Scottish Parliament, 30 April 2025

357 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. Members who wish to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.

Question 1 has not been lodged.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting social enterprises. (S6O-04577)

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

The Scottish Government fully recognises the importance of social enterprises and their valuable contribution to Scotland’s economy. Investing in social enterprise is crucial for our vision of progressing towards an economy that is fairer and greener, and which has inclusive growth at its heart. Funding for the sector has been protected at £6.2 million for next year.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Crafting Together, which is a social enterprise in my constituency of Clydebank and Milngavie, has done amazing work in providing employment opportunities for those with additional support needs, but more can still be done to improve the rates of employment. Can the cabinet secretary advise what action can be taken to improve employment rates for those with additional support needs? Would she be willing to come to Clydebank to meet Crafting Together to discuss what it has on offer?

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

Organisations such as Crafting Together, as Marie McNair has said, are doing great work in supporting those with additional support needs to find and stay in employment. I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Investment, as the lead minister on these matters, would be delighted to meet Crafting Together to hear more about its work.

We are committed to halving the disability employment gap and supporting disabled people and those with additional support needs into employment, and I commend Crafting Together for all that it does in that regard.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what opportunities it has identified to grow Scotland’s economy, following tartan week 2025. (S6O-04578)

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

The First Minister’s visit to the United States for tartan week focused on supporting Scotland’s economic growth. The key opportunities that were identified included welcoming more US investment in financial services, technology and renewable energy; championing quality Scottish products against the backdrop of tariffs and volatility; and showcasing Scotland’s top-class cultural and higher education institutions. The First Minister’s visit achieved each one of those objectives.

The US is Scotland’s second largest export market for goods and services, after the European Union. Around 16.4 per cent of our exports go to the USA, totalling more than £5 billion, and engagement with the USA around economic opportunities is therefore absolutely vital.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that full response. I was fortunate enough to attend tartan week celebrations to represent the Scottish Parliament, and I was struck by the warmth with which the Scottish culture, heritage and traditions, and our products and services, were met. The DFM correctly highlights the value of our export market, but what assessment has been made of the specific economic value not only of celebrations such as tartan week, but of promoting brand Scotland to the US and other global markets more widely?

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

I confess to being slightly jealous of Michelle Thomson’s trip over that period. The Scottish Government, alongside other brand Scotland partners, uses moments such as tartan week to showcase Scotland’s innovation and culture through events and media promotion.

With regard to the economic analysis that is done, we look at a number of different sources, always looking at how we can improve the data work that we do; I know that Michelle Thomson has a long-standing interest in that. That type of work has helped to maintain Scotland as the second highest area for inward investment in the United Kingdom, after London, in nine of the past 10 years according to EY. The EY data is helpfully granular with regard to where those investors originate and the confidence that they have in Scotland.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish tourist sector is excited at the prospects for the future, because some people who may have planned to travel to the United States are now reluctant to do so, which provides opportunities for tourism here. At the business in the Parliament conference that both the Deputy First Minister and I were at on Friday, people who are involved in tourism raised concerns that they have about the handicaps that the sector faces around taxation, business rates, short-term let licensing and the visitor levy. Although the tourism sector is optimistic about increased visitor numbers, hospitality margins are extremely tight. What specific help will the Scottish Government provide to those in that sector that are looking to expand?

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

In this year’s budget, we allocated an additional £2 million to VisitScotland in order to ensure that, first, there is increased footfall in terms of visitor numbers, and that visitors from new markets come to Scotland so that we can maintain international competitiveness. Secondly, that money will also support efforts to encourage visitors to spread their travel across Scotland, rather than concentrating on some of the most-visited destinations, so that the whole country can benefit from the economic value that comes from tourism.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will call Mr Whittle to as question 4, despite the fact that he has just arrived in the chamber. There are colleagues who want to ask supplementaries to it.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I apologise to the chamber for my tardiness.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the delivery of the Ayrshire growth deal. (S6O-04579)

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

Scottish Government investment of more than £100 million in the Ayrshire growth deal, matched by United Kingdom Government funding, is expected to unlock private investment of around £300 million and deliver around 7,000 new jobs, transforming the local economy for the benefit of all our people and places. Construction has just begun on phase one of the £14 million great harbour project. Governments have approved outline business cases for the £23 million Ayrshire manufacturing investment corridor and the £9 million marine tourism programme, enabling those important projects to progress to the next stage, and work is continuing at pace on new projects that will support the aerospace sector at Prestwick, which I know is of interest to Mr Whittle.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary will know, last week, I facilitated a meeting at the Prestwick aerospace cluster to discuss the potential of the Ayrshire growth deal to deliver at least 1,500 well-paid, highly skilled jobs in Ayrshire, in addition to the 3,500 proposed jobs from XLCC in North Ayrshire. Securing the skilled workforces that those businesses need will be a key factor in ensuring that those major international companies commit to investing millions of pounds in Ayrshire, which is why everyone who was at the meeting was so concerned to hear that Ayrshire College is not only facing funding cuts but that its potential to support economic growth in Ayrshire is apparently being overlooked in favour of Scotland’s cities.

Can the cabinet secretary explain why Ayrshire College, and indeed Ayrshire more widely, continually seems to be an afterthought for the Scottish Government? How does she propose to ensure that the Ayrshire growth deal moves forward at pace in order to secure that vital inward investment?

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

I believe that Ayrshire is the vanguard and is at the forefront of delivering economic opportunity, particularly in and around clusters such as the Prestwick cluster. I was sorry that I could not attend Mr Whittle’s meeting on 23 April, which I had communicated to the member in advance. However, I, too, have meetings in the diary and will be engaging with some of the businesses that were in attendance in order to make it clear that the Scottish Government supports the Prestwick cluster and the opportunities in aerospace and other sectors.

Ayrshire College is key, and I have had the privilege of visiting it before. Time and again, skills are identified as one of the major challenges to achieving business opportunities in the area. I am keen to work with the college and the sector more generally to ensure that we realise those opportunities, and that there are no impediments to doing that.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Over the next five years, Ayrshire will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to consolidate and grow its globally competitive manufacturing footprint through XLCC in Hunterston and our aerospace industry at Prestwick, boosting Scotland’s wider supply chain. A highly skilled and motivated workforce will be key to the delivery of those objectives. How will the Scottish Government ensure that we have the skilled workforce that is essential to ensuring that those ambitions are realised in the numbers that are required?

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

The member is absolutely right, and, a couple of weeks ago in the United Arab Emirates, I had the privilege of supporting XLCC as it pitched and showcased what it is trying to achieve, which demonstrates the international interest in the progress that it is making. We also talked about aerospace there.

The workers are critically important. Having met a number of apprentices, I know that there is significant interest in working in those jobs. There is huge demand, and we are committed to working with Skills Development Scotland, which oversees the apprenticeship programmes and administers funding, to ensure that Ayrshire College can play a key role in meeting the demand and ensuring that there is a pipeline in place.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I recently sent a letter to the Ayrshire councils seeking an update on the deal’s delivery. The response acknowledged that progress on delivery had not been as originally envisaged and noted that, at the halfway point of the programme’s lifetime, only a small percentage of available investment had been realised. It also noted that, in response to delays, partners, in consultation with the Government, had undertaken a review of the programme.

Can the Government advise when the decision to review was made and what the outcome of the review was, to ensure that my constituents can see the potential and the benefits of economic growth?

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

As the member knows, part of the reason for the situation that she outlines is that a number of projects did not proceed as originally envisaged. However, we are all keen to ensure that information about the new projects can be communicated clearly and quickly. Late last year, both Governments approved the trajectory of a number of changes across the Ayrshire deal capital programme that should pave the way for a greater pace of delivery. We are working with Ayrshire Council, and, in the past few months, I have personally convened a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland and senior representatives from the council in order to accelerate the pace of delivery.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what funding will be available to help infrastructure projects in south-west Scotland. (S6O-04580)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Each year, the Scottish Government provides funding for local government to deliver infrastructure to best meet councils’ needs. Additionally, through the borderlands deal, we will invest £85 million to drive regional economic growth. In the south-west, that includes £16 million for the redevelopment of the Stranraer marina, £4 million for the dairy innovation centre and £20 million for the deal’s place programme to improve places to live and work across the region.

We are also investing significant funding through the £2 billion learning estate investment programme, which will support the delivery of projects such as the new Dumfries high school.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Regrettably, the amount of money that is spent on transport infrastructure in the south-west corner has been non-existent in comparison with other areas, and is reported to be as little as 0.5 per cent of the total Scottish infrastructure spend.

As the minister will be aware, the century-old concrete bridge in my home town of Kirkcudbright has been ruled unsafe, leaving the town effectively split in two. I previously pressed the First Minister for additional funding to allow a new bridge to be constructed, but my plea fell on deaf ears, despite the Scottish Government providing £40 million of funding to open the Destiny bridge in the First Minister’s constituency, as well as £33 million towards the Kessock bridge over the Beauly Firth and £12.5 million to build a bridge at Markle in East Lothian to replace the level crossing. Does the minister agree with my constituents in what is now regarded as not the forgotten part of Scotland but the ignored part of Scotland that that stinks horribly of double standards and further dismissal of the needs of the people of the south-west of Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Despite the political points that he makes, the member raises serious concerns about the Kirkcudbright bridge. However, his stance is ironic, given the list of investments that I read out in my initial remarks. It is unfortunate that he has taken that stance, given the many exciting investments that are taking place in the south of Scotland.

The member mentioned the First Minister. Of course, the First Minister recently replied to the member in relation to his concerns about the Kirkcudbright bridge, and was pleased to point out that Dumfries and Galloway Council’s website states:

“The Kirkcudbright Bridge project has been confirmed within the council’s capital investment programme for financial year 2025/26.”

Clearly, the Scottish budget delivered additional capital expenditure for many parts of Scotland. The issues are being addressed to the best of our ability, and I hope that the council is able to take that project forward sooner rather than later.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The recent visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to the south-west to hear from the campaigns seeking upgrades to the A75 and A77 was welcome. How will the cabinet secretary continue to ensure that the south-west gets the infrastructure and investment that it needs, including, if possible, support for the Kirkcudbright bridge, and engage with stakeholders across Dumfries and Galloway to fully maximise the economic potential of the south-west, as the Scottish Government has done through its hugely welcome funding for the Stranraer Millennium Centre? I invite the minister or the Deputy First Minister to come and see the difference that the funding has made for the community.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Transport’s recent visit to the south-west and her commitment to on-going engagement with all stakeholders who are keen to see improvements to the roads mentioned.

On wider investment planning, the Scottish Government must wait for the outcome of the United Kingdom Government spending review in June to understand what the impacts will be for Scotland. Thereafter, we will publish a reset of our infrastructure investment pipeline, which will set out investment plans for the coming years.

