Scottish Parliament, 19 June 2025

292 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the proposed establishment of Great British Railways and any potential implications for devolved responsibilities over rail services and infrastructure in Scotland. (S6O-04816)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I, and the Government, are clear that full devolution of rail is in Scotland’s best interests, not least to deliver the services that our communities and economy need and deserve. I am proud that ScotRail in public ownership has been a success and that ScotRail’s train performance and passenger satisfaction are consistently higher than the Great Britain average.

I welcome the intent of the UK Government’s rail reform bill—I have discussed it twice with the Secretary of State for Transport—and the commitment to protect current devolution of powers and learn from the example of Scotland’s integrated approach to track and train. I want to continue to work constructively with the secretary of state to protect and enhance Scotland’s interests, but I am concerned at the lack of clarity and detail in the proposals to date.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply, but her final point about the lack of clarity concerns me, too, given that the idea has been around for a long time. Can she assure us that the Scottish Government will resist any attempts to take decisions on, for example, ticket prices or rail investment back to London?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I have repeatedly sought assurance from the Secretary of State for Transport that any decisions made by the UK Government will not dilute Scottish ministers’ existing powers. Scottish ministers will do all within our power to protect the interests of Scottish railways in order to allow us to continue to build on the success of bringing ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper into public ownership for the benefit of the people of Scotland. However, unless and until we see text in the bill that secures accountability for integrated rail services to this Parliament and this Government, that risk still exists.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what new measures it has introduced in relation to supporting improved community engagement and respecting local democratic decision making, when section 37 applications for energy infrastructure are considered. (S6O-04817)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

On 7 May, the Scottish Government published new guidance on how to deliver consistent and meaningful pre-application consultation for transmission projects requiring an environmental impact assessment. That guidance creates more transparency around the process, ensuring that communities understand when and how they can best input at the various stages of development.

The Scottish Government has also been working with the United Kingdom Government on its Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which includes provisions to make pre-application consultation statutory for the first time. That will guarantee communities the opportunity to have their say earlier in the process.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Last week, the energy consents unit approved the Skye reinforcement project, overruling the decision of Highland Council and proving without doubt that it is not elected local representatives but unelected officials in Edinburgh who have the final say in large energy infrastructure projects.

Last Saturday, community councillors from across the Highlands met in Beauly for a convention chaired by local councillor Helen Crawford. In their agreed unified statement, they confirmed their opposition to what they rightly called the “unjust and unnecessary industrialisation” of the Highlands. They declared that community consultation was “inadequate”, that local democracy was “being overridden” and that local decisions were being

“disregarded by the Scottish Government.”

What is the cabinet secretary’s response to that unified statement? With further meetings planned, will she agree to meet convention members and elected local officials to hear at first hand from the people who are impacted by the intrusive energy infrastructure that her Government is forcing on their communities?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The previous Conservative UK Government showed no interest in making either community engagement or community benefits associated with developments or transmission mandatory, despite the Scottish Government asking for that to be addressed urgently. The legislation and regulations that we must, in law, abide by in Scotland when considering applications are set by the UK Government. The Scottish Conservatives know that, but they are determined to create a narrative that says that everything surrounding the issue is in the hands of the Scottish Government.

I say to Mr Halcro Johnston that I wish that we had every lever available at our disposal with regard to these matters. In an independent Scotland, we would change the regulations to ensure strict—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the cabinet secretary.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In an independent Scotland, we would change the regulations to ensure strict community engagement conditions.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work to tackle and prevent youth violence, including any outcomes from the summit held on 12 June. (S6O-04818)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Informed by the meeting held on 12 June and by what we already know is working, we are considering what more we can do to strengthen support for young people and communities. We have also announced an additional £6 million for the next phase of the cashback for communities programme, providing a total of up to £26 million over the next three years to support safe spaces, trusted adults and a range of positive diversionary and support activities for young people. Separately, we will publish a progress report on the implementation of the violence prevention framework for Scotland later this year, which will highlight action that we have taken with our partners over 2024-25.

Collette Stevenson (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that information. She will appreciate my constituency interest in the summit, given recent events that have affected East Kilbride. Much progress has been made in tackling crime in Scotland under this Government, but the behaviour of a small minority of young people seems to be changing for the worse, with constituents telling me about signs of worrying behaviour being overlooked.

Will the cabinet secretary set out how the Scottish Government is working with partners to ensure that the education system, police, social work, youth workers and other relevant stakeholders can link up to get in early and prevent any signs of violent or antisocial behaviour from escalating? Could she also say what action is being taken to make young people safer, as well as the support that is available to parents and carers who are extremely worried?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I, of course, appreciate Ms Stevenson’s constituency interest in this matter, and my thoughts remain with the loved ones of Kayden Moy. His tragic death highlights the very real risks involved in violent behaviour and the need to prevent it from happening in the first place.

I reassure the member that partnership working is central to our response to children and young people. That has been the case since 2011, when we delivered the multi-agency whole-system response to preventing offending by children and young people, which brings together social work, police, health, education and other key partners.

Also, we have this week published new guidance for schools on the consequences of and risk assessments for violent, aggressive and dangerous behaviour. That guidance emphasises the need for early intervention and prevention and the importance of schools and families working together to promote positive relationships and behaviour.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

This is the third summit on youth violence in two years. The first was to stop violence in our schools—that did not work. The second was to stop youth violence among young people—that did not work. Having attended the third summit, I do not have much confidence in a better outcome. Will the Government finally act and invest in youth services; increase stop and search powers to tackle youth knife crime, which is something that the Scottish Police Federation has asked for; drop the two-tier sentencing policies for under-25s; and make sure that actions have consequences?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I was very pleased that Opposition spokespeople attended last week’s youth summit. It is important that, as a Government, we openly engage with youth work leaders and hear directly from those who work on the front line in preventative work. It is also important that we do that on a cross-party basis and hear about the changing challenges facing our young people and how they are influencing some young people’s behaviour.

I make no apologies for engaging with those on the front line, because it is important that we continue to listen to those on the front line who work with our young people to ensure that we implement what works. What I am not hearing from Ms Dowey—which is very unfortunate, bearing in mind that she kindly attended the summit—are solutions; I hear only a harking back to the past. It is very clear that the evidence tells us that we have to work together. We must bear in mind that young people are the responsibility of us all, and we need to promote safe spaces, further develop the whole-family approach and utilise the peer mentor and role model interventions that we know work. Of course, police leaders have to respond where necessary, and they have the powers to do so.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I have, like other colleagues who have raised this issue, seen these kinds of incidents in my region. As the cabinet secretary knows, we had a recent incident of damage and vandalism at the united services club in Barrhead. The last social club in the town, it is run by older volunteers, and the incident was very distressing for them.

I heard what the minister said, but the Government has now had a number of summits. We need to know when the funding will come to support local authorities, community organisations and, crucially, the police in taking a focused and holistic view of the issue and to enable us to get the solutions that we need for communities.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I very much appreciate Mr O’Kane raising his constituency concern directly in the chamber, but I point to the fact that we have invested in the cashback scheme, which is focused on diversionary activities, and in the violence prevention framework. We are also investing in our police force. I do not remember anybody in the chamber other than me arguing for an increase in funding for Police Scotland. Funding for policing in Scotland has increased by £90 million, and the budget, which not everybody in the chamber voted for, increased by £1 billion the resources going to local authorities the length and breadth of the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues on what works, based on the evidence, to prevent as well as to respond to youth violence.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Concise questions and responses would be appreciated.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is assessing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s capacity to provide emergency response cover and ensure community safety in Edinburgh, including in relation to meeting any needs resulting from population growth in the Lothians. (S6O-04819)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The capacity of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to provide emergency cover in any particular area is an operational matter for the service. Having said that, the emergencies that the service responds to have changed significantly over the years and it is right that it carefully considers how to adapt to the changing risks in order to remain effective and efficient, with firefighters being in the right place at the right time. The SFRS carries out detailed risk assessments based on a community risk index model that takes into account a wide variety of factors, including future population growth, industry and other hazards.

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

As the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service considers all of that, the population in Edinburgh, and particularly in the north and east of Edinburgh, is clearly and obviously growing. Last year, when there was a fire at Breadalbane Street in my constituency, fire engines from Marionville fire station were some of the first on the scene, probably saving lives. A few weeks ago, when Cables Wynd house in my constituency unfortunately caught fire, fire engines from Marionville fire station were some of the first on the scene, again probably saving lives. Just last week, in a neighbouring constituency, Hawkhill court unfortunately caught fire, and in many people’s view, fire engines from Marionville fire station undoubtedly saved lives. Does all of that not make a compelling case that it is essential to keep a fire station at Marionville or nearby, despite the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete issues that need to be dealt with?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is undertaking a strategic service review, and a full public consultation will be published next week. I urge anyone with any interest in it to please engage with that. I have been kept updated on the SFRS plans for the consultation and have received assurances that supporting evidence will be published alongside the consultation. I emphasise that it is about providing an optimal service to maintain community safety and inform final decisions. Robust evidence and data will need to be at the heart of decisions concerning any possible changes following the review. I reiterate to the member that I am always happy to meet him, and I will have a drop-in session next week if he would like to attend that.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact of the recent changes to college funding arrangements on Fife College. (S6O-04820)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Colleges play an important role in our communities, which is why the budget for this year sees a 2.1 per cent uplift to the college resource allocation. It is also a fact that the Scottish Funding Council has ensured that no college will have their teaching funding reduced for this financial year against the previous year. Fife College will receive a 1.26 per cent increase in teaching funding and a 4.9 per cent increase in capital maintenance funding in the final allocations. Of course, next year, the college will be moving into new facilities at the Dunfermline learning campus, which has been supported by tens of millions of pounds in Scottish Government investment. Operational decisions, including those on course provision and staffing are, of course, a matter for individual colleges.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister is well aware that the 1.26 per cent increase in teaching funding is a real-terms cut that is below inflation and compares unfavourably with other colleges. Over the past decade, Fife College’s core budget has been cut in real terms by almost 20 per cent. The college now faces defunding of £1.3 million in annual learning and teaching investment for the coming year. There is no question but that it is one of the losers in the funding changes, which will have consequences for staffing, academic provision and accessibility. Fife College principal, Jim Metcalfe, has said:

“The scale of the challenge now created by these changes is clearly precipitous.”

Does the minister recognise that the decision risks creating for Fife College the situation that the changes seek to solve for other colleges, and that it places the college at risk?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The underlying assertion that other colleges are somehow being favoured over Fife College simply does not stand up to scrutiny given the brand-new £150 million Scottish Government-funded campus in Dunfermline that the college will take ownership of later this year.

If Claire Baker is arguing that the Scottish Funding Council should take financial resources away from other colleges to give to Fife College, perhaps she can provide a list of the institutions that she has in mind. I am sure that that would be of interest to some of her Labour colleagues who represent other parts of the country. If she is arguing that more money should be simply provided for the sector, I have to remind her that Labour made no such ask of the Government in the budget setting process. While Willie Rennie and the Lib Dems worked with the Scottish Government to secure an additional £3.5 million for colleges, Labour members sat on their hands. Therefore, they do not have a shred of credibility on the issue.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Annabelle Ewing to ask the briefest of supplementaries.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The minister will be aware that I wrote to him on 11 June expressing my concerns about the implications of the new funding model for Fife College.

In an exchange with Alex Rowley on 8 May, the minister indicated that he was

“open to exploring whether we could add into the mix a further premium that recognises the delivery of courses that are linked to local and national economic need”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; c 7.]

What is the status of that thinking?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

I have not seen the letter that Annabelle Ewing has written to me, but she has raised it today.

Consideration of an additional premium sits within a wide-ranging and on-going piece of work to look at how we get colleges in their localities to better align their offerings with the needs of the local and national economy.

I will respond to Annabelle Ewing’s letter in due course.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when the consultation results of the A96 corridor review will be published. (S6O-04821)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

During the round-table meeting that I held in the Parliament on 4 February, which the member attended, I indicated that it was my intention to provide an update on the public’s response to the consultation as soon as it was provided to me, once the responses had been collated and analysed and a report summarising the feedback had been produced. The 12-week consultation period ended on 21 February, with more than 1,400 responses received.

I thank the member for his question, which allows me to announce that I received the consultation report at the end of last week. I briefed Cabinet colleagues on its publication at the beginning of this week, and I can advise the Parliament that the consultation report will be published on Transport Scotland’s website this afternoon. I will share the link to the report with all relevant north-east and Highland constituency and regional MSPs.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Almost 5,000 days, 16 transport ministers and 14 years since the Government promised to dual the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness, we finally have a publication date for a consultation report. When the consultation results are released this afternoon, will that come with a cast-iron commitment that the A96 will finally be dualled?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As I said, at the round-table meeting that I referred to, I indicated that it was my intention to ensure that the consultation report was published as soon as possible. That is what MSPs asked me to do.

In relation to our on-going commitment to dual the A96, any decision will have to be made in the context of available, planned budgets, the impact of this week’s United Kingdom Government spending review and the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment plan refresh, which is anticipated later in the year. I did not want to delay the publication of the consultation report, given what MSPs asked me to do. I have done what I said that I would do in February.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time; my apologies to the members we were unable to reach.

Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Hon Raj Chouhan, speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. [Applause.]

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Violent and disruptive behaviour in schools is getting worse. A small minority of pupils prevent the majority from learning in peace and in safety. Some teachers feel unsafe and many feel unsupported. The Scottish National Party’s naive and weak approach fails absolutely everyone.

In response to that situation, the Scottish Government has just published new guidance on behaviour in schools. That document is exactly what we might expect from this ineffective Government: 49 pages of tedious, hand-wringing nonsense—it is complicated and confusing.

When John Swinney was education secretary, teachers said that he issued too much guidance, which made their jobs even harder, so why is he now repeating the same mistake?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is always my priority to listen to the teaching profession. I did that throughout my time as education secretary. The guidance that Mr Findlay has cited is a consequence of the work that has been undertaken by ministers in consultation and dialogue with the teaching profession and other stakeholders in the world of education to make sure that that guidance is effective and necessary to support our education system.

