish Medicines Consortium approved therapies?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the importance of the point that Ben Macpherson raises. The Government’s approach is directed through the detect cancer early programme—in which we are committed to raising awareness of possible cancer symptoms—and through our new primary care cancer education platform, GatewayC, which provides tools to support earlier diagnosis efforts and decision making at the point of referral.

We recognise that significant work is needed to develop the genomic testing that is available, including for bile duct cancer, and we have been working closely with partners to identify how expanded testing can be commissioned and implemented in the national health service.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Early last week, my constituents in Galloway were outraged and astonished at the utterly shameful decision by Scottish ministers to grant consent for a massive pylon route in the heart of some of the most beautiful landscapes in Scotland and, indeed, the world. Yet again, it is an example of rural Scotland carrying a disproportionate weight to deliver net zero. Can the First Minister justify the decision to approve the Scottish Power Energy Network’s plan for this major power line through an area of outstanding beauty, despite the public inquiry reporter’s recommendation and overwhelming local opposition, and explain how it aligns with the Scottish Government’s commitment to promoting Galloway’s environmental assets and its possible designation as a national park?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the points that Mr Carson puts to me. The Government must be mindful of the need to take decisions that will ensure that we have sufficiently strong and robust power networks to meet the needs of the population in every part of Scotland. That is part of the process of discussion and dialogue that the Government is engaged in. We engage substantively with communities and local authorities on such questions, but difficult decisions must be arrived at to ensure that we have adequate energy security and the appropriate infrastructure in our country.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Cole Thomson is 12 years old and lives with a severe form of drug-resistant epilepsy. Medical cannabis is keeping him alive, but his mum, Lisa Quarrell, is running out of funds to pay for Bedrolite privately. The national health service has made a small number of exceptions in England and Northern Ireland for children in a similar situation, but there has been no such help in Scotland as yet, despite the best efforts of the chief pharmaceutical officer, who has been very helpful.

Time is running out. Will the First Minister ask the health secretary urgently to meet me and Cole’s mum to explore all possible options to get Cole the support that he needs?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am happy for that discussion to take place. I know that the chief pharmaceutical officer will have been of assistance and will have done what can be done, but the health secretary will meet Monica Lennon and Cole’s mum and we will see what we can do to address the situation.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Does the First Minister share my disbelief and outrage regarding the United Kingdom Government consulting on giving English whisky a geographical indication, which would give it the same status as Scottish single malt? If approved, that move—which has been entirely enabled by Brexit—would trample on the reputation and tradition of our whisky industry and our Scottish brand. Does the First Minister agree with the Scotch Whisky Association’s view that the integrity of our single malt would be damaged by inferior whisky product, which could potentially harm industry, jobs and trade, including in the new distilleries in the south of Scotland and, indeed, across wider Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I share the concerns that have been expressed by Emma Harper and by the Scotch Whisky Association, which I know understands the importance of the designation of Scotch whisky. The association promotes and engages substantively with Parliament on that designation, which enables Scotch whisky to have such a powerful position in the international marketplace.

I assure Emma Harper that the Government will make all necessary representations on the issue to protect the identity and the character of Scotch whisky.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Kenneth Gibson. There will be a short suspension to allow those who wish to leave the chamber and the gallery to do so.

Private Finance Initiative/Public-Private Partnership Contracts

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-16287, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on the on-going impact of PFI/PPP on Scotland’s public finances. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament believes that the total unitary charge payments associated with Public Private Partnership/Private Finance Initiative (PPP/PFI) contracts that were paid across the public sector in Scotland from 2006-07 to 2022-23 amounted to £14.173 billion; understands that PFI/PPPs are long-term contractual arrangements between a public sector entity and a private sector provider, which were introduced by the Conservative UK administration in 1992 and then expanded by Labour following its 1997 election victory; believes that the total PFI and PPP unitary charge payments to be paid across the public sector in Scotland in 2025-26 will be £1.25 billion, the highest in a single year, with the remaining cost associated with PFI/PPP being £14.699 billion from 2023-24; understands that, by 2038, North Ayrshire Council will have paid £440.1 million for four schools that were built for £83 million; notes that research carried out by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that successive UK administrations have made payments to private companies associated with PFI contracts at, on average, more than three times the cost of construction, with said companies distributing £300 million in dividends to investors from £1 billion in profits between 2005 and 2022; recognises that the scheme was abandoned by the UK Government in 2018, 11 years after being replaced with an alternative model known as non-profit distributing (NPD) by the Scottish Government to limit excessive private sector profits; notes with concern media reports that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves MP, is considering relaunching the PPP funding model frequently used by Tony Blair’s Labour administration; considers PFI/PPP to have had a disastrous impact on Scotland’s public finances, and notes the calls for the UK Government to end what it sees as its obsession with PFI/PPP.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I say to Graham Simpson, “Come on in—the water’s lovely.” [Laughter.]

I thank Ross Greer, Maggie Chapman and my Scottish National Party colleagues, whose signatures ensured that the motion could be debated. I apologise for an error in the motion. According to updated figures, North Ayrshire Council will actually end up paying £3.3 million more than the motion suggests.

In August, the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering funding the £9 billion Thames crossing using a private finance initiative-style funding arrangement. NHS England chief executive Amanda Pritchard has made similar suggestions for the national health service. That should send a shiver down the spine of everyone who recalls the new Labour years.

PFI was introduced by John Major’s Tory Government in 1992. The idea was that private companies would fund, build and operate public infrastructure using special purpose vehicles that would involve a consortium of companies, in return for long-term payments from the public sector. Sold as a way of financing public projects without immediate capital spend by the Government, the real purpose of PFI was to keep UK Government debt off the books in order to comply with the debt limitations that were set out in the Maastricht treaty of 1991.

In Scotland, PFI began under the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth MP. The publication in 1996 of “Public Services and Private Finance: A Partnership for Scotland” gave the game away by outlining the scope for higher profits that the private sector would have access to. Exemplifying the worst of the pre-devolution political order, PFI was imposed despite widespread opposition from Scottish civic society, trade unions and every political party bar the Tories. The 85 SPVs that run Scotland’s PFIs have 51 shareholders. Only seven companies own more than half the stock and debt: Barclays, Innisfree, Bilfinger Berger, Balfour Beatty, ABN AMRO, John Laing and HISL.