In relation to Emma Harper’s invite, I regularly visit the south of Scotland, as do my colleagues. If she wishes to write to us, we will, I hope, respond positively to the invitation.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Infrastructure investment is vital to economic growth in the south-west of Scotland and across the whole country, but we know that cost overruns are one of the significant barriers to that. A recent Boston Consulting Group report on the cost of infrastructure across the UK highlighted that rail in the UK costs three times as much per kilometre as it does in France, and road costs almost twice as much.

What analysis is the Scottish Government doing of why infrastructure costs more in Scotland, and how can we tackle that to deliver more infrastructure to deliver growth across Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish budget sets out more than £7 billion of capital spending to tackle issues ranging from child poverty to improved infrastructure across the country. Whether by the Scottish Futures Trust or other organisations in Scotland, a lot of work is undertaken to ensure that there is value for money.

There are always external factors that are outwith our control that can influence costs. We have recently seen the inflation crisis and the energy crisis, and there are other factors that can make costs rise unexpectedly for many infrastructure projects, which has serious implications for the rest of our budgets as a Government. I assure the member that a lot of attention is given to the issue.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the latest “Quarterly Economic Indicator” from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Fraser of Allander Institute, which reportedly shows a business landscape that is characterised by flatlining demand, stalling investment and labour cost pressures. (S6O-04581)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish economy is resilient, with gross domestic product strengthening in the three months to January, low unemployment and strong earnings growth. However, we are already seeing the challenging impacts on businesses of the United Kingdom Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. The recent sharp rise in global economic uncertainty and volatility is, as we would all expect, further weighing on the economic outlook.

In responding to those challenges, we continue to work closely with Scottish businesses to ensure that they are well positioned for investment to create jobs and grow the economy.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for his response, but it is a landscape of flatlining demand and things are going in reverse. The latest “Quarterly Economic Indicator” found that business confidence has declined in all sectors in comparison with last year, taxation is the number 1 concern for businesses and labour costs are leading to pressures on operating costs. It also highlighted that Scotland is losing out on major UK contracts and investment opportunities because we simply do not have the workforce to deliver them. That position was backed up by the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, which is requesting that the Scottish Government commits to avoiding further tax divergence from the rest of the UK and to doing more on the Scottish skills shortage.

Does the minister agree with the assessment by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Fraser of Allander Institute and CBI Scotland of the business landscape? What steps will be taken to support Scotland’s businesses?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I agree with the member that businesses in Scotland and the wider Scottish economy face many challenges at the moment. As I indicated in my previous answer, global uncertainty and other factors are certainly playing a role in that.

The Fraser of Allander Institute’s “Scottish Business Monitor” for quarter 1 of this year says that, in response to the increase in national insurance contributions, almost half of businesses surveyed have increased prices to pass on higher costs to customers, and almost half have reduced hiring or scaled back plans to increase employee headcount.

The member is right that taxation is a big issue, and increases to NI contributions introduced by the UK Government are causing a real headache for the Scottish business community. We also have higher energy costs and other issues.

As outlined in the recent budget that was passed by the Parliament, there are a lot of measures to help the business community in Scotland, not least more than £300 million for enterprise companies. There will be more opportunities for Parliament to have its say on those measures in the coming weeks.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister is keen to deflect responsibility for the flatlining of the economy on to others rather than accept his own responsibility. For example, housing policy—including in relation to home energy grants—has resulted in a massive decline in investment. What discussions has the minister had with his colleagues in other departments to make sure that they change their ways to encourage investment?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As the member may be aware, in recent weeks, there has been a lot more positive feedback from the Scottish housing sector in response to the changes that have been made by the Scottish Government. We take the issue very seriously. Having a good housing supply in the country is vitally important for the future of our economy, which includes the business community. Many parts of Scotland need more houses to ensure that they can attract skilled workers and that those workers will have somewhere to live. A lot of developments are now under way and there is more positivity in the sector, notwithstanding some of the wider pressures that are facing the economy, which were referred to in previous answers.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding the implementation of its green industrial strategy, what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the introduction of extended producer responsibility. (S6O-04582)

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

We have been engaging with the UK Government and with the other devolved Governments to improve the UK-wide scheme, while also exploring new stewardship measures through our circular economy strategy and waste route map.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Last week, I convened a meeting with industry stakeholders as part of the cross-party group on beer and pubs. They fear that EPR is fast becoming a £1.1 billion tax and regulatory burden that brings risks to a range of sectors, including the glass industry, soft drinks, distilling, hospitality and retail, and that it will ultimately hit consumers and result in increased inflation. There is still no clarity as to how much the producers will ultimately have to pay for EPR waste, the fees for which are vastly more expensive than in other countries such as Ireland, nor how councils will secure the revenues that are generated by it. Will the minister work urgently with other Scottish ministers in the Scottish Government, which forms part of the four-nation working group on EPR, to ensure that those real concerns are heard by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the scheme administrators?

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

I am happy to make that commitment to the member and to the stakeholders that he referenced. We will listen carefully to the comments that they make and we will ensure that they are fed back to the UK Government. Craig Hoy has asked a number of portfolio questions in recent weeks on EPR schemes. However, I would be more than happy to look closely at all the specific issues and see what progress can be made on each particular element.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Acting in line with the polluter pays principle is a key part of enabling a just transition for communities across Scotland through effective waste management and reduction. Will the Deputy First Minister say any more about the Scottish Government’s work to achieve that in partnership with Zero Waste Scotland?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Be as brief as possible, Deputy First Minister.

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

The polluter pays principle is all about ensuring that producers take greater responsibility for the waste that they create. The introduction of EPR for packaging is intended to shift costs from local authorities to producers, which will generate an estimated £160 million every year. However, we have to make sure that we take people with us and we will consult and listen carefully to stakeholders while raising those issues with the UK Government, as I committed to doing in my earlier answer.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with stakeholders regarding the tall ships races Aberdeen 2025. (S6O-04583)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am delighted that the Scottish Government, with financial support via VisitScotland, was able to provide the tall ships races Aberdeen 2025 with an award of almost £160,000 to support event delivery costs. VisitScotland staff are represented on the various stakeholder groups that were established to plan and organise the event, including the local organising committee and event co-ordination group. The tall ships races event features prominently in VisitScotland’s current and on-going marketing campaign activity.

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

The tall ships races event is set to be a major event for Aberdeen and the north-east, with projections of around 400,000 visitors and an estimated £30 million boost to the local economy. The event will support businesses across the hospitality, retail and tourism sectors and it will support wider community engagement, such as sail training for young people. Hosting the tall ships will also enhance Aberdeen’s international reputation as a vibrant, welcoming city and help to secure a lasting legacy for major events.

Will the minister further outline how the Scottish Government is promoting Scotland’s reputation as a leading events destination, maximising the opportunities that are presented by events such as the tall ships races that will ensure a lasting positive impact on the region and across Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member outlines well the massive benefits for Aberdeen and the north-east from this really exciting event, and I pay tribute to all the people who have played a role in working towards making it such a success. Of course, it brings a big economic benefit to the area as well.

As a minister, I want to play a role in maintaining Scotland’s position as a leading events destination. We do a lot to enhance Scotland’s reputation as the perfect stage for events, working alongside partners to implement the refreshed national events strategy.

Scotland is the place to be in the coming years. We have the tall ships event in Aberdeen and the Orkney international island games in 2025, the Commonwealth games in 2026, the Tour de France grand depart in 2027 and the Union of European Football Associations European football championship in 2028. The next three years will be really exciting for the whole country, including the exciting event in Aberdeen.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item to allow for a changeover of front-bench members.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Government how much East Dunbartonshire Council has spent on PFI contracts in the last year. (S6O-04584)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

In 2024-25, East Dunbartonshire Council paid £19.6 million in unitary charges for its schools PFI contract. The contract’s procurement began in 2005. The capital value of the project was £134 million. However, by the time that the PFI contract concludes in 2038-39, the council will have paid more than £550 million on it.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does the minister agree that Labour’s PFI legacies and the employer national insurance hike attacks on jobs are placing a burden on councils throughout Scotland?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Yes, of course I do. That is why, in this year’s budget, to help to lessen the burden, we provided local government with one of the largest increases in funding in recent times.

We have always made clear that PFI has not delivered best value for the taxpayer, and that is why we brought it to an end. However, we are, of course, still paying for the legacy of Labour’s mistakes.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Those members on the Scottish National Party benches who are so keen to point out their contentions with the PFI contracts stay conveniently quiet about their party’s repeated historical use of non-profit distributing contracts. Audit Scotland has found that those NPD contracts, which are a type of PFI scheme, turn out to be significantly more expensive to taxpayers than using traditional forms of Government project financing.

What is the current financial burden of NPD contracts to councils across my West Scotland region?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Pam Gosal is absolutely right: the cheapest way to fund projects is for Governments to borrow. Of course, Scotland has strict limits on how much it can borrow due to the policies of the United Kingdom Government. Were we a normal, independent country, we would be able to borrow at lower rates to fund capital projects.

On the non-profit distributing programme, the key difference between those programmes and traditional PFIs, which were championed by the Conservative and Labour parties, is that NPD programmes are profit capped and are profit sharing. Those contracts provide greater transparency and more flexibility than PFI and are considerably cheaper.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 2 is from Maggie Chapman, who joins us remotely.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Aberdeenshire Council regarding the reported financial pressures that it is experiencing. (S6O-04585)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Ministers and officials regularly meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities to ensure that local government has the capacity and resources that are required to continue to provide communities across Scotland with the high-quality front-line services that they expect and deserve.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Tomorrow, people will gather in Fraserburgh to discuss how to prevent proposed council cuts at day centres for disabled people. The proposals would result in provision of day care being limited to severely disabled people, after the council has redefined what counts as severely disabled to reduce eligibility. Transport provision and funding for disabled people to physically get to day care centres might be cut, too, and fees for day care centre places might be increased.

The proposals, and too many others like them, will have devastating effects on the lives of disabled people and their carers. Other services, including the stretched national health service, will have to pick up the pieces. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give to disabled people, their carers and others who are concerned about the proposals, as well as those who will be left to pick up the pieces?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I first say that I understand Maggie Chapman’s concern and appreciate the value of day centres and other services for disabled people. Those are proposals by Aberdeenshire Council, but I urge it to listen to the representations that Maggie Chapman has described. We have ensured that Aberdeenshire Council is receiving an extra £42 million, or an additional 7.2 per cent, compared with 2024-25. Taken together with its increase in council tax, that is an additional £58.1 million to support front-line services in 2025-26. I therefore certainly hope that, as Maggie Chapman has alluded to, the council will listen to those local representations.