The guidance is founded on an important point that Mr Findlay made in his question, which is that disruption and disruptive behaviour in schools are the product of a minority of pupils. The challenge, which the guidance is focused on, is to put in place the necessary steps and measures to ensure that any disruptive behaviour is addressed, so that the overwhelming majority of young people who behave perfectly well and engage well in their schools are able to prosper in their education.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

If John Swinney really has listened to teachers, he seems to have gone on to completely ignore what they said.

What does the guidance say should happen if a pupil commits an act of violence? It tells teachers to give violent pupils a laminated paper with a set of bullet points that tell them to think about their behaviour. It also suggests that a way to tackle unsafe behaviour is to have a

“conversation to jointly problem solve with the child”.

It also says that disruptive pupils should be allowed to leave class two minutes early, which to me sounds like a reward rather than a punishment.

The new guidance ends with 94 questions that teachers are supposed to ask themselves—94 questions; as if they have the time. So, on behalf of Scotland’s teachers, I have just one question for John Swinney: is this for real?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think for a moment that Mr Findlay’s presentation of the guidance is in any way, shape or form representative of what is actually there. The guidance is trying to ensure that situations in which there is violence in our schools are addressed and that problems are de-escalated and resolved.

We have to ensure that every young person who engages with our education system is able to be well supported to fulfil their potential. For some young people that involves addressing disruptive behaviour, and that is precisely what the guidance assists the teaching profession to try to do, with the assistance of other resources that the Government has put in place in our schools to address the underlying causes of unacceptable behaviour by young people.

The guidance is designed to de-escalate situations in our schools to ensure that young people can participate in their education. If young people are unable to participate in their education, they are unlikely to go on to good outcomes in our society, which will mean that we will simply repeat the difficulties that we have seen for many years in relation to young people who do not go on to positive destinations. Of course, I note that, this week, we saw that another very high level of positive destinations has been achieved by young people in Scotland.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am very confident of my interpretation of this document and I will let the teachers and pupils of Scotland decide what is in it.

My party has long argued that a stricter approach is necessary to restore discipline in schools. We believe in exclusions for violence because they protect staff and pupils and because they work. The new SNP guidance says that exclusions should be considered only “as a last resort” and that, when they are considered, teachers still need to follow the guidance that was introduced by none other than John Swinney in 2017. That guidance has a 66-item checklist for teachers to consider while they are going through an exclusion process.

Where does the SNP actually stand on this? Has it U-turned? Does it now support exclusions to tackle bad behaviour or does the SNP not know where it stands?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The guidance is crystal clear that exclusions are part of the approach that can be taken, but I am making it clear today that exclusions can have negative consequences for young people.

Russell Findlay says that exclusions work. However, if a young person is excluded from school, they are not in the safe environment of school and are therefore likely to be out on the streets and, potentially, able to become involved in some of the criminal activity that Mr Findlay has put to me—in the past fortnight at First Minister’s question time—as being a risk to which young people are exposed. I simply point out to Parliament the inherent contradiction in what has been put to me. Two weeks ago, Mr Findlay said that we must make sure that young people are not exposed to criminal activity and, today, he is demanding that we exclude more young people from schools and put them at risk of being exposed to that criminal activity.

The most recent figure that I have available is for 2022-23, when 11,676 exclusions were recorded in Scottish education. I accept that that figure is lower than it was in 2018-19, but it is still a very high level of exclusion of young people from our schools. We have to consider the implications of not getting our approach to inclusion correct in our schools, because there can be long-term damage to young people and our society as a consequence.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

That was absolutely desperate. As the First Minister knows fine well, there are different types of exclusion, rather than just putting children on to the streets, as he suggests. He virtually stopped exclusions, which is causing discipline to collapse. He turned teachers into social workers. He sent a dangerous message to disruptive pupils that they can get away with it. He fundamentally changed the classroom culture, and that is now harming children and their education.

People in the real world know how to sort out the problem. We need a tougher approach, not laminated cards and inclusive chats. If pupils are violent or serially disruptive, we should exclude them. Will John Swinney end the barrage of guidance and—please—empower teachers to take a stricter approach?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay has said something to Parliament that is palpably false.

Members:

Oh!

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am going to explain it to Parliament. Mr Findlay said that I had stopped exclusions in Scottish education, but I have just told Parliament that there were 11,676 exclusions in 2022-23, so that statement from Mr Findlay is false. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another. [ Interruption .]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Well, it is false. Let us just agree that it is false.

Members:

Oh!

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Secondly, last week, after First Minister’s question time, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I convened a discussion at which Sharon Dowey, the Conservative spokesperson on justice issues, was present. Among the range of stakeholders in that discussion was a variety of people who are involved in violence reduction, such as Medics Against Violence and all those organisations that are doing really good work to avoid violence in our society and to de-escalate exactly the situations that I am talking about. In that conversation, not one of those people said to me that I should increase the level of exclusion from schools.

What we are getting from Russell Findlay today is a demonisation of young people and a failure to address the mechanisms and interventions that are required to solve a difficult issue in our society. It is simplistic nonsense and Parliament should ignore it.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Last week, John Swinney claimed that he became aware of the issues that Alexander Dennis is facing a few weeks ago and that he was doing what he could to help the company, but that is not true. Almost a year ago, John Swinney received a letter, directly from the company, that set out how his decision to buy buses from China instead of Scotland was putting the company and jobs at risk. He did nothing for the skilled workforce.

Last week, as usual, John Swinney tried to find someone else to blame for his own failure by talking about United Kingdom procurement laws. Those laws did not stop the mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, buying Scottish buses, but, somehow, they stop the Scottish National Party Government doing so. Since that warning almost a year ago, how many buses has the SNP Government ordered from Scottish companies?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Sarwar is correct—I engaged with the company in August 2024, when I received correspondence from it, and I met it again in September. As a consequence of that interaction, we established work for Scottish Enterprise to do with the company to support it in securing its future. That work was taken forward as a consequence of that dialogue. The company subsequently contacted us, in the past few weeks, in relation to its more immediate situation.

On bus orders, since 2020, Alexander Dennis has secured orders for more than 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes, and Manchester has ordered 160. I hope that the fact that 360 Alexander Dennis buses have been ordered through Scottish Government funding programmes and 160 have been ordered by Manchester indicates that the Scottish Government has been supporting Alexander Dennis.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney did not answer the question. Since he received that letter almost a year ago, zero buses have been ordered from Alexander Dennis. He can try to waffle all he likes, but he cannot escape the fact that his Government has the powers and the resources to act but has failed to do so.

The Cabinet Office has clearly set out how the SNP Scottish Government could have helped to ensure that contracts go to Scottish manufacturers to support Scottish jobs. He could have applied social value criteria, which help domestic suppliers, or he could have considered a direct award. He did neither. Now that the UK Procurement Act 2023 is in place, the SNP Government can disregard bids from non-treaty suppliers, which include countries such as China. Did John Swinney not understand the law, or did he make the usual SNP attempt to pass the buck, find somebody else to blame and show no interest in actually doing his job?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If Mr Sarwar was to look carefully at what the company has said, he would see that it has expressed its appreciation of the engagement that it has had with the Scottish Government on all those questions. The company’s workforce are the only people I am interested in here. The company has expressed its appreciation of the Scottish Government’s sustained engagement in supporting its operations.

Since 2020, the Scottish Government has provided £58 million of funding for zero-emission buses through the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme and the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund. That fundamentally holes Mr Sarwar’s argument. Those funds have contributed to a situation in which, through its funding programmes, the Scottish Government has allocated 360 bus orders to Alexander Dennis—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have done that as part of the process of supporting and assisting the work that is undertaken at Alexander Dennis. [ Interruption .]

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

They are built in China.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Bibby.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I explained to the Parliament last week, the Scottish Government is engaged in a sustained dialogue with the company and various other interested parties to support Alexander Dennis. Those discussions are on-going. We are talking to and engaging with the company regularly to find a way through the challenges and to encourage more orders to come to Alexander Dennis. That is at the heart of the approach that the Government is taking.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The workforce does not need engagement from the Scottish Government; it needs contracts from the Scottish Government. Jobs come from contracts, and the reality is that zero buses have been commissioned since that letter was sent almost a year ago. The SNP needs to up its game rather than provide the usual waffle, because that just proves why Scots are sick of the SNP Government and its incompetence. After 18 years, it is out of ideas and out of time.

Last week, I told members that, a fortnight ago, an SNP MSP said that John Swinney had two weeks to come up with an idea to save his leadership. Let us look at what he has come up with. One in six Scots is on a national health service waiting list—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—and John Swinney’s big plan is an app that was promised years ago and the merging of just two health quangos. Our schools are facing a behaviour crisis, and John Swinney’s big idea is to laminate bullet points and put them on a wall. Scots are angry at the Government’s failures and the SNP is back in crisis, and John Swinney’s big plan is to say, “Quick! Press the big panic independence button to try to save my skin.”

Is it not the case that we will only create jobs, save our NHS, improve our schools—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—and deliver for Scots if we get rid of this tired and incompetent SNP Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is interesting that Mr Sarwar’s interest in the workers of Alexander Dennis lasted for two questions, and then he got on to his usual posturing, with little substance, in the Parliament. That was the performance of a weak man in front of the Parliament today. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you! Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will tell Mr Sarwar what I have been doing this week. I have been presiding over a Government that has put Scotland, for the 10th year in a row, at the top of the list for inward investment successes in the United Kingdom, after London and the south-east. We have been in that position for 10 years in a row under the SNP Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have seen a rise in the percentage of school leavers going on to positive destinations. This week, we confirmed that we will scrap the two-child benefit cap, ensuring that 20,000 children will be lifted out of poverty.

In the same week that we have committed to lifting the two-child cap, Anas Sarwar is toadying in behind the Labour leader in the United Kingdom to send 50,000 children into poverty through the welfare reform bill. Scotland can see that Anas Sarwar is linked to a UK Labour Government that will put more children into poverty, while my Government will lift children out of poverty. That is the Scottish Government delivering for our people.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Nearly two months ago, the First Minister hosted a summit on opposing the far right and defending democracy. There was a clear message from many people in the room that Governments need to act to address people’s concerns, to restore the public services that we all rely on, to give local communities more power, to tackle extreme wealth and to tax the big polluters that are profiteering from climate breakdown so that we can invest in our communities.

It was obvious that, without clear action, the summit would just be another talking shop, but I have seen no meaningful change since then. Since that meeting, what exactly has the Scottish Government done differently, in practical terms, to turn promises into action?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has taken forward our agenda, which is about eradicating child poverty. I have just cited one example of our actions: taking measures to lift the two-child limit, which will lift children out of poverty. That is in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude of the United Kingdom Government.

We have been working with different groups to make a rational argument for an approach to immigration that will boost our working-age population, because we recognise that, unless we do that, we will suffer extreme economic harm and have real difficulty in sustaining our public services.

We have taken the steps that were announced this morning on carbon budgets. We are following the Climate Change Committee’s advice on the setting of budget limits and are deploying a programme that will tackle climate change.

Those are some of the measures that the Scottish Government is taking to address the substance of our agenda—I agree with Mr Harvie that there are real concerns about that—in order to ensure that we address the real concerns and priorities of people in Scotland and the threat to our democracy from the far right.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It sounds as though the Government’s agenda after the summit is exactly the same as it was before the summit. There is a real sense of drift from the First Minister. He came into the job saying that he wanted to build the best future for our country. Since then, he has watered down rent controls, stalled on plans to help people to stop using expensive fossil fuels, abandoned progress on human rights and equalities laws and ditched environmental actions such as the creation of a new national park. In addition, only today, he has rejected advice from his independent climate experts.

In place of the progressive green policies that the First Minister has walked away from, what is there? I genuinely struggle to think of a single signature policy that he has delivered in his year in the job that shows ambition and leadership. In the face of the threat from the far right, a steady-as-she-goes approach puts us on a course to disaster. Does the First Minister understand that people need to see real progress towards a fairer, greener Scotland and that failure to tackle inequality and injustice will benefit only the snake oil sellers on the far right?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

To be blunt, I could not disagree more with Mr Harvie. I appreciate that this is his last First Minister’s question time as co-convener of the Green Party, so saying all that to me might have been his last hurrah.

One of my central priorities is the eradication of child poverty. It could not be clearer to people in Scotland that two very different directions are being pursued. The level of child poverty is falling in Scotland, whereas child poverty rates are going up in the rest of the United Kingdom. Under my leadership, we are taking action to remove the two-child limit—that has never been committed to before. That will help us to reduce child poverty, while the Labour Government’s action, through the welfare changes that were announced yesterday, will increase child poverty in Scotland.

I make no apology to Mr Harvie or to anyone else about being absolutely focused on eradicating the scourge of child poverty in our society. It is a curse on our society, and we have to eradicate it.

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

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding funding and timescales for the development of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. (S6F-04200)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is welcome that the United Kingdom Government has at last listened to the calls of industry and the Scottish Government and has committed to funding the Acorn project to progress to a final investment decision. We are working closely with Acorn partners and the UK Government to understand the specifics of last week’s announcement and how we can best work together to build pace and momentum in the development phase to get a final investment decision on Acorn as soon as possible. To be clear, I firmly support the development of the Acorn project to advance our climate ambitions and create jobs and employment. We are discussing with Acorn what support will be required from the Scottish Government to progress the project further.

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

After years of delays, the UK Government has finally announced some funding for Acorn, but it has failed to commit to a timetable or final investment decision on the project. That stands in stark contrast to Labour’s £22 billion for carbon capture in England and a swathe of costly nuclear projects. Given that Westminster has had 20 years to hammer out the detail of Acorn, does the First Minister agree that we must now see meaningful support and funding at pace?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with Audrey Nicoll; it is vital that we have urgent progress and support for the project. I welcome the announcement that was made last week. The Scottish Government will play its part in ensuring that we can progress to a final investment decision as soon as possible, because the project is central to the achievement of our objectives on climate, it will be a significant part of the just transition in Scotland, and it provides significant economic and climate opportunities for our country. It should be embraced by all concerned. It needs emphatic support from the UK Government, in particular.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Scottish cluster needs meaningful support. Years ago, the SNP promised £80 million to help to bring it online, with no strings attached. Later, the SNP introduced a condition that it would be paid only when the UK Government promised funding, and then the Green Party blocked it anyway.