PFI was derided for waste, poor value for money, inflexibility—particularly in reference to highly complex contract termination procedures—and the huge profits generated. However, there is no zealot like a convert. Having railed against PFI in opposition, Labour in office opened the floodgates with an evangelical enthusiasm that few could have foreseen. When new Labour proposed changes to reinvigorate PFI, the unconcealed glee of financiers should have been an early warning sign. Under the new regime, the private sector would be allowed to earn profits without bearing any risks. The new PFI contracts—renamed public-private partnerships—lacked clauses allowing the Government to recoup windfall profits.

Under those lucrative terms, the private sector gorged itself on PPP deals, while Labour boasted that projects worth £14 billion would be agreed by the end of 1999, all while local authority capital budgets were cut and Chancellor Gordon Brown stuck to Tory spending rules. PPP fervour trickled down the Labour Party, and its parliamentarians, too, were amazed by the level of investment and not concerned enough to ask many questions.

In this Parliament’s first-ever SNP-led Opposition debate on 24 June 1999, Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs came out to bat for PPP. Speaking in that debate, I took seven interventions from such illustrious colleagues as Jack McConnell, David McLetchie and Keith Raffan. Protests about PPP’s obvious flaws were dismissed, with claims that if someone was against PPP, they must also be opposed to the new school or hospital in their area. Thus, Labour blithely condemned Scottish public services to unprecedented debt levels for decades.

Even now, nearly 18 years after Labour left office at Holyrood, the extent of its PPP profligacy is staggering. Labour built a debt mountain so high that we have yet to reach the top, but we will soon. Annual payments are still rising and will peak at an eye-watering £1,250 million this coming financial year. Total remaining PPP debt in Scotland is projected at £12,483 million for 2025-26. North Ayrshire Council will have to pay more than £16 million next year for four secondary schools that were built nearly two decades ago—schools that still had snagging problems two years after completion. That sum limits the council’s ability to invest in jobs and services. By the time the contract ends in 2038, it will have cost £443.4 million for schools worth £83 million.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The member is making a splendid speech. I remember my time in Westminster, when Meg Hillier, who was at that point the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, noted that the issue of debt in that type of contract was primarily to remove it from the balance sheet of UK plc, because neither Government wanted the people to know just how broke the UK was. Does the member agree?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I agree. I touched on that earlier in my speech, and I will touch on it later.

Kilmarnock prison was built for £32 million and went into operation in 1999. By the time the contract ended last year, taxpayers had shelled out £367.64 million. The contract for a £45.5 million waste water project in Levenmouth required an astonishing £721.2 million in repayments, which is a shocking 16 times the original cost. PPP remains a millstone around the neck of Scotland’s public services. To put its impact on local authority finances into perspective, 31p in every pound of council tax raised in North Ayrshire goes towards the council’s PPP obligations. Stuart McMillan will be interested to know that, in Inverclyde, it is 45p in every pound of council tax raised; in Clackmannanshire, it is 52p. As Michael Marra is the only Labour member present in the chamber, I advise him that, in Dundee City, 32.4 per cent of all council tax raised will go in PPP payments this year.

In many cases, the public will not even own the buildings by the time that the contracts end. Research by BBC Scotland revealed that there are 11 PPP contracts expiring in which the public sector will have to shell out tens of millions to actually own the buildings that it has spent years paying through the nose for.

Thankfully, once in government, the SNP took swift action to abolish PPP. Through the non-profit-distributing model, schools and hospital construction projects were financed through conventional means or via the Scottish Futures Trust, with private profits capped at 5 per cent and surpluses directed to the public sector. NPD projects average 58 per cent of the repayment costs of PPP projects, with most of the costs going on interest payments. Had the projects that were funded through NPD been carried out under PPP, the Scottish taxpayer would have been on the hook for an additional £7,735 million over the life of those contracts.

Holding this debate is not just about giving a history lesson or taking a trip down memory lane, though; it should sound a warning. Although our current chancellor’s CV might not be as impressive as Gordon Brown’s, the situation in which she finds herself has parallels with his. We have a Labour Party Government that came to power by attacking to the centre and beyond; that is unsure of what it believes in; that promises investment to repair Britain’s crumbling infrastructure, balanced against self-imposed fiscal rules that are aimed at wooing the City; and that has a large enough parliamentary majority to override scrutiny or backbench rebellions, albeit that 19 newly elected Labour MPs have already been expelled, suspended or resigned.

The attractiveness of PPP to Governments looking to keep debt off book diminished as Eurostat rules on accounting for European Union member states led to the majority of such projects being classed as public debt. However, following Brexit, there is nothing to prevent the UK from deviating from that in order to reconcile contradictory electoral promises.

The legacies of PFI and PPP are a stark reminder of the danger of prioritising short-term gains over long-term sustainability. We must never return to wasting tens of billions of pounds on PFI and PPP deals in Scotland, and we must ensure that future generations are not burdened by the same mistakes. That Labour would even consider the return of PFI shows that it cannot be trusted with Scotland’s finances. The UK Government should rule out any return to PFI, and Labour in Scotland should make its own opposition crystal clear.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. I advise members that we are tight for time, given this afternoon’s 2 pm start, and we must also leave sufficient time for security staff to clear the chamber. Therefore, I must insist that members stick to their allocated speaking time, which is up to four minutes.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I thank Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion so that we could have this important debate on the on-going cost to the public sector of using the private finance initiative.

PFI was first used in 1993 by the Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke. In 1997, it was adopted by Tony Blair’s Labour Government. We should remember that Labour’s reason for doing so was as stated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, who struggled to provide a rationale for PFI other than that

“the public sector is bad at management, and ... only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well.”

What is the reality of PFI construction projects here in Edinburgh, and in particular for my Edinburgh Pentlands constituents? The new Edinburgh royal infirmary, which was completed in 2003, is one of the most prominent PFI projects in Scotland. It was built at a cost of £184 million, but the total cost to taxpayers over the contract’s lifespan is significantly higher, with estimates suggesting that payments could exceed £1.1 billion by the time of the contract’s conclusion in 2027.