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

I welcome the fact that this year’s Scottish budget provides an increase of more than 7 per cent in funding for Aberdeenshire Council. Will the minister outline how that additional funding should help to alleviate financial pressures for the local authority and provide additional opportunities so that it can improve our communities as a result?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Councils and their employees play a vital role in communities across Scotland, which is why the Scottish Government has made available record funding this year. Although I recognise that significant challenges remain across the public sector, I expect that the additional funding will allow Aberdeenshire Council and other councils to invest in effective, efficient and sustainable local services.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any discussions it has had with the tourism sector and other stakeholders regarding amending the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-04586)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government receives regular input from the tourism sector regarding the visitor levy, and we are well aware of the sector’s concerns with regard to particular aspects of the levy. In March this year, both I and the First Minister spoke and answered questions at the Scottish Tourism Alliance business breakfast, at which the visitor levy was a subject of discussion. In the next couple of weeks, I will meet representatives of the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers to discuss those matters further.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

While the Scottish Government continues to prevaricate, councils across Scotland are pushing ahead with consultations on implementing the new tax. However, if Scottish ministers are engaging in good faith with tourism stakeholders and genuinely considering amending the visitor levy, that means that people are being asked to have their say on a levy when they have no idea what the final form might be.

If the Scottish National Party is committed to pushing ahead with the new tax, which many of us continue to oppose, will the minister at least consider calls from the tourism sector, including the Scottish Tourism Alliance, for implementation to be paused for at least six months to allow better time to engage with the sector on potential improvements, such as introducing a flat fee and reducing further burdens on tourism businesses by removing their role in collecting the new tax?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I said, we continue to engage with the sector on the visitor levy, but it is important to recognise that the levy will potentially raise significant amounts of money for local government and certain councils in particular. On the one hand, members on the Conservative benches complain that local government does not have enough funds, but they then complain when we take forward proposals to increase that funding, which does not really stack up. As I said, we are engaging in good faith with the sector to explore how we can take forward the visitor levy and address some of the challenges that the sector has brought before us.

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

Will the minister please outline what positive conversations the Scottish Government has had with local authorities that plan to introduce a visitor levy in the near future and how it will encourage local authorities to reinvest revenue from the levy in their visitor economies?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government has had and is having a range of discussions with stakeholders on the implementation of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which requires that a visitor levy scheme’s objectives

“must relate to developing, supporting or sustaining facilities or services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting the scheme area”.

That measure is welcomed not only by local authorities but by the business community. Although it is for local authorities to determine what they might reinvest the additional revenue in, the act requires them to measure and report on the achievement of the scheme’s objectives and publish an annual report, which should set out how much revenue has been collected and how it has been used to support, in particular, the visitor economy.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the minister clarify whether the Government is considering delaying the visitor levy’s introduction? Would that include a change to the regulations?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The visitor levy is moving forward, and Daniel Johnson will know that steps are well advanced in Edinburgh to start the implementation of a levy in the middle part of next year. To understand the challenges that the levy is putting on the sector, we are having discussions with a range of stakeholders, and we are keen to explore what actions could be taken to mitigate the challenges wherever possible. Discussions continue with a range of local authorities as well.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the City of Edinburgh Council regarding the progress of the Edinburgh city plan 2040. (S6O-04588)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Edinburgh city plan 2040 will be the City of Edinburgh Council’s next local development plan, which is at a very early stage in its preparation. We have not discussed it with the council.

On 25 March, I met Edinburgh council’s planning convener and its head of planning to discuss matters that are linked to the current city plan, which is Edinburgh city plan 2030. At that meeting, we discussed guidance on developer contributions, an infrastructure levy and future housing delivery in Granton and west Edinburgh.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Many community organisations across the city, such as Wester Hailes Community Trust in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands, have produced local place plans for the deadline of August this year, at the cost of great time and expense. What responsibility lies with the local authority to take into consideration those local place plans, which are the aspirations of local communities?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Local place plans are a positive way for communities to have a stronger voice in how they want their areas to develop. I commend the communities in Gordon MacDonald’s constituency for producing those local place plans.

Planning authorities are required by law to take into account any registered local place plan when they are preparing a local development plan. It is for planning authorities to determine what weight and consideration to give to elements of a local place plan, but I encourage them to do so. I am happy to provide Gordon MacDonald and other members with a link to the guidance that is published for communities and planning authorities on local development planning and local place plans, which provides further helpful information.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 6 is from Jackie Baillie, who joins us remotely.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding a different model for allocating funding to integration joint boards, in light of a recent Accounts Commission report highlighting the unsustainable gaps in their finances. (S6O-04589)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

We are sympathetic to the fact that the social care sector faces pressures, and we are working to understand the current financial viability picture.

Health and social care services are formally integrated under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, which sets in law the requirement for local authorities and health boards to work together and create a health and social care partnership to deliver services. IJBs must receive their delegated budgets via those partners, as direct allocations to IJBs are not possible under the 2014 act. Under current legislation, a different funding model is not possible.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Accounts Commission reported a £560 million deficit in IJB budgets, which is having a hugely damaging impact on some of the most vulnerable people who need social care. Across Scotland, cuts are being made. In my constituency, community link workers are being removed and the work connect project, which provides training and work opportunities for people with learning disabilities, is being closed. Money from IJB reserves was clawed back by the Scottish National Party Government, so IJBs are no longer able to fund critical projects. What comfort can the minister offer to the most vulnerable people in our society who are losing their social care support because of the actions of his Government?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As Jackie Baillie knows fine well, and as I said in my earlier answer, IJBs are funded directly through health boards and local government in partnership. That is the whole point of the integration of health and social care services under the 2014 act. As she also knows well, the Government has provided health boards and local government with record funding this year to enable them, in turn, to fund IJBs, so that they can provide the services that she talked about. We will continue to engage with partners to understand how the Government can continue to support IJB funding through health boards and local government, as the 2014 act requires.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions. I will try to get everybody in, but questions and answers will need to be brief.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

How much has the Scottish Government increased investment in health and social care integration since 2021-22?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The 2025-26 budget includes almost £2.2 billion for social care integration. That means that, since 2021-22, the Scottish Government has increased social care investment by almost £1.2 billion, thereby exceeding our commitment to increase funding by 25 per cent by more than £350 million.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

IJBs in Scotland clearly face a cash crisis. Yesterday, in evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the Scottish Fiscal Commission warned of a health and social care budget time bomb, given Scotland’s demographics. It warned that an ageing population means that a higher number of people are eligible for care under the current criteria, that those people require more care and that more public spending is therefore needed. Similarly, the SFC’s “Fiscal Sustainability Report” warns:

“The growth in health spending shown in our projections is likely to be unsustainable.”

Taken alongside a record projected increase in welfare spending, that shows that the Government’s whole budget appears to be unsustainable. What is the Government’s solution to the sustainability challenge that it faces?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Wow—I do not know where to start with that question. The Tories want us to cut tax and have less money available to spend, but they are also complaining because health spending is projected to increase. We have kept pace with increases in health spending by providing health boards and local authorities with record funding, so that they, in turn, can fund IJBs. We have done all that while continuing to balance our budget.

There are, of course, longer-term challenges, which we are addressing through our fiscal sustainability delivery plan and our public service reform activity. The Government will continue to provide record funding for health and social care while balancing our budget.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Government has been blowing hot and cold on this issue. Today, we have heard very little recognition of the human impact that cuts to IJB funding are having, and Neil Gray has brushed off any suggestion that the Government has a responsibility in that regard.

However, just last month, during First Minister’s question time, the First Minister said:

“There will need to be a wider conversation between the Government and the integration joint board to address the concerns that have been properly put to me by members today.”—[Official Report, 27 March 2025; c 18-19.]

His tone was very open. Does the Government recognise that there would be a broad cross-party welcome if the Government were to accept responsibility for taking forward the wider conversation that the First Minister promised? Will that happen?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I will let Patrick Harvie know the activity that is taking place in that regard. The Government is very much engaged in such discussions. In February, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, along with representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, invited the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, Scottish Care and the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland to a round-table meeting to discuss the very issue that he talks about—the financial viability of the social care sector. Through that meeting, a response group for financial viability was commissioned to further explore the risks to the sector as well as potential mitigations.

In April, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport met chairs, chief officers and chief financial officers from all IJBs in Scotland to discuss the financial challenges. That followed a meeting that she had in March. We continue to engage with the sector, and we understand the challenges that it faces, as I outlined in my previous answer.

As I said, we recognise that the funding routes are through health boards and local authorities, which, in turn, have received record funding. However, we also recognise the impact that IJB performance has on local communities and we will continue to engage proactively with the sector and others to be able to address those challenges.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, Willie Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Government loves round tables and response groups as a response to any particular crisis—and this is a crisis, as people in Fife are desperate for social care but services were slashed and people suffered because of Fife’s £37 million overspend last year. When will the Government get a grip of the problem, which is happening year after year?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated, we are providing record funding to health boards and local authorities, which in turn have a responsibility to fund IJBs.

As I said, we are also engaging with the sector. Mr Rennie can call it what he likes, but I call it engagement, and at the end of the day, that engagement is hugely important. If we were not engaging, I am sure that he would be one of the first to complain that we were not having those round tables and other discussions to move the challenge forward.

We are having that engagement and we are constructively working with partners to resolve the issue. However, as I said, we have also provided record funding to health boards and local government, which in turn fund IJBs.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the City of Edinburgh Council regarding its allocated budget. (S6O-04590)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government routinely engages with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities to cover a range of topics, including current and future budgets.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Thank you for that succinct answer.

Last week, at Edinburgh’s housing, homelessness and fair work committee, housing allocations were frozen and now only people with gold priority will be considered for a new council home. All others looking to move home within the city will need to wait even longer.

Edinburgh receives a share of around 6 per cent of the affordable housing budget, using a COSLA-based formula that disadvantages the capital. Meanwhile, the acquisitions budget is allocated based on need, which means that Edinburgh receives more than a third. Will the cabinet secretary urgently review the funding formula to ensure that Edinburgh gets its fair and needed share of moneys?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As other local authorities have done, the City of Edinburgh Council has received an extra £60 million, or an additional 5.9 per cent of funding, compared to 2024-25, and it will receive £73.9 million—an extra £8.1 million—in capital funding.

Sue Webber, in many ways, answered the question herself, because she described the funding formula as being COSLA based. That funding formula is a needs-based formula that is agreed with COSLA on behalf of 32 local authorities each year. If I were to step in and disregard the COSLA agreement, which it arrived at on behalf of 32 local authorities, people would be popping up across the chamber to criticise me for doing so.