Now that the UK Government has met the retrospectively imposed criteria and the Greens are, thankfully, out of government, when will the Scottish cluster get the £80 million that was promised?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government’s commitment to £80 million remains intact. In the programme for government, I indicated that the Scottish Government would be open to providing additional financial support to ensure that the project is able to progress.

As I said in my opening answer to Audrey Nicoll, we are working closely with Acorn partners to understand the specifics of last week’s announcement and how we can best work together to build pace and momentum, and that is exactly what we will do.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government does my constituents in the north-east no favours by making promises that it will not keep. If the First Minister is serious and has been serious for several years about the use of that technology in that site, why did the ScotWind leasing round award seabed rights for the MarramWind wind farm on the very same site as the Acorn project? What is he doing to remedy that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will have to take away the issue that Mercedes Villalba has raised with me. The ScotWind leasing round was completed in an orderly process, with decisions made based on the evidence that is available to the Government. I will carefully consider the point that the member has made to me, but I do not think that there is any incompatibility between the approaches that have been taken.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that up to 100 truckloads of Scotland’s waste will be moved each day to England as a result of the landfill ban on biodegradable waste. (S6F-04195)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that it is acceptable for a large amount of waste to be transported from Scotland to England.

The landfill ban will be a significant step in reducing methane emissions in Scotland. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is around 28 times more potent in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. Preparations have already been made for the ban coming into force and the vast majority of councils have solutions in place.

In the run-up to the ban, I accept all partners’ efforts to continue to comply with it. I appreciate that challenges exist and I assure Mr Golden that we are working closely with the waste sector and exploring several options to ensure that we are reducing any environmental impacts as much as possible.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The landfill ban has been more than a decade in the making, with an extra four-year delay already, yet Scotland is still not ready. The 2013 recycling targets remain unmet, even though recycling is the solution, in my view. Sadly, incineration has become the default for the Scottish Government.

Next year, up to £75 million in landfill tax will be lost to the UK Treasury, £75 million in revenue will be lost from the Scottish Government, and tens of millions of pounds in cost will be lost, primarily to Scotland’s small and medium-sized enterprises. It is the ultimate farce. How is that failure to plan, invest or deliver standing up for Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Incineration is not the default position. At 62.3 per cent in 2022, the overall recycling rate in Scotland is at its highest level since records began in 2011, so significant progress has been made. Waste sector emissions were 73 per cent lower in 2023 than in 1990. Steps have been taken to address the issue, and I want to ensure that progress is made. That is exactly what ministers are focused on and what public bodies should be focused on, too.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In 2019, my colleague Willie Rennie warned the then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, that meeting our landfill ban would result in waste being shipped across the border to England. His concerns were dismissed. It pains me to say it, but Willie Rennie was right. How would the Scottish Government respond if hundreds of truckloads of waste from England were dumped in Scotland daily?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I said in my answer to Maurice Golden, the Government is focused on working with public authorities to ensure that the terms of the landfill ban are delivered and secured. That is what ministers are working with the sector to ensure is the case, and that is what will dominate our approach in the weeks to come.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s position on the funding of Scotland’s higher education institutions. (S6F-04201)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government engages closely with the higher education sector on a variety of issues in relation to its financial sustainability. I know that the member, alongside other party spokespeople and the minister, met Universities Scotland last week and agreed on the need for cross-party collaboration to support a thriving and financially sustainable university sector. One of the key points in that discussion was the importance of protecting free tuition—a commitment that the Scottish National Party Government has made to ensure that students studying in Scotland do not incur the additional debt of up to £27,750 that they would incur if they happened to be educated at universities in England. The 2025-26 budget includes more than £1.1 billion of investment in teaching and research in Scotland’s universities in recognition of the hugely valuable contribution that our universities make.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Today’s report from the Royal Society of Edinburgh says:

“there remain significant challenges in ensuring those undertaking initial education ... can access the right opportunities to fulfil personal aspirations as well as contribute to the future success of Scotland.”

That challenge to fulfilling aspiration is laid bare in data that came out this week that shows that the gap in university attendance between the most and least deprived grew and that the proportion of young people from the poorest communities going into positive destinations fell.

Yesterday, Glasgow Kelvin College, 40 per cent of whose learners are from the poorest areas, told the Education, Children and Young People Committee that it is having to turn away two in three people. The SNP’s managed decline of universities and colleges is leaving Scotland’s most disadvantaged pupils behind. Why is the First Minister’s Government stifling the potential of Scotland’s greatest asset—our young people?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The most recent data that I have available shows that 16.7 per cent of full-time first-degree entrants come from Scotland’s most deprived areas, which is an increase on 16.3 per cent in the previous year.

Since we embarked on the work to widen access, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that young people from the most deprived areas are able to access university courses. That is exactly at the heart of the Government’s commitment, and I am pleased to reaffirm that today.

Since 2019, there has been a 42 per cent increase in 18-year-olds from the most deprived areas entering university, which demonstrates the progress that has been made on widening access to our higher education institutions.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

From the comments that university principals made at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, it is clear that the university sector in Scotland has become overreliant on international students. Given the increasing global uncertainty, what assessment have the First Minister and the Scottish Government made of the financial exposure and risk that our institutions face?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

These issues are discussed with the higher education sector. I met senior figures from Universities Scotland to discuss those questions a few weeks ago, and my ministers are engaged on that question at all times.

As well as global uncertainty, the other issue that has to be borne in mind is the United Kingdom Government’s approach to immigration policy, which is not helping one little bit in all this. It is clear to me, in my dialogue with the university sector, that a more rational approach to immigration, rather than the folly that was started by the Conservative Government and is now being reinforced by the Labour Government in the UK, would help our university sector to navigate its way through these challenging times. A more sensible approach to immigration would help us to attract international students and support our university sector, which remains world class.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to general and constituency supplementary questions. The more concise we are, the more members we will be able to take.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

It has now been more than four months since the Scottish Government committed to exploring the purchase of Ardrossan harbour from Peel Ports, but talks appear to be deadlocked. Until the future of the harbour is resolved, Arran will not receive the lifeline ferry service that it needs and deserves, while Ardrossan will struggle.

This afternoon, constituents from both communities are protesting outside the building. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport will meet the protesters this afternoon. Will the Scottish Government now inject some urgency into the process to break the stalemate? Will the First Minister also confirm that there are no plans to remove road equivalent tariff tickets from island visitors, which would inevitably damage our island economies?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On the road equivalent tariff point, the answer is that there are no such plans. The RET has been an essential part of the steps that we are taking to improve connectivity with the island communities, and it has played an essential part in lowering the cost of travel to our islands over a number of years. That was introduced by an SNP Government as part of that agenda.

In relation to Ardrossan, I entirely understand Mr Gibson’s concern. This is a negotiation with a private organisation, Peel Ports, and any such negotiations take time. It has the focus and attention of ministers and of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. The transport secretary has made clear to the Parliament the steps that have been taken, and we will, of course, update the Parliament when the negotiation progresses.

I assure Mr Gibson—he can convey this to his constituents, and I know that the transport secretary will do that in her discussions this afternoon—that the Government is absolutely focused on achieving a long-term solution for Ardrossan harbour, which, from the Government’s perspective, remains the key port for the connection to Arran.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

No ferries have been running from Ardrossan harbour since January, and that will become permanent unless there is redevelopment. There has been no progress in redevelopment, despite that being agreed on more than seven years ago. This is a disaster for the local community. Does the First Minister agree that, if there is no progress, the process for a compulsory purchase of the harbour needs to start by the summer recess, so that redevelopment work can start?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will explore the point about compulsory purchase, but it has been indicated to me that we would not have the basis on which to do that. I assure Katy Clark, as I assured Mr Gibson, that the Government is actively engaged in dialogue to acquire Ardrossan harbour to enable the long-term commitment that Katy Clark seeks. I give that long-term commitment; I understand the challenges about access to the port and the necessity of redevelopment. The Government has concluded, after years of engagement, that the only way to progress that is acquisition. That is what the Government intends to do, and we are taking every step to enable that to be the case.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Department for Work and Pensions assured people that the managed migration from legacy benefits to universal credit would be smooth. My constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw have contacted me regarding being threatened with sanctions if they do not provide a general practitioner fit note within seven days, despite previously receiving employment and support allowance. That should not happen. It is causing needless pressure on primary care and fear and anxiety for my constituents with long-term health conditions. Will the First Minister engage with the United Kingdom Government on those reported issues and on the delays in migration from legacy benefits to universal credit?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice recently wrote to the UK Government to highlight a number of issues with the delivery of universal credit, including those caused by conditionality and sanctions. We are deeply concerned about the personal impact that the move to universal credit is having on individuals, and we will continue to work with the DWP to address all those concerns.

The situation is indicative of the agenda that is being taken forward by the Labour Government, which is now trying to balance the books on the back of sacrificing the poor and the vulnerable in our society. I do not think that people in Scotland expected that of a Labour Government, but that is what they are getting.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It has been just over a year since John Swinney publicly apologised to Eilidh Beaton for what he described as her “terrifying experience” at Portree hospital on Skye. He said that it was “not good enough” and that Sir Lewis Ritchie’s recommendations on restoring urgent care “must be implemented”—he claimed that that is what would happen.

However, a year later, incidents keep happening and, last week, NHS Highland admitted that the current model for urgent care is not working. Skye SOS national health service campaigners told the West Highland Free Press that it was “shambolic”. One said:

“They have been pulling the wool over our eyes all this time.”

John Swinney was in Skye on Monday, pressing the flesh for a Scottish National Party by-election campaign. To their disappointment, he did not meet local health campaigners. Why did the First Minister not find time to meet those who are fighting to get urgent care restored at Portree hospital? Does he accept that the promises that he made to the people of Skye, which were made in this chamber, have not been delivered? When will they be delivered?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As a matter of factual accuracy, I was in Portree on Saturday, and I met Eilidh Beaton there on Saturday. I heard about her experience, and it was a pleasure to meet her. I was able to express to Eilidh and to other members of the public who asked me about the issue that the commitments that I gave in this chamber on the delivery of the model that was designed by Lewis Ritchie will be fulfilled.

I accept that there are challenges for NHS Highland in the practical delivery of that, often because of the availability of personnel to do it. It is part of a wider and deeper problem, which also relates to the point that I made to Mr Briggs a moment ago that we are being constrained in the delivery of our public services by the approach to immigration and the size of our working-age population. That is a very hard reality that the Parliament is going to have to come to terms with and which is troubling me enormously.

I say two things to Mr Halcro Johnston. First, I appreciate the engagement that I had with members of the public in Portree on Saturday about the issue. Secondly, I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the model that was designed by Lewis Ritchie and which I expect NHS Highland to implement.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

Last week, Professor Sir Geoff Palmer, Scotland’s first black professor, passionate advocate for equality, and my friend, passed away. Sir Geoff was not only a leader in science and human rights; he was a kind, wise man who inspired me and many others. He will be deeply missed. Will the First Minister join me in paying tribute to Sir Geoff, a giant of modern Scotland, and will he continue Sir Geoff’s legacy by helping to build a Scotland that is free from prejudice? [ Applause .]

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I associate myself unreservedly with Mr Choudhury’s comments about Sir Geoff Palmer. Sir Geoff was a pioneer—that is how I described him on his death. He contributed enormously to making Scotland the country that it is today: the tolerant, inclusive and welcoming country that is epitomised by the approach and the values of Sir Geoff Palmer.

Mr Choudhury described Sir Geoff as a kind, wise man. I utterly accept that. That is exactly the right description of him. We need more kindness and more wisdom in our society, and Sir Geoff Palmer embodied that. I take this opportunity to make clear to the Parliament my absolute commitment to making sure that Scotland is a tolerant, welcoming and inclusive country that Sir Geoff Palmer could be proud of.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

This week, the Confederation of British Industry has downgraded its growth forecast for the United Kingdom, warning that rising costs, including the Labour Government’s national insurance tax hike, are set to cause weak business investment, reduce recruitment and reduce economic growth over the next two years. Does the First Minister share my concern about the impact that Westminster economic mismanagement will have on the ability of this Scottish National Party Scottish Government to grow our economy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The points that Michelle Thomson puts to the Parliament are absolutely valid. The warning from the CBI should not be ignored. When the decision was taken to apply employer national insurance contribution increases, I said that I thought that it was an illogical move, given the focus on growth in the United Kingdom Government’s agenda. I reiterate that point: employer national insurance contribution increases will stifle growth and they will inhibit our ability to grow the economy.

The survey from the CBI comes in a week in which EY has confirmed that Scotland is the best-performing part of the United Kingdom for inward investment, outside London, for the 10th year in a row. Despite all the obstacles put in our way by a Labour United Kingdom Government that does not act in relation to growth and opportunity in our economy, the decisions of this SNP Government are delivering prosperity and opportunity for people in Scotland. That record on investment—10 years in a row of being the most successful part of the United Kingdom for inward investment, outside of London—is a testament to the efforts of this Government.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Numerous trains have been cancelled across my region in the past year. That has a massive knock-on effect on individuals, organisations and businesses. It has been more than three years since the Scottish National Party Government took over responsibility for ScotRail, but, unfortunately, we have yet to see real improvements.

If the First Minister wants to reduce carbon emissions, and get people out of their cars and on to public transport, the Scottish Government must provide a reasonable and reliable service. When will that dream become a reality?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I cannot believe half of what has been put to me in that question. ScotRail is one of the best-performing rail networks in the United Kingdom, and its performance has improved since it was taken into public ownership by the Scottish Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will say those things again. ScotRail is one of the best-performing rail networks in the United Kingdom, and its performance has improved since it came into public ownership.