How has that contract performed? In 2022, NHS Lothian said that it was in dispute over the nature and delivery of maintenance and upgrades required for the hospital. The issue has been placed on NHS Lothian’s risk register, where it warns that there is

“a risk that facilities in the RIE are not fit for purpose because of a failure to carry out required life cycle works and maintenance of the estate.”

The risk register lists heating, ventilation, water and window maintenance as some of the life-cycle works that could present a problem. The health board also warned that it could, if necessary, retain some of the PFI payments to Consort Healthcare if the issues were not satisfactorily resolved. However, the complicated deal for the hospital means that, in 2027, NHS Lothian will enter a secondary contract period that could last until 2053, during which time it will still pay a management charge to Consort.

Then there is the Edinburgh schools debacle. In the late 1990s, the Labour-run City of Edinburgh Council embarked on a massive school rebuilding and refurbishment programme under PFI. The total capital cost for the project was around £140 million. The PFI deal was structured over a 30-year period, with the total cost over the life of the contract projected to be much higher, with estimates at well over £500 million once maintenance, operation and finance charges had been factored in.

During a storm in January 2016, nine tonnes of masonry fell when a gable end collapsed at Oxgangs primary school in my constituency. Fortunately, no pupils or teachers were injured. That resulted in 10 primary schools, five secondary schools and two additional support needs schools being closed because of concerns over the standard of construction across the city, impacting the education of around 7,600 pupils. The impact of those PFI projects in Edinburgh has been criticised for their inflated costs to the public sector, which are often much higher than if the project had been constructed using public borrowing and public procuring.

It is reported that Rachel Reeves may again be considering PFI. She should consider the words of a former chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Howard Davies, who, in 2018, made an admission on BBC One’s “Question Time” when he stated that PFI had been a “fraud on the people”.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I was feeling a bit lonely over on the Conservatives seats—as lonely as Mr Marra is. I wanted to give my good friend Mr Mason some company, but apparently he did not want it.

I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing the debate to Parliament. It is a very political motion, but I think that that is fine; MSPs should be able to debate such things. He managed in the motion and in his speech to savage both Labour and the Conservatives, but not, apparently, the virtuous Scottish National Party. Of course, he is entitled to that view—perhaps he is seeking re-election. For me, the serious questions raised are entirely valid. The main question is whether PFI and PPP represent value for money and what happens when they end.

I will take the first part of that question first: are they value for money? There is not really an easy answer to that, because, as the Scottish Parliament information centre said in its blog on the subject in January 2018,

“For the 129 projects that have been privately financed in Scotland, repayment costs will total £39.7bn, more than four times the capital value of the projects. However, bear in mind that these repayments often cover more than just the construction costs and interest costs. They will include the costs of maintaining the building (or other asset) and may also include other services, such as cleaning and catering, although this is less common with more recent projects.”

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Is it not a major concern, though, that, in many cases, after shelling out huge amounts of money for those projects—I quoted the Levenmouth waste water project that cost 16 times the original estimate—the public sector does not always own them?

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Indeed, and I am coming on to that issue.

The Auditor General for Scotland and Accounts Commission said in their report of January 2020:

“Using private finance contracts has enabled the Scottish Government to fund additional infrastructure investment. ...

“Private finance costs more than traditional forms of financing, such as public borrowing or capital grants. The Scottish Government has accepted these additional costs as part of its priority of investing in infrastructure”.

A number of private finance contracts are due to end, with some requiring a final payment to the private consortium. The private finance contracts in the health service that are due to expire are for Tippethill hospital in Bathgate and New Craigs hospital in NHS Highland, which expire in 2026; for Carseview centre in NHS Tayside and Larkfield in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which expire in 2027; for the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, which expires in 2028; and for Ellens Glen house in NHS Lothian and Wishaw general in NHS Lanarkshire, which expire in 2029. What happens after those dates is not clear.

That was also evident when I asked at the Public Audit Committee last year about the future of the police college at Jackton in East Kilbride in my region. The contract for that is due to end next year, but when Neil Rennick, the director general for education and justice, wrote to the committee on 26 July, he was not clear about what the costs would be for exiting; instead, he used a lot of Governmentspeak and talked about options, negotiations and a business case. It is important that we have greater clarity about that.

Looking ahead, and this is where Mr Gibson should be cautious, we have the mooted mutual investment model, which will apparently be used to fund parts of the A9. I call that a rent-a-road scheme. If we do not get it right, the same gripes about value for money and paying over the odds will just resurface.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the debate that Kenneth Gibson has brought to the chamber. He uses the time usefully, given the long view that he brings as a long-term member of this Parliament and as a result of his service in local government.

After 14 years of Tory stagnation and decline, we can all agree that there is a vital need to drive growth and rebuild our public services. We have a Scottish national health service that is in perpetual crisis, crumbling schools and overcrowded prisons. Tackling those problems will require significant capital investment.

This Scottish Government and the next Scottish Government will work alongside the private sector and the public sector to deliver progress. I know that Mr Gibson agrees with that analysis, and he has set some of that out in his speech.

The first PFI contracts to which Mr Gibson referred—at length and rightly—were written when I was starting secondary school in St John’s high school in Dundee. They have been around for a long time, and Mr Gibson and other members are right to refer to the fact that many of them are still with us. It is essential that we learn the lessons that members are already setting out about the value in those contracts over time. It is particularly important to set out the context around historical examples and why some of those decisions were taken. However, there is no doubt that those contracts still place a heavy burden on council tax payers in parts of Scotland, even as many constituents continue to use the facilities that are in place.

The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has unequivocally confirmed that there will be no return to PFI during her tenure. I have seen the reports that are referenced in the motion, but the chancellor has been quite clear about that.

As Mr Gibson pointed out, the Treasury is dealing with a time of constrained public finances, for different reasons than those that pertained at the time of the advent of the UK Labour Government in 1997. We have to make sure that we can get public finance off the ground in order to get key projects working and get the economy growing. Again, that is an agenda that many people would agree with.