I point out to Sue Webber that she cannot support £1 billion of unfunded tax cuts at the same time as calling for more money for the City of Edinburgh Council or anyone else.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, Sarah Boyack.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the cuts that are being made to dozens of vital charities by the Edinburgh integration joint board, which means that the City of Edinburgh Council must now step in to fund those organisations—given the massive pressures that NHS Lothian is under and our growing population—to keep people well and healthy?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I say to Sarah Boyack that, of course, we understand the pressures on public services, which are felt across these islands because of the demographic challenges that we all understand. However, the Government has given record levels of investment—more than £15 billion—to local government and £21 billion to the national health service and social care. Those are record levels of funding. We expect councils and the health service to ensure that they are adequately funding local services and third sector organisations, which do a very important job.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the potential impact on Scotland’s public finances as a result of the United Kingdom Government increasing employer national insurance contributions. (S6O-04591)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Labour UK Government’s hike in employer national insurance contributions adds more than £700 million in costs to the delivery of public services such as the national health service, schools, local government, universities, social care providers and a wide range of third sector organisations.

Despite our calls for full reimbursement, it is clear that the support from the UK Government to meet those costs will fall more than £400 million short of what is required.

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

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will share my concerns that Labour’s brutal employer national insurance contributions increase may risk the financial viability of some businesses and, in doing so, compound the impact on Scotland’s public finances. Does she agree that the UK Government must take responsibility for that and appropriately support businesses across Scotland, which are facing very specific UK-created pressures?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Absolutely. In recognition of the damaging implications of that increase for businesses, public services and communities, the Scottish Government has called on the UK Government to reverse it. The increase will, of course, lead to opportunity costs in terms of money that could otherwise have provided the additional funding that Sarah Boyack was calling for, or additional funding for local authorities or the health service. Those opportunity costs are resulting in money for public services going straight back to the Treasury, and that is totally unacceptable.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio questions on finance and local government. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change.

Business Motions

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-17377, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. I call Jamie Hepburn to move the motion.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

This motion adds a statement on the programme for government to the schedule for next week. Some members will be interested to know that, unlike in other years, there will be an opportunity to ask questions of the First Minister following his statement, which will be followed by a debate in the usual fashion. There will be another programme for government debate the following day.

Members may also like to look further ahead and see that, in the following week, on 13 May, we will have a stage 1 debate on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. There will be Conservative Party business and Scottish Government business on the following days. That is probably as much information as I can extend on the business motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 6 May 2025

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by First Minister’s Statement: Programme for Government 2025-26

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Programme for Government 2025-26

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 7 May 2025

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Programme for Government: Building the Best Future for Scotland

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 8 May 2025

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Ministerial Statement: Relationships and Behaviour in Schools

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Commemorating the 80th Anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

Tuesday 13 May 2025

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Stage 1 Debate: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

6.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 14 May 2025

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs

followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

5.10 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 15 May 2025

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills

followed by Scottish Government Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 5 May 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.

Motion agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motions S6M-17378 to S6M-17381, on stage 1 timetables for bills. I call Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motions.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am happy to move these motions rather more quickly than I moved the previous motion.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 21 November 2025.

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 26 September 2025.

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 31 October 2025.

That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 be completed by 10 October 2025.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motions agreed to.

Grangemouth (Cessation of Refining)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Kate Forbes on the cessation of refining at Grangemouth. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

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

Yesterday’s news that Petroineos has now ceased refining at Grangemouth is a devastating blow to Scotland’s economy, the workforce and the local community. My thoughts are with all the workers who are impacted as they navigate these difficult times. Although we have anticipated this moment since Petroineos made its decision last September, it is nonetheless a dark moment in Scotland’s industrial history.

The Scottish Government has consistently engaged with and supported both Petroineos and its shareholders. Since March 2020, we have worked positively and collaboratively with the business to secure its operations in incredibly challenging situations and to seek to support its transition to other technologies. We have invested more than £6 million over that period directly in Petroineos and its shareholders. We are also ensuring that we support the wider area with investment of a further £81 million through the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, the Grangemouth just transition fund and other activities.

I continue to advocate that the decision of last September was and is premature. It jeopardises our transition to net zero, negatively impacts the Scottish economy and leaves us reliant on imported fuel. We have continually called on the United Kingdom Government to do more to intervene and stop this needless act of economic vandalism. If it can intervene at Scunthorpe, surely it is necessary for it to do so at Grangemouth. The UK Government could have chosen to underpin operations at the refinery to bridge the transition to new technologies or, as we have repeatedly called for, intervened to enable sustainable aviation fuel production at Grangemouth.

However, it is not too late. The UK Government could still choose to intervene at this late stage and deliver a different result. The scale and magnitude of such an intervention would require UK Government involvement—it is not something that the Scottish Government could do alone. At the very least, we need to know and understand what assets at the refinery could potentially be used to help Grangemouth contribute to our net zero economy in the future.

Yesterday, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy wrote to the UK Government to urge it to join her in support for Unite the union’s proposal for a review of those assets to inform our work. I reiterate that call and urge the UK Government to get behind that proposal immediately and ensure that we lose no further time. Doing so is critical not only to bringing forward new business, but to ensuring that people who are directly impacted by the decision know that we have their backs.

The workers are at the forefront of our minds. We have not been idly standing by while those highly skilled individuals are put out of work, bringing to their families uncertainty and worry about what comes next. We have already provided £450,000 of funding to support their transition into other roles through a bespoke skills intervention that is being delivered by Forth Valley College. I am pleased that 168 workers are already engaging in retraining activity, and that the majority of the remaining workforce have registered for training that will commence in the coming weeks.

We have prioritised those workers who will be leaving the refinery in the near term to ensure that they are supported and assisted in their transition, and that they are helped to secure other employment and to use their valuable skills to continue to contribute to Scotland’s economy.

Although it is regrettable that that intervention has been needed, it is an excellent example of how the Scottish public sector has collaborated with Unite the union to ensure that those workers get the support that they need and deserve. I pay tribute to Unite, which has supported the design and delivery, and now the deployment, of that intervention. Unite’s support has been unwavering, and we are grateful for its candour and its efforts to ensure that that provision meets the needs of those individuals.

The voice of workers who have the experience and the expertise will be critical as we seek to secure a long-term and sustainable future for the industrial cluster. Their role and input will continue to be central as we drive forward activity that secures that ambition.

Project willow is being spearheaded by an investment task force that is led by Scottish Enterprise. I am pleased to inform the Parliament that we have seen tangible progress with regard to interested investors and technology providers. As we seek to work with interested parties, the insight of the workforce and Unite will be critical in ensuring that we capitalise on those opportunities.

The Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy received the first progress report from the task force this morning. It is clear that real progress is being made on the outputs from project willow and other associated manufacturing opportunities. Scottish Enterprise is dealing with 66 inquiries, which are aligned with the full range of technologies that are set out in the report, as well as with manufacturing activities that are carried out across the wider cluster. Scottish Enterprise has developed a triage process for assessing those projects quickly, which will lead to due diligence on those that offer the best near-term fit. Scottish Enterprise and my officials are working closely together on activity across the whole cluster, with a view to realising the full potential of the site’s transformation.

Scottish Enterprise’s approach is not limited to dealing with inbound inquiries; it also includes marketing the Grangemouth opportunity to the world. To that end, Scottish Enterprise is undertaking investor outreach work to attract world-class projects and investors to the site.

Clearly, Petroineos must and will continue to have a critical role to play in the future. The transition of Grangemouth is dependent on Petroineos, as the landowner, acting responsibly. We have engaged positively with the company during its tenure as operator, and I am committed to continuing that. It has given assurances to ministers and officials that it will act as a responsible landlord, and the Government will hold it to that commitment.

Petroineos has not yet committed to making any investment in the projects that are proposed in project willow, but we are engaging with the company and its shareholders to chart a mutually beneficial course that could lead to future investment.

Businesses have made it clear that flexible funding should be made available to support their ambitions, and our recently announced Grangemouth just transition fund will be a key tool in bringing forward future investment at the site.

The early positive progress that Scottish Enterprise has reported has been made has been catalysed by the Government’s commitment. However, we cannot do this alone. Although I welcome the £200 million that has been allocated from the national wealth fund, we know that, by its nature, that funding is somewhat restrictive. It does not have the ability to support early-stage technologies that require immediate support. We therefore hope that the UK Government will do more. We call on it to apply the full flexibility of its resources to support investment at Grangemouth. That includes making a timely decision on the Acorn project, which we still await and which is absolutely essential for the future of Grangemouth.

We have repeatedly suggested that the UK Government should make immediately available the whole £10 million that it announced as part of the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, and I reiterate that proposal again today. That would be a tangible start in supporting businesses here in Scotland that need that support now.

I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to doing all that we can, within the limited powers that we have, to secure a long-term and sustainable future for Grangemouth. The decision by Petroineos is nothing short of an economic crisis. We need the UK Government to work with us to respond quickly, as we know that it can.

It is a very sad day for Grangemouth and for Scotland. We are deeply sorry for the workers and the wider community. The Government will work tirelessly to secure the future that both the workers and the community of Grangemouth deserve.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for sight of her statement before she delivered it in the chamber. This is a dark moment for Grangemouth, for Central Scotland and for Scotland as a whole. The workers and the community in Grangemouth should be at the forefront of our thinking, our words and our actions.

Bluntly, I am deeply concerned that Scottish National Party politicians are playing a constitutional game with the closure of the refinery at Grangemouth. That is not acceptable. The SNP Government cannot escape responsibility by pointing fingers at Westminster. This is the result of years of mixed messages and ideological hostility to Scotland’s oil and gas industry from both the SNP and Labour. A presumption against oil and gas has consequences. Instead of politicising this industrial crisis, ministers should focus on clarity and delivery. The people of Grangemouth deserve a straight account of what is happening, not posturing.

I have several questions for the Deputy First Minister. First, has Petroineos given any firm commitment to redeveloping the site? If not, what contingency plans does the Government have in place for redevelopment of the site? Secondly, if Petroineos continues to withhold investment in any of the nine potential project willow projects, does that put any of those projects in jeopardy? Thirdly, does the Scottish Government—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Kerr, I remind you that you had one minute and 30 seconds to speak, as agreed with your party business manager. You have now spoken for one minute and 53 seconds. The Deputy First Minister has already got some questions that she can be getting on with.

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

To use Stephen Kerr’s words, I believe that my statement was exactly in line with his call for clarity and delivery. That is precisely what I provided in the statement. This is not about pointing fingers; it is about delivery as quickly as possible of jobs and opportunities. Grangemouth has been a key part of our industrial heritage for generations, and it must be the centre point of our industrial future. That is what we intend to deliver through project willow.

Mr Kerr will be pleased to know that I specifically included in my statement answers to some of his specific questions about Petroineos, because I knew that he would ask them. In my statement, I said that Petroineos has not yet committed to making those investments. He asked whether that jeopardised project willow—it does not.

Project willow is all about working with partners. I mentioned that we have had 66 expressions of interest, some of which are in line with project willow. Others are not in line with project willow but could present incredible opportunities. Those potential partners have been attracted by the supportive environment that they have found here in Scotland.

Petroineos has said explicitly to the Government that it will be a responsible landowner and landlord that is supportive of the investment work that needs to happen. I hope that that has answered Mr Kerr’s questions.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Yesterday will have been an incredibly difficult day for the hundreds of workers at Grangemouth and for the wider community. They are right to ask what actions their Governments have taken.