We have just taken a decision to abolish peak rail fares in Scotland to encourage more people to use the train. Why can Mr Stewart not find something to welcome in the Scottish Parliament, rather than coming here with bogus information that runs down the rail network, which is actually performing very well?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Action Mesothelioma Day 2025

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17647, in the name of Marie McNair, on action mesothelioma day 2025. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises Action Mesothelioma Day 2025, which is on 4 July 2025; understands that mesothelioma is a rare cancer that is usually caused by exposure to asbestos, with tiny fibres getting into the lungs and damaging them over time; notes that the cancer most commonly occurs in the lining of the lung, but can also occur in the lining of the abdomen and the lining of the heart, with symptoms including shortness of breath, chest pain, coughing and tiredness; understands that there are around 2,700 new mesothelioma cases in the UK every year, including around 200 in Scotland; recognises that Action Mesothelioma Day is a national event to raise awareness of asbestos and mesothelioma, raise vital funds to support the research into tackling mesothelioma, and to remember and support those who have been affected by the disease; notes with concern what it sees as the time bar injustice for mesothelioma victims and welcomes the Scottish Law Commission report, Report on Damages for Personal Injury, published in December 2024, which recommends that “an asymptomatic condition such as pleural plaques will no longer result in a time bar preventing recovery of damages for a later-developing symptomatic condition such as mesothelioma”; applauds the long-standing and ongoing work of the Clydebank Asbestos Group, which has provided information and support to people with asbestos-related conditions for over 30 years; notes the calls for continued research into mesothelioma, and hopes for a successful Action Mesothelioma Day 2025.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am pleased to lead, for a fourth year, the debate on action mesothelioma day. Members will know the huge importance of the issue to me and my constituents. The debate is an important chance to raise awareness of this cruel disease and to highlight where we still need to push for action.

I thank colleagues from across the chamber for supporting my motion and for speaking in the debate. The issue deserves cross-party support, so it is very welcome that that has been achieved.

I ask everyone to join me in welcoming people from Clydebank Asbestos Group and Asbestos Action to our national Parliament. It really means a lot to have them here to support today’s event. Both groups have been assisting asbestos victims for many years and have campaigned relentlessly for truth and justice. Clydebank Asbestos Group, which I am grateful to have a close working relationship with, has been working hard for my constituents for the past 33 years, and is always there for victims and their families at the time of greatest need. I am so appreciative to have the group in my constituency, and I will be forever grateful to it for the work that it does.

Mesothelioma is a cancer that is usually caused by exposure to asbestos fibres. I congratulate ActionMeso and all the support groups up and down the country on their efforts to raise awareness of the disease.

Unfortunately, since our previous meso debate, we have sadly lost our amazing volunteer Kate Ferrier, on Hogmanay last year. Kate was a volunteer with Clydebank Asbestos Group for more than five years and, shortly after joining, took up the post of secretary. Kate’s passing is a huge loss and she will be incredibly missed by all who knew her. Kate chose to volunteer with CAG when she retired, and was drawn to the charity because of her support for her father, following a diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease. I am so grateful for Kate’s dedication and commitment to supporting victims of asbestos exposure and their families over many years.

Clydebank, which is my home town and part of my constituency, has an appalling asbestos legacy. It was once described as the mesothelioma capital of Europe. That is why action mesothelioma day is so important to my constituents and our town. Held this year on 4 July, it is a national event to raise awareness of asbestos and mesothelioma, to raise vital funds to support research into tackling mesothelioma and to remember and support those who have been impacted by the disease.

In last year’s debate, I highlighted the disgraceful three-year time bar that has denied justice for those who receive a diagnosis of mesothelioma. That time bar means that, if a person is diagnosed with pleural plaques—a usually asymptomatic condition—they have three years to raise a claim for damages, even if they later develop mesothelioma. That is an appalling injustice, so it is welcome that the Scottish Law Commission has published a report on the issue, which recommends resolving the pleural plaques time bar problem so that an asymptomatic condition such as pleural plaques will no longer result in a time bar preventing recovery of damages for a later developing symptomatic condition such as mesothelioma.

The potential for people to be denied justice because of the three-year time bar has no place in a just compensation system, which is why I have secured a meeting with Clydebank Asbestos Group and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, to progress the issue. We want the Scottish Government to implement the recommendations as soon as possible, because justice delayed is justice denied.

My partnership with Clydebank Asbestos Group is strong and has shared goals in the campaign for truth and justice on issues such as a more compassionate and responsive social security system compared with the system previously provided by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the phased removal of asbestos from public buildings, starting with schools. I am firmly on CAG’s side in support of the Cape must pay campaign. Never has there been a stronger example of greed for private profit being put before the safety of workers. Unfortunately, that is the motivating factor in so many cases of asbestos exposure and the exploitation of workers. The campaign demands that Cape Intermediate Holdings, which is owned by Altrad, donates £10 million to mesothelioma research.

Cape Intermediate Holdings was one of the largest asbestos companies in the world and was reported to have played a large part in the increase of asbestos-related diseases and mortality across the UK. After a lengthy court battle, documents were obtained proving that Cape hid the true dangers of its asbestos products in the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in many people dying. Altrad has a moral obligation to right some of that wrong, and donating to research would be a good start. It has so far refused to meet those demands, but Clydebank Asbestos Group has been pushing forward tirelessly with the campaign. It recently attended protests at the rugby world cup, which featured two teams that were sponsored by Altrad.

Along with Clydebank Asbestos Group, I will continue to push to see justice achieved from Cape. The time is now to support victims. They cannot wait any longer, because time is not on their side. I will soon bring a motion to Parliament on the issue, with wording agreed with the Clydebank Asbestos Group and other campaigners. I hope that, like the motion today, it will receive the widest possible cross-party support. Action mesothelioma day serves as a chance to commemorate all those who have been lost to this cruel disease. In Clydebank, we have the international asbestos memorial, which sits in the centre of Clydebank, in Truth and Justice Square.

Clydebank Asbestos Group recently opened an online memorial, which was launched on international workers memorial day. The online memorial is open to anyone who would like to commemorate a loved one who has died from an asbestos-related illness. That is such a great way to remember those we have lost, and I commend the group for it.

We must deal with asbestos on all fronts, and we must support those who are diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses by offering help when it is needed. I promise that I will continue to do everything in my power to work to achieve everything that we can in our fight for truth and justice.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank Marie McNair for bringing today’s debate to the chamber, marking action mesothelioma day 2025. I commend her long-standing commitment to this deeply important cause.

On 4 July, we will once again pause to reflect, raise awareness and, crucially, demand action. Mesothelioma is a cruel and relentless disease. It is relatively rare, yes, but it is far from irrelevant. It is a cancer that is caused almost entirely by exposure to asbestos—those invisible fibres that embed themselves in lungs, silently wreaking havoc over decades.

As we have heard, there are currently around 200 cases annually in Scotland, but behind every statistic is a family, a community and, often, a story of unnecessary suffering. Tragically, the face of mesothelioma is changing. Once it was seen largely in men who worked in heavy industry, such as shipyards, power stations and construction, but now there are more women, more young people and more individuals from non-traditional sectors—teachers, hospital workers and people in clerical roles—who have been exposed unknowingly and often decades ago.

I want to recognise the work of Action on Asbestos, which was formerly Clydeside Action on Asbestos. It is a remarkable organisation that has, for more than 30 years, stood by those affected, not just with practical support and legal advice—although it does that tirelessly—but by working directly with NHS Scotland, funding specialist nurses and vital research to improve treatment and outcomes. The work is not only compassionate but critical.

Turning to the issue of the time bar in relation to asbestos-related conditions, although the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 rightly recognises that asymptomatic conditions such as pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asymptomatic asbestosis are actionable harms, we still face a serious problem. Under the current law, a person who has already claimed for an asbestos-related condition may find themselves barred from seeking further damages if they later develop mesothelioma, which is an incurable and life-limiting cancer.

In recognition of that issue, the Scottish Law Commission in its December 2024 report recognised that, and I put on the record my thanks to it for its comprehensive work on the issue. The recommendation is crystal clear: asymptomatic conditions should not trigger the time bar for the later development of symptomatic conditions. I believe that that is a vital step towards fairness, and I welcome it.

I have spoken to the Government on that issue, and there is a need—perhaps even a duty—to consider whether a legislative amendment or regulatory action is required to address that loophole and ensure that those living with mesothelioma are not penalised by legal technicalities. I ask the minister to consider meeting me and Marie McNair to discuss how we can progress the matter. Those affected do not have the luxury of time. They deserve dignity, clarity and justice.

I close by paying tribute once again to Clydebank Asbestos Group, Action on Asbestos and every campaigner who has fought so hard, often while battling illness. Let action mesothelioma day 2025 not be just a day of remembrance; let it be a day of renewed resolve to right the wrongs of the past and protect future generations from a legacy that should never have been theirs and ours.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank Marie McNair for bringing such an important topic to the chamber. Action mesothelioma day is dedicated to raising awareness of a devastating disease that has affected many lives in Scotland and beyond.

In 2022, there were 2,257 mesothelioma deaths in the United Kingdom, with a significant number occurring in Scotland. Scotland’s industrial history, particularly of shipbuilding and construction, has left a legacy of asbestos exposure, leading to high rates of mesothelioma. More than 70 per cent of such deaths occur in individuals aged over 75, which highlights the disease’s long latency period.

According to the Scottish mesothelioma network’s 2023 clinical audit report, the number of newly diagnosed mesothelioma patients in Scotland that year was 132, which represented an increase on the 127 patients identified in the 2022 audit. However, behind those numbers are real people and their families who are enduring immense suffering. Those people are not just statistics; mesothelioma is a painful reality for many. The symptoms are debilitating; the prognosis is often grim; and patients and their loved ones face physical, emotional and financial hardship.

The stories that we hear remind us of the urgent need for action and support. I have had the privilege of meeting organisations that specialise in mesothelioma, such as Clydebank Asbestos Group in my West Scotland region. The dedication of such organisations to supporting those affected by the condition is truly inspiring; they provide crucial services such as legal advice, emotional support and advocacy for better healthcare services, and their work ensures that patients and their families do not face the battle alone.

Clydebank Asbestos Group offers a lifeline to many. It assists people with navigating the complex legal landscape in order to secure compensation for victims; it runs support groups that provide a space for individuals to share their experiences and to find solace in a community that understands their struggles; and its advocacy efforts have led to improvements in healthcare policies and increased funding for research on the condition.

The group has called for the safe and urgent removal of asbestos from all public buildings, as there have been increases in the numbers of younger people and women being diagnosed with the condition. Some of those people never worked in the traditional industries that are usually associated with asbestos exposure; indeed, some are working in public buildings.

The group is also a strong advocate of the Cape must pay campaign, which aims to make Altrad Cape pay £10 million towards research into the condition. Cape Intermediate Holdings was one of the largest asbestos companies in the world, and its asbestos products were widely used in construction. The campaign argues that those products lie at the heart of the epidemic of the condition in the UK.

However, the fight against mesothelioma requires more than just the efforts of dedicated organisations. We need a concerted effort by the Government to implement stricter regulations on asbestos and to fund research for better treatments. Public awareness campaigns are also essential in educating people about the dangers of asbestos and the importance of early detection.

Let us honour those who have lost their lives to mesothelioma by committing to action. Let us support the organisations that are making a difference and call on the Scottish Government to take stronger measures. Together, we can raise awareness, support those who are affected and work towards a future in which mesothelioma is no longer a threat.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Marie McNair for bringing this important debate to the chamber. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome action mesothelioma day 2025, which will be marked on 4 July. In my years in Parliament, I have been pleased to stand with Marie McNair and other members to play my part in raising awareness of this cruel condition, calling for further research and calling for the condition to be properly understood as an industrial injury.

Of course, as other speakers in the debate have said, we must ensure that proper compensation is afforded to sufferers and their families. Mesothelioma is a rare and hard-to-treat form of cancer. As stated in the motion, it is usually caused by exposure to asbestos. However, we also know, having debated the issue many times in the Parliament, that, despite asbestos having been banned more than a quarter of a century ago, many continued—and continue—to work in environments where it was and is present. Indeed, it is still found in buildings right across Scotland.

We must address the issue. With 2,700 new cases diagnosed every year in the UK, and 200 in Scotland, it remains of the utmost importance that we raise awareness of the symptoms of the illness and encourage people to be cautious and to get any symptoms checked. As with other forms of cancer, identifying the illness quickly can prolong life and ensure more pain-free management of a cruel disease.

I have known about the disease from a very young age, having grown up in a working-class mining community. According to the most up-to-date data that I could find about my home area in East Ayrshire, there were significant numbers of mesothelioma deaths between 1981 to 2019, as well as a continuation of deaths past that date, with the on-going impact of asbestos exposure. It is important that I, as a member who represents an area with a high rate of asbestos, ensure that we properly document the rates of illness and death, and I commit to doing so. The reality for the people in my area is that the industrial work—mainly mining—in the early part of the last century, and right up until the 1980s and 1990s, exposed men, in particular, to asbestos. However, as has been mentioned by other members, we know that secondary exposure through the washing of clothing, a job often undertaken by women, increased the risk to their health, too.

Many people who suffered exposure to asbestos during their working life have never received any serious compensation, often due to employers jumping through hoops to claim that the cause of their cancer cannot be properly proven. That is why the work of groups such as Clydebank Asbestos Group, Action on Asbestos and other community action groups is so important. Their fight against big business is second to none, and we must always recognise it. This condition, and others, have exposed the approach that big business and the insurance giants take to workers’ health, and we must make it clear that people are worth more and that working-class people—the men and women who have built and maintained our country—must be compensated, should their lives be impacted by or lost due to the nature of their work.

Of course, I welcome the Scottish Law Commission’s report, which was mentioned by Marie McNair. However, although it is an important step, I fear that there is more work to do, and I call on the minister to give us, as Marie McNair asked, some feedback so that we can keep fighting to get this right. It is important, too, that we keep fighting for proper compensation and—importantly—for proper health and safety in workplaces to ensure that the rights of workers are at the centre of all that we do.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I find it almost extraordinary that it has been about 18 years since I was first able to contribute to a debate on mesothelioma. That debate was led by Gil Paterson, Marie McNair’s predecessor in Clydebank, and at this point, I want to pay tribute to Clydebank Asbestos Group. Its sustained focus, and the fact that its members turn out in numbers when the condition is discussed, are quite remarkable and to be commended, as is the compassion that its members bring to the work and to the lives of those who subsequently suffer.

Is it not extraordinary that this is yet another of those conditions, such as aortic aneurysms or Duchenne muscular dystrophy, that seem, all too tragically, to have a home in Scotland? Of the 2,700 new cases diagnosed each year, about 200 are in Scotland, and our nation endures one of the highest incidence rates of mesothelioma anywhere in the world.

