Scottish Parliament, 11 September 2025

292 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any potential environmental impact, what its response is to reports that a category A nuclear safety event occurred at Faslane naval base between January and April this year. (S6O-04914)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Defence, including the operation of the Faslane naval base, is a reserved matter. However, the Scottish Government places great importance on the safe, secure and responsible management of radioactive substances while protecting people and the environment. Therefore, repeated reports of serious incidents at Faslane are extremely worrying.

Of course, the only way to get rid of Trident is with independence. The Scottish National Party Scottish Government’s long-standing position is that nuclear weapons have no place in an independent Scotland.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Has the Westminster Government made any information available to the Scottish Government on addressing the radioactive waste that was released by the nuclear safety failure and on the work of cleaning the affected area and ensuring the physical health of local residents following the event?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In short, the answer is no. It is regrettable that the Ministry of Defence has not released details of the reported category A nuclear site event report, given that the MOD defines category A as the most serious. It has informed us that the incident posed no risk to the public and did not result in any radiological impact to the environment. However, the Scottish Government has not received any further information on the nature of the incident. Given that nuclear weapons are an ever-present danger, that is disappointing and it does not provide the public with the reassurance that they need. The MOD has also informed us that the incident that was reported was handled in accordance with the extant policy and in collaboration with the defence nuclear safety regulator, but that is the sum of it.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

I agree with the cabinet secretary that it is extremely concerning that there has been a category A safety event at Faslane. It certainly brings Scotland’s environmental risks from nuclear weapons into sharp focus.

With the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s draft strategy 2025 proposing a transfer of defence nuclear liabilities, including the Vulcan naval reactor test establishment, into the civil sector, will the Scottish Government step up to ensure that Scotland does not inherit Westminster’s nuclear legacy in secret? Will the cabinet secretary make a commitment to have a full debate in the Parliament so that we can scrutinise things such as risk assessments before any decisions are made?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I need to go into the detail of what Ash Regan has just put forward, but I am always willing to have a debate on the issue, as it concerns many people throughout Scotland. Although there is an agreement between the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Ministry of Defence on reporting such incidents and the impact that they have, it is worrying that such events happen in the first place.

I believe that Bill Kidd has lodged a motion for a members’ business debate on the issue. I hope that it will get the support across the chamber that it deserves.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting entrepreneurship. (S6O-04915)

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

Recent Tech Nation data shows that Scotland’s start-up economy is booming, with our 19 per cent growth rate among the fastest in Europe. Our ambition is to establish Scotland as one of Europe’s fastest-growing start-up economies. That is backed by a record £30 million of investment this year, including a £2.9 million proof-of-concept fund translating research discoveries into commercial propositions.

We also continue to support Techscaler, which is among Europe’s best start-up incubators, and one of this Government’s finest achievements.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The NatWest accelerator programme has already supported more than 10,000 new businesses, created 12,000 jobs and driven £700 million-worth of investment, which should be celebrated. However, businesses throughout Scotland consistently raise concerns about a fragmented funding landscape, overly complex procurement processes and the sheer number of agencies that they are expected to navigate—more than 300 in total. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that business support must be simplified and streamlined to ensure that entrepreneurs are better supported to make their ambitions a reality?

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

The very principle that underpins Maurice Golden’s question is what prompted Mark Logan to design the blueprint that we have been putting into place over the past few years. For example, the compound annual growth rate of key European start-up economies shows that the approach taken to streamlining is working. I mentioned Scotland’s 19 per cent growth rate, and I would compare that with the United Kingdom’s rate of 12.5 per cent, France’s 12 per cent, Sweden’s 10 per cent and the 10 per cent rate in the Netherlands. There is still work to be done, but bringing everything together into Techscaler is one example of what we are doing.

Equally, in an adaptable and innovative market, we do not want to micromanage the process. I believe that our approach is working, but we need to collaborate with NatWest and others. NatWest’s figures from earlier this year showed, again, that we are continuing to grow one of the highest start-up rates in the United Kingdom.

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

I welcome the record funding for entrepreneurism that the Scottish Government is investing this year, which comes alongside the news that Scotland is now the fastest-growing start-up nation in Europe. Can the Deputy First Minister say any more about the renewed support that the Scottish Government is providing to start-ups and about any collaboration with the private sector?

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

I thank Audrey Nicoll for the point about collaboration with the private sector. One of the best examples in recent weeks has been the commitment to co-invest in Scottish EDGE. We have committed to investing £3.6 million in Scottish EDGE over the next three years, which means that leading entrepreneurs have committed additional funding to Scottish EDGE, too. Moreover, our risk capital market grew 19 per cent to £704 million, with significant private sector participation. All those are examples of what is actually happening; in other words, it is all about looking at outcomes and outputs, instead of focusing just on the inputs.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Transport Scotland about motorway gantry signage. (S6O-04916)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The messages displayed on electronic signs on gantries are part of the Traffic Scotland service that is provided by Transport Scotland. Traffic Scotland gathers real-time information on Scotland’s trunk road and motorway network, which informs the messaging displayed on gantries.

Messages can include information on reduced speed limits, on implementation of lane restrictions or on incidents or congestion ahead. Those messages are deployed as soon as possible after verification and aim to reduce the disruption caused by trunk road closures, congestion, events, roadworks, adverse weather, accidents and other incidents.

When gantry signs are not being used to support high-priority operational responses such as those that I have mentioned, background safety information is displayed to coincide with topical events or other areas of road safety focus. Those messages are reviewed annually by Traffic Scotland.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I asked the same question of the cabinet secretary in June 2023 and of her predecessor, Humza Yousaf, in 2017, and I am asking again on behalf of my constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife who make extensive use of the M90 and M9 motorways. There are still issues with gantry signs that are not time sensitive—indeed, I have seen that for myself—and about information being displayed about congestion or queues ahead when there are no such things. That is unhelpful to drivers, who have to make a decision about which roads they are going to take. This time of asking, I ask the cabinet secretary this: will she assure those constituents that she will press Transport Scotland to do something about this on-going problem?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

It is important that dynamic messaging is timely and accurate, because driver frustration, whether it be Ms Smith’s or that of others, should be avoided. Thousands of messages are displayed and removed daily in response to changing and dynamic situations.

When Ms Smith last wrote to me on this issue, we asked for specific occurrences, because that information can help improve quality control. Traffic Scotland undertook quality checks in November 2023 following Ms Smith’s intervention, and my officials have recently instructed Traffic Scotland to undertake further sample checks of sign setting and removal on the motorway network, including between Fife and Edinburgh. That process is on-going. Traffic Scotland welcomes reports, which are helpful, as any specific examples, particularly during weekdays, allow it to pinpoint the exact issues.

I should say that Traffic Scotland’s website will be unavailable between 13 and 16 September due to essential building work at the national control centre. The information has already been advertised, but I just add it here as a public information notice.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it can offer to help local authorities protect council-run and arm’s-length external organisation-run community facilities. (S6O-04917)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government recognises the critical role of community facilities across Scotland and provided a record local government settlement in 2025-26. That record funding helps local authorities to support their local priorities, which includes both council and external-led community facilities. We will continue to work in partnership with local government to ensure that the people of Scotland continue to receive the high-quality public services that they expect and deserve.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish National Party will tell me that council funding has gone up, but that only brings a wry smile to the face of councillors in Scotland, because the truth is that cliff-edge finances are leaving some vital community facilities in wrack and ruin. That includes facilities that are in or close to the First Minister’s constituency, such as the Dewars centre, where the ice rink is still under threat, and, more importantly, those in Moray, where Moray leisure centre has temporarily closed its ice rink, to the shock of local users. Curling, ice hockey and ice skating are all sports that we should be encouraging. Will the cabinet secretary ensure that councils do all that they can to find new ways to support vital facilities such as Moray leisure centre to remain open?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Let me put a couple of facts on the record. First, local government funding has increased.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

So has demand!

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us not shout across the chamber.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Accounts Commission has confirmed that, for the past two years, there has been a real-terms increase to local government funding. That is a fact. Moray Council has received an additional 6.6 per cent compared with its funding for 2024-25. I point out to Tim Eagle that the Tories run Moray Council, so perhaps he should have a word with the Conservative leadership of the council.

On ice rinks, I appreciate that the curling community in Elgin in particular will have significant concerns. We are aware of the challenging financial circumstances that face energy-dense sports and leisure facilities. Moray leisure trust has stated that the closure of the Elgin ice rink is a result of increasing energy costs. The United Kingdom Government has the ability to provide appropriate energy bill relief to facilities that require it. We will consider how we can continue to raise such concerns with the UK Government, and sportscotland continues to engage with Moray leisure trust, Scottish Curling and key partners to understand the current situation locally. Those discussions will continue.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the economy secretary and business minister have had with the United Kingdom Government regarding tariff exemptions and other support for the Scotch whisky industry. (S6O-04918)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

My ministerial colleagues and I regularly meet those in the sector to discuss the challenges and opportunities that they face. In July, I wrote to the responsible UK Government minister to call for action on several trade issues that the Scotch whisky sector faces, as do those producing other iconic Scottish products. As members will be aware, the First Minister has been leading from the front on our intensive engagement with the sector. He has also raised the important issue with the Prime Minister and, this week, directly with the US President. Removing the 10 per cent tariff barrier between the US and Scotland would, of course, deliver economic benefits for both countries.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Scotch Whisky Association recently released new data that shows that more than 1,000 jobs have been lost in the Scotch whisky industry since the most recent United Kingdom budget. In addition to the excise duty increase, the UK Labour Government introduced a national insurance increase, and energy prices remain too high, impacting energy-intensive industries that can access no support.