Within months of taking office, the UK Labour Government committed £200 million of investment for Grangemouth’s industrial future. Unfortunately, that contrasts with the Scottish Government’s actions. The SNP Government was made aware by Petroineos five years ago that refining was under threat. The Deputy First Minister therefore has to answer this question: in that time, did any one of the five different cabinet secretaries responsible develop any real plans for the refinery’s future?

Today, the Deputy First Minister strongly hints at nationalisation, although she stops short of calling for it. Did her Government ever raise that with the previous Conservative Government or with Petroineos? Indeed, has the Government ever asked its civil servants to consider such options? In the dozens of meetings that the Scottish Government has had with the new UK Labour Government in recent months, has it once raised the topic? If the cabinet secretary cannot point to that evidence, are people not right to conclude that the Scottish Government is producing that option at the last minute to turn this devastating event into a political football, and are they not right—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Johnson.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

—to conclude that the SNP Government has done nothing in the last—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You have had your allocated time of 1 minute—thank you, Mr Johnson.

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

Knowing, also, what Daniel Johnson might ask, I included the answer in my statement up front: I said very clearly that, since March 2020, we have worked with the business, investing in excess of £6 million over that period. July 2021, July 2022, August 2023, July 2024 and August 2024 are all examples of when the Government has worked collaboratively with Petroineos and shareholders to consider options for their future. I can assure the Parliament that this Government has been actively at work to secure the future of this key industrial asset.

Daniel Johnson mentioned the nature of our conversations with the UK Government. As we have said repeatedly, we believe that we should leave no stone unturned to secure the future of Grangemouth—that was the case, first, with the Conservative Government and then with the Labour Government. I am young enough to remember when Labour promised that, if it were elected, it would save the plant.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

The Grangemouth refinery closure means that 430 workers have been made redundant. My thoughts are with every single one of them and their families. They have been let go by Petroineos and let down after Scottish Labour’s pledge that it

“would step in and save the jobs”.

UK Labour was able to underwrite a loan guarantee for a plant in Antwerp, to step in and save British Steel in Scunthorpe, to nominate sustainable aviation fuel sites anywhere but Scotland and to progress with carbon capture and storage in Teesside and Humberside. Even the local Labour MP concedes that Westminster treats Scotland as an afterthought. We need our Scottish Government to work hard to replace jobs as soon as possible.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Could I have a question, please, Ms Thomson?

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Small and medium-sized enterprises are among the most innovative companies in the energy sector, but often they do not operate at the scale required to access the available finance, such as from the national wealth fund.

The Deputy First Minister mentioned the role of Scottish Enterprise so—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Thomson, I need a question, please.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

—what actions is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that it is given a fair hearing, given the likelihood that it is able to create quality jobs at scale?

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

The member is absolutely right to talk about the innovation of SMEs. We now have a system, led by Scottish Enterprise, that triages all inquiries that reach it from SMEs and other companies and investors that want to be part of Grangemouth’s future. I mentioned the 66 inquiries, and Michelle Thomson and I separately met representatives of one such interested company this morning. The innovation coming from those investors and developers that I am hearing about is extraordinary.

We have previously talked about the fact that project willow will be spread over a number of years, but some opportunities can be accelerated, because they are ready to go. We are committed to ensuring that companies can access units, relocate to Grangemouth and start to employ people as quickly as possible.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Underpinning project willow is the need to have an energy strategy, which would provide some clarity. Where is it? When will it be published? Does the Government realise that getting that wrong and leaving in the presumption against new oil and gas could mean Grangemouth-equivalent redundancies every week from now until 2030?

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

I do not know to whom the member is talking, but if he thinks that all that it takes is an energy strategy to attract investment to Grangemouth, he is speaking to the wrong people. We are ensuring that there is funding available—£25 million—and that we have a clear process for taking inquiries, triaging them and supporting companies to relocate, and ultimately for delivering the employment that we want in order to ensure that Grangemouth continues to play a key part in our industrial future.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Jobs and livelihoods are being lost as we speak in the chamber today, which is placing workers and their families in an extremely difficult situation. Alongside that, we are losing important skills and knowledge from the workforce, which could be lost to Scotland for the foreseeable future. Such skills and knowledge will be critical in helping to deliver nine of the key areas that were identified in project willow in the medium to longer term. What priority has been given to securing investment in the short term that will help to maintain and support those critical skills and knowledge in the Grangemouth area?

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

The member is absolutely right that we need to retain the skills and the knowledge, and he will be aware that it is those skills and that knowledge that are of particular interest to potential investors. Some of the expressions of interest that have reached me, which I know have come via the member, are short term—in other words, those investors are willing to relocate or set up a new facility in the Grangemouth area quite rapidly. We want to work at pace to ensure that they can do that and thereby retain the skills and the knowledge on the site.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Having attended both project willow briefings, I agree with the need for urgent action. Can the Deputy First Minister give us a timescale for the Scottish Government’s delivery of the regulatory changes to enable the use of Scottish deposit return scheme waste resources, bioresources and agriculture and forestry resources, which are critical for the development of sustainable aviation fuel and the hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—HEFA—process?

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

I thank the member for that point, because she is absolutely right that this is not just about funding—it is also about regulatory changes. She will perhaps be aware from previous answers that I have given that that is one of the areas that we are trying to accelerate with the UK Government, by working together to accelerate such changes. That is not entirely within my gift, and we need to work collectively with the UK Government on that, but from our perspective, all of that is to be done as quickly as possible.

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

This is another example of successive London-based Governments snubbing Scotland. The Acorn project at St Fergus in my constituency, which was delayed again and again, was key to Grangemouth, and now that project is in jeopardy. That is a disgrace. While billions of pounds are found for projects in England, Scotland is left behind. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, given the implications for industry and the just transition for both Grangemouth and the north-east, Acorn must be an immediate priority?

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

There is absolutely no doubt that the development of Acorn is vital to support the decarbonisation of Scotland’s industry and the future of industries at Grangemouth and across Scotland. We urgently need clarity on the Acorn project; we have been waiting for that clarity for an awfully long time. We need the UK Government to confirm the track 2 status at the earliest opportunity and provide funding for the Acorn project, to end the uncertainty and give even more momentum to the opportunities in and around Grangemouth.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Although the retraining project is very welcome and I am glad that Unite has been so engaged, the gap between the end of refining and what comes next on the site currently seems to be unknown. The Deputy First Minister referred to Unite’s ask for an audit of the assets, but in addition, we need to find out how long it may take to decommission any parts of the refinery in order to ensure that we lose as few skills as possible from the area. Does the Deputy First Minister have any assurances from the operator on the timeframe for how long it will take to prepare the site to enable other industries to use it?

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

There are a number of points. First, we want to shrink the gap by accelerating opportunities. With regard to the audit, the letter on that was sent just this morning or last night, and I will update the member as soon as I have a clearer answer.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I, too, associate myself with her comments about the workers, their families and the community at this difficult time.

Many of the workers at the refinery will be looking for more secure work. We have a shortage of skilled workers in many sectors, as other members have highlighted. I note the training programmes, but does the Deputy First Minister have an understanding of how many of those skilled workers plan to remain in Scotland, so that we do not lose their skills to other countries?

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

I mentioned the funding that the Government has invested. We are working with the wider workforce across the entire industrial cluster. The member is right to say that, at a time when we have a skills shortage, which is indicative of the pace of growth across some of our industries, the skills and knowledge that Grangemouth workers have are in high demand. We are committed to supporting the retraining effort. Clearly, we want to retain all those workers, and we are working as hard as possible to do that.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Project willow confirmed that one option for the future of Grangemouth was the production of sustainable aviation fuel, which the Westminster Government has spent £50 million on to benefit Teesside. Has the cabinet secretary had any engagement with the UK Labour Government about SAF investment for Grangemouth in Scotland? Does she share my concern that Westminster has focused solely on the development of sustainable aviation fuel south of the border and that, once again, Scotland has been treated as an afterthought?

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

We have been calling for more investment, and specifically more flexible forms of investment, from the UK Government, but we will also require more than investment. Project willow clearly states that we need UK ministers to think about the regulatory landscape and, in particular, the recommendations on the HEFA pathway, which recommends a delay to the implementation of the HEFA cap and an exemption for domestic feedstocks, alongside consideration of oil-based cover crops as an eligible feedstock under the SAF mandate. I have gone into that level of detail because we need clarity on both. We want decisive action to be taken so that there is a sufficient incentive for sustainable aviation fuel production in Scotland as well as what is progressing at pace in Teesside.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We need to avoid future closures in the energy sector after refining at Grangemouth comes to an end. Gary Smith from the GMB union has described Labour’s decision not to grant new licences for oil and gas extraction in the North Sea as “absolute madness”. The Scottish Government is very coy about where it stands. Can the Deputy First Minister clearly say whether the Scottish Government supports the granting of new licences for projects such as Rosebank—yes or no?

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

I think that the Scottish Government has been crystal clear that we need energy security to be prioritised and that we need the right energy mix to ensure that we have that security. More than anything else, people in Scotland want cheaper energy bills. The member started his question by talking about industrial failings. He will know that the high cost of energy is nearly always cited as a reason for that. If we want a sustainable industrial base across Scotland, we need to reduce the cost of energy so that it is competitive with energy charges across Europe and further afield.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

We cannot sit back and watch another economic crisis unfold in Scotland because of Westminster inaction. Can the Deputy First Minister speak further about what steps the Scottish Government is taking to help to preserve the skills of Grangemouth’s workforce as we continue our just transition?

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

We have worked with Forth Valley College to assess the training needs of those who have lost their jobs and to deliver tailored reskilling to support their future employment. We value those highly skilled workers and the contribution that they can bring to realising the potential of project willow and the wider opportunities across the cluster. The skills intervention is being delivered in consultation with Skills Development Scotland, Unite the union and the UK Government to ensure that we support the retention of those skills.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests.

Given that Petroineos has stated that it will not take forward any of the nine proposals in project willow, what contact, if any, has Scottish Enterprise had with new, serious potential investors? If there have been 66 related inquiries, how many of those will generate jobs, in what, and—critically—when?

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

Of the 66 inquiries, which reach across the Grangemouth cluster, seven are willow technology-fit projects; 14 are non-willow technology-fit projects; three do not fit directly within willow projects, although we are still supporting any expressions of interest; one is an innovation project; and 41 are classified in other places in terms of different services, supply chain inquiries and so on. We have that granular level of detail, which allows us to triage an inquiry to understand what a business needs in order to progress—for some, it might be a site, and for others, it might be something else. Once we have identified that, we work round the clock to provide the support to accelerate any expressions of interest.