When I last participated in a debate on this issue, little did I know that my uncle would die of mesothelioma, which he did a few years ago. Alan Carlaw was in the motor industry, as was I. He had the British Leyland franchise, and we had the Ford franchise, which proved to be the more reliable of the two in the fullness of time. Those businesses, like many others, were housed in architecture that was built at a time when asbestos was a prevailing building material. It was back in the 1970s that our business sought to clear the asbestos out of our buildings, and we saw just how ridiculously it had been used as a manufacturing substance and how it had deteriorated. I remember that one could see the asbestos dust in the air.

Many people were involved in industries in which being around asbestos was absolutely part of their working day. They built Scotland in good faith, not recognising that they were doing so in an environment that would subsequently kill them. That is a great injustice and a huge tragedy, not least because for many people, including my uncle, pleural plaques did not manifest as part of the disease until they were much older—that happened decades after my uncle’s exposure to asbestos. I was in the motor industry, too, so perhaps I, too, have pleural plaques—I just do not know.

Dying in the way that my uncle did was such an unjust way for anyone to end their life. For those people who end up having to suffer and die of mesothelioma, it is an absolutely ghastly experience. We know that they drown, in effect, in great distress. There is no soft answer, and there is no cure.

Members might not imagine this to be true, but East Renfrewshire, where my leafy constituency of Eastwood lies, has the fourth-highest ratio of mesothelioma deaths to road traffic deaths in the country. However, the public focus on road traffic deaths, road traffic management and road traffic accident prevention is huge. When we consider the incidence of mesothelioma that we are still seeing each year, the lack of public awareness of the disease and the suggestion that it is just a Scottish disease—well, not a Scottish disease as such, but a disease that, along with certain other conditions, has a higher incidence in Scotland than elsewhere—should not be obstacles to our making a renewed national effort to ensure that appropriate research is undertaken and our seeking to get to a point at which there is, indeed, a cure.

The absence of a cure, the on-going lack of awareness of the condition and the lack of energy and urgency behind an attempt to find a cure are nothing short of a national disgrace. The people who built Scotland deserve better, and the people who might yet contract mesothelioma ought to know that a national effort is being undertaken to make it possible for them to survive the disease, should it manifest itself, through the identification and implementation of a cure.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

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

I thank Marie McNair for bringing this motion to Parliament today. Once again, she is acting not as an unconsidered representative of her party but as a diligent and democratic representative of her constituents, because the working class of Clydebank know better than anyone about the suffering that is caused by negligent industrial-scale exposure to asbestos at work.

Let us be absolutely clear about this: this is not a debate about history. As we debate this motion in the Scottish Parliament this afternoon, and as we mark action mesothelioma day on 4 July, the number of asbestos-related cases in Scotland’s communities is not falling—it is rising. The evidence from practitioners advising the Scottish Law Commission is that more than 700 people are diagnosed with pleural plaques in Scotland every year, and that this number might not yet have peaked. That is why the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendation in its “Report on Damages for Personal Injury”, published last December, which at last resolves the time-bar problem, must now be enacted.

By its own admission, the Law Commission draws heavily on the case that was made by Unite the Union and articulated by its solicitors, Thompsons. Their submission argued this:

“Individuals should not be disproportionately penalised for failure to raise court proceedings for a relatively minor injury when they ... go on to develop a serious and potentially life-threatening illness as a result of the same negligent act.”

The Law Commission has made a strong and unambiguous recommendation, and the Scottish Government and this Parliament must act with the same clear thinking and with the same fortitude, and they must act without delay, because for all of those families and all of those workers, enough time has already been wasted. That is why I call on the minister today in Parliament not to meet me but to give them an unequivocal guarantee that the Government will amend the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, in line with the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendation, before the end of this parliamentary session.

One of the greatest influences on my politics and in my life was my old friend and comrade Alex Falconer, who was a member of the European Parliament, a community campaigner, a socialist, a peace activist, a dockyard worker and a trade unionist to his core. He won a test case in the late 1980s when he was diagnosed with pleural plaques after working with asbestos as a lagger in Rosyth dockyard. I remember the two of us going to meet the Transport and General Workers Union’s lawyers in Glasgow, going to meet Hugh Campbell QC in the splendour of Edinburgh’s new town, and then meeting him again on the steps of the High Court in Edinburgh just days later, to be told that the Ministry of Defence had decided at the last minute not to defend the action.

It was a test case in which the insurance industry was finally forced to recognise that a civil award for pleural plaques could be pursued, and to do so did not close the door on a later damages claim for mesothelioma. Sadly, that is exactly what happened in the life—and then in the tragic death—of Alex Falconer.

For many of us, action mesothelioma day is not abstract. It is very real, and whether inside Parliament or outside of it, in that battle for justice, alongside the grass-roots campaigners in Action on Asbestos and the Clydebank Asbestos Group, we will carry on. It remains painful, poignant and personal, but it is political as well, and so we will carry on—striving, struggling, yielding to none, facing setbacks but unflinching in our determination. In the name of all those we have lost, we will carry on. We will never give up. We will always carry on. We will carry on.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the minister, Jenni Minto, to respond to the debate.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, thank my colleague Marie McNair for bringing the motion to the chamber, and I welcome the opportunity to close today’s debate on mesothelioma. I recognise Ms McNair’s long-standing support for her constituents and other people who are living with the impact of asbestos. I also acknowledge the valuable contributions from my colleagues today, and I recognise the strong feeling and cross-party support that there is for Ms McNair’s motion.

Richard Leonard said that this is not history and that it is happening now. It is always important to understand, as Bill Kidd and Carol Mochan took the time to explain, the underlying history of meso and its current impact on different areas of the population.

I very much agree with Pam Gosal’s comments on the lifeline support that the Clydebank Asbestos Group provides for people—and their families—who are living with meso. Its website has a simple, direct video that explains how the group can provide great help and support to families.

Jackson Carlaw raised the important point that these people built Scotland and, therefore, we have a responsibility towards them.

As I might have said before in responses to other debates on the matter, I first became aware of the issue when my husband directed a film for BBC Scotland about 30 years ago that raised knowledge about it in the wider community. From my heart, I thank the people in the gallery for the powerful work that they are doing and ask them to keep holding us to account.

On behalf of the Scottish Government, I recognise all those who are affected by this type of cancer—not just the individuals themselves but their loved ones. Adjusting to a cancer diagnosis is never easy. That must be especially true for rarer cancers that leave individuals feeling isolated and worried at an already distressing time. Therefore, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that people who are impacted by a cancer diagnosis receive person-centred and holistic care. We work closely with Macmillan Cancer Support to improve the service that we offer patients through the transforming cancer care programme.

Improving cancer survival is also a key aim of the Scottish Government’s cancer strategy. We know that earlier detection can improve outcomes, and we have invested in several programmes to support the earlier detection of cancers. A number of speakers noted the point that mesothelioma is diagnosed late and requires much more research, and I am pleased that there are currently four active clinical trials open to recruitment in Scotland that are related to meso.

The ASSESS-Meso trial is specifically aimed at collecting more information about people with meso. It will help researchers to know more about symptoms and their impact on daily living so that we can improve care. The Meso-ORIGINS study at the University of Glasgow aims to find out how benign inflammation develops into meso in people after exposure to asbestos. The EXTRA-Meso feasibility study is exploring how exercise therapy can improve symptom control, fitness and quality of life for patients with meso. Another trial, which addresses the point that Jackson Carlaw made, is examining the effectiveness of a drug that specifically targets the build-up of fluid around the lung that mesothelioma causes and aims to make breathing easier for people who are affected.

In addition, a core commitment in the Scottish Government’s strategy “Genomics in Scotland: Building our Future” is the development of a sustainable and more reactive funding model so that we can expand access to genomic testing equitably across Scotland and keep pace with the rapid rate of change.

As many speakers in the debate said, we are all aware that exposure to asbestos in the past is known to be a major contributing factor to developing meso. As well as aiming to ensure that we prevent exposure to asbestos, which has been banned in the UK since 1999, and that appropriate medical care is in place for people who have been affected by asbestos exposure, the Scottish Government remains committed to ensuring that individuals have appropriate rights to compensation.

As Marie McNair, Richard Leonard, Bill Kidd and others noted, the current law on limitation, which sets time limits for raising court proceedings, can cause difficulties for people with mesothelioma. Through no fault of their own, they might find themselves time barred from raising civil proceedings and, in effect, be denied a legal remedy.

The Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament have a strong record of supporting those who have been negligently exposed to asbestos. The law in relation to secondary exposure has developed over recent decades, and we are encouraged to see that those who are affected are increasingly recognised.

The Scottish Law Commission published several recommendations for reform of damages for personal injury in December last year, and I thank it for its work. Those recommendations included changes in the law of limitation regarding asymptomatic asbestos-related conditions. The Scottish Government supports those recommendations and has a proven track record of implementing Scottish Law Commission reports, having introduced four bills this session with a fifth to come.

Where asbestos remains, licences are required to work with it and strict control measures are used, including personal protective equipment such as respirators.

As has been noted, my colleague Siobhian Brown is looking forward to meeting Marie McNair and her constituents, and I note, as she will do, the comments that have been made by Richard Leonard and Bill Kidd. I am content to meet as well, but that specific element does not fit into my portfolio.

I give my sincere thanks to those who provide valuable information, help and support to anyone who is affected by meso or any other asbestos-related condition. I give my thanks to Mesothelioma UK for continuing to raise awareness each year on action mesothelioma day. The Scottish Government will support “Go Blue for Meso” by lighting up in blue St Andrew’s house and Victoria Quay in Edinburgh on 4 July.

I mention again and give my special thanks to the Clydebank Asbestos Group and the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce. The work of the third sector, community and social care partners, alongside that of our national health service, is critical in supporting those who are affected by meso.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I look forward to working with all of them to improve awareness, early diagnosis, treatment and clinical research, together with support for action mesothelioma day 2025.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is portfolio question time. The portfolio this afternoon is social justice.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding the asylum right to work pilot proposal, in light of the Home Office reportedly stating that it is unable to commit to exploring the feasibility of the proposal. (S6O-04824)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I wrote to the UK Government in November 2024, urging it to engage with us following the publication of our asylum right to work pilot proposal. In January 2025, it responded that it was unable to commit to exploring the proposal. Following further exchanges, the UK Government has agreed to meet to discuss it. I have accepted that offer, but a meeting date has not been scheduled yet. I remain very keen to discuss the pilot and would also like to discuss improvements to the current policy for granting permission to work for people seeking asylum.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Without the right to work, people who are seeking asylum in Scotland are being forced into poverty. Although the architect of this hostile environment is undoubtedly the UK Government, we need to use all of our powers here in Scotland to counter that. The Scottish Government has promised to roll out free bus travel to people seeking asylum, who are, of course, unable to work. However, we have been waiting and talking about that for two years, and we are yet to see any progress on its delivery.

The excessive cost of transport directly contributes to poverty. I know that the minister knows that. Free bus travel would remove that financial strain and help to reduce poverty. As the launch of that scheme is now anticipated, will the minister confirm that it will be delivered before the end of this parliamentary session?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Mr Ruskell makes the case for the scheme well. After the 2025-26 budget was passed in February, we were able to confirm plans in the programme for government for a £2 million national pilot to support free bus travel for people seeking asylum this financial year. In May, Transport Scotland reconvened a working group with the third sector and local authorities to help inform how that can be delivered. That included consideration of how to maximise value and benefits from the funding. Scottish ministers previously committed to exploring the extension of concessionary travel for people seeking asylum by the end of this parliamentary session. That exploratory work will continue in parallel with the design and delivery of a pilot.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure that women who share a lease in a social or private tenancy with their abuser are not left homeless if they are forced to flee due to domestic abuse. (S6O-04825)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As part of the measures to prevent homelessness in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, we will introduce a duty on all social landlords to develop and implement a domestic abuse policy. That should set out how they will support their tenants if they are experiencing such abuse. The duty will include keeping the tenant in their home and removing the perpetrator if that is what the tenant wants. We will update the definition of domestic abuse as it applies in housing so that it takes into account an increased understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse.

The bill will also introduce a duty on social landlords, before any legal action to recover possession of a property on account of rent arrears can be progressed, to fully consider domestic abuse and to support individuals who are experiencing it if that abuse is causing any financial arrears.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Given that domestic abuse is the leading recorded cause of women presenting as homeless in Scotland—it accounted for around 23 per cent of female-headed households’ homelessness applications in 2023-24—will you tell us what further specific steps have been taken to ensure that safe, stable and immediate housing options are available to survivors?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

James Dornan is correct. I stress that supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse is a priority for this Government and, personally, I am very committed to that. I mentioned some of what the Housing (Scotland) Bill provides in that regard.

We continue to work towards bringing into force part 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021—by December this year, I hope. The measures in the 2021 act mark a critical shift in preventing women’s homelessness in the first place by giving social landlords greater control to transfer tenancies to a victim/survivor.

As I say, I place great priority on protecting the housing rights of women, children and those suffering from domestic abuse, so I am always open to new ways in which we can do that.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

During stage 2 proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill, I lodged amendments that sought to strengthen the Scottish social housing charter. The amendments looked specifically at the relationship between social landlords and individuals who they believe may

“have experienced, are experiencing or are at risk of domestic abuse”.

Given that the charter was created in 2010, this is an opportunity for the Housing (Scotland) Bill to strengthen support for women, especially if they are at risk of being homeless. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary say that the Government will lodge amendments at stage 3, but I hope that she will work with members who lodged the related amendments at stage 2 to make sure that they are agreed at stage 3.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On the latter point, I will absolutely pick up the work with members in respect of decisions that were made to work together between stages 2 and 3. I will be glad to speak with Meghan Gallacher. She mentioned the charter. I think that the bill is just one way in which to strengthen it, but I will be very pleased to discuss that with her.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I apologise, Presiding Officer, to you and those in the chamber for my late arrival to portfolio question time.