Ahead of the next UK budget, what representations will the Scottish Government make to the UK Government to ensure that our economy and businesses are better supported to weather difficult economic headwinds?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Gordon MacDonald raises good points. Last night, along with many other members, I was at an event that was hosted by the Scotch Whisky Association in Edinburgh, and I can say that the First Minister’s standing up for the sector and taking its case directly to Washington went down like a fine dram with the industry. We now need the same approach from the UK Government to deliver on the tariff deal—it now has an opportunity to do that—and to address issues such as the alcohol duty, because the reduction in draught duty in the last budget increased the disadvantage that the spirits sector faces in our country and the inherent unfairness in the alcohol duty system.

Other issues, such as the rise in national insurance contributions, also affect the hospitality sector and, in turn, the Scotch whisky industry. Like Gordon MacDonald, I hope that the UK Government will now stand up for the whisky industry and address those issues in its forthcoming budget.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to hospitality that I have received from the Scotch Whisky Association.

I join my fellow co-convener of the cross-party group on Scotch whisky in welcoming any moves to reduce damaging tariffs and costs on the industry. However, I am surprised that the minister cannot see the contradiction in the Scottish National Party position. If we were members of the European Union, as the SNP demands, we would currently be facing 15 per cent tariffs on Scotch whisky exports, not the 10 per cent that we have as part of the United Kingdom. It is only Brexit freedoms—which we would not have if we were in the EU—that give us the opportunity to negotiate away those tariffs. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When is the SNP going to rethink its damaging policy on rejoining the EU, which would cause such destruction in the Scotch whisky sector?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

If Murdo Fraser was paying attention, he would know that the Scottish Government does not want any tariffs on Scotch whisky, be they 15 per cent or 10 per cent. Just as his Government for many years failed the Scotch whisky industry in relation to the 75 per cent duty that was placed on every bottle of Scotch whisky, thanks to his party, the current UK Government has a lot to do if it is going to stand up for the Scotch whisky industry. It can address that in its forthcoming budget, as well as by following in the footsteps of the First Minister by raising the tariff issue with the United States and concluding the deal, now that the First Minister has set the scene for it.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to develop year-round support for, and promotion of, high street businesses, in light of the recent Scotland loves local week. (S6O-04919)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Scotland loves local week was a fantastic opportunity to spotlight the year-round campaign that encourages people to shop in their local businesses. Mechanisms such as the Scotland loves local gift card scheme and awards encourage people to think about what they are spending so that they spend more locally. The campaign also recognises that local businesses are crucial in retaining wealth in our local economy and encouraging vibrancy in our town centres.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Over the past year, Go Forth Stirling BID has reported 26 new business openings in Stirling, including international brands and small independents. Will the minister join me in celebrating those new openings and say what steps the Government is taking to reduce the number of long-term empty units on our high streets?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I join Evelyn Tweed in celebrating the new businesses in her constituency. It was fantastic to see last week that the statistics for new businesses being created in Scotland were much higher in the first half of this year than they were in the first half of last year. It is also striking to note that the largest share of that increase was in hospitality. That is good news for that sector and for the Scottish economy.

The Scottish Government will continue to work with local authorities on our competitive rates regime, which gives flexibility to local authorities to address the issue of empty and vacant units on our high streets.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its discussions with the University of Dundee and the Scottish Funding Council regarding the university’s financial situation. (S6O-04921)

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

Since my statement to the Parliament in June, I have visited the university and held several meetings with the university’s leadership and the Scottish Funding Council, and I have also engaged with trade unions and local MSPs, including Mr Rennie. My officials are holding weekly trilateral meetings with the SFC and the university.

A university recovery plan was submitted to the SFC in August, and the SFC wrote to the university a week later with an alternative approach. All parties are now urgently working towards an agreed way forward that will ensure a long-term managed recovery.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Ministers continue to say that the situation is urgent, but we are almost a year on from when we first discovered the depths of the problem at the University of Dundee. We need a sustainable recovery plan for the university. When will that happen?

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

I thank Mr Rennie for his interest. He will be aware of my engagement with him and with the university’s leadership and the Scottish Funding Council throughout the summer recess. We will meet again next week.

We are working at pace with the SFC and the university, but it is for the university to come back with an alternative approach. We expect to receive that alternative approach next Monday.

I have committed to meeting Mr Rennie and colleagues from across the affected region next week, along with the Scottish Funding Council. It is imperative that we find an approach for Dundee university that has the buy-in of the wider university community, including staff and students—they are fundamental to that—and, of course, the approach must have the backing of the court, leading with a clear mandate. I look forward to our engagements next week.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Next week, members of the Scottish Parliament will vote on the Government’s Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. During my time here, I have tried to help crime victims whose suffering is far too often compounded by a justice system that is slow, secretive and unjust. My party has campaigned to give victims a meaningful voice and greater rights to basic information. We campaigned to end the not proven verdict, which is addressed in the bill, and it is welcome that John Swinney listened to our concerns about the plan to remove juries from some trials, which has now been dropped.

The Government has shifted its position on the bill, and we truly welcome that, but it has not gone far enough. Does John Swinney really think that the bill will make a material difference to victims?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yes, I do, because of the very careful engagement of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs in taking the bill through Parliament.

Mr Findlay and I spent some time when I was on the back benches—as he was—scrutinising the bill when it came to Parliament. Much of the evidence that we heard during that process persuaded me, when I became First Minister, that there had to be changes to the bill.

The Government listened to the evidence that was put in front of us. We will continue to do that, and many of the proposals and reforms that have been suggested in the bill are designed to achieve the objective that Mr Findlay has put to me, which is to make sure that the interests of victims are better protected by our justice system. I am confident that, after the scrutiny that Parliament gives it next week, the bill will be in a position to do that.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Liz Shanks campaigns for victims’ rights since her truly horrific domestic violence ordeal, which was featured in a BBC documentary. We agree with her that all crime victims should be told—must be told—when secretive plea deals are struck in criminal cases. To be fair, the Government has given some ground on plea deals, but the changes fall far short of what is needed.

Liz and the other women met the justice secretary, who appeared to say all the right things, but this is what Liz told me today:

“They are pretending to listen, but crime victims will continue to be badly let down by the bill, which could have done so much more.”

For the sake of Liz and all other victims, will John Swinney back my plea deal amendments?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I pay tribute to the courage of women such as Liz Shanks. It is invariably women who have had the courage to come forward and talk about their experience so as to ensure that victims are more central to the criminal justice system. I know that the justice secretary has engaged substantively on all those issues.

We have will have amendments in front of us in Parliament on Tuesday, and the Government will consider all the amendments that are submitted to come to the right conclusion.

I assure the Parliament and Liz Shanks that we have listened to the opinions that have been expressed to us, we are making changes to the bill, and the Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that the voice of victims is central to the way in which the criminal justice system proceeds.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Of course, the engagement is welcome, but it has to be meaningful. Plea deals are not the only part of the bill that does not do what it should. My colleague Liam Kerr has lodged an amendment that would instigate a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry. Although we believe that there should be a full public inquiry, our amendment would at least guarantee an investigation. Those predatory criminals raped vulnerable girls, and the Government should want to properly examine the scandal; however, so far, it has been resistant. Will John Swinney fix the bill so that it gives grooming gang victims the voice, the inquiry and the justice that they truly deserve?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has taken a number of significant steps in this area of policy, not least of which is the establishment of the continuing Scottish child abuse inquiry, led by Lady Smith, which has been sitting since 2016. That inquiry is providing the welcome and significant scrutiny that is required on the issue.

Separate work by Police Scotland and the Crown is under way to explore individual cases, some of which are the cases that Mr Findlay has just raised with me, to establish whether further detailed scrutiny is required on grooming gangs. From my reading of the information that I have seen, I am not persuaded of the necessity of that further inquiry, but work is under way in Police Scotland and the Crown Office to advise ministers on that point. We will consider that and discuss it with Parliament in due course.

It is important that I make it clear that the criminal justice system has taken very hard and significant action to bring people to account for utterly unacceptable behaviour, and that will remain the case.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The truth is that the Scottish child abuse inquiry will not look at the grooming gangs, or even at industrial-scale abuse in Scottish football. The bill could give victims real transparency over plea deals and much greater involvement in the parole process, and it could put a spotlight on the grooming gangs scandal. It could do so much more, but it will not meaningfully change the justice system. It is a letdown for victims.

If the First Minister wants to support victims and have the support of my party, he must do more. We could back a bill that makes a real difference, but, as it stands, this is a victims law in name only. Will John Swinney listen to victims, show some ambition and make more changes before next week’s vote?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not want for one moment or in any way to signal to Parliament that I want to do anything in the bill that does not address the legitimate concerns of victims about our criminal justice system. That is why the Government has introduced the bill. I had the privilege of sitting and hearing evidence in the Criminal Justice Committee when I was on the back benches. As a result of listening to victims, when I came into office as First Minister, and working with the justice secretary, we revised the bill to make sure that the interests of victims are ever more central to it. I do not accept the characterisation of the bill that Mr Findlay has put to me.