It is right, however, that we draw a distinction between the original early PFI arrangements from a generation ago and the subsequent arrangements between public and private sectors to bring capital investment to the table. The non-profit-distributing model is a variation on that core principle, and it has to be said that the SNP Government’s involvement in those public-private arrangements dwarfs that of the previous Scottish Executive on the basis of longevity alone.

No SNP member can credibly claim that the dealings of this Government with the private sector have been trouble free. From Ferguson’s shipyard to the Lochaber smelter and the disastrous mishandling of the administration of the deposit return scheme, which has resulted in a private company suing the Scottish Government, the taxpayer is on the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds.

We also have to think about this Government’s chronic failure to deliver major capital projects. [ Interruption .] I see that I am shedding some light on the chamber at the moment, for everybody's benefit. The A9 remains something of a Sisyphean task for this Government, although, to be fair to Sisyphus, at least he was doing something. Further, the replacement of HMP Barlinnie is now costing 10 times the original estimate, NHS capital projects are frozen, with no clarity for patients or staff about when major projects will even begin, and the Scottish Government’s capital spending plans—first promised in December 2023—have still not materialised.

Crucially, the manner in which those things are done is hugely important, but actually doing them would be a start.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that we are looking into the reason for the sudden increase in light in the chamber. Hopefully, we can resolve that.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I thank Kenneth Gibson for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue of PFI legacy debt.

To be generous, PFI was introduced by Governments for the right reasons, or at least with the right motivation behind it: a need to improve our public infrastructure, schools, hospitals and so on.

It certainly compares well with what we have seen under 14 years of Conservative Government, which slashed capital budgets and oversaw a huge decrease in investment in our national infrastructure, both public and private, with all the resulting economic damage. It has left us with a heavy burden. In 2023, it was reported that £8.5 billion would be paid for £2.9 billion-worth of infrastructure in Scotland, and the English NHS will pay back £80 billion for £13 billion of infrastructure, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research.

It is not just a case of there being a transfer of money from the public to the private sector; much of the money has been transferred out of Scotland and out of the UK entirely. There is a huge amount of evidence showing that PFI profits have been offshored into tax havens. The model has no benefit for the UK economy whatever, and there are no benefits for private businesses that are based in the UK.

In 2019, the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced that the Government would consider setting up a national infrastructure company as one of the ways that it could move away from the model. The Infrastructure Commission for Scotland was tasked with considering that. In the end, it recommended against it, but we need an alternative. We need to look at how we can fund critical infrastructure. Giving the Scottish Government the same prudential borrowing powers that local councils have would certainly help, but, of course, any borrowing results in a debt that needs to be paid.

In 2019, at the same time that the then First Minister made her announcement, the Parliament passed the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, which created a power for local government to charge an infrastructure levy on private housing developers—if they were to profit from the creation of large numbers of houses, it was only right that they made a contribution towards local services, such as schools and health centres, which would be required to create a community. I was disappointed when the Government announced last year that the introduction of the infrastructure levy power was being dropped, although I am grateful to the Minister for Public Finance for his offer to meet me to discuss that. I do not think that the existing section 75 contribution arrangements are in any way adequate. That is why the Parliament agreed to introduce the infrastructure levy power to fund critical local infrastructure.

There are other ways that we can address the issue. We could make existing processes more efficient. There is a lot to learn from the learning estate investment programme, for example, and the collaboration between the Scottish Government and local government on that. Having a central resource for local government to help it to manage projects at every stage, from design, financing, the management of construction and the management of the asset, would be incredibly helpful to councils, which cannot ever realistically have all the skills and expertise that they need for those projects in house.

I recognise that when the SNP came into government, it tried the non-profit-distributing model. I am not quite as positive about that as Mr Gibson; although I think that it was well intended, it has not effectively capped profits. Dumfries hospital is a good example of where it did not really work in practice.

As we heard from Mr Simpson, many, although not all, PFI contracts contain punitive clauses. In 2004, the then Scottish Executive ended the Skye Bridge contract and rebought it. In closing, I ask the Scottish Government to work with local authorities to review which PPP contracts could be brought back in or could be cancelled early at reasonable value for money for the taxpayer. That was done in Greece with some of its odious debt on the back of its financial crisis in 2015. There is no easy way out, but we need to reduce the toxic legacy and be honest about how we develop the alternatives to pay for the infrastructure that we all agree is required.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful to my colleague Kenny Gibson for securing this motion for debate in the chamber. Like me, Mr Gibson has concerns about the negative impacts that the PPP and PFI burden has inflicted on the public sector. It is yet another real example of Labour’s desire to replicate Tory party policy, and the debate serves as a stark reminder of why the Labour Party cannot be trusted to manage Scotland’s finances.

PFI and PPP contracts have left a harmful and lasting legacy in Scotland. They were first introduced under the Tory Westminster Government in 1990 and fully embraced by successive Labour Governments in Westminster and Holyrood. However, although they were posed as effective solutions, they have instead burdened Scotland’s public services and taxpayers with unsustainable financial sums for decades. According to Professor Ciaran Connolly,

“They produced projects with assets worth approximately £60 billion, which are costing the taxpayer £170 billion—that’s a gap of £110 billion between what the assets are worth and what the taxpayer is paying for them.”

Costs end up getting passed on to the taxpayer, which, as Professor Connolly has said, can constrain

“what authorities such as the NHS can spend on essential services, forcing them to reduce budgets accordingly. It has also created pressure to reduce project costs, leading to poorer infrastructure.”

That impacts on local council budgets, too. In my constituency, 37.9 per cent of council tax in East Dunbartonshire and 41.2 per cent of council tax in West Dunbartonshire goes on PPP payments.

Labour’s financial mismanagement has had severe consequences, and its wasteful PFI deals have foisted a £30 billion repayments bill on Scottish taxpayers, forcing us all to pay many times more than the original cost of the projects. The funds that are used to pay for those agreements would have been much better spent on our public services to support education or tackle child poverty.

Instead, it was left to the SNP to fix Labour’s mess. Under the SNP Scottish Government, we moved away from that model to a model under which, importantly, surpluses do not go into the pockets of big investors, as Labour allowed. One perfect example is hospital car parking charges, which are a terrible legacy of PFI; the Scottish Government scrapped the charges that were in place as a result of Labour PFI deals.