As has been said, because we know that skills and knowledge are one of the aspects that those companies are most interested in, we want to ensure that, where there is interest, we can move at pace, so that people are re-employed as quickly as possible and the gap is shrunk.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the statement. To allow front-bench teams to change positions, there will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.

Motorists

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17362, in the name of Sue Webber, on ending the war against Scotland’s motorists. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak button now.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for motorists, unlike the left-wing parties in this chamber, who continue to treat them with disdain. For too long, road users in this country have faced punitive and ill-considered measures that do little to support our economy, communities or environment in a fair and effective way.

Motorists are not the enemy. They are parents doing school runs, workers getting to jobs, tradespeople running businesses and carers reaching the most vulnerable. They are ordinary people going about their everyday lives.

Motorists are essential to Scotland’s economy and crucial for our connectivity, but they are being punished by the Scottish National Party Government through punitive low-emission zones, controlled parking zones, botched disincentives to car use, endless road works and a constant battle against pothole-ridden roads. Further, there are now the SNP’s ludicrous plans for a 50mph national speed limit.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Will Sue Webber take an intervention?

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

If Mr Cole-Hamilton does not mind, I will come to him in a second, once I have got a bit more traction.

Despite what the SNP says in its amendment, it is not an exaggeration to describe the situation as a war against motorists. Cars remain the most popular form of transport in Scotland, but hard-working Scots feel that they are increasingly treated as an afterthought. That is what people tell me—this is how they feel—about relentless policies that make their lives harder and more expensive without a feasible alternative being available.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Liberal Democrats believe that we should incentivise people to get out of cars and into public transport, but we agree that we need to improve Scotland’s road network, not least to Inverness and the far north, including the A9, the A96 and the A82. I was surprised to see no mention of those main infrastructure projects in the Conservative motion. Is that an omission?

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

It is not an omission, Mr Cole-Hamilton. The point is about roads across the country generally. We did not want to specify and single out individual roads because we wanted to make the debate relevant to all of Scotland and not just those who rely on some of our rural connectivity.

The insidious drip-drip effect of anti-car policies is hampering our economy and connectivity, and punishing Scots who are already hard pressed. The SNP must stop viewing car drivers as bogeymen and end its war on Scotland’s motorists by moving away from those damaging policies. After all, the SNP scrapped its target to reduce car use by 20 per cent by 2030 after Audit Scotland said that there was no costed delivery plan or clear milestones. That is a stark admission of failure, but one that was entirely foreseeable. The Audit Scotland report confirmed what many of us suspected: that there was no costed delivery plan, no measurable milestones and no realistic understanding of how such a dramatic reduction could be achieved without crippling those who rely on cars daily.

What we need is a pragmatic shift in approach—no more fines, zones or restrictions. We should be encouraging positive change, through investment in electric vehicle infrastructure; incentives for greener choices, including public transport and park and rides; and proper road maintenance that makes driving safer and more efficient, not more difficult.

SNP ministers need to show some common sense and focus on incentives rather than penalties to encourage motorists to be part of an affordable transition.

The implementation of low-emission zones has hindered businesses, residents and motorists in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee. Fines in Glasgow and Edinburgh are extremely punitive, starting at £60 and doubling with each repeat offence, up to a cap of £480 per day. That places a disproportionate burden on low-income drivers who cannot afford to replace older vehicles. The reality is that the low-emission zones have cost more than £13 million of taxpayers’ money to set up in Scotland but are making a minimal difference to air quality. It is important that ministers review their effectiveness before any new zones are proposed or the current ones are expanded, and we must reconsider the punitive fines.

Unbelievably, the SNP has spent three years and £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on its plan to cut national speed limits on single-carriageway roads from 60mph to 50mph, yet there is no clear evidence that a blanket reduction would deliver significant safety benefits. Such a reduction would impact commuters and significantly impact the agriculture, haulage and logistics sectors across Scotland, placing further strain on productivity.

Scotland’s road network is in a state of steady decline, and motorists are paying the price. Almost 500,000 potholes have been reported to Scottish local authorities since 2021, and Edinburgh has been named as Scotland’s pothole capital, with more potholes that Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow put together.

Resurfacing rather than refilling is the best solution to tackle Scotland’s pothole problem. That is obvious when we consider that almost half a billion pounds has been spent on fixing potholes since 2022, yet our roads are still in a terrible condition. That must be backed by a more co-ordinated effort among the Scottish Government, the Office of the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, local authorities and utility companies.

Too often, road works sites sit idle, causing needless congestion and frustration. When one utility company has finished, it is often only a few weeks, sometimes days, before the next company comes in and digs up exactly the same stretch of road. No wonder it is frustrating for residents and drivers. Ministers must seek ways to discourage inactivity on road works sites and to incentivise finishing road works ahead of time.

Finally, we are calling for greater action to future proof Scotland’s electric vehicle charging network. “Just Transition: A Draft Just Transition Plan for Transport in Scotland” acknowledges that increasing EV car ownership alone is not enough. The charging infrastructure must be put in place if more people are to start using EVs. Motorists cannot be expected to shift to EVs without confidence that charging is accessible, affordable and convenient. I am an EV user, but charging issues were the biggest barrier when making the choice to get an EV. That is the case for many people, especially those who do not have home charging and who rely on the public charging network. Our charging network has different kilowatt chargers, all with differing fees and differing penalties for overstaying. Those factors are contingent on the decisions that are taken by local authorities.

We have lodged a motion that calls on the SNP to finally end the war on motorists. Its anti-car policies are damaging our economy and punishing hard-pressed Scots.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to take greater action to support Scotland’s motorists and to cease implementing punitive measures against road users, which have been described as a war on Scotland’s motorists; recognises the importance of motorists to the Scottish economy and connectivity; acknowledges that the Scottish Government has abandoned its plans to reduce car use by 20% by 2030 and welcomes the recent Audit Scotland report that states that the Scottish Ministers had “no costed delivery plan or measurable milestones” to achieve this target; calls on the Scottish Ministers to focus on incentives, rather than penalties, to encourage motorists to change their behaviour as part of an affordable transition; notes that the implementation of low emission zones has hindered businesses and motorists in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee, and calls on ministers to review the effectiveness of low emission zones before any new zones are proposed, or the current ones are expanded, and to reconsider the punitive fines; recognises that road users in Aberdeen have been hindered by the introduction of bus gates, and that motorists across Scotland have been restricted by the expansion of parking charges; urges the Scottish Ministers not to introduce 50 mph speed limits on national speed limit single carriageway roads; recognises that resurfacing, rather than refilling, is the best solution to tackle Scotland’s pothole problem; urges ministers to work more effectively with the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, local authority road works coordinators and utility companies to encourage less inactivity on road work sites and to incentivise finishing works ahead of time; calls for greater action to futureproof Scotland’s EV charger network, and further calls on the Scottish Government to recognise the vital role that motorists play in Scotland.

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

I thank colleagues for the opportunity to set out to Parliament the importance and the impact of our policies and investments relating to road users, infrastructure and wider sustainable transport.

The language of a “war on Scotland’s motorists” is used out of context to maximise political traction. Failing to consider the sensitivities of such language is reckless, given the wider global considerations. I genuinely urge members to consider that during our deliberations today.

The First Minister has spoken about the dangers of the pushback against the climate crisis and the need for unity to make a renewed case for climate action. Talking about a “war” on motorists unfortunately falls into that trap.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I will take it in a second. I hope that we can reset the level of our discussion in order to find a solution that we can all agree to work on.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Can the minister refer to anything that I said in my remarks today that did not acknowledge that motorists want to be part of an affordable transition?

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

I am talking about the language that was used in the motion bringing the debate to the Parliament in the first place.

I recognise the fundamental importance of our roads and their users to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of Scotland. That includes drivers—who I hope will drive more electric vehicles—and public transport users. The Conservatives’ deregulation of bus services in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in decades of decline, meaning that there is no viable public transport provision in many communities, especially in rural areas. Poll after poll demonstrates that people want access to high-quality and affordable transport. They want to reduce their travel costs, they want to take climate action and they want sustainable alternatives to car use. I believe that that is the case among members across the chamber.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

There was a discussion at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee meeting this week on what more the Scottish Government could do to ensure that we have reliable and affordable bus services. Will the minister talk about what the Government will actually do?

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

I will try to come to that as I make my way through my speech.

We all accept that we want to have alternatives to car use; as I said, I think that that is what all of us across the chamber want. We need to reduce carbon emissions from transport—especially from car use. The Scottish Government remains committed to reducing Scotland’s reliance on cars and encouraging a shift towards public transport and active travel, alongside a switch to electric vehicles.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

Let me finish the point that I am making. Scotland reached its target of 6,000 public EV charge points two years early through a combination of Scottish Government funding, local authority delivery and private sector investment. Approximately 24,000 additional public charge points will be delivered by 2030 through continued Scottish Government funding and increasing private sector investment.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister regret the failure of all the ministers who came before him to set out a costed delivery plan and milestones to reduce car use by 20 per cent by 2030, and will he set that out?

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

It is not a case of regretting what other ministers have done. I am standing here today as the minister who is contributing to the debate that has been brought before us.

I recognise that supporting electric car use contributes to Scotland’s connectivity, which benefits the economy, education, social mobility and leisure right across Scotland. We support meeting environmental challenges with regard to emissions. There is also a role for the United Kingdom Government, which could reduce the VAT rates that are paid on public charging points to 5 per cent to help to support an equitable and just transition for those who cannot charge electric vehicles at home.

Bus connectivity is being further enhanced by free bus travel for more than 2 million people in Scotland, which provides an alternative for those who can make the switch to public transport. Although I have noted the historical decline in buses, they still account for the vast majority of public transport journeys, with around 334 million journeys made annually. Responsibilities for local road provision and some local bus services lie with local transport authorities, which will be able to have more control through transport legislation that puts more power into their hands.

The low-emission zones that Sue Webber mentioned are key to improving air quality, protecting public health and encouraging more sustainable transport options, and they have been implemented in more than 320 cities across Europe. In Glasgow, where a low-emission zone has been in place since 2023, air quality benefits are already being accrued, as the average nitrogen dioxide levels in the zone are down by approximately 20 per cent compared with 2022.

The Scottish Government welcomes the independent role of the Scottish road works commissioner. However, we have concerns that the punctuality of bus services is being hampered by road works. I have met the road commissioner to discuss the concerns that have been raised by bus operators. I have also met the bus operators and I am meeting local authorities. I intend to continue that collective conversation so that we can find solutions. I will continue to engage collaboratively with the Scottish road works commissioner and the road works industry to find reasonable solutions to help in that area, which include incorporating bus data into the Scottish road works register and providing more consideration of bus services—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Minister, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close and to move your amendment, please.

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

—and the code of practice for co-ordination of road works.

Presiding Officer, I will finish my remarks there.