Legitimate issues will be raised that members will want to press the Government on. That is entirely appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and I welcome it. However, I say to Parliament that the Government has introduced legislation to do exactly what is required in the criminal justice system just now, which is to put the voice of victims more centrally into that system. I am confident that the bill that Parliament will consider next week will do exactly that.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The Scottish National Party has a soft-touch approach to crime in our country. Since the last election, shoplifting is up 124 per cent. Shop staff are going to work fearing for their safety, and communities are being undermined by criminals who feel that they can get away with it. Will John Swinney and his SNP Government apologise for effectively legalising shoplifting in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Sarwar is at the bottom of the barrel today. The accusation that there is a soft-touch justice system in Scotland might have some validity if we were not incarcerating more people than any other western European country and if our prisons were not facing the increase in population that they are. The charge that Mr Sarwar has put to me is a baseless charge that is unworthy of the Labour leader in the Scottish Parliament, and he should withdraw it.

In the budget—which Mr Sarwar never voted for—we put in money to tackle retail crime and to support and work with the retail sector. Mr Sarwar could not even bring himself to vote for that provision. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is another example of Mr Sarwar coming into the chamber, ramping up the rhetoric and failing to deliver on the reality for the people of our country.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney is living on another planet. He wants to focus on inputs when the reality is that shoplifting is up 124 per cent and that clear-up rates show that less than half of all shoplifting crimes are even solved.

I spoke to shop workers in Glasgow yesterday. They told me that, after years of SNP police cuts, officers will now investigate an incident of shoplifting only if shop workers can give them the suspect’s name. If the shoplifter is not already known, there is almost no chance that they will even be investigated, let alone that the criminal will be caught.

The situation is so bad that businesses in Edinburgh have had to form a ShopWatch scheme to try to investigate crimes against their own businesses. Victims of crime are being forced to investigate offences that were perpetrated against them. Is that really the best that we can do, all while so many crimes go unreported?

The Retailers Against Crime director, Maxine Fraser, has described the situation as being “out of control”. Will John Swinney admit that, like with so many other issues, he has given up on keeping Scotland’s communities safe?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In the budget that Mr Sarwar never voted for, this Government put in record investment of £1.64 billion for policing, enabling us to deliver police services across the length and breadth of the country. The Government has also put in resources to work with the retail sector to tackle the issue of retail crime. In addition to all of that, the Government is working to ensure that we have an effective police presence in every community in Scotland so that these issues are addressed. If he is not prepared to vote for the Government’s budget, Mr Sarwar is not in any position whatsoever to come to the chamber and complain about any other issues.

This Government is determined to work with different organisations in Scotland to protect the public in a country in which crime is at one of its lowest levels in 40 years. [Interruption.] I will say that again, with all the heckling: crime in Scotland is at one of its lowest levels in 40 years. That is because of investment by this Government, which the Labour Party failed to support.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney is not living in the real world. The SNP’s record on justice is nothing short of criminal, and it is no wonder that communities across Scotland feel abandoned. Police want action just as much as victims, but the truth is that they are just another victim of SNP incompetence. Under the SNP, there are 800 fewer police officers on the streets and police station after police station has been closed. The bill for Glasgow’s new prison has soared 10 times over to £1 billion and violent crime is on the rise. It is no wonder that he is running a million miles away from his own record.

John Swinney’s SNP Government has failed workers, failed businesses and failed the police. Why is John Swinney allowing a tiny minority to make life difficult for Scotland’s hard-working majority?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Sarwar challenges me about the record of my Government. I am very proud of that record and defend it. On Thursday last week, I said to Parliament, in response to a question from Mr Greer, that if anyone wanted an idea of what a Labour Government would look like, they need only look at the chaos in London. That was on Thursday, before we got to Friday, with the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister and chaos added to chaos, and the beautiful and unjust moment of the sacking of Ian Murray as the Secretary of State for Scotland.

How on earth can Labour challenge me on my record when a Labour Government is presiding over a shambles in Westminster? The Labour Party has nothing to offer Scotland. This Government is delivering for the people and we are going to carry on doing exactly that.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The President of Israel, whose statements have been cited by the International Court of Justice as plausible evidence of Israel’s genocidal intent, was welcomed to the United Kingdom with open arms by Keir Starmer this week. He is the same President who signed his name on bombs that were dropped on homes, hospitals and schools. He is the same President who said that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. Keir Starmer is treating peaceful protesters like terrorists, while rolling out the red carpet for the head of a genocidal apartheid regime.

This is not just about visits from Israel’s heads of state. British citizens and residents have travelled to serve in Israel’s occupation forces, making them complicit in war crimes. This Parliament passed the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, making genocide and war crimes offences in Scots law, regardless of where they are committed. I ask the First Minister to confirm that that law will be applied in full and that anyone in Scotland who has served in Israel’s occupation forces will be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted for the part that they have played in the crime of genocide and occupation.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I understand the depth of Mr Greer’s concern about the visit of the President of Israel to the Prime Minister. I also understand the Prime Minister’s argument that there is a need for dialogue with the Israeli Government to try to bring about a resolution of the unjustifiable assault on Gaza. I understand that point. What I would want to be more confident of is that the President of Israel heard from the Prime Minister a series of actions that the United Kingdom Government will take to bring Israel to account for the disproportionate attack that has been made on Gaza. I would feel happier if that was the case.

On Mr Greer’s specific point about any individuals from this country who are involved in the work of the Israeli Defense Forces and whether there would be any consideration of that behaviour, those judgments would be made independently by the prosecutorial authorities. It would be wrong for me, as First Minister, to indicate what should or should not happen in those circumstances. However, I understand the seriousness of the point that Mr Greer puts to me on that important question.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

More than a third of the 60,000 Palestinians who have been confirmed to have been killed by Israel since 2023 were children—shot, bombed and starved to death, with no way out. No company profiting from that apartheid and genocide should be allowed to profit here in Scotland.

Last week, Palestinians celebrated when this Parliament took the historic decision to pass a Green proposal that Scotland boycott, sanction and divest from Israel. I thank the First Minister for his Government’s support, but now we must act to deliver on it. The very least that the Scottish Government can do is to take the same actions against Israel that it already has taken against Russia. In 2022, Scottish ministers rightly made an immediate call for every business here to sever links and cease trading with Russia. Palestinian lives are worth no less than those of Ukrainians or Scots, and this Parliament has voted for an economic boycott. Will the First Minister now call on Scottish businesses to join the global movement against apartheid Israel?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In my statement to Parliament last Wednesday, I set out a range of interventions that the Government will take forward to address those issues. I recognise the importance of following through on the commitments that have been given to Parliament, and I give Mr Greer the assurance that that is exactly what the Government is doing and the action that we are taking.

The appalling situation in Gaza has been escalated by the unwarranted and unjustifiable attack on Qatar—a state that is working to try to bring some degree of peace to the situation in the middle east. The attack on Qatar was intended to undermine the very peace process that we all want to see happening. That brings me back to the starting point of Mr Greer’s question, which is that there is a necessity for the United Kingdom Government to use its diplomatic influence with the Government of Israel, and to work with other partners, in order to make it abundantly clear that the conduct of the Israeli Government is completely and utterly unacceptable. There needs to be an immediate ceasefire and the flow of humanitarian aid, and we need to start the process of recovery for the people in Palestine, whose lives have been absolutely devastated by the unwarranted attack.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the First Minister, in light of reports of the rising rate of poverty for families with a baby under one and new evidence from Save the Children that increasing best start grant and best start foods payments could significantly reduce the child poverty rate for this priority group, whether the Scottish Government will consider increasing these payments. (S6F-04281)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Ending child poverty is my Government’s top priority. We constantly look for measures that we can take to advance that agenda. The delivery of our five family payments is making a real difference to families. The payments in Scotland are worth around £25,000 by the time a child turns 16, compared with less than £2,000 in England and Wales. That is another example of why the Joseph Rowntree Foundation projects that Scotland will be the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty levels fall next year.

We are also taking forward other measures, such as the lifting of the two-child limit. If that action was taken by the United Kingdom Government—and it should be—up to £150 million would be freed up in Scotland, which could be spent on additional measures to address child poverty in our country.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I know how committed the First Minister is to eliminating child poverty. The work that the Scottish Government has done to date has made a difference. Lots of things give babies and their parents a good start—love, information and support, and play opportunities—but there is strong evidence that where parents experience the psychological, emotional and material impact of poverty in their baby’s first year, it can have a deep and lasting impact on a baby’s development. Does the First Minister recognise how much income matters to a baby’s development, that spending on our youngest citizens is a crucial investment and that preventing the harms of poverty from taking root in the first year of a child’s life is transformational not just for individual babies and families but for our society as a whole?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I unreservedly accept the point that Ruth Maguire puts to me. It is a joy to have her putting pressure on me after her return to the Parliament. [ Applause .] I encourage her to continue to champion such issues and to put pressure on the Government to do more, and I very much welcome her contribution to that. I accept her points about the importance of the first year in a child’s life. The Government is actively exploring what more it can do.