Scotland continues to pay extortionate amounts for Labour’s incompetence. The 2023 figures show that the amount still owed under PPP for hospitals and schools is £15.4 billion, which is not even half of Labour’s eye-watering total PPP bill.

The contracts are not just an enormously expensive way to borrow—they are often inflexible. A 2019 report by the JPI Media investigations team found that schools, hospitals and police forces have been locked

“in the iron grip of contractors”,

and are paying extortionate extra charges. Examples in that report included a school being charged £25,000 for three parasols and a hospital trust paying £5,500 for a new sink. The contracts are extremely profitable for the private sector, but not for the taxpayer.

Nearly 18 years after Labour was kicked out of office in Scotland, we are still paying a heavy price for the disastrous PPP contracts. The Scottish taxpayers have had to shell out enormous sums of money above the actual cost of projects, while PPP contractors hoard huge profits. It is clear that PPP contracts have been disastrous for Scotland’s public finances, so it is welcome that the Scottish Government recognises those options for what they are—extremely poor value for money and certainly not in the best interests of the Scottish people.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I am grateful to Kenneth Gibson for bringing this debate to the chamber.

PPP and PFI are long-term contracts under which public sector organisations pay annual charges to private companies for capital projects such as schools and hospitals. The Conservatives might have introduced the schemes, but previous Labour Governments enthusiastically rolled them out. Given that the Scottish Government continues to face the most challenging financial situation since devolution, it is right that we look at the drain of having to repay dodgy PFI deals.

Labour has not been in government in Scotland for 18 years, yet, since it left office, Scotland’s public services have been saddled with well over £14 billion in repayment charges. As Mr Gibson has pointed out, Scotland’s public services will repay a shocking £1.25 billion in PFI and PPP charges in 2025-26. Over the years, the private companies that benefit from those deals have distributed hundreds of millions of pounds from their huge profits in dividends to investors. In other words, cash is being diverted from front-line health, education, transport and justice services into investors’ pockets.

I will focus on East Kilbride, where Hairmyres hospital was rebuilt more than 20 years ago with a capital value of £68 million. This year alone, NHS Lanarkshire will pay around £27 million in PFI charges for the hospital, enough money to pay the salaries of around 850 new nurses. Shockingly, the deal is a 31-year contract, and it is estimated that, overall, repayments for Hairmyres will total around £700 million, which is more than 10 times the original capital cost—and an absolute disgrace.

It is not just the NHS that is saddled with large payments. South Lanarkshire Council is paying around £43 million this year.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Yes, I am happy to.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that we need much greater clarity on what will happen when the deals expire, including those for the large number of health service facilities?

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I whole-heartedly agree that we need more information on what happens when the contracts expire, particularly given the scale of money that we are talking about.

This year, the charges for some schools mean that almost 32.7 per cent of council tax receipts will go towards PPP payments. Over the 33-year contract, the council will pay back an estimated £1.25 billion. On its website, this Labour-run council boasts that it

“is among the biggest UK-wide education public-private partnerships.”

Perhaps it should be straight with the public when talking about local government financing, because dodgy Labour decisions of the past are an on-going drain on public finances.

It gets worse. Despite warnings at the time that capacity would be an issue, the merging of six of East Kilbride’s high schools into three superschools as part of a costly initiative is now having to be rectified, with more money having to be spent on expanding St Andrew’s and St Bride’s high school.

Labour’s obsession with PPP and PFI is reckless. It has not been in government in Scotland for 18 years, but the deals have had, and will continue to have, a huge impact on public services. Councils, health boards and other public bodies are, on average, paying back more than three times the original capital cost to private companies as part of these long-term deals. In East Kilbride, the Hairmyres hospital deal has offered a tenfold return to investors. That is a shameful legacy of the last Scottish Labour Government—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Stevenson, you will need to conclude.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

—which was rightly kicked out of office 18 years ago.

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

I congratulate my colleague on securing this debate.

When PFI is mentioned to the public, it does not mean much to them—but it does matter. The abbreviation stands for private finance initiative. In practice, it means private companies building the likes of schools for local authorities, which enter into a contract to pay for the building over a period, often decades. That is key: ownership only passes to the council only at the end of the contract—generally speaking. After all, contracts do vary.

That seemed a whizz of an idea to Labour at UK level, and the party eagerly adopted it when it was in power in Scotland. Shiny new schools—what is not to like? When the SNP came into government, though, the approach was ditched—and for good reason.

Because of PFI, which just means “Build now and pay as you go”, three schools in the Borders—in Eyemouth, Duns and Earlston—that had a build cost of £72.5 million will, as a result of annual payment obligations, actually cost the council £350 million by 2037. By that time, the schools will be pretty old. It is rather like buying a car on hire purchase. We must always read the figures at the bottom of the contract; they can be eye watering, and by the time we own the car, it will be towards the end of its journey. It is the same for schools under PFI.

In comparison, the new Galashiels academy and Peebles high will not be built in that expensive manner. I understand that, in Midlothian, PFI contracts for five schools are costing the council around £1 million per month. I repeat—£1 million a month. We must never forget the damaging on-going costs of those contracts, which reduce by millions the funding that Borders Council and Midlothian Council could be using and putting to better use elsewhere.

Finally, the contracts often come with tough provisions such as paying for private maintenance. In England, private companies are now shirking their contractual repair and maintain obligations, particularly as the contracts come to an end.

The financial burdens bequeathed by Labour remind us not only that it is making an economic mess now; it made one before, and the Borders and Midlothian will continue to pay through the nose for that PFI mess for decades.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Kenny Gibson for securing this afternoon’s important debate, and I thank all the members who participated.

Across the Parliament, we all agree on the importance of infrastructure investment, not just in creating and supporting jobs and economic growth today, but to ensure that Scotland’s asset base is in place to support the economy of our communities well into the future.

The 2025-26 Scottish budget sets out more than £7 billion of capital spending to eliminate child poverty, grasp the opportunities of net zero, boost economic growth through our infrastructure plans and maintain high-quality public services and infrastructure. That includes using £167 million of financial transactions to support innovation and attract investment.