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with Orkney Islands Council regarding any support needed to allow development projects to be taken forward to tackle the reported growing demand for housing in the islands. (S6O-04827)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Since January 2025, the Scottish Government has had 10 formal meetings involving Orkney Islands Council to discuss affordable housing, the most recent of which were with development partners on 5 and 12 June. In January, March and May, the Scottish Government attended housing market partnership meetings with the local authority, key delivery partners and local contractors to discuss the housing strategy and its delivery. To help to meet housing need, we are providing £3.6 million for the Orkney Isles through the affordable housing supply programme in this year’s budget.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer confirming the engagement that there has been with Orkney Islands Council, which I very much welcome. As the cabinet secretary will be aware, this is a key stage for progressing projects. In that context, I would very much welcome her agreement to visit Orkney to meet not just Orkney Islands Council and its partners but those who are taking forward many of the community housing projects that the previous minister, Paul McLennan, saw at first hand when he visited Orkney last year—I pay tribute to him for that engagement. This is a critical time and, as I said, I would welcome that commitment from the cabinet secretary.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I agree with Liam McArthur. I have stressed the engagement that has already taken place, and I understand that, since the start of this parliamentary session, 144 homes have been completed across Orkney, supported by about £11 million in grant through our affordable housing supply programme. That has been supplemented by 30 homes through the rural and islands housing fund. However, I recognise the on-going challenges and the demand that requires to be met. I will be very glad to discuss that with Liam McArthur and to visit him and others in Orkney when I am able to.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent ILGA-Europe rainbow index of LGBTI equality laws, which shows that the United Kingdom, including Scotland, has fallen from first place in 2015 to second worst this year. (S6O-04828)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Scottish Government is a progressive Government that has equality at the heart of our policies and actions. We are disappointed that the United Kingdom has fallen in the recent ILGA-Europe rainbow index of LGBTI equality laws. The Scottish Government remains committed to delivering equality for all people in Scotland, including the LGBTQI+ community.

Although much of equality law is reserved to the UK Government, our 2025-26 programme for government committed to

“Creating safe spaces for the LGBTQI+ community—funding work that tackles discrimination and upholds the human rights of this group, including through the Equality and Human Rights Fund, and progressing actions within the Non-Binary Equality Action Plan”,

as well as taking forward our commitment to ending conversion practices. We continue to work closely with LGBTQI+ stakeholders as we progress that work.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

ILGA-Europe and Scottish LGBTQ+ organisations are calling on political leaders to lead by example. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people in Scotland?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank Evelyn Tweed for the opportunity to reaffirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to advancing equality for LGBTQI+ people and to promoting, protecting and realising the rights of every LGBTQI+ person in Scotland.

We are providing funding of more than £1.1 million to organisations that work to promote LGBTQI+ equality in Scotland in 2025-26. That supports a range of projects to tackle inequality and realise the rights of LGBTQI+ people across all areas of Scottish life. We are working to implement our non-binary equality action plan and take forward our commitment to ending conversion practices, including those on the basis of gender identity.

We will continue to work with a wide range of third sector organisations to ensure that the voices of those with lived experience can help to improve the outcomes for LGBTQI+ communities across Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 6 has not been lodged.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting tenants in Aberdeen to protect and enhance their rights to a safe, secure and affordable place to live. (S6O-04830)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The First Minister has been clear that housing is a priority for this Government. Having been appointed Cabinet Secretary for Housing, I am firmly committed to that and, as part of it, to supporting tenants’ rights.

The Government has already started to take a range of actions to support tenants, including those in Aberdeen. That includes investing £768 million in affordable housing this year alone, introducing measures in the Housing (Scotland) Bill—some of which I have mentioned—in support of the introduction of longer-term rent controls, strengthening tenants’ rights and tackling disrepair in homes.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The impact that inadequate and unaffordable housing has on child poverty levels is clear. Can the cabinet secretary outline what action the Scottish Government is taking now and in the immediate future to work towards eradicating child poverty through improvements to housing?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We know how central housing is to tackling child poverty. That is why, as I indicated in my original response, we are investing £768 million this year to support the delivery of more than 8,000 affordable homes, with £16.3 million being made available in Aberdeen.

Since the national housing emergency was declared, we have helped an estimated 2,669 households with children into affordable housing in the year ending December 2024. We introduced amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill that will broaden ministers’ powers to impose timeframes on social landlords to investigate disrepair, such as damp and mould, and to start repairs, ensuring that homes are fit for purpose for families. That is before we even touch on the work that the Government has done to support the cost of living and to prevent homelessness in the first place.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 8 has not been lodged.

That concludes portfolio question time. Before we move on to the next item of business, there will be a short pause to allow front-bench teams to change position.

Alexander Dennis Ltd

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to the next item of business, which is a statement by Kate Forbes on Alexander Dennis Ltd. 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)

This statement concerns the announcement that was made last week by Alexander Dennis Ltd—ADL—regarding a new strategy for its United Kingdom manufacturing operations. I want to be as open as possible in the statement and in subsequent follow-up conversations with members.

I recognise that it is a hugely worrying time for the workforce at ADL, their families and the wider community in Falkirk and Larbert. I have shared with the unions that represent that workforce my commitment to leaving no stone unturned to secure a future for the company and the workforce. The company is a significant employer and supports a highly valuable supply chain. Our focus right now is on supporting the business as well as the communities around that business.

In recent weeks, the First Minister and I, in many cases with the support of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, have engaged extensively with Alexander Dennis and its parent company, NFI Group, to understand the issues and express our commitment to exploring every possible avenue.

We first spoke with ADL about the specific proposals on 25 May, and I believe that the company informed the UK Government at the same time. Directors of Alexander Dennis were open about the challenges posed by international competition. They also spoke of the strength of potential demand over the coming years as bus operators across the UK pivot towards net zero.

In response to market dynamics, ADL is proposing to consolidate its UK bus manufacturing operations into a single site. The company believes that consolidation will ensure

“financial sustainability and lower operating costs in the face of changing and challenging market dynamics.”

Under current proposals, manufacturing in Falkirk would be discontinued and the site closed, while production at Larbert would be suspended on the completion of current contracts.

The statutory consultation therefore places up to 400 roles at potential risk of redundancy—nearly one quarter of ADL’s entire workforce. We are determined to help the business find an alternative to that route and to find different ways to meet market challenges through investment and improved performance.

A key part of that is the ability of ADL to secure future orders. That is why we are working closely with the company to identify and secure a forward pipeline of demand for high-quality buses from Scottish and UK customers. Confidence in the demand pipeline is critical in both the short and longer term, and we recognise that a clear future pipeline of orders is the key to securing the future of bus manufacturing in Scotland.

Although the Scottish Government is exploring all possible opportunities to ensure a healthy pipeline in Scotland, it is clear that the bus market in the rest of the United Kingdom is substantially larger. Since 2020, Alexander Dennis has secured orders for 361 zero-emission buses, more than any other single manufacturer, through Transport Scotland’s Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund and its predecessor, the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme. Under those programmes, ADL has received £58 million of Scottish Government subsidy for vehicles.

ADL and bus production are synonymous, with more than a century of manufacturing excellence and innovation growing from Walter Alexander’s original coach works in Falkirk. I am sure that, across the chamber, we all respect that proud history and recognise the continuing significance of the company in the local economy.

However, this is not only a local issue. ADL draws on, and is supported by, a much larger and wider supply chain. In the past five years, Alexander Dennis has spent more than £1 billion with its 1,000 suppliers in all parts of the United Kingdom. The company’s own analysis suggests that

“For every job in bus manufacturing, there is a multiplier of three to four jobs in the wider supply chain and support services.”

A just transition requires that we retain the capacity to build low and zero-emission buses as a key part of the transition to a low carbon economy, to retain good, green jobs and skills. Buses connect communities all across Scotland, and travelling by bus is already one of the greenest transport choices that people can make. Transforming our bus networks from older diesel to zero emissions not only contributes to our emissions reduction targets but improves air quality and reduces harmful noise pollution.

Our policy interventions to date have been designed to accelerate uptake of zero-emission buses in the Scottish market. With our investment of more than £150 million, Scotland now has a higher proportion of zero-emission buses than any other part of the United Kingdom outside London. In 2024, 14 per cent of all buses in Scotland had zero emissions, compared with only 7.4 per cent in England.

In addition to supporting operators to embrace zero-emission buses, we have also invested directly with Alexander Dennis. Scottish Enterprise has a strong 10-year-plus strategic partnership with Alexander Dennis and has supported the company with technology development, skills and cultural transformation over many years. I think that it was clear from the letter from Alexander Dennis just how much it values that on-going support.

Over the past 10 years, Scottish Enterprise has awarded £30.5 million in research and development support to ADL, as a contribution towards £120 million of R and D spend by the company. Those grants have supported the development of ultra-low-emission and zero-emission technologies at ADL. Scottish Enterprise and Transport Scotland continue to provide on-going support to the company, both directly and through support for the adoption of zero-emission buses.

I turn now to the Government’s response to ADL’s consultation. We will work in close collaboration with the company, the trade unions and the UK Government to find practical solutions. We will not play politics with this situation, and we will continue to explore every avenue to avoid job losses.

I spoke with the Secretary of State for Scotland on 4 June, and we agreed to establish a cross-governmental working group to discuss options to stimulate demand and avert job losses. The second meeting of that working group was held on Monday this week, and the group will meet again at the beginning of next week.

We recognise ADL’s historic leadership in championing the cause, including through its co-chairing of the industry advisory group on the automotive sector and the subsequent Scottish bus decarbonisation task force, which published its pathway to net zero in 2022. The pathway describes a shared approach between Government, operators, manufacturers and the finance and energy sectors to creating a net zero future for buses. The leadership of bus operators such as First, Stagecoach and Lothian Buses in committing to go to net zero by 2035 is to be commended. That represents a wholesale change in how the bus sector operates, creating challenges but also new opportunities.

I recognise that ADL cannot stand still, and we want to support the company to innovate and bring forward new products that reflect changes in the sector. In this Government, we will continue to do all in our power to support Alexander Dennis and its highly skilled workers.

Following the announcement, I updated local elected members. I spoke with Michael Matheson, who is a long-standing advocate for the company, and also to Brian Leishman MP, whose constructive approach I am grateful for.

On Monday and again yesterday, I spoke with the trade unions that represent ADL workers in Scotland—GMB and Unite the Union—in separate meetings. They impressed on me the positive engagement that they were having with ADL, and they emphasised the importance of having a pipeline of orders for Falkirk and Larbert as part of any solution. That is precisely why that is a solution that we are working through.

I welcome the constructive approach of Unite the Union and GMB Scotland, and we share an absolute commitment to do all that we can to save those jobs. I will continue that dialogue every few days over the coming weeks.

It is important that we in the chamber put aside politics and work together during the 45-day consultation period in order to find practical solutions, hopefully well in advance of the end of that consultation period, to support the business and safeguard production of zero-emission buses in Falkirk and Larbert. We will need to collaborate across the chamber, with the UK Government and with procuring authorities to achieve success. That is where I think that there is an opportunity to find a solution.

Members of the Parliament, particularly those who have constituency interests, will want to be kept up to date, so I undertake to update members as frequently as they wish.

As we move to questions, I recognise that members have a tendency to pose multiple questions in their speaking slot, not all of which I might recall in my efforts to answer them. I would be happy to take an opportunity after the statement to go into more detail on the solutions that we are looking at and how we can collaborate to put them into practice.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement.

My heartfelt thoughts—and, I am sure, those of every other member—are with the workers and families who have been impacted by this terrible move. I hear what the Deputy First Minister says about setting politics aside, but our role here is to scrutinise the performance of the Scottish Government.

This crisis did not come out of the blue. However skilfully it was delivered, the statement cannot conceal the truth. The Scottish National Party Government was warned repeatedly for more than a year and did nothing. When ADL asked for support, it was met with silence. When Scottish jobs were on the line, the Scottish Government was looking in another direction. When orders for buses were needed, those orders went to China. This was not a matter of subsidy control; it was strategic neglect. Ministers now want to hide behind technicalities that a farthing’s worth of creativity and an ounce of leadership could have overcome—£90 million of public money went to ADL, but there was not even a guarantee of jobs. This is not just about industrial failure; it is a betrayal of Scottish manufacturing and, after everything that has happened in that area of Scotland, it is a betrayal of the Forth valley workforce.

I will ask this question again, plainly. Why, under the SNP Government, was public money spent not in a factory employing skilled Scottish workers in Falkirk but in a factory thousands of miles away in China?

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

Stephen Kerr might not want to believe what I have said, but perhaps he will believe what the company said in its letter. It was very clear about how much it valued Scottish Government support over the past few years. I will provide the statistics in a moment. It also cited a competitive imbalance in the UK market as part of the reason for the decision.

Here are some figures. Since 2020, ADL has secured orders for more than 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes. I imagine that my Labour colleagues might talk about Manchester, so let us compare that with how many vehicles were ordered via Manchester—the number was 160. ADL got all the demand for double-decker buses resulting from the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund.

On procurement, we have supported Alexander Dennis within the legal structures in which we have to operate. ADL has been clear that the challenge across the UK is to do with a competitive imbalance. Public bodies must comply with procurement regulations, the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and other relevant legislation.

Stephen Kerr said that we have offered no support in the past year—I am happy to be corrected if that is inaccurate. Since 2020, ADL has received £58 million of funding for zero-emission buses, and Scottish Enterprise has supported Alexander Dennis with £30.5 million in research and development support. That is the investment that we have made.

We understand that, if we are going to find a route forward to support the workforce, which I intend to do, we have to be realistic about what the challenges are. I have set out in my statement that the route to providing support involves looking at ADL’s cost base, considering what additional support we can provide to help with productivity and to lower costs, and ensuring that there is demand. That is why we are working with the procuring authorities, not just in Scotland but further afield, to look at whether we can develop an order book for ADL.

It is completely untrue to suggest that the Scottish Government has not acted over the past few years to support local manufacturing. The correspondence with ADL refers to that competitive imbalance, which we have to confront, recognise the root causes of and work through.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement.

As a matter of record, last year, under those contracts, there were 252 bus awards, but only 44 went to Alexander Dennis. The figures that the Deputy First Minister quoted for Manchester are since 2022, whereas the figures that she quoted for Scotland are since 2020.

A cross-party group of MSPs met workers from Alexander Dennis. Two things are very clear from that meeting. First, the urgency of the matter is clear—if there is no action within weeks, jobs will be lost by August—and, secondly, we need orders on the book.

Will the Scottish Government undertake an urgent review of the Subsidy Control Act 2022? Based on advice from the Cabinet Office, I understand that variation can be made through a direct award in relation to social value and by disregarding non-treaty state suppliers such as China. The Scottish Government might want to consult mayoralties that have used those aspects.