In my earlier answer, I said that we are constantly looking to identify additional interventions that we can make. Obviously, I have to be mindful of the resources that are available, but the plea that is made by Ruth Maguire is heard loud and clear here on the Government bench. I will do everything that I can to ensure that the Government’s ambitions to eradicate child poverty and to make that difference in the first year of a child’s life are central to our thinking in the period to come.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what urgent steps the Scottish Government is taking in response to reports that nursing and midwifery vacancies have risen by 60 per cent in six months. (S6F-04284)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

NHS Scotland vacancies follow a seasonal pattern. Mr Whittle compared June data with December data, but vacancies typically go up in the spring as people retire and decrease again over the summer and autumn as new graduates join the workforce.

Nursing and midwifery vacancies are 4 per cent higher than they were at the same time last year. However, that must be seen in the context of new investment by the Government in our national health service, which has meant that the workforce grew over the past year.

Overall, nursing and midwifery staffing is up under the Scottish National Party Government by 18.6 per cent since 2006, and we saw a 100 per cent increase in funded places for training between 2012 and 2022. Scotland has the best package of support in the UK for nursing and midwifery students.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The vacancy figures are just the latest in a long line of warnings about the perilous position of Scotland’s healthcare workforce. Despite promise after promise from the SNP, the warnings keep coming and progress never arrives. There is no NHS workforce plan and no end to delayed discharge, and there are nearly a million Scots on NHS waiting lists. Meanwhile, NHS staff are crying out for investment in facilities and technology to improve working conditions and patient care.

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care declared that a target to end waits of longer than a year is now just an aspiration. Aspiration will not solve the escalating staffing crisis, so when will the First Minister take real action to deal with the staffing crisis in our NHS?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On the substance of Mr Whittle’s question, I note that there are more nurses and midwives working in our NHS now—more than 67,000 nurses and midwives—than when this Government took office. Mr Whittle asks when the action will come; I say to him that the action has come, and it is being delivered. He asks about performance in other aspects of the health service; I have to tell him that the number of operations performed in July was the highest in five years—there was an 8.9 per cent increase. More people are being treated at our national treatment centres this year than ever before. Our rapid cancer diagnostic services mean that people are getting faster diagnosis after referral. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The number of hip and knee operations reached an all-time high in 2024. Mr Whittle asks me when I will take action, and I say to him that I am taking action. The health secretary and I are working day in, day out to make sure that the health service is delivering for the people of Scotland. That progress is taking place the length and breadth of the country.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Our tireless and dedicated workforce is the greatest asset of our national health service so, while the Tories and Labour consistently talk down our NHS, will the First Minister reiterate how the Scottish Government continues to support and grow our NHS workforce?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I said to Brian Whittle—there was so much shouting that I will say it again, so that members hear it this time—there are more staff working in our NHS now than there were when this Government took office. Through record levels of investment, we have delivered 13 consecutive years of workforce growth, general practitioner numbers are going up and our agenda for change staff, including our nurses and midwives, remain the best paid in the United Kingdom.

This Government is prepared to invest in the workforce of our national health service because they are doing an excellent job. I pay tribute to them. Despite the points made by the Labour and Conservative parties, this Government will take action to put the budget in place to pay for those staff, to deliver the health service’s performance and to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Scottish Labour warned the Scottish Government about the consequences of poor NHS workforce planning. I am absolutely clear about Scottish Labour’s position on NHS staff: they are hard working and dedicated, and we owe so much to them.

However, our staff are under intense pressure because of the SNP Government. Agency spending is unsustainable, and vacancy rates are rising to alarming levels. In rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, in my region of South Scotland, the consequences of those issues and the recruitment and retention of staff are a key challenge, and that has been the case under the SNP Government.

Apprenticeships offer a good way of expanding the workforce and providing flexibility to people who live in those areas. Has the Government made any progress at all in developing apprenticeship models for healthcare workers, as recommended by the nursing and midwifery task force?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That action is coming through the work of the midwifery task force. That is under way—I reassure Carol Mochan on that point.

Carol Mochan offered to make clear the Scottish Labour position. Let me make clear what Scottish Labour’s position is on all those issues. Scottish Labour members’ position is that none of them—not a single one—was prepared to put their support towards the Government’s budget, which pays for NHS staff the length and breadth of the country. That is a pathetic contribution from the Scottish Labour Party.

I will tell Parliament what the other Scottish Labour position is. The Scottish Labour Party is umbilically linked to the Labour Party in London, and what is the Prime Minister doing? He is making it more difficult for healthcare workers to come from other countries to work in this country. Twenty-six per cent of our social care staff come from other countries, and the Prime Minister is shutting the door on all of that. The Scottish Labour Party has got nothing to offer the Parliament on the health service. Scottish Labour is delivering a lack of support to the NHS, and this Government is delivering for the NHS in Scotland.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what additional support the Scottish Government is giving to the public dental service, in light of reports that there has been a 10 per cent rise in spending over the last two years due to increased demand. (S6F-04287)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is inaccurate to conflate an increase in public dental service spending with an increase in dental access issues. The main role of the public dental service is to treat patients who have more complex needs that cannot be managed by independent dentists. Scotland remains the only country in the United Kingdom to offer free regular dental examinations for everyone, and 95 per cent of people in Scotland are registered with dentists. More than 7 million courses of national health service dental treatment have been delivered to patients since November 2023.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister says that those things should not be conflated, but my question reflects what public dental service dentists are telling us. Although the First Minister correctly observed that the public dental service is meant to be a safety net for emergencies and for those with vulnerabilities, it is increasingly filling in the gaps where routine NHS dental provision has collapsed. In areas such as Fife, Moray and the Borders, dentists no longer treat NHS patients, even if they are on their lists, so the only options are for people to seek care from the public dental service safety net or to use their savings to pay for private care. That is not good enough. What is the First Minister doing to tackle the scourge of dental deserts in Scotland and to end the growing overreliance on the already overstretched public dental service?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is putting in place additional financial support to areas where access is particularly challenging, especially rural and island areas. That funding has recently supported the opening of five new surgeries, which has created space for thousands more new NHS registrations.

I will tell Mr Sweeney what is not helping, and this goes back to the point that I have just made to Carol Mochan. We cannot escape the practical reality of the damage caused by the UK Government’s approach to migration. We have to work with other countries to bring dental practitioners into this country to supplement the other training work that we are undertaking. In July, the Labour Government in Westminster removed dental hygienists, dental technicians and dental nurses from the skilled worker sponsorship scheme. The Westminster Government is making it more difficult for us to deliver public services in Scotland.

I encourage Mr Sweeney to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have a rational debate on and approach to migration, rather than the chase to compete with the Reform party that has consumed the Starmer Government in London.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will review its policy on public sector settlement agreements, in light of reports that £4 million of public money was spent on public sector pay-offs in 2023-24. (S6F-04291)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A review of the severance policy for Scotland concluded in 2023. Its findings were reflected in robust controls being put in place to scrutinise expenditure in line with the Scottish public finance manual. Settlement agreements address specific employment issues in individual organisations, and the number and nature of those can vary across sectors. It should be noted that settlement agreements are used rarely and only in very limited circumstances.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I beg to differ. The figure of £4 million was last year’s figure. The year before, the figure was £1.5 million. In fact, over the past five years, there have been 300 such settlements, which have cost £10 million of public money, and a third of those came with confidentiality clauses attached to them. That sum of £10 million would go some way towards funding, for example, the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill introduced by Liz Smith, would it not?

My primary concern here is that there seems to be a growing trend of reward for failure among senior public sector executives, whether at Ferguson Marine, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, the national health service or the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Well-paid civil servants are walking away from failure with a large cheque in return for a gagging order, while those at the bottom of the pay ladder are struggling.

Does the Scottish Government think that such huge pay-offs are appropriate? When will we see an end to the secrecy around such deals?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In the pay deals that the Government has presided over we have put much more emphasis on increases for people on lower levels of pay than for those on higher levels. Mr Greene shakes his head, but I invite him to look at the pay deals that the Government has presided over. If he does, he will see that that is exactly what has happened in countless cases.

I have a lot of sympathy with Mr Greene’s point that such arrangements should not be made in response to failure; they should not be. There should be proper accountability in the way in which they are exercised, which is why the Scottish public finance manual is constructed so that that point is central to decision making.

The figures vary from year to year, but it is important that it is recognised that we have rules on how such agreements can be put in place. Those rules must be rigorously applied in all circumstances, and in all the Government’s actions there must be a culture of delivering on the expectations of ministers and the public.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementaries.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The First Minister will be aware of the on-going concern about the important manufacturing jobs in my constituency at the bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis. Today, the company has announced a final extension to its consultation period, which will now conclude on Monday next week. The fact that the introduction of a furlough scheme has been overwhelmingly supported in the trade union ballot is to be welcomed.

However, the First Minister will recognise that the securing of new orders is critical to the securing of those manufacturing jobs for the future. Will he set out what action the Scottish Government has taken to support Alexander Dennis in securing new orders? If the negotiations on such new orders have progressed sufficiently in advance of Monday, when the consultation closes, will the outcome of those negotiations be announced?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I thank Mr Matheson for his assiduous representation on behalf of his constituents. The Government has been working intensively with partners, including the trade unions, Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland and Alexander Dennis. A process of full and active co-operation, which has involved a number of ministers, has been under way for the past few weeks and months. It has been an entirely constructive period of engagement, and I very much welcome the positive developments that have taken place.