I move amendment S6M-17362.4, to leave out from first “calls” to end and insert:

“believes that language used out of context to maximise political traction and which fails to consider the sensitivities of such language is reckless, given wider global considerations; further believes that demonising car users is unhelpful to rural communities in particular, which, as a result of a deregulated bus market, often have no alternative to using a car; acknowledges, however, that Scotland needs to reduce carbon emissions from transport, especially from car use; welcomes that Scotland has reached its target of 6,000 public EV charge points two years early through a combination of Scottish Government funding, delivery by local authorities and private sector investment, with approximately 24,000 to be delivered by 2030 through continued Scottish Government funding and increasing private sector investment; recognises that supporting EV car use contributes to Scotland’s connectivity, and further recognises the value that connectivity has in helping to support the economy, education, social mobility and leisure across Scotland; notes that connectivity is being enhanced by free bus travel for over two million people in Scotland, which provides alternatives to car usage for those that can make the switch; respects the responsibilities of local authorities for local road provision and maintenance, and some local bus services, and that they will be able to have more control through transport legislation, which puts more power into the hands of local transport authorities; is concerned at the ongoing impact of UK Conservative administrations’ deregulation of bus services in the 1980s and 1990s; recognises the need for safe, clean and, importantly, reliable punctual bus services, which can be improved through bus infrastructure, and that improvements can be made in public health by creating low emission zones, as has been done in over 40 areas across Europe, but does have concerns that the punctuality of bus services can be hampered by road works; welcomes the Scottish Government’s approach through engaging collaboratively with the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, who oversees road works, with roads authorities, which have responsibility for coordination of works, and with the road works industry, which is responsible for duration and quality of works, to find reasonable solutions to help in this area; agrees that further investigation is needed of the role that those undertaking the works play in the quality of road surfaces after works have been completed; further agrees to await the results of the National Speed Management Review consultation, noting that an estimated 10mph reduction in the national speed limit on single carriageway roads can reduce deaths by 23% and serious casualties by 18%, and that there is a need to make Scotland’s roads safer to cut the number of people being injured and killed on the roads, and welcomes the roll-out of 20mph limits across all local authorities on roads determined by them.”

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We are having a very short debate that is attempting to cover many aspects of transport policy. We have already heard from the Conservative spokesperson and the Government minister, who have given an overview of some of the key dividing lines that the Tory motion is trying to create.

Parts of the Conservative motion are worth considering: the problematic implementation of the LEZ in Glasgow, the state of Scotland’s roads and the cost to motorists of potholes. However, it is a stretch to describe the environment as a “war” on motorists and to seek to create division on an issue on which we, as a Parliament, are agreed: the need to reduce emissions to improve air quality and meet our climate change targets.

The motion refers to road users solely as motorists, but bus passengers, cyclists and pedestrians all use roads. Its car-centric focus does not recognise the need to balance the needs of all road users and reduce the reliance on the personal car.

The Government’s dropping of the target to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent car is a disappointment. It was an empty promise, which was not backed up by the leadership or the action that would be required to achieve it, as Audit Scotland has made clear. It is not enough just to set targets without any way to reach them, a costed delivery plan, measurable milestones or the governance in place to track progress. To tackle the climate crisis and transform our transport system, we need the headline to be backed up with work that will make it a reality.

Transport remains our single largest source of emissions, but rather than a reduction in car use, we have seen record levels of vehicle ownership and an increase in kilometres driven. The key to reducing car use is ensuring that people have transport choices, and that means an awareness of the reality of the choices and the limits that people face.

According to the Scottish household survey, a quarter of our households do not have access to a car, and that figure rises significantly in our cities and among lower-income households. For those people, public transport is not an option; it is a vital service that allows them to live their lives. However, under the Scottish Government, bus routes have been axed, rail fares have been increased and users of ferry services have endured chaos.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Is the member aware that many bus companies are facing extreme financial pressures as a result of the Labour UK Government’s imposition of increased employer national insurance contributions? That is resulting in increased fares, a reduction in services and disinvestment in the bus fleet. What does she say to the Labour Government about the impact of that, which will undoubtedly affect bus services in Scotland?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member will probably agree that the decline in bus services in Scotland happened long before Labour came into government. For years under the SNP, we have seen a reduction in the bus routes that are available to communities and more people do not have access to a bus. I do not accept the argument that has been put forward.

We recognise that people are often too reliant on cars to get to where they need to be. Public transport links are lacking and, without private car transport, some people would be cut off. Part of that is a failure to invest in regional solutions, and some bus networks have been dismantled as local authority funding has been hollowed out. We need to look at how to ensure more local involvement in delivering bus services for those areas.

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

Will the member give way?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am quite pressed for time, but I will do so if the minister can be very brief.

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

On the member’s point about certain areas not having bus services, is that not more to do with the fact that it is a deregulated market? In addition, irrespective of how much public money we put in, we have no control at all over timetables or fares.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree with what the Government’s amendment says about deregulation and the impact that that has had. However, the SNP Government has done little to reverse that. Legislation was introduced, but we have seen no activity because of a lack of funding in local authority areas to progress that agenda, which is something that I think that we agree on.

We need to look at how to ensure more local involvement in delivering bus services for those areas so that alternatives to the car are being provided. However, when the car is the only option, we need to work to reduce reliance on it. Concessionary travel schemes encourage the use of public transport, particularly buses, for certain groups. However, to persuade more people out of cars, public transport has to be reliable, affordable and accessible. That is why Scottish Labour has pledged to remove peak fares for good as the first step in delivering a fairer pricing structure, which would mean that more people could afford to use public transport and that it would be competitively priced compared to driving, particularly when a family is travelling.

The reality is that price increases are pushing people into cars. We need to foster an environment where the car is not the default. We need to not just make it feasible to choose an alternative method; we need to make that a positive choice. That means not adding significant costs, in terms of money or time.

Part of that is about addressing the crumbling road network that is a result of the long-term underfunding of local authorities. The issue of potholes has already been covered. As a member of the cross-party group on music, I point out that the implementation of the LEZ scheme in Glasgow has been difficult for the night-time economy there.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Baker will need to conclude and move her amendment.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will just say something about electric cars. We need to do more to increase the attraction of electric cars.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. I ask Ms Baker to move her amendment.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We need to do more to make sure that we have a transport strategy that works for all our communities.

I move amendment S6M-17362.1, to leave out from first “calls” to end and insert:

“highlights the Scottish Government’s dropping of the target of a 20% reduction in car use by 2030 and the recent Audit Scotland report, which states that the Scottish Ministers had 'no costed delivery plan or measurable milestones' to achieve this target; recognises that, while car ownership has increased, many households, including a greater proportion of those on lower incomes, do not have access to a car; further recognises that a failure to reduce transport emissions will have a detrimental effect on the climate and on people’s health; acknowledges that a reduction in car use is only realistic and inclusive if there is a viable alternative option, and calls on the Scottish Government to scrap peak rail fares as a first step to making public transport more affordable and accessible to all.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We are a bit pressed for time this afternoon. I call Mark Ruskell to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear that there is no war on the motorist, and it is a bit silly to suggest that there is. However, I absolutely think that, every single day, motorists face congestion misery on our roads, so we should be tackling congestion. We can do that only when the costs of public transport fall relative to those of the private car and when better reliability, punctuality and frequency make bus and rail the natural choice for commuters, where they have that choice available.

Facts are really important in this debate. I ask members to reflect on the fact that, since the Parliament was established, the number of cars on the roads has increased by 38 per cent and mileage has gone up by 16 per cent, while the cost of motoring has decreased by 19 per cent, rail fares have increased by 31 per cent and bus and coach fares have risen by an eye-watering 102 per cent in real terms. It is clear that successive Governments have prioritised car dependency, and that people who choose or rely on public transport are continually being disadvantaged by Government policy.

Transport is the biggest climate polluter, and private cars pollute the most. Actions are needed to reduce private car usage and demand—otherwise, other parts of our economy will have to pick up more of the burden in getting to net zero. A traffic reduction target, backed by deliverable actions, is needed now more than ever. Dropping the 20 per cent target is a real backwards step that sends out the wrong message, removes the focus and undermines the partnership action that is needed on the ground to prioritise public transport and active travel.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If there is time in hand, I would welcome that.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is very limited time.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Okay—very briefly.

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

Does the member not accept that the target was dropped because it was absolutely unachievable? Does he accept that the new guidance is clear that only a 7 per cent reduction is needed, and that we are working to bring together the kinds of initiatives that will allow us to do what all members in the chamber want to achieve?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I ask the minister to reflect on what Duncan Cameron from FirstGroup told Parliament just yesterday. He said that dropping the 20 per cent target represents a huge missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for partnership action and to have a clear focus.

Targets without measurable actions are doomed to fail. Despite the fact that a draft route map to reduce congestion was published jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities three years ago, the plan is yet to be agreed. When the plan comes back to COSLA at the end of this week, it will be gutted and all the meaningful action will be taken out of it. All the actions that local authorities such as the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council want to put in place to start to tackle congestion and deliver investment will be left out of the plan.

We need to reflect on the fact that progress on road charging has been absolutely non-existent in Scotland. We are 22 years on from the introduction of the congestion charge in London, which is now just accepted as part of everyday life and which raises significant revenue for public transport investment. It is time to support local authorities that want to introduce road user charging, such as those in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I do not have any time—sorry.

We need to deliver the right models for those local authorities to cut congestion and raise money. Encouraging people to choose to leave the car at home is not only good for the climate; it is about cleaner air and safer streets, a healthier society and a stronger economy. There is lots of evidence from around the world—including from Europe and other cities across the UK—on where reducing road congestion has been beneficial for the economy. However, we need champions to lead the debate with facts. We need a cross-party effort, not just here at Holyrood but at Westminster and in our town halls.

The issue is also about fairness. Car-dependent transport systems drive economic and socioeconomic inequalities. One in five households in Scotland does not have access to a car. Car use is lower among women, disabled people and older people, and those groups are likely to rely more on public transport. Simply pointing to a growing number of EV charging points really patronises the people who cannot drive.

We can do better. The Government needs to empower the councils that are ready and willing to take action now to create vibrant and inclusive places where the car is the guest and communities can grow and thrive.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call on Alex Cole-Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Liberal Democrats in this debate. Liberal Democrats are certainly committed to tackling the climate crisis while building healthier and more connected communities. Those are not mutually exclusive—two things can be true at the same time—and some of our communities, as I alluded to in my intervention on Sue Webber, are not connected in the way that we would like them to be, which is a Government failure.

There is no question but that reducing the number of cars on the road cuts carbon emissions, improves air quality and reduces congestion, while making our towns and rural communities safer and more pleasant places to live. At the same time, it is important that public transport and active travel are realistic, accessible alternatives. Too often in Scotland, travelling by car is cheaper and easier than public transport, which is completely the wrong way round. We will not make any progress while that remains the case.