Although that increase to the capital funding from the UK Government is welcome, it is set within a challenging fiscal context. We still face significant pressures on our capital budget. For example, a high level of inflation experienced in the construction sector has permanently increased the cost of delivering projects.

The Scottish Government has always recognised that public-private partnerships are more expensive in cash terms than capital grant funding for any particular project.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Can the minister tell us why those capital procurement contracts are so much more expensive to deliver in Scotland than in other parts of the UK? Why is there a particular gap—if he acknowledges that—between the cost of delivering a mile of road in Scotland and doing so in other parts of the UK?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I would need to check that that is indeed the case. I do not know whether the member is talking about the cost of projects, which will of course depend on a number of factors, including the geography and so on, or the cost of the private partnership itself, which is hugely expensive for projects across the UK.

In 2007, the new Scottish Government Administration made it clear that the PFI approach used in the past had not delivered best value for the taxpayer in Scotland. It was made clear that PFI was an expensive mistake and no longer a feasible option. The Scottish Government moved away from using PFI for any new projects from May 2007, and it announced the non-profit distribution programme in November 2010. Prior to the NPD programme, the NPD model had been developed as an alternative to PFI in Scotland, and five NPD-type contracts were signed earlier, between 2005 and 2010. The NPD model was further developed by the Scottish Futures Trust, which manages the NPD programme. The programme was delivered through two channels, NPD itself and the hub, between 2010 and 2021, when the last project became operational.

In 2019, the Scottish Government signalled a new approach to revenue finance, due to the implications of classification changes affecting the NPD programme. The classification changes meant that the revenue-funded NPD and hub models were to be classified to the public sector, and they subsequently no longer provided additionality. Revenue-funded NPD and hub models have not been used for any new projects since then. The only private finance approach that is currently available is the mutual investment model, which will be considered alongside a range of other financing approaches.

We have always been clear about our concerns about the flexibility and value for money offered by historic PFI contracts. That is why we brought them to an end. The PFI contracts that remain operational are often complex and need active management, to which the Government remains committed.

However, the termination of any PFI contract is a matter for the public sector body that awarded it. ?PFIs are long-term contracts, where risk and reward were set at the outset. Early termination can be a complex and expensive process, and the costs of breaking long-term contracts are substantial. Each authority would require to consider value for money in that context.

The Government is committed to ensuring that contractual obligations are delivered and that contracts are as affordable as they can be. That is why we asked the Scottish Futures Trust to support public bodies to optimise value for money from their PFI contracts. That assistance is comprised of training and support for contract managers. The SFT can also support bodies in realising contract management improvements, including by rescoping services and optimising risk transfer.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I mentioned the mutual investment model, and so has the minister. Will he briefly explain why he thinks that that model will offer value for money?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The difference between the mutual investment model and other mechanisms such as PFI is that, in the mutual investment model, the public sector partner takes an investment share in the vehicle that delivers the project. The public sector partner takes part in the investment and therefore shares in the profits that come back due to having that equity holding and the way that the project is funded and delivered.

The costs and benefits of pursuing public-private partnerships need to be thoroughly analysed in a transparent manner. In an environment where our ambitions for Scotland’s infrastructure assets outstrip our grant funding from Westminster, the Government will always explore options for delivering capital investment. As members know, we have very limited capital borrowing limits, which constrains our ability to use capital grants to fund asset creation and investment.

Used appropriately, the correct PPP mechanism can allow us to create additionality in the capital budget and result in more investment in Scotland’s assets than we would otherwise be able to deliver. It can transfer financial and maintenance risk from taxpayers to investors. Those risks can include project overruns, change orders, delays, and anything else that may increase the cost of a project.

To ensure that we are considering all the available options, the Scottish Futures Trust was asked to examine new profit-sharing finance schemes, such as the mutual investment model, to help secure the investment that we need and—very importantly—best value for the taxpayer. We are exploring whether to make use of the mutual investment model to invest in Scotland’s infrastructure. Any use will only be considered when it provides value for money for the taxpayer.

The Scottish Government will never return to the PFI model because PFI was an expensive mistake. It simply did not deliver the best value for the people of Scotland. The only private finance approach currently available is the mutual investment model, which shares profits between the public and private sector. That model will be considered alongside a range of other financing options, and we are exploring whether and how best to make use of MIM to invest in Scotland’s infrastructure going forward.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you to all members for their co-operation in respecting the time allocations for speeches, given our resumption at 2 pm.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio on this occasion is social justice. I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the housing minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what action is being taken to tackle homelessness in relation to care experienced individuals. (S6O-04338)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Last year, I chaired a ministerial oversight group on homelessness meeting on youth homelessness, with a specific focus on care-experienced young people. I also met the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise separately to discuss the steps needed to prevent care leavers from experiencing homelessness.

Since then, officials have been working across policy areas to progress the recommendations in the care leavers housing pathway and to ensure that young people’s and care leavers’ housing needs are reflected in new policy and legislation, including the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the proposed the Promise bill.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Despite the activity that the minister outlined in his response, a constituent has contacted me to express their anger at the state of homelessness among care-experienced individuals in Scotland. He said:

“I retired seven years ago from working in the field of housing and homelessness, to read after all this time that so many are still slipping through the net on leaving care is depressing: and particularly that the underlying issues—lack of affordable housing; insufficient planning in advance of leaving care; not enough support once someone has left—remain unaddressed.”

He found the statement from the Scottish Government that current action is sufficient as “particularly self-damning”. My constituent has clearly identified areas that need to be addressed, yet the Government does not seem to see homelessness among the group as a priority. When will we see direct action being taken to tackle the issue?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I take the opportunity to say that I am sorry about the issue that Sue Webber has raised. I am happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.

We are taking forward recommendations in the care leavers housing pathway, which is important. That is reflected in a report on progress that was published by the Rock Trust on behalf of the “A way home Scotland” coalition in October 2024, which picks up some of the issues that the member mentioned.

We have made some progress with local authorities and we have taken action. There is £768 million in the budget for next year, a £2 million investment in empty homes and a £4 million investment for work with Crisis on pilot projects.

We also discussed with the City of Edinburgh Council how we could reduce the number of void properties. Edinburgh has seen a 55 per cent reduction in the number of void properties in the past number of months.