Mr Matheson referred to the extension, until Monday, of the current consultation period, which is very welcome. I also welcome the decision of the trade unions to take forward the modernisation operations that Alexander Dennis has put in place. Those are all encouraging signs, and we are working collaboratively with the company and others on the sourcing of orders.

I expect that we will be able to provide a further update on the situation next week, and that the Deputy First Minister will be able to update Parliament accordingly on the steps that we are taking with ADL on a salary support scheme and other relevant issues in relation to new orders.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the First Minister agree that, when a bill is agreed to at stage 1, thereby reflecting the will of Parliament that it should proceed to stage 2, the Scottish Government has a democratic obligation to lodge a financial resolution to that bill?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the importance that Liz Smith attaches to the issue that she raises about her current bill. I am mindful of that support and of Parliament’s position. However, as I have rehearsed on a number of occasions in exchanges during this question time, the Government is obliged to be mindful of how we can put in place resources to enable us to fund the commitments for which Parliament legislates. That is an absolute obligation for the Government when it introduces legislation, and we must be satisfied that such an approach applies to all legislation.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Some of the bravest people who I have the privilege of representing depend on the disability resource centre in Paisley, which is just one of the services facing closure next week as the local health and social care partnership tries to fill a multimillion-pound black hole in its budget. My constituents who go to the centre tell me that it gives them a purpose in life and a reason to get up in the morning. One told me that he has struggled to eat due to the worry caused by the proposed closure and that he feels a sense of hopelessness. The First Minister will be aware that the Scottish Government funds both Renfrewshire Council and the local health board, which are the bodies that make up the health and social care partnership. The people who rely on Paisley’s disability resource centre want to know whether the First Minister will come to their aid. Will he?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the importance of services such as the one affected by the issue that Mr Bibby raises with me. The Government has, in its budget provision, put in place increased support for both Renfrewshire Council and Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board and those bodies fund the integration joint board that will consider the issue.

The Government’s outlook and the policy position that we take encourage the provision of early intervention services because, by supporting services of the type that Mr Bibby raises, we can invariably reduce the demand on far more expensive acute services, while also giving purpose and meaning to the lives of the individuals who are affected by those services. I encourage the Renfrewshire IJB to consider all those questions, because it is important that services and support of that type are available to individuals at local level.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The First Minister will be aware of concerns about the delivery of capital investment to Ferguson Marine. I would be grateful if the First Minister could provide an update on that capital investment, which was proposed by the Scottish Government and was included in the budget passed earlier this year.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has committed to invest £14.2 million in Ferguson Marine over a two-year period, subject to due diligence and to commercial standards being met. That investment has already commenced with targeted early action to address essential repairs, health and safety improvements and upgrades to facilities and equipment that directly support the yard’s current projects. The Government will continue to support the business to secure new work and to deliver a sustainable future for the yard and its skilled workforce, which also involves a commitment to investing in the yard.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In July, the Scottish Government announced £5 million to help with the recruitment and retention of skilled staff and the provision of sustainable services in the hospice sector. Scottish ministers have still not released that funding, but the Edinburgh health and social care partnership has decided to reverse a 3 per cent inflationary uplift in funding for hospices here in the capital. St Columba’s Hospice Care and Marie Curie Edinburgh are warning that essential palliative end-of-life services are now at serious risk due to that funding decision. Does the First Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for hospices to be given funding with one hand and then to see it being taken away with the other? Will he ask the health and social care partnership to reverse that decision and will he investigate why Scottish Government funding for our hospice sector has not been delivered?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will look into the question about the timing of delivery. If a commitment has been made, delivery should be put in place. I do not have the answer at the front of my mind just now, so I will take that away and explore it.

St Columba’s hospice is particularly precious to me because my dear and beloved late mother was a volunteer there for many years. That institution is close to my heart, so I will take that question away and find out what the situation is.

I do not approve of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. If the Government gave a commitment to the hospice sector that was merited and necessary—which it was—that should not be used by other organisations as an excuse to take away funding at local level. That really is just not on.

Let me take that issue away. I am very sympathetic to the point that Mr Briggs makes to me and I will try to establish what the situation is.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

At the preliminary hearing of the Eljamel inquiry yesterday, counsel to the chair of the inquiry revealed deep concern about the status of the independent clinical review process, which is stalling and threatens the progress of the inquiry. Lord Weir is clearly very concerned that the Scottish Government has refused to attend meetings with his team to progress that crucial issue. The Government is not a participant in independent clinical reviews. It establishes them and sponsors them, and it is incumbent on the Government to make them work. What will the First Minister do to break the impasse and deliver justice for the victims in Dundee and across Tayside, given that they have suffered so much already?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Mr Marra knows, I have constituents who are involved in the issue. I am anxious to make sure that not just their interests—although they are my constituents, so I care deeply about them—but the interests of all those who are affected in the Eljamel inquiry are properly supported.

I am going to explore the issue that Mr Marra raises with me. This is an independent clinical review, so it has to be independent of the Government in order to command the confidence of those who are affected, and pressure for the Government to get involved might undermine that independence. I need to take the issue away and see what we can do to try to make sure that nobody loses confidence in the method of engagement.

Obviously, if an inquiry chair such as Lord Weir makes comments of that type, I have to take that deadly seriously, which I will, but I suspect that there is something, possibly in the governance of all of this, that needs to be looked at. I will take that away, explore it and write to Mr Marra.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I have been flooded with emails from constituents who have expressed concerns about the poor enforcement of the pavement parking ban. The ban went live in East Dunbartonshire on 1 September. However, there seems to be confusion about how it has been implemented. Constituents, including disabled constituents, have said that cars are now pushed on to road parking, making it difficult for blue-light services to pass. On the other hand, other constituents have written to me saying that cars are still parked on pavements, making access difficult. Why has the Scottish Government’s guidance led to such a poorly executed plan?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This is a matter for local authorities. I know that I am responsible for everything, but the parking arrangements in Bishopbriggs are just a little bit beyond me, perhaps.

This is a matter for East Dunbartonshire Council to sort out. It has the responsibility. The Government sets out the guidance, and it is up to councils to get on with it. I see the application of the pavement parking ban in my constituency. Folk are just getting on with it, and councils are getting on with it, so there is no reason why East Dunbartonshire Council cannot get on with it. I invite Pam Gosal to take the matter up with East Dunbartonshire Council and see what she can do about the parking.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time. There will be a short suspension before the next item of business to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

Scottish Youth Parliament (Work on Transport)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-17147, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on the Scottish Youth Parliament’s work on transport. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament acknowledges the efforts of the Scottish Youth Parliament’s Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee to remove barriers to young people accessing public transport; notes the view that public transport should be affordable, accessible and reliable for young people across Scotland, including in the Lothian region; further notes the view that particular action should be taken for young people in rural and island communities who, it considers, currently benefit less from the Young Persons’ (Under 22s) Free Bus Travel scheme due to limited bus services and infrastructure in their areas; recognises what it sees as the benefits that affordable, accessible and reliable public transport have for young people’s access to social, educational, youth work and employment opportunities, and notes the support for further action to be taken to improve young people’s access to public transport.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It is a real honour to open this important members’ business debate on the contribution of the Scottish Youth Parliament to our evolving transport system. I extend my heartfelt thanks to colleagues who supported securing time for the debate, because ensuring that Scotland’s young people have access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport is vital to their wellbeing, social inclusion and future opportunities.

I was motivated to lodge the motion after attending a meeting of the cross-party group on sustainable transport. At that meeting, MSYPs shared first-hand experiences, especially from rural, island and Lothian communities, highlighting barriers that relate directly to the lived realities of young Scots.

One young person’s words resonated deeply with me:

“The young people’s free bus pass is great, but it’s not much use if there isn’t a bus to use it on.”

All of us should reflect on that comment.

The SYP’s transport, environment and rural affairs committee has been working hard on the matter, championing issues such as rural infrastructure deficits, accessibility for disabled young people and safety at bus stops and on vehicles. Its timely and considered interventions remind us that policy must be grounded in lived experience if it is to serve our communities well. That committee truly represents the voices of our future in terms of transport and how much is needed to give young people the access that they deserve.

Young people need access to transport to live their lives to the full, whether it is to access education, to access sports and leisure, to visit friends or family, or to get to and from work. For all of those activities, they need accessible, affordable and reliable public transport.

This week, we have had a Scottish Youth Parliament stall that MSPs have been able to visit. MSYPs have been giving us copies of their manifesto, “Dear Scotland’s Future: For Young People. By Young People.”, which reflects the voices of nearly 5,000 young people across all 32 local authorities, including a strong input from the Lothians. The manifesto places sustainable transport and a “just and fairer Scotland” at its core, not as an aspiration, but as an immediate priority. The manifesto says:

“Transport Scotland and public transport companies should ensure that public transport services are accessible and reliable for young people across Scotland, particularly those living in rural areas.”