We need local bus and rail networks to be fit for purpose and affordable, but the Government has presided over fewer and fewer public transport journeys each consecutive year, particularly in left-behind rural and semi-rural areas where people often have no option other than a car. It is right that we encourage active travel by creating safe, direct walking and cycling routes, which mean that more people feel able to leave their cars at home, whether that is for the school run, daily commute or trip to the shops. It is a win-win for cutting pollution, promoting tourism and improving people’s health.

However, I understand the frustration that communities feel, especially when they are affected by measures without having any say on them. We need to win hearts and minds.

I am a massive fan of the idea of low-traffic neighbourhoods. I am really interested in what has happened in the London Borough of Waltham Forest, but I am also interested in the five layers of consultation that were behind that. The City of Edinburgh Council tried to impose a low-traffic neighbourhood on my community of East Craigs during the pandemic without consulting people in the 7,000 homes that would have been affected, which really set back hearts and minds.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am afraid that I need to make progress. Forgive me—I have only four minutes.

By doing that, the council set back the interest that community might have had in improving what was already quite a low-traffic neighbourhood.

Lib Dems have also made it crystal clear that the dualling of the A9 is an absolute priority. At our spring conference in Inverness, my party backed the campaign to dual the A9 and made it a manifesto promise for next year’s election.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am really sorry, but I must make progress.

Dualling the A9 is about saving lives—it is not a charter for motorists but a charter for road safety. Every year, the A9, A96 and A82 have a body count that would result in our diggers being out widening the roads if we saw it on the M8 between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The A9, in particular, remains one of the UK’s most dangerous roads. After John F Kennedy pledged to get to the moon, it took NASA only nine years; it has taken the SNP nearly 20 years to make glacial progress towards dualling the A9, which the SNP promised to do when it came to power in 2007.

The issue is so important, not only for the Highland economy but for its users’ safety. Since 1979, 335 people have been killed on the A9’s Perth to Inverness stretch. In 2022 alone, 13 people died. We cannot just let that continue to happen, which is why I, Sir Ed Davey, Angus MacDonald, Andrew Baxter, who is our Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch candidate, and David Green, who is our Caithness, Sutherland and Ross candidate—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Cole-Hamilton, please resume your seat for a second. I appreciate that an election is coming up, albeit not until next year, but we are not in a hustings. We are in a Parliament, and I hope that members will act accordingly. Please conclude.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

It is just a measure of the passion that we all feel and why we signed the pledge in the Inverness Courier to dual the A9. We know how vital that is, not only for our Highland economy but for the safety of the road users who are trying to get to it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. Back benchers will have speeches of up to four minutes.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It has been said that the epitome of the SNP’s war on Scottish motorists is the low-emission zone, and the exemplar of the folly of those schemes is the Aberdeen LEZ. In force since June 2024, it swiftly claimed the record for resulting in the most fines issued in a month, with more than 6,000 slapped on north-east motorists. It was a significant contributor to statistics showing that the Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee LEZs collectively resulted in the issuing of 58,000 fines for drivers, which were worth more than £6.3 million, in the first six months of operation of the schemes.

Many people from across Scotland have contacted me to raise concerns about the regressive social impacts of LEZs, suggesting that they disproportionately impact those in lower-income households, who are more likely to have older cars, to have jobs that require their physical presence and to travel to and from work at times or places where public transport is less frequent or indeed absent.

The minister proudly said that there are LEZs throughout Europe, but he failed to mention Madrid’s LEZ, which a court annulled last year because its economic consequences disproportionately impacted low-income residents. However, the response to a freedom of information request to Aberdeen City Council, whose postcodes were generating record numbers of fines, showed that no such analysis was being done.

Furthermore, many constituents and businesses have raised with me concerns about the impact on Union Street and Aberdeen city centre, with reports of reduced footfall as a result of people choosing alternative shopping options or just not going into town. My authority for that is reports that I have got my hands on from traders in towns surrounding Aberdeen, which suggest that their footfall and businesses rocketed after the introduction of the LEZ and the bus gates. One councillor in the shire said:

“Of course it’s massively helping our ... hospitality and retail outlets which are seeing a marked lift in business”.

However, when I asked Aberdeen City Council what research it was doing on the impact of LEZs on footfall, spend and consumer choices, it said—you guessed it—that it is not collating that data.

Members might recall that the stated aim of the SNP’s LEZs was to reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. When I asked the council when it would be measuring the air quality in the LEZ so that, presumably, it could show the intended reduction in emissions and justify its draconian measures and the appalling economic and social impacts, I was told that there is no published information, nor is there any data comparing emission reductions—if any—in the LEZ with increases in emissions from diverted traffic through additional miles travelled by vehicles. The council has introduced an LEZ, but it has no idea whether it has achieved any emission reductions.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Liam Kerr made an important point about the low-emission zone in Madrid. Another good example from Madrid is how efficiently it has built its metro system—I think that it is the most cost-efficient system per mile anywhere in the world. Could we do more in Scotland to benchmark excellent infrastructure projects such as the Madrid metro and build more such infrastructure here?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We could definitely do more in Scotland. Unfortunately, we will never do more while we have an SNP Government in place.

People will begin to suspect that, far from being about emission reductions, LEZs are about the SNP introducing schemes to generate money for councils, which it so woefully underfunds, from exorbitant fines on drivers. The reality is that Aberdeen’s LEZ is hammering businesses and our great city centre, is disproportionately hitting those of lesser means and is unlikely to be having any significant impact on emissions. Alongside the Aberdeen bus gates, it is the embodiment of virtue-signalling, ideologically led and unevidenced policy making on the hoof. The sooner both schemes are consigned to history, the better for us all.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

In a move that would make the US President proud, the Tory party has lodged a Trumpian word salad of a motion calling for an end to the Scottish Government’s so-called war on motorists, using the low-emission zone in Aberdeen as an example of bad policy. For some, it might come as a bit of a surprise to find out which party was in control of Aberdeen City Council when the low-emission zone was proposed. It was, of course, the Tories. Now, the same Tories demand that the Scottish Government prevents councillors, including Tories, from embarking on such schemes in the future.

Just so that we have a debate that is based on facts and not fiction, let us consider the history of the Aberdeen low-emission zone. On 6 February 2020, Aberdeen City Council’s city growth and resources committee unanimously agreed to the move, along with holding public and stakeholder engagement, on options for a city centre low-emission zone. We already know that the Tories were the party in charge, along with their Labour allies at the time, but who was the committee convener? I will give members a clue: he is sitting on the Tory benches, or he was earlier. It was Mr Douglas Lumsden MSP. The Aberdeen LEZ was proposed by a Tory-led committee in a Tory-led council.

However, it does not stop there. In response to the Tory plan for a low-emission zone in Aberdeen, the co-leader of Aberdeen City Council said:

“the unanimous decision today is to be welcomed as we are committed to reducing emissions across Aberdeen and particularly in the city centre.”

Who was the council leader who was so supportive of the low-emission zone? Of course, it was Mr Douglas Lumsden, who showered praise on his own low-emission zone.

Yet again, it does not stop there. Only a month later, armed with his plan for a low-emission zone, Douglas Lumsden presented the annual Aberdeen City Council budget and proudly stated:

“We approved a low-emission zone for the city”.

He added:

“This is our”—

the Tories’—

“commitment and contribution to delivering an ambitious low emission zone within the heart of our city.”

It is more than a little rich for the Tories to demand today that the Scottish Government protects motorists from low-emission zones when they were proudly calling the Aberdeen one theirs in 2020.

Let us be crystal clear that Mr Lumsden and the Tories not only proposed the low-emission zone in Aberdeen but also started implementing the work. A year and a half later, in October 2021, when Mr Lumsden was on the council as well as here in Parliament, he proudly said that it was

“good to see work continuing on the project.”

We in Aberdeen are not unforgiving. In his 2020 budget speech announcing his funding of the low-emission zone, Mr Lumsden proudly stood up and told the Lord Provost of Aberdeen that he would “make no apology” for his low-emission zone. He could always take the opportunity to apologise to the Parliament today if he now thinks that the LEZ was such a bad idea.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You need to conclude, Mr Stewart.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Is that not just another example of Tory hypocrisy, opportunism and nonsense?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To bring some common sense back to the chamber, I echo what Sue Webber said in her opening remarks. The SNP has indeed declared war on Scotland’s motorists. Whether it be low-emission zones, roads crumbling away with potholes being unfilled or proposed reductions in speed limits, the SNP is making life more difficult for people who choose to own a car.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Will the member give way?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Oh, this will be good.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

It is. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, vehicle excise duty for new cars has risen from £1,200 to £2,605, and car insurance premium tax went up from 5 per cent in 2010 to 12 per cent in 2017. Which party is it that has a war on motorists, again?

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is the SNP that has a war on motorists, and I will explain why in a second.

I represent a commuter region. Many people who live across the central belt of Scotland travel to and from our major cities for work, school and university. Good transport links, affordable prices and reliable public services are essential for those towns and villages. However, whether it be in relation to train, bus or car, the SNP has punished Scotland’s commuters.

Two of the busiest motorways run through central Scotland—the M74 and the M8—and they are designed to be the easiest routes to travel on to reach Glasgow or Edinburgh if people live in North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire or Falkirk. However, constituents regularly write to me to tell me how congested those roads are, especially during the rush hour. The journey from the Newhouse roundabout to Edinburgh city centre can take up to two hours in the morning despite the distance being only 31 miles. The SNP needs to announce a plan to alleviate the pressures on our busiest roads. It cannot simply remove the choice of driving from people who want to drive just because it cannot reach its own emission targets.

However, it is not just commuters who have felt the force of the SNP’s war on Scotland’s motorists. Donald MacLeod, owner of Glasgow nightclubs the Garage and the Cathouse Rock Club, believes that Glasgow’s low-emission zone restrictions have had a lasting impact on the night-time economy. Glasgow was once regarded as a retail powerhouse, being a desired location that many of my constituents would regularly visit for social and retail use. However, many parts of the city are now derelict, with boards on shop windows and “closing down” signs outnumbering the businesses that are struggling to stay open.

Since the introduction of the city’s LEZ, the dramatic drop in footfall across the country has turned Glasgow into, in Donald MacLeod’s words, a “low economy zone”. That is the real, lasting impact of the SNP’s anti-motorist agenda. It is bad for business and bad for economic growth.

Donald MacLeod and other business owners have called on Glasgow City Council to lift the low-emission zone restrictions in the city from 6 pm to 6 am to help to revive Glasgow’s struggling night-time economy. That is just one of many suggestions that have been brought forward by business owners who are desperately trying to find solutions to problems that have been created by Governments.

I return to the point that I made at the start of my speech. If there was good, reliable and affordable public transport, it would not only help to reduce emissions naturally but also provide Scotland’s commuters with a choice, and people might make the switch. They do not have that choice at present, and that is why the SNP needs to get a grip on public transport and provide a network that people have confidence in.