I am happy to take up the case that the member mentioned and to discuss further what we can do.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

The issue that Sue Webber raised is very important. Real investment in affordable housing is key to ensuring that everybody in Scotland has a safe and warm home that suits their needs. Will the minister briefly outline the additional funding for 2025-26 for the affordable housing supply programme?

The minister also mentioned voids. Will he give us an update on the work that is on-going to bring voids and empty properties across Scotland back into use for those who need them, which we know is a real problem?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I mentioned a few actions in the previous answer. I mentioned the investment of £768 million, which is an increase of £212 million on the £556 million that was in the original budget, as published. I mentioned the acquisition funding, which is £80 million across 2024-26 for acquisitions and voids, which is targeted at the local authorities that are under the most pressure in relation to reducing use of temporary accommodation. I also mentioned the £2 million to increase the scale and pace of bringing empty homes back into use.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to help local authorities to move families with children out of temporary accommodation into suitable permanent homes. (S6O-04339)

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

We are taking decisive action to reduce the number of households with children in temporary accommodation. Increasing affordable and social housing is the best way to reduce time in temporary accommodation. I encourage the member to vote for our budget, which delivers investment of £768 million for 2025-26, enabling delivery of more than 8,000 homes.

I come back to the specific target of reducing that number of households in five local authorities. Given the sustained pressures, we are investing £42 million this year in the areas that I have mentioned, thereby increasing the supply of affordable homes through acquisitions and bringing empty homes back into use, including through the purchase of larger homes that are suitable for families.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the work that is being undertaken. The Scottish Government has declared a housing emergency, as have many local authorities. When does the minister believe that they will be in a position to report that no children in Scotland are living in unsuitable temporary accommodation?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I think that we are making progress in some areas. Twelve local authorities have reduced the number of households in temporary accommodation in 2023-24 compared with 2022-23. On the specific issue that the member mentions, 20 local authorities have also reduced the number of children in temporary accommodation.

In line with the action of investing £768 million that I mentioned, we are targeting the local authorities that face the most pressure with a £42 million investment that will include addressing empty homes. We hope to get there as soon as possible. We are seeing signs that 20 councils are reducing the number of children in temporary accommodation.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a couple of brief supplementary questions.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Can the minister comment on what effect the United Kingdom Labour Government’s freeze of local housing allowance rates is anticipated to have on efforts to get families out of temporary accommodation and to help to end homelessness in Scotland?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am glad that the member asked that question. The UK Government’s decision to freeze local housing allowance rates will impact on thousands of low-income private renters in Scotland, as it widens the gap between housing support and market rents. It will also make it harder for families who are experiencing homelessness or are in temporary accommodation to move into the rented sector. The last freeze, which lasted three years, resulted in an extra 20,000 households not having adequate rent support, with an average shortfall of £1,500 a year for those on universal credit.

I wrote to the secretary of state in January, urging him to reverse the decision to freeze rates. As yet, I have not heard back.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister knows that the number of children in temporary accommodation has got worse, not better, since we declared a housing emergency. His actions are clearly not having the immediate effect that we want.

Has the minister spoken to his education colleagues about the impact that that is having on those young people and their educational performance? I worry about the long-term effects on so many children of living for an extended period in temporary accommodation.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I mentioned previously the ministerial working group on homelessness, in which we have discussed that.

On targeted action, we have seen reductions in 20 local authorities and £42 million is being invested in the five local authorities where there is the most pressure. We have also seen a reduction in the number of voids—for example, by 55 per cent in Edinburgh.

We will continue to have discussions through the ministerial working group on those issues. That issue is the very reason why I started the homelessness group to discuss cross-portfolio interests.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the social justice secretary has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign and potential compensation for women in Scotland. (S6O-04340)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The Scottish Government has always supported the WASPI campaign and has repeatedly called on successive UK Governments to compensate the affected women in line with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report recommendations. We have written to the current and previous UK Government on three occasions since that report was released.

Most recently, following the debate and unanimous agreement in this Parliament for compensation to be paid, I joined colleagues from the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Greens in writing to the UK Government. It is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that neither Labour nor the Conservatives took up the offer to sign that joint letter.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The Labour UK Government, like the Tories before it, has failed the WASPI women. Before taking power, countless Labour politicians pledged a resolution, yet now they try to gaslight the very same women, claiming that most were aware of the state pension age changes and should not be given compensation. That is certainly not the view that is held by many of the WASPI women who have contacted me over the years.

Can the cabinet secretary advise whether she has had any correspondence—other than the cross-party letter that she said she has not had a response to—on any of the issues that have been raised in the chamber about the alleged informing of those women about the changes?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I pay tribute to Clare Haughey for the work that she has done, and will no doubt continue to do, on the issue, particularly by ensuring that members get regular opportunities to meet the WASPI women. I wish that we did not have to and that the UK Government had listened to the recommendations on compensation from the report, but while that is not the case, we will continue to do everything that we can.

It is disappointing that we have not had a response to the letter that I signed with Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Green Party colleagues asking the Prime Minister to reverse his decision. Because of Clare Haughey’s continuing campaign, the WASPI women’s continuing campaign and the Scottish Government’s continuing support, the matter will not go away, either. I am pleased to say that many members across the parties continue to campaign alongside the WASPI women.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the social justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding how it can improve financial literacy levels among children, in light of reports that it is a key driver of inequality, which affects attainment and perpetuates the cycle of generational poverty. (S6O-04341)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are absolutely committed to meeting our statutory child poverty target and will continue to do everything that we can within our powers and budget to deliver the change that is needed.

We recognise the importance of financial education in equipping learners with important life skills. That is why financial literacy is embedded in the curriculum in Scotland through numeracy and maths, business studies and personal and social education. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills already engages with Education Scotland on the development of the curriculum to ensure that it meets the needs of learners across the country.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

The programme for government prioritises eradicating child poverty, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reports that 26 per cent of children in Scotland still live in relative poverty. Although the Scottish child payment is crucial, we cannot merely react to poverty outcomes: we must change outcomes by breaking the cycle that traps so many families in poverty by going upstream to stop people falling into debt.