We had an excellent debate in the chamber this week about Scotland’s railways. We need to build on the successes that we have had over the Parliament’s life, such as the Airdrie to Bathgate railway, the Larkhall to Milngavie railway, the Stirling to Alloa railway, the Borders railway and the reopening of the Levenmouth rail link in June 2024, which has reconnected communities to Edinburgh and promises young people in Fife improved access for commuting, study and social participation—something that can happen only if we get safe and reliable transportation throughout the country.

There are also plans to progress the decarbonisation of the network, but we know that there is much more to be done to increase capacity in our public transport services. Hundreds of bus services have been lost in recent years. As reports from Audit Scotland and the Climate Change Committee have stated, Scotland’s ambition to reduce car usage by 20 per cent by 2030 is off track. However, achieving that is critical if we are to deliver the change that young people need for a safe future, given the increasingly negative impacts of the climate and nature emergencies that we see in extreme weather, wildfires, excessive heat and flooding.

Some progress has been made, with 203 miles of walking, wheeling and cycling routes having been added last year, but overall funding for active travel has fallen significantly in the 2025-26 budget. It is precisely in that context, where policy ambition, climate commitments and young people’s lived experience intersect, that the SYP’s work becomes essential. Its advocacy on accessibility, safety, affordability, inclusion and co-design is not just relevant—it is vital.

Young people need bus services that they can use in their communities. As the SYP’s manifesto says,

“Supported public transport is essential for young people to live their lives freely.”

I know that I need to move towards a conclusion. Let us reaffirm the critical message: the Scottish Youth Parliament has not just identified failings in our transport system; it is calling for action with practical, inclusive and future-focused solutions. Young people need to be involved in shaping our transport services. I found it inspiring to hear from the Welsh Youth Parliament at our recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regional conference in Cardiff, and from young women at our CPA regional women’s conference in the Scottish Parliament earlier this year.

The SYP’s manifesto calls for accessible, equitable transport, safer infrastructure, more reliable rural services and the extension of free travel to under-26s, all underpinned by youth participation at every stage. The SYP also asks to be involved in local and national decisions to create a public transport system with equal access for all, reducing geographic inequalities and barriers that prevent young people from accessing the system. It challenges all parties to translate that energy and evidence into action to invest in reliable and local rural services, active travel and inclusive design, to ensure that safety and accessibility are built in and are core to public transport planning, and to have staff to keep people safe across our bus and rail services. It challenges all parties to embed youth voices in co-design, policy, delivery and oversight in order to bridge the gaps that are holding young people back—from the Lothians to our islands, and from urban to rural communities—and to create joined-up and sustainable transport.

I urge the Scottish Government, in the final months of this parliamentary session, to say what will happen following our cross-party group’s recommendations in “Mind the Gap: Tackling Transport Inequalities in Scotland”, from earlier this year, and to listen to the SYP’s manifesto on what can be done now. We need to listen to our young people’s experiences in order to build transport not just for them but with them and to create a system that unlocks opportunities, builds bridges and advances decarbonisation. That would enable them to use low-carbon travel options on a daily basis, and it would deliver the fairer Scotland that is called for by the SYP and that our young people richly deserve.

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

I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing this important debate to the chamber, and I congratulate the Scottish Youth Parliament on its work. The local representatives for the Western Isles, Ellie Denehy and Alannah Logue, are each at their respective ends of my constituency.

As I am the MSP for an island constituency, issues such as flights from island airports, ferry services and rural bus services are often raised with me, but the debate reminds us that issues of connectivity have a specific impact on Scotland’s young islanders. I express my thanks to the Scottish Youth Parliament, especially the rural and island representatives, for their hard work in producing the 2026 to 2031 manifesto, which sets out, inter alia, the Scottish Youth Parliament’s transport priorities on behalf of all young Scots.

I am certainly encouraged by the fact that many of the Scottish Government’s transport policies have been welcomed by the Youth Parliament. In my constituency, policies such as the introduction of free interisland ferry travel and two free round-trip ferry crossings a year to the mainland for under-22s have been welcomed. I realise that the Youth Parliament would like to see that entitlement grow and develop, and perhaps the minister, in summing up, will respond to the asks made by the Youth Parliament on that.

Improving connectivity and tackling island depopulation are closely interlinked challenges. Understanding the challenges that young people face is essential not only to improving our current transport network in the islands, but to building a future transport network that will help to encourage younger islanders to stay in or return to their island communities. Getting our transport infrastructure right can make the islands a more attractive place for young people once they finish university or college, and it can help them to think about entering the workforce or starting a business. I hope that today’s debate will encourage young islanders to get involved in local conversations and debates about transport services at national and local levels.

Later this month, HITRANS will launch its rural transport strategy in Holyrood, and I hope that members will find ways to bring the Scottish Youth Parliament’s views on transport issues into our discussions. In my constituency, the Western Isles ferries group meets monthly to find solutions and to work constructively to sustain and improve ferry connectivity. Following recent conversations and its attendance at this debate, I hope that the group will share my view that inviting a young representative to a forthcoming meeting would be a good way to kick off the conversation.

To summarise, young islanders require good connectivity links. Members of the Scottish Youth Parliament can provide us with unique insights into how we can continue to improve our transport network and make our islands, as well as the whole of Scotland, a more attractive place for young people in the future.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

I extend my thanks to Sarah Boyack for securing the motion for debate in the chamber and congratulate the Scottish Youth Parliament on its work, which is about reinforcing the importance of youth voices in discussions about our country’s transport needs. We cannot disagree with the statement that public transport should be affordable, safe, accessible and reliable, not just for young people, but for everyone across Lothian and Scotland. In Edinburgh and the Lothians, we are lucky enough to have an award-winning, first-rate bus service, Lothian Buses. However, other parts of the country are not so fortunate and suffer from extremely limited bus services and infrastructure. In some cases, there are no bus services.

We all know the importance of good transport links for the Scottish economy and businesses, but they play a key role in our social development. Dr Allan outlined some specific challenges in our island and rural communities, and some of my colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives tell me about the limitations in rural areas because of the lack of public transport. That inequality is not acceptable. We need good transport links to form the backbone of our communities. They link people to work, education and leisure, and they offer a direct alternative to car travel. The benefits of good public transport are particularly important for young people’s access to social, educational and employment opportunities, while it also gives them independence. Access to colleges, universities, apprenticeships and work is so important for young people as they grow into young adults.

The young person’s under-22 bus travel scheme has attracted a huge number of participants and has increased our young people’s mobility. However, I will talk a bit about the challenges. Most people who use the under-22 scheme exercise their participation thoughtfully, but some groups of youths are abusing the scheme to engage in antisocial behaviour. The actions of the very disruptive minority are unacceptable and we must be prepared to tackle antisocial behaviour head on. As the shadow cabinet secretary for transport in the Scottish Parliament, I spent an evening on patrol with Lothian Buses and Police Scotland, and I witnessed at first hand the growing problems of antisocial behaviour and heard the views of drivers and passengers.

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

I agree entirely with what the member has said about the need to tackle antisocial behaviour and the problem that it causes on transport. However, I am sure that she would wish to put on the record that antisocial behaviour on public transport is not restricted to people who are under the age of 22.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Lothian Buses has done an awful lot of study and data analysis—it is the only bus company to have done that—and its research shows a direct correlation between the increase in antisocial behaviour and violence on the buses and the introduction of the under-22 bus pass. I cannot hide from that.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

With due respect, Mr Ruskell, I have only 30 seconds left and I have tons to say.

I have no doubt that the removal of the free bus pass for under-22s would make a difference. Therefore, I would like the pass to be taken away from those who are responsible for significant antisocial behaviour. I hope that the minister will provide an update on where we are with that. The First Minister has said that work is under way to develop a system that would strip under-22s of their entitlement following repeated bad behaviour, and I look forward to that being implemented.

First—I was going to call you First Minister, Presiding Officer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Do not do that.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Right now, there is a great opportunity to allow our young people and their voices to influence our transport for the future, and I am delighted that the debate has taken place this afternoon. I again thank Sarah Boyack for the opportunity to speak on this important issue.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I, too, thank Sarah Boyack for securing the debate on what is an incredibly important motion in a week when we are joined by MSYPs in the gallery for today’s debate and in the garden lobby, where people can meet them and discuss the Scottish Youth Parliament’s manifesto.

That manifesto, entitled, “Dear Scotland’s Future”, is based on the voices of more than 5,000 young people. It makes it clear that transport is about much more than convenience. It is about reaching school and college; it is about travelling safely to youth work and community groups; and it is about the opportunity to take up jobs and apprenticeships. It is also about staying connected with family and friends, because, if that is impossible, we will hold young people back.

The manifesto sets out some clear priorities. It calls for cheaper and fairer ticketing systems, a joined-up network across buses, trains and ferries, and real accessibility for disabled young people and those with additional needs. It presses for better provision in rural and island communities, which we have already heard about in the debate.

The free bus travel scheme for under-22s is a welcome step, and it has made a massive difference to thousands of young people. However, as MSYPs have said, there are issues for people who live in rural communities, on islands or, indeed, in cities, where, at certain times of the day, services are cut. What is the point of a free bus card if there is no bus? The services must be there.

We hear stories from across Scotland about buses that never arrive, services that are cancelled at short notice and connections that do not link up. We hear about wheelchair users who are abandoned at stops. Those are not isolated cases but everyday barriers for our young people.