What assessment has been made on overreliance on a single country of manufacture for bus supply, given that buses are critical transport infrastructure? What steps will be taken to use the Scottish Government’s convening power to convene bus operators, both private and public, in order to bring forward orders and facilitate the order book that the 400 Alexander Dennis workers so badly need?

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

Another helpful clarification, I hope, for Daniel Johnson is that ADL secured orders for 72 of the 252 vehicles in ScotZEB 2. A number of those were not able to be delivered by the company, so the final order for ADL involved fewer vehicles, but it is important that the record reflects the truth in relation to securing orders.

I am quite astonished that Daniel Johnson asked me to review the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which is a reserved matter. We are looking at how we can support domestic manufacturing, and we have been engaging with the UK Government on that. He will know that procurement rules are broadly aligned across Scotland and the UK at large. All awards of public contracts must comply with the provisions in procurement legislation.

To directly answer Daniel Johnson, we are looking at all options. I appeal to members to consider what the company specifically cites as its primary challenges, so that, instead of going off to try to fix things that politicians have come up with, we try to fix the issues that the company has identified as needing to be fixed.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Over the course of last week, I had an opportunity to engage with the unions, and I visited the factory to speak to workers on Monday. It is clear from all the discussions in which I have participated that they see a way through the short and medium-term challenges that the company faces, but the only way in which that will be achieved is if the Scottish and UK Governments work together to find it.

I therefore ask the Deputy First Minister two specific questions. First, will she set out what measures the Scottish Government is looking at taking forward to address the short-term challenge that the company has with a lack of orders? Secondly, what action is being taken to address the fundamental challenge that the company faces with the uneven playing field whereby the Chinese bus sector will go from having a 10 per cent share of the UK market at the end of last year to a 35 per cent share this year? How will we deal with that challenge under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, and what measures is the UK Government saying that it will consider to address the uneven playing field that the company faces?

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

Michael Matheson is right to say that there is cause for hope in terms of finding a way through the present challenges. I hope that the gist of my statement was that I think that there are solutions there, but those can be delivered only through collaboration, which is why I emphasised the point about needing to work with people and not to resort to politics.

On the short-term measures, one of the challenges is that, even if we are able to identify demand, there might be a short lead time before that demand can come to fruition.

The member will know that we are exploring issues in and around furlough, for example. The Scottish Government has never run a furlough scheme. Obviously, the company was able to be part of a furlough scheme during the coronavirus period, and we are looking at whether that would be useful to the company to retain its workforce. There is also scope to look at whether other work could be provided to keep the local workforce employed. The primary short-term measure is how we support the workforce while developing that order book.

On the fundamental challenges that the member asked about, I have referenced the fact that we have to comply with public procurement regulations, subsidy control and so on. We are looking at how far we can push that and how far we can support local manufacturers while working with procuring authorities—in other words, people who actually own and run buses—to understand the demand and bring that together with a support package for the company. Those are the issues that we are working through and consulting the unions on. I am very hopeful that we can find a solution if we collaborate.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister says that ADL cannot stand still. It is not standing still—it is moving to Scarborough. She says that she wants to support the company to innovate and bring forward new products. I think that it is a bit late for that. She also says that she wants to collaborate. I agree with her on that. She is busy talking to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, but she might want to listen. I think that we should collaborate across the chamber.

The Deputy First Minister says that she has formed a task force. I would like to know what the task force has discussed already. To follow on from Michael Matheson’s question, what specific things is the task force looking at doing? If the Deputy First Minister wants to collaborate, I suggest that we get on with it in the next few days, because the company has not got long.

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

The task force is a group of officials from the UK and Scottish Governments and it is looking at how far it can push the procurement and subsidy control rules, so it is entirely in line with what has been discussed.

On the point about collaboration, I am more than delighted to collaborate with Graham Simpson on the ideas piece. I imagine that he does not procure buses directly, either. The collaboration that I am talking about is very much with procuring authorities—the people who own and run buses. That is key.

I would not be so quick to dismiss the point about innovation. When we speak to the company, we hear that there are two elements. The first is that it needs an order book and the second is that it needs to be competitive. The research and development investment that Scottish Enterprise has made, for example, helps it to compete. The two elements are important—reducing the cost base and ensuring that the company has buses to build.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

In a statement on 11 June, the chief executive officer of Alexander Dennis said:

“The stark reality is that current UK policy does not allow for the incentivisation or reward of local content, job retention and creation, nor does it encourage any domestic economic benefit.”

He further made it clear that its commitment to the UK is dependent on the content of the UK Government’s forthcoming industrial strategy. To what extent has the Scottish Government been consulted in relation to the preparation of said strategy and, in particular, the mitigation of the issues that Alexander Dennis outlined?

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

The member is right to quote the letter and to talk about some of the changes that need to be made. Ultimately, this is about supporting Scotland’s industrial base and the wider manufacturing base. We recognise the huge economic impact of the manufacturing sector on our economy, and ADL has long been a critical part of that.

On the UK Government’s industrial strategy, we have engaged with the UK Government to represent the interests of Scottish industries. We very quickly engaged with the UK Government on these matters, knowing full well that ADL had already been in touch with it.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I would be grateful if we kept questions and responses concise. There is much interest in asking a question, and we are marching through the available time.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

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

The Deputy First Minister’s statement is more a defence of the Government’s position than it is a plan of action to save these facilities and to save these workers’ jobs.

The fact is that the last two factories building buses in Scotland are facing closure at a time when there is no shortage of orders for new buses. That comes in the shadow of the closure of the Grangemouth refinery, and here we are again facing a close-and-import strategy. When is the Government going to recognise that these are strategic national assets? When will we see a proper Scottish Government industrial strategy? When will the Government understand that manufacturing matters, rescue these jobs, prevent these closures and save this industry?

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

Manufacturing does matter. I whole-heartedly agree with Richard Leonard’s point that this comes after the impact of Grangemouth, which is why we are focusing all our efforts on finding a solution, and it is why we have been engaging with Unite, GMB, the company, the UK Government and procuring authorities to do that. I am sorry that he felt that my statement was a defence of the Government’s position, because as far as I am concerned, it set out a clear road map for how we can find a solution, which will be to secure orders and reduce costs through investment. To me, that is a pretty clear approach for us to take.

There is work to do to deliver that. In my answer to Michael Matheson, I noted some of the points that we might need to address in the short term, which I have been engaging with unions about, so I think that we are all on the same page about what needs to be done. It is not all entirely within the Scottish Government’s gift, but we recognise our convening power and ability to bring people together. If we can also get some support from the UK Government on things such as the 2022 act, that will be even more helpful.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The prospect of job losses is extremely distressing for workers and their families, and I welcome the Scottish Government’s urgency in addressing the matter. Can the Deputy First Minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the employees of Alexander Dennis and the trade unions to ensure that their voices inform the Scottish Government’s work?

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

My approach has been to engage with the unions in an open manner. We have shared the progress that we have made and our thinking with them, and we have tested whether they would support the options that we have identified as a potential route forward, which I think is really important. We recognise that the workforce will be feeling uncertain. Support will be available to them but, to be blunt, my priority is to find an avenue through this and to ensure that the company has a future. I have set out the way in which I think that that can be done.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will leave the party politics out of it for a moment and ask the Deputy First Minister how we can support the workforce. There is a need to retain the workforce, and there may also be a need for retraining, particularly in the short term. I am aware that Forth Valley College has received some funding support from the UK and Scottish Governments to help the Grangemouth workers to retrain and move into sustainable jobs for the future. What kind of discussions has the DFM had with Forth Valley College about supporting the Alexander Dennis workers?

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

The member is absolutely right to identify that the workforce is key. We have been talking about innovation, but skills have to be a part of that. Right now, my primary approach is to work through the unions as representatives of the workforce, which is key. Essentially, I am taking a lead from them on what their priorities are. That has informed my approach so far in looking at how we can make investments to improve productivity, as well as securing orders for the future. Those are the two priorities that have been identified. The member will know, from having engaged with the Government in the past, that we stand ready to support colleges, for example, to provide retraining or skills opportunities. That is definitely an option in this case.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Flexibility around procurement rules and subsidy control is an age-old problem; we have debated that problem endlessly. What is new about what the Deputy First Minister is setting out today in respect of such flexibility? Is she offering real hope? Is there new flexibility? Can she spell out exactly what she is looking to find?

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

What I am looking to find is a means by which we can work with procuring authorities—people who actually own and run buses, in other words—to secure further orders for ADL. The Scottish Government does not own buses directly, which is why we need to collaborate. Some of the early conversations with the UK Government have been very helpful in that regard, and have helped us to understand what mechanisms are available. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is reserved to Westminster—it is not brand new, but it is fairly recent, having been enacted in the post-Brexit years—and discussions around that have been useful. I hope that that answers the question about what is new.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the SNP Government’s commitment to supporting public transport and operational sustainability, notably through schemes such as the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund. Can the minister say more about any support that has been received by Alexander Dennis through that scheme and its predecessor, the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme? Will she tell members how many orders Alexander Dennis has secured through the Scottish Government’s funding programmes, such as ScotZEB?

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

I am happy to confirm that, through ScotZEB 2, ADL initially secured orders for 72 of the 252 buses, and that, since 2020, through the Scottish ultra-low-emission bus scheme and the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund, it has received £58 million in relation to the procurement and building of buses.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Along with what happened at Grangemouth, the situation with Alexander Dennis represents a double blow to the people of Falkirk, and my thoughts are with them.

Following the loss of 400 jobs in Grangemouth, up to 1,600 jobs are now on the line as a result of Alexander Dennis being forced to relocate to Scarborough. When will the Scottish Government publish an economic impact assessment for the area?

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

We do not want to lose those jobs, so all of the focus right now is on saving them.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

My question is similar to Meghan Gallacher’s. What assessment has been made of the economic impact of the potential job losses, particularly following recent losses of other industrial jobs in Forth valley?

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

As I said to Meghan Gallacher, my primary focus is on protecting the jobs, and that will be my priority.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

We are all behind the Scottish Government and the UK Government as they try to save bus manufacturing in Scotland.

On the point about the forward order book, which is all that matters now, section 12 of the UK Procurement Act 2023, which was commenced in February this year, requires that contracting authorities

“must have regard to the importance of … maximising public benefit”

when awarding contracts, which is much stronger than the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which only requires authorities to consider social value. Will the Deputy First Minister consider how we can strengthen the language in the 2014 act?

In addition, will the Deputy First Minister take cognisance of the quality concerns that have been raised by bus operators in Scotland, such as McGill’s Buses and First Glasgow, around ADL’s electric vehicle products compared with their Chinese equivalents? Will she consider how we can establish a kaizen group involving the operators, Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish manufacturing advisory service to provide assurance and restore confidence in ADL’s products?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members of the requirement to use a virtual background when participating remotely.

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

The UK Government’s Procurement Act 2023 introduced some reforms to procurement procedures in the rest of the UK. In some ways, it can be said to be an attempt to catch up with the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, as that placed a sustainable procurement duty on public bodies that means that, before they carry out a regulated procurement, they must consider how the procurement process can

“improve the economic, social, and environmental wellbeing of the authority's area … facilitate the involvement of small and medium enterprises, third sector bodies and supported businesses in the process, and … promote innovation”.

The rest of the UK is bound by the same international agreements on procurement as Scotland is, and, in common with the rest of the UK, Scotland cannot legislate to allow for discrimination in favour of domestic bidders at the expense of other bidders with which a relevant trade agreement applies. Those are the issues that we are trying to grapple with.

I am grateful for the tone of Paul Sweeney’s question and note that he said that he backs the efforts of both Governments—that is helpful, and I am grateful for it.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I spent 22 years in the bus industry.

Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Scottish Government does not purchase or own any buses, but it provides a grant to bus operators to offset the difference in cost between a diesel bus and a zero-emission bus?

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

Yes, and that is precisely why we are working with procuring authorities.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the ministerial statement.

Public Service Reform Strategy

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Ivan McKee on a public service reform strategy for Scotland. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Today, I am pleased to publish our public service reform strategy, which is rooted in realism, driven by urgency and focused on delivering for Scotland.

Public services are an asset and an investment in our collective future. Everyone in Scotland should have access to services that are efficient, of good quality and effective. Public services reflect the society that we are and who we aspire to be: enterprising, compassionate and forward looking. Well-functioning public services are the antidote to those who seek to divide our communities.

People in Scotland want a fairer future in which every individual and every community has the opportunity to thrive. The strategy that I am launching today is about delivering that future. It aims to unlock the full potential of Scotland’s public services, making them more efficient, more joined up and more preventative in approach. It is about doing things better, not delivering less. It is about Scotland leading our own agenda for reform, not following that of others.

Public services matter—deeply. They are the foundation of a fairer Scotland and are essential to our priorities of eradicating child poverty, growing a wellbeing economy and addressing the climate crisis. However, our system is under strain. Demographic shifts and rising demand are intensifying fiscal pressures. The fiscal context remains challenging—the United Kingdom Government’s spending review has short changed Scotland by more than £1 billion, energy costs for public services are among the highest in Europe and every public body in Scotland is now impacted by increased employer national insurance contributions. A change of UK Government has changed little.

Next week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will publish the medium-term financial strategy and the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, which will set out the scale of the fiscal challenge that we face and how we will address it. Public service reform is an integral part of the Government’s response to that challenge—it is about how we optimise every pound of spend to deliver the services that the people of Scotland need and deserve.

The strategy builds on the work of the Christie commission, which called for public services that focus on prevention, place, partnership, people and performance. The Scottish Government has already delivered some successful reforms. Since 2008, smarter justice interventions have helped to deliver a 92 per cent reduction in the number of young people who are prosecuted in adult courts. The Scottish child payment alone is estimated to keep 40,000 children out of relative poverty this year. Between 2003 and 2020, our Childsmile programme has halved tooth decay among children and has generated significant cost savings for national health service boards. Our annual £1 billion investment that provides 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare has encouraged nearly three quarters of parents to say that it has helped them to find or look for work. The reorganisation of policing into a single body saves £200 million in back-office costs every year.

However, we clearly recognise that we have not delivered the Christie approach to its fullest potential. As a Government, we have listened to communities, to those who deliver services and to the people who rely on them. Despite increased investment, public satisfaction with services has fallen. We know that services can be hard to navigate for those who rely on them most, and front-line staff can feel constrained in their ability to help. That must change. We must rapidly increase the scale and pace of reform, building on the strong foundations that we have in Scotland—our shared vision and shared values.