Education is critical in tackling the scourge of financial exploitation by empowering Scotland’s children with financial literacy from primary school age, so will the Government commit to supporting game-changing financial literacy initiatives, such as those that RedSTART Educate runs in my constituency, to break at its roots the cycle of generational child poverty?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

In line with the curriculum improvement cycle, we are updating the curriculum framework to better reflect the place of financial knowledge, skills and attributes that prepare learners for life after school. Ash Regan points to a very important life skill that is, and will continue to be, part of that curriculum development.

Education Scotland has provided financial education resources, such as “Money Talks: Family Finances”, that cover topic insights, including on bank statements, job opportunities in the finance sector and dealing with unexpected expenditure shocks.

Again, I note that Ash Regan is right to point to the importance of prevention as well as helping people in times of crisis. There is an important role for the education sector to play in that, whether through the pupil equity funding that the Scottish Government distributes to headteachers or through the work on financial literacy.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In relation to the financial literacy of young people, does the Scottish Government now regret removing the funding from Young Enterprise Scotland in October, given how much work it does with primary and secondary pupils to improve financial literacy?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Kate Forbes has answered many questions on that and has reassured members—including, I hope, Liz Smith—that there are many opportunities for young people to be assisted, encouraged and inspired by the role that enterprise can play in schools.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that current and future legislative processes further embed the principles and aims of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-04342)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are committed to fostering a proactive culture of everyday accountability for children’s rights and to ensuring that our legislation aligns with UNCRC requirements. That is why we introduced the act, which requires us to publish child rights and wellbeing impact assessments when developing new bills and Scottish statutory instruments. The act also introduces a duty to publish statements of compatibility for most legislation.

That demonstrates our commitment to children’s rights, and we look forward to sharing our first children’s rights scheme later this year. The scheme will outline how we plan to give better and further effect to children’s rights.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the direction that has been taken. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in order to ensure success, be it through legislation, policy or action, children and young people must be at the heart of decision making? What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that children understand their rights and how to access and advocate for them?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Bill Kidd for that important question, which is all about bringing rights to life for our children and young people. On my visits as a constituency MSP and as a minister, I am always impressed by the work that goes on in our schools, for example, to ensure that children understand their rights.

The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that the views of children and young people are a primary consideration in the decisions that affect them, and that is an important part of their rights. Children and young people represent the views of their peers in the annual meetings with the Scottish Government Cabinet and the executive team, for example. Policy teams across the Government also support meaningful engagement with children and young people on matters that affect them. My ministers and I endeavour to do that as efficiently and effectively as possible.

We are developing a comprehensive UNCRC awareness plan, including a targeted focus on those whose rights are most at risk, and we are co-designing a resource to help children to understand how to access and claim their rights if they feel that they are not being respected.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

A number of members want to ask supplementary questions on this matter and others, but I will get to them only if answers are a bit briefer.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Although it was very welcome, the redress scheme might contravene the UNCRC act. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that any child abuse, including historical abuse, is an abhorrence. The suffering of people in the education environment—for example, the Fornethy women—remains outside the scope of the scheme. The First Minister stated that the redress scheme is for those for whom the state had taken the role of the parent, but the education bill refers to “in loco parentis”. Given the precedence of error in relation to UNCRC consideration, with a similar scheme having to be amended after being introduced—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I need a question, Mr Whittle.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

—what consideration has the Scottish Government given to expanding the redress scheme to include those who were abused in education, such as the Fornethy women?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will need briefer questions as well as briefer responses.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The redress scheme and its terms of reference have been discussed in the chamber many times. The Government’s position on that has not changed, but I will be happy to reflect that in writing to Mr Whittle, or the minister who is directly responsible for the matter will write to him.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its negotiations with the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the release of relevant data pertaining to the two-child benefit cap. (S6O-04343)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We will invest £3 million in the next financial year to develop systems at pace, but we need the DWP to work with us in order to deliver the work as quickly and as safely as possible. Therefore, I have written three times to the DWP and provided it with a detailed breakdown of our data requirements. Although I have received a welcome response to my first letter, I am still waiting for replies to my follow-up letters.

In the meantime, our officials are continuing constructive discussions with the DWP, as has been the case throughout the social security devolution programme. I anticipate continuing to work collaboratively to deliver the payment to families as quickly as we can.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is a bit concerning that the cabinet secretary has not had replies to her letters. Is her overall feeling that Westminster and the DWP are positive about the Scottish Government’s proposals or that they will drag their heels? Is there a deadline by which she will have to say that what is planned will not be possible for 26 April?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I reassure John Mason that we are not anywhere near that stage at the moment. We have had reassurances directly from the Prime Minister to the First Minister and from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to me that they will work constructively with us. The easiest and quickest way to make progress would be for the DWP to remove the two-child cap at source, so that the Scottish Government does not have to mitigate Westminster policies.

However, as I said, officials are having constructive discussions. Despite our differences on welfare and social security systems, the discussions have been constructive, even under the previous Conservative Government. At this point, I have no concerns that that attitude has changed, but I am sure that I will update the chamber if there is a change.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the application of equalities legislation, what its position is on the provision of single-sex spaces in public sector buildings, including hospitals. (S6O-04344)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Equality Act 2010 allows for separate and single-sex spaces when they are

“a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

It is the responsibility of service providers to interpret and comply with the act. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is responsible for enforcement. The commission has produced specific guidance for organisations, such as statutory codes of practice and a guide for separate and single-sex service providers. The guidance also states that organisations might need to consider the impact of other legislation, such as legal requirements for health and safety in workplaces.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Time and again, the Scottish Government has shirked its responsibilities for ensuring the safety of women and girls. Even the First Minister is tone deaf to the issue. No woman should feel under pressure to undress in front of a male colleague. That is why women across Scotland are fed up with the Scottish National Party putting gender ideology before their safety. Will the minister make an urgent, unequivocal statement supporting the rights of women who work in public sector buildings and who expect suitable single-sex facilities—yes or no?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I have answered several questions on that issue. I fully support the law. The Equality Act 2010 is generally reserved, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the body that is responsible for enforcing the 2010 act.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There have been requests for a couple of supplementary questions—both will need to be brief.