The manifesto highlights safety. Young people, especially young women and girls, want public transport to be safer, with better lighting and working closed-circuit television. They want a culture in which harassment is never tolerated.

The Scottish Youth Parliament is right to be ambitious. It is calling for a properly integrated network where timetables connect and for transport that disabled young people can truly rely on. It is also calling for an expansion of the free travel scheme, because a 22-year-old apprentice on a minimum wage faces exactly the same barriers as they did only a few days earlier when they were 21. Those are bold demands, but they are rooted in real experience.

Transport is not just about moving from A to B; it is about opportunity, fairness and dignity. If young people cannot rely on public transport, they cannot rely on us as their decision makers. Let us do more than just acknowledge their voices; let us listen to them and act on what they are telling us. If we want young people to believe in politics, they need to see that, when they speak, we hear and we deliver.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join others in thanking Sarah Boyack for her motion and the Scottish Youth Parliament for its excellent manifesto. I was struck by the amount of work that has gone into the manifesto, so I commend the MSYPs who have been involved and the staff and volunteers who have helped them with it. The process of producing my party’s manifesto for next year’s Holyrood election is under way, and I am looking forward to discussing with MSYPs how their asks can be delivered in the next session of the Scottish Parliament. I give a special mention to Islay Jackson MSYP, who has been a regular contributor to the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on sustainable transport.

Two areas are covered in the transport section of the manifesto: accessible and reliable public transport; and the need to maintain and expand free travel for young people. We need to take on board the challenge of making public transport fit for purpose for all. That does not just mean able-bodied people in the central belt, so we must invest in transport that provides opportunities for young rural people to have equity of access to work, education and socialising. Disabled young people across the country need services on which they can rely, with joined-up timetabling and ticketing.

When I visited the ScotRail customer service centre recently, I heard about the excellent work that it does using platform information to ensure that people are not left isolated at stations. I commend that work, but I have also been told by constituents with physical disabilities about how, at times, they feel let down that ScotRail has not been there for them, and how vulnerable that makes them feel when they are on a platform.

When we think about the people who are most dependent on public transport, we think most often about the vulnerable, who might also be young and, in some cases, disabled. That is why having staff available when they are needed is critical. It is important to empower people to feel safe and welcomed on our whole public transportation network.

I am also aware that we are now seeing innovation across the United Kingdom. A number of English councils are trialling transport safety officers on buses, for example, because there has been a rise in antisocial behaviour on buses in England. I would point out to Sue Webber that they do not have free bus travel for under-22s in England. We need to take a joined-up approach to this.

Earlier this week, I spoke of the Green Party’s ambition to abolish first-class tickets on ScotRail. Today’s debate underlines why we need such a measure. We all deserve to have reliable, cheap and safe services. People do not want to be squeezed like sardines on to a busy commuter train while 98 per cent of first-class tickets go unsold.

I appreciated the acknowledgement in the SYP manifesto of the success of the under-22s free bus travel scheme that my party pushed so hard for. I enjoyed reading about the impact that the scheme has had on the lives of young people across the country, and I agree that we should look to extend the scheme up to the age of 26 and that, ideally, it should not be limited to buses.

The policy originated from the Scottish Young Greens, whose members lodged a motion to our party conference asking our members of the Scottish Parliament to make progress on delivering it. I was pleased that, in 2020, we were able to agree with Kate Forbes that, as part of her first budget, free bus travel for under-19s would be delivered. At the time, I was able to discuss with her the findings of the Callander Youth Project report, which highlighted the isolation and the lack of opportunity that results from young people having to spend so much of their income on unreliable rural buses. Although the Covid pandemic delayed the delivery of free bus travel, we now have a hugely successful scheme that has been expanded to all young people under the age of 22.

I thank the Scottish Youth Parliament for its continued inspiration and hard work, and I look forward to further conversations ahead of the next Holyrood election.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing the debate to the chamber. Throughout her time in the Parliament, she has long been a champion of affordable, accessible and sustainable transport, and it is welcome that she brings the voices of the Scottish Youth Parliament to the Scottish Parliament debate today.

It has been a great delight to read through the work of the Scottish Youth Parliament on transport. I congratulate the convener of the group, David McGilp MYSP, who represents my home area of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, which is in my South Scotland region. It is tremendous to see that.

Public transport is an asset to many of our constituents, none more so than our young people. Within my region, there are many remote and rural towns and villages whose connections with larger towns and cities rely completely on good public transport. Whether it is for employment, attending hospital appointments or even visiting family and friends, constituents depend on timely, reliable and regular transport. From the young to the elderly, public transport is a vehicle for social connection, and that must be considered when making decisions on provision.

For young people, affordable and accessible transport is a key factor in enabling educational and employment opportunities. The under-22s free bus travel scheme has been a welcome step in improving the affordability of public transport, and it has been fantastic in improving access to travel for many young people.

In my region, the distance between towns and villages can be tens of miles, so the scheme is welcomed by the young people who are completely reliant on bus services. In the rural community where I live, pupils from about 15 schools came together to go to the school that I went to. We could be connected with our young friends at school, but it was really difficult when we were out of school in the long holiday periods, for example. My children have made really good use of the under-22s scheme, which allows them to have a real connection with their friends over the holidays.

I note the committee’s research. The young people have said that the scheme is a great thing to have but that having limited services limits the opportunities. That is certainly true in my region.

Finally, I want to recognise the human rights aspects of the issue. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, children and young people have the right

“to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities”

and the right

“to participate fully in cultural and artistic life”.

It is the responsibility of the Government and all of us in the Parliament to encourage the provision of appropriate and equal cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure opportunities. Access to affordable and reliable transport plays a huge part in ensuring that right. We must all work together to ensure that the experiences of young people are as good as they possibly can be and that the opportunities work for everyone, particularly for those in rural areas. I hope that the minister has some information and feedback for us in that regard.

I thank Sarah Boyack again for bringing the debate to the Parliament. I wish the Scottish Youth Parliament more successes, and I hope that it continues to push us to make sensible decisions around accessibility, infrastructure and affordability for young people in all aspects of our community, so that no one is left behind.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I thank Sarah Boyack for bringing the debate to the chamber. The background to it was a great piece of collaboration between the cross-party group on sustainable transport and the Scottish Youth Parliament. It was a really good example of how a cross-party group can be effective in the Parliament.

The cross-party group held an inquiry into inequalities in transport. Transport has a vital role in delivering a fairer society and enabling everyone in Scotland to have equal access to daily life, work, education and community wellbeing. However, there are gaps in the current system, which mean that women, children, disabled people and low-income households do not have equal access to transport. Those groups experience barriers that are related to cost, availability, safety and convenience of the transport network. We must create a fair and reliable transport system that everyone can access.

We held a series of valuable evidence sessions to consider those different experiences when it comes to accessing transport. Each of the groups raised issues, which included unaffordable fares, poor transport connectivity, inaccessible services and safety concerns. All those issues have been mentioned during the debate already.

Our report made a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government and transport authorities to achieve a transport system that works for everyone. Those include

“defining transport poverty and better data collection and metrics to facilitate better monitoring”.

We also called for

“transport authorities to implement lived experience participation with those most affected by transport inequalities.”

The Scottish Youth Parliament and Sustrans presented to the CPG meeting in October 2024, and they both highlighted the critical role of transport in shaping the lives of younger people. As we have heard, we had great presentations from David McGilp MSYP and Islay Jackson MSYP—two fantastic and impressive young people. They outlined the youth perspective on public transport, building on their all aboard campaign, which helped to secure free public transport for under-22s. They emphasised the importance of making transport accessible to all young people, especially those in rural and island communities. They called for the extension of the free travel scheme to people up to the age of 26—they did not put a cost on that, I have to say—and recommended improvements in affordability, accessibility and frequency of public transport services. A key theme that emerged from the question-and-answer session was the critical need to involve young people in transport decision-making processes.

The free bus travel scheme for under-22s has made a significant difference to the lives of young people, but challenges remain around the availability and reliability of services. Earlier this year, I joined the Transport, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Youth Parliament to discuss transport and young people. It called for more reliable and frequent services, safer waiting areas, better route planning and the ending of negative attitudes towards young passengers.

It has been fantastic to work with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and it behoves us all to listen to young people when we are designing public services such as transport.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I thank Sarah Boyack for raising the topic.

I, too, am a member of the cross-party group on sustainable transport, which is led by Graham Simpson. We were united in being impressed, as members have heard, by the Youth Parliament’s work on the subject of transport, and we wanted to give it more of an airing in this older people’s Parliament.

In the first place, we should have more interaction and mutual working between the Youth Parliament and this place, whether it be in cross-party groups, committees or elsewhere. Over the years, I have appreciated meeting MSYPs—especially, in the present period, the members for YMCA Scotland, Andrew Will and Jonah Brooks, the latter of whom is active in Tollcross YMCA in my constituency.

I support, as others do, the Youth Parliament’s aims for affordable, accessible and reliable public transport. I appreciated reading its briefing for today’s debate, as well as hearing from David McGill and Islay Jackson at the CPG last October. I fully accept that there is a particular challenge with public transport in rural and island areas, where the more spread-out population almost inevitably makes frequent and affordable public transport more difficult. However, the fact that it is difficult does not mean that we should ignore it. Perhaps we need to use a bit more imagination as to where we go on that.