We need to intervene earlier in order to prevent expensive crisis interventions later. The strategy sets out a bold, system-wide approach to changing how we think and behave across the public service system. It maximises impact across the whole system, not just in organisations. That whole-system approach will enable reform across all public services. That includes the changes that are set out in the population health framework and the service renewal framework, which were presented to the Parliament two days ago. We have taken the time to understand the barriers to systemic change—duplication, fragmentation, siloed working and outdated accountability structures—which, too often, make doing the right thing harder. We have identified the actions that are required to remove those barriers.

The strategy marshals together in one place everything that we need to do to reform our public services. It recognises that reform is a process, not an event, and that progress requires a range of interventions, all of which are necessary. Culture is the public sector’s biggest strength, but it can also be a barrier to reform. Leadership is key. We must allow leaders to lead and to take risks to improve outcomes, and we must hold them to account on that. Empowerment is vital, so we will involve staff, service users and communities in the design and delivery of services to make those services work better.

Prevention—investing earlier to avoid harm later—is easy to grasp but can be hard to deliver. Today, I am also publishing research that shows that Scottish public services have successfully introduced innovative and highly effective preventative interventions across a range of policy areas over a number of years. That research will inform our understanding of the technical and cultural barriers to building a preventative system, including those relating to how we enable the movement of money around the system to support investment in prevention and how we tackle the root causes of poor outcomes and improve lives.

It is key that we join up services and change how we do things to better integrate local services. We need to further develop local partnerships, empower staff and communities, remove duplication and break the cycle of people being passed from pillar to post in order to get help. We will simplify the policy landscape, strengthen community planning partnerships, unlock the potential of the third sector, tackle barriers to data sharing and maximise the use of digital technologies to make services fit for the future. That is exemplified in the whole-family support approach. The Scottish Government is working with local partners to enable greater local decision making and flexibility to support families at risk of poverty. That means that local partners can use resources in the way that they find most effective to support people.

Efficiency—ensuring that every pound of public money works as hard as it can—is no less than people and businesses have a right to expect. Across key efficiency programmes, we have already secured significant cash-avoiding and cash-releasing savings, which are expected to reach up to £280 million over the two-year period to the end of 2024-25.

However, there is much more that we can do. Through the tools at our disposal and the efficiency workstreams in our strategy, we will reduce identified costs on Scottish Government and public body spend on corporate functions by 20 per cent over the next five years. That equates to an approximate annual cost reduction of £1 billion by 2029-30. That will require every part of the public sector to reduce the cost of doing business and prioritise the front line.

All public bodies are already required to deliver best value, but this is about going further and faster. It is about taking all available opportunities to introduce and embed efficiency through automation, digitisation, estate rationalisation and changing the delivery landscape. That is about delivering significant change, including structural reform in the Government and public bodies when that is needed—not in a headline-grabbing way that simply throws out random targets based on no evidence, but by identifying and delivering the real opportunities for better, joined-up services that will improve lives and redirect resources.

We must be ready to reshape our workforce to enable that service reform. Everyone recognises that things must change, and that creates challenges as well as opportunities for employees. We will work with partners, staff and trade unions to ensure that we have the right number of people in the right roles to deliver real and meaningful change and that—importantly—staff are empowered to make services better.

The Scottish Government cannot deliver reform alone. We are part of a system with huge potential that already shares our vision and values. I have set out in the strategy how we will change our approach to partnership, because the full potential of reform can be delivered only in partnership with public bodies, trade unions and the third sector. Collaboration must be at the heart of our system. The Verity house agreement on collaboration with local government is central to that effort.

Employees are also key partners, because we will not deliver change without them. My message to our staff who deliver public services is this: you are at the heart of this change and are the system’s greatest asset, and the strategy is about trusting and empowering you to work across boundaries, to focus on what matters and to shape services with the people you serve.

The strategy is, at its heart, a programme of action. It will be backed by governance, performance monitoring and a clear commitment to transparency. Our public service reform board will drive and oversee that work and has members from public bodies, the third sector, local government and business with experience of delivering transformation programmes.

The strategy is a statement of belief that Scotland can lead and can change and that, together, we can build services that are modern, accessible, flexible, responsive and seamless and that are fit for Scotland’s future.

We must be bold and brave to deliver real, long-lasting and meaningful change. The strategy demonstrates that the Scottish Government is ready to go further and faster than ever to reform our public services. I invite the Parliament to support that shared endeavour and to work with us and our partners so that the people of Scotland get the public services that they need and deserve.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I apologise for my late arrival and for missing the beginning of the minister’s statement.

This 49-page, 14,851-word wish list of word soup on the future of public services does not use the word “waste” once, but it does say that the Scottish National Party Government has

“the ability to deliver real change within the public services”.

I agree with that, because the Government has delivered real change for the worse in Scotland’s public services.

Despite that Government telling us, the Scottish Conservatives, that it would be reckless to advocate for tax reductions of £500 million, Ivan McKee says today that he can save £1 billion simply by cutting corporate functions by 20 per cent in the next five years. The Government says that that is neither an attempt to grab headlines nor a throwing out of targets, but we have been here many times before with the SNP.

I therefore have some questions for the Government. What is the breakdown of the £1 billion in savings? How will those be made, in which departments and agencies and in which specific corporate functions? If that is now so achievable, why has the SNP Government not done it before?

The strategy makes only passing reference to the workforce and the issue of severance, so what size, in full-time-equivalent terms, will the bloated civil service be by the end of this decade and in 2035? The strategy does not mention a single body, agency or quango that is to be cut, so are there any, other than those that were announced in the health service statement yesterday, or is this yet another work of fiction? Is it not time for this Government to stop talking and start swinging the axe?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Craig Hoy for the question—I think. It is not unexpected.

I have delivered transformation programmes in the private sector and elsewhere. If we are serious about making real change, it is important to understand the drivers that create the barriers that prevent us from doing that. Just going in and swinging a big axe will not deliver services. We saw that across the Atlantic, where Elon Musk is no longer with the Trump Administration precisely because he went in with a big axe and started cutting stuff, but that backfired immediately because he did not know what he was doing.

The strategy is about understanding, in a serious way, what the barriers are in leadership, accountability, incentives and culture. It is about taking forward the efficiency programmes that we have already delivered on and that have, as I said in my statement, saved £280 million already. It is about building on the work in procurement, estates and intelligent automation—where we have done some fabulous work already—across the public sector and taking that work to the next level by building on the foundations that we have.

It is right to say that we have already announced one merger of public bodies this week and more of that will happen in due course, but the first step is not restructuring, no matter how attractive that might sound. The first step is to go in and understand where the duplication is and then to remove that and get bodies working together so that we can see the opportunities beyond that. That is where we will get the biggest value, rather than just grabbing headlines.

It is worth saying that civil service costs actually went down in real terms last year, that the head count is also going down and that that will continue as part of this work. The £1 billion savings target is 20 per cent of the corporate costs that we identified in a study that we did last year. We are putting in place budget processes to monitor and control that, and that will equate to a reduction of approximately 4 per cent in each of the next five years. The cabinet secretary will give more detail about that in the medium-term financial statement and the fiscal sustainability delivery plan that will be unveiled next week, and I know that Craig Hoy will wait with interest to see the further details that we will provide next week.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Presiding Officer, I, too, apologise to you and members for my late arrival. I thank the minister more emphatically than usual for advance sight of his statement.

The one thing that we could not accuse the Government of is rushing into this. It is only 14 years since the Christie commission published its results. Although I welcome the overall sentiment, I fear that this is just a plan for a plan and the creation of another board. The minister said that we need an analysis of the key levers, but can he specify what they are?

Secondly, reform is, to my mind, not about shrinking the state; it is about maximising its effectiveness. We must not ignore the fact that, over the past decade, the civil service has grown at three times the rate of the NHS, while police, fire and college head counts have all fallen. What will address that and make sure that we focus investment on the front line?

Thirdly, the minister again mentioned root causes. That is an acknowledgement that we have £1 billion-worth of waste. How did that happen and what will prevent it in the future?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I know that Daniel Johnson is earnest in his efforts to support reform and make sure that we do the right thing for the interests of everybody in Scotland.

The levers are laid out clearly in the statement. We have done the root cause analysis—and we have attempted to put it in an accessible format in the document—to understand why leaders optimise in their silos but not collaboratively across the system; how, in the way that we hold public bodies to account, we incentivise them to work within their silos and not integrate across the system; how budget processes also incentivise organisations and portfolios to optimise in their silos but not to invest across the system, including, importantly, in preventative measures; how the policy landscape has become too complicated, meaning that it requires to be simplified; and how we can look at structures to enable that to happen. Those levers are clearly set out, but we are always open to discussion on anything else that Daniel Johnson believes needs to be addressed as part of that activity.

On shrinking the state, he is absolutely right. We are not talking about saving £1 billion for the sake of it. It is £1 billion that we can then invest in front-line services. As I said, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will give more information on the detail of that next week.

On waste, I think that Daniel Johnson will accept, given his business background, that this is absolutely a journey. We have delivered some significant savings, which I identified in my statement and in the strategy document. Police reorganisation continues to save us £200 million a year, and there are many other examples in the document. As I identified, in the past two years, we have saved another £280 million through the programmes that we have taken forward.

To unlock the £1 billion, we need to accelerate what we are doing on automation and we need process redesign, simplification and removal of duplication. That stuff does not happen overnight, but we are working through it as quickly as we can so that we deliver real lasting change that will continue to make services better, rather than just swinging the axe and cutting them or making them worse in the short term.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The minister said that a vital change will be to streamline and enhance front-line service provision by reducing levels of duplication and sharing where possible. I very much welcome the statement. The public sector landscape is cluttered. We have local authorities, health boards, city region deals, regional growth deals, community planning partnerships, integration joint boards and non-departmental public bodies. Will the minister speak to Scottish Government plans to declutter and, potentially, merge public sector bodies?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

One of the workstreams in the strategy is on precisely that point—it is to look at the public sector landscape and at Government directorates in the round and understand where there is duplication so that we can take forward that work. As I said, the way that we do that is by understanding at a fairly deep level what is happening, doing the process mapping, and understanding the value stream mechanisms within that and how it interfaces with service users. That is where we identify the opportunities to remove duplication, automate back-office services and further implement the shared service platforms that we are already rolling out to public bodies.

Our first step is to work with public bodies in clusters, within and across portfolios, so that they can share information, data and process mapping and understand where there is duplication. In that way, the experts in the public bodies will lead that work. Public body leaders have been very clear that they are empowered to come forward with their proposals, both within public bodies and within Government, on how we can make the whole system more efficient and effective.

As we move forward, I have no doubt that there will be more proposals for the removal of public bodies but, as I said, the first step is to make what we have work more effectively. Anyone who has run a transformation knows that that is what should be done first, as it will highlight the opportunities for simplifying the landscape, as and when that is required.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We will need slightly briefer responses.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This is the sixth debate and statement that I have sat through on public sector reform, and it just shows that the finance committee has been calling for real action for a very long time now. What one structural change coming out of the statement will make a real difference to public sector reform?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

There are many things, as there are 18 different workstreams, but I will highlight the two most important aspects. First, we need public body leaders to focus on being collaborative. As our statement indicates, that is all about how we recruit those leaders, how we hold them accountable and how we change the culture to ensure that they focus on making the whole system work, instead of focusing on how individual parts of the system function, which is suboptimal.

The second aspect is enabling a shift in resources to a preventative budget. Everyone is incentivised to maximise their budgets for their part of the silo in the here and now, and they are measured on how they do that. However, that means that we can lose perspective on ensuring that there is preventative spending. Indeed, that is what has stymied our efforts in that respect so far.

With the numbers that we have published today, our statement makes it clear that the biggest savings will come from ensuring that we get prevention right. There are some good examples of that, but there is an awful lot more that we can do. The way in which we currently structure preventative budgeting within the public sector largely blocks that work.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Modernisation and increased efficiency must be at the heart of our efforts to reform public services, and we must take advantage of the advances in digital technology and artificial intelligence in order to do that. Can the minister outline what steps the Scottish Government is taking to harness the potential of technology to future proof our services?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Digital underpins a lot of the work that we are doing and is very important. I do not think that it is the most important thing—culture, leadership and the way in which money flows are more important—but it is absolutely key. Our centre for intelligent automation in Government, which provides services across the public sector, has saved upwards of £10 million already; it has implemented dozens of projects, with several hundred more in the hopper. We are investing more in that service to enable that to happen.

The provision of digital services for service users is hugely important. The digital strategy, which will be published soon in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, will identify how we are taking that work forward. Ensuring that we use digital resources across the piece is very important, as we must ensure that we do not duplicate digital skills in different parts of the public sector. It is critical that we ensure visibility of the digital skills and that we reuse code components to accelerate the deployment of digital solutions.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The local government workforce has reduced by 30,000 full-time-equivalent posts, while central Government payroll has increased by 73 per cent during the Government’s time in office. Does the minister feel that the balance of staffing levels between national and local government is appropriate? Does that lend itself to his ambition to having the right number of staff in the right places?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

No. This is a journey and we need to make more progress—and fast. The data indicates that the civil service workforce in total, including contractors, has been coming down for the past three years in a row. That process will continue; indeed, it resulted in a real-terms reduction in the Scottish Government’s total operating cost last year.

I would characterise this not in terms of the workforce in central and local government, but in terms of corporate functions and the front-line workforce. The person-to-person, front-line workers who engage with service users are, of course, the most important. This is about shifting the £1 billion in resources from corporate functions to that front-line workforce, and we need to accelerate that work, while working with partners to make that happen in a way that does not cause problems for the system as we are doing it. We want to go as fast as we can, using the tools that I have outlined in the strategy.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

First, Presiding Officer, I apologise for being a little late.

Can the minister help other political parties understand who is ultimately accountable for the head count of the civil service? At a recent meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the outgoing permanent secretary, John-Paul Marks, stated that his role included

“being steward of head counts”.—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 March 2025; c 17.]

To that end, will the minister confirm that his good efforts on reform, including having the right number of people in the right roles, will be fully supported by the new permanent secretary?