For example, when I was younger, the post bus was a great asset, carrying both mail and passengers. I think, sadly, that the last one ran in 2017. Hitchhiking, too, used to be a great way of getting around for young people—I did it myself. It was not entirely reliable, nor did it run to a timetable, but at least it was free.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

How old were you?

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Pass.

However, times have moved on, and I saw hardly anyone hitching when I drove in the Highlands and Islands this summer.

As for some of the specifics in the Youth Parliament paper, I agree that the under-22s bus travel scheme should be maintained. Expanding it to 26 or to cover trains, too, would certainly come at a cost, but perhaps there is room for compromise, for example by making the young person’s railcard more attractive.

Safety in public transport is definitely an issue, and not just for young people. We could do with ScotRail staff being a bit more proactive in managing passenger behaviour on trains, not just referring everyone to the British Transport Police, who, clearly, are not present on many trains at all.

We are considering transport today, but I would also mention the Scottish Youth Parliament’s recently published manifesto for 2026 to 2031, which contains 31 policies. In this debate, we are focusing on society policies 4 and 5, but I was particularly intrigued by education policy 2, which is on financial education.

Some policies, such as listening more to young people, should be happening anyway and should come at minimal cost. Others, such as reduced or free train fares, will clearly cost money. Again, that brings up the question of taxation and the kind of country that we want to live in. Do we want to be a low-tax country with poor public services, including poor public transport for younger people, or are we willing to pay more tax on income, property, savings and so on so that our young people get a better deal and a better quality of life?

Those questions are primarily for our young people to decide on. It is all very well for me, aged 68, to say that I want higher taxes and quality public services; however, it is for our young people to make those choices for the future, and they should absolutely be listened to right now.

Part of what we need has to be increased financial education. Actually, I would say that the whole population—including, perhaps, some MSPs—needs that, but if we focus on young people to start with, we will not go far wrong.

I congratulate the Scottish Youth Parliament on all its work, particularly on the subject of transport, and I look forward to continuing engagement with it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I invite Jim Fairlie to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes, minister.

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

Members can see from the papers scattered in front of me that I want to get through a whole load of things, but I think that time will be absolutely against me.

I genuinely thank my colleague for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is a brilliant debate to have, and I was really taken by the member’s enthusiasm. The enthusiasm of the Youth Parliament has clearly rubbed off, as the member is clearly excited by what it has brought to the debate.

John Mason just mentioned the Scottish Youth Parliament’s manifesto, which I note is called “Dear Scotland’s Future”. I absolutely love that title; it captures the spirit of the debate and the fact that we in the chamber all have a responsibility and a duty to consider these issues, because we are legislating for that future. It brings everything back into sharp focus.

I will pick up a couple of points that Sarah Boyack made. She pointed out that, although free bus passes are great, they are no use if there is no bus. She is absolutely correct, and I take her point on board. We have discussed it on numerous occasions, and we are looking at how we make that better.

We need to remember, though, that we are still dealing with a deregulated industry, and it is private operators who are working in these areas. That is why we introduced the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. Everything in that legislation is now in play, so local authorities have the ability to make the interventions that are right for their areas.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

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

I will just finish this one point.

As someone who lives in a rural constituency, I am acutely aware of the problems facing rural Scotland. I am, therefore, excited about the extension of the plugged-in communities funding; we are just about to announce a £4 million fund for plugged-in communities to allow local communities to get the buses and the infrastructure that they need in their area. After all, they know their areas better than anyone, and they will know what routes to drive and how to deliver them. It is all about the community working together.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

A key issue for local authorities is having the capacity to use the legislation that we in the Parliament have supported. We have been seeing these issues for years. Lothian Buses is fantastic, but there is a challenge in how we ensure accountability when it comes to local buses in an area. Local authorities are key—the issue is what more the Government can do to support them.

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

I take on board Sarah Boyack’s point. That is the whole point of the legislation. It does not have to involve a one-size-fits-all approach—there is a range of options for local authorities to take advantage of.

When we look at how Lothian Buses has taken that legislation and run with it, with a direct link back into the local community, we see that there are benefits there. However, I would not want to criticise private operators to any great extent. All I will say is that they have a business to run, and they have to be profitable to make the investments that are needed. We also have funding through the network support grant to allow the operators to put in place and run routes that are clearly not viable at that time.

Alasdair Allan talked about some of the Youth Parliament’s asks around extending funding. I would just reiterate that the network support grant is important in maintaining rural routes. We do not have any funding available to increase the under-22s scheme as it stands, but we have increased ferry provision, including the number of ferries that are available to our young travellers. When I was in Orkney and Shetland over the summer, people came to me and said that the provision that we have made is absolutely brilliant. If we could extend it, that would be great, but the budget does not allow us to do so right now. However, it demonstrates the importance that the Government places on ensuring connectivity.

A number of members have stated the value of that connectivity, not just in enabling people to get to their workplace and to education—there is the social aspect, too. Indeed, I picked that up when I was in Orkney, in particular: young people were travelling to some of the outer isles in ways that they would not have normally done, as a direct result of the free ferry travel that we have put in place.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One thing that the Government has committed to and which is very welcome is a trial introduction of capped bus fares. Will the Government consider how that works with free bus travel, to help people who have reached the age of 22 and therefore no longer get free travel? How will the pilot’s findings feed into wider consideration of how we make more travel free and affordable?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you the time back, minister.

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

We are considering capped fares, and we are still working up where that pilot will be. A number of members across the Parliament have been asking for it to be in their area—I accept that everybody wants it to be in their area. As for what happens beyond the age of 22, I have asked officials to consider that, too. Do people simply drop out of using buses? How does it work? There is constant evaluation of our travel system in Scotland.

Another thing that was asked for was to have things linked up—that is, to have connectivity between modes of travel. We have our eyes set on that, too. For example, how do we ensure that ferries are timed with trains and buses, ensuring connectivity across all sectors?

Graham Simpson said that we must create a fairer system. I go back to the fact that all the powers of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 have now been delivered to local authorities, in order to deliver exactly that. It is all about the fairness in the system, so that the local authority, or the transport authority, that desires to do something in its communities has the ability to do so.

In 2024-25, we committed more than £100 million across a number of infrastructure programmes involving walking, wheeling and cycling. One of the other asks from the Youth Parliament has been about active travel, which is really important. “Dear Scotland’s Future” provides a vision in that respect; in the future, there will be far more walking, wheeling and cycling. That is why there has been a commitment of £180 million-plus for the active travel budget—to ensure that we make that future available to the young people who are telling us what they want.

I cannot commend those young people highly enough for their engagement, and I encourage every member across the Parliament to keep that engagement going, because they are the future of Scotland.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio question time. The portfolio this afternoon is social justice and housing—

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We cannot hear you.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Stewart. I do not think that the sound is working.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how the steps set out in its housing emergency action plan will support its work to tackle the housing emergency, particularly for young people and first-time buyers. (S6O-04922)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The plan delivers on three principal objectives: ending cases of children living in unsuitable accommodation; supporting the housing needs of vulnerable communities; and building our future by investing up to £4.9 billion in multiyear funding. As well as investing significantly in a boosted affordable house building programme to support young people and first-time buyers in particular, we are expanding the scope of the open market shared equity scheme, increasing the targeted acquisition fund from £40 million to £88 million, working with councils to flip temporary accommodation and providing financial support for women to leave an abusive partner. Furthermore, subject to the Parliament’s approval, we will introduce a long-term system of rent controls via the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

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

I welcome those measures, including the expansion of the open market shared equity scheme. Guidance shows that the scheme is available to those on lower incomes based on affordability and that the Scottish Government can take up to a 40 per cent stake in the property purchase. However, the scheme is not open to younger people outwith certain priority groups, and applicants must be social rented tenants. Given that younger people, including families, often stay with friends and relatives and do not have any form of tenancy, will the Scottish Government consider reviewing the criteria in order to enable that group to apply? More generally, what further support can be offered?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am pleased to say that, from 2 September 2025, the OMSE scheme is available to all qualifying first-time buyers, as well as to priority access groups. That policy change has been implemented to ensure that the maximum number of people are able to access the scheme, and it will help many who would not otherwise have been able to secure a home. I will consider the specific point that Mr Doris has raised and see whether anything can be done in that regard.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what percentage increase in redeterminations of pension age disability payment assessments there has been since January 2025. (S6O-04923)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Social Security Scotland’s priority is to make the right decision on applications first time and to do so as quickly as possible. As it is a new benefit, pension age disability payment application volumes are still increasing, but the number of redeterminations has remained low since the launch of the benefit in October 2024. Out of 2,575 processed applications for pension age disability payment, only 45 redeterminations had been requested up to 30 April 2025.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The figure that the cabinet secretary was looking for was a 221 per cent increase. Although that represents a small number of actual cases, it also largely covers the short trial period before the wider roll-out of pension age disability payments. Since April 2025, the benefit has been extended to 14 more councils, including Edinburgh, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Glasgow, Renfrewshire and West Lothian, which are some of our largest council areas. Given the rapid expansion in eligibility, does the cabinet secretary anticipate further increases in self-determinations? How does she expect that to affect the time that it takes to process applications across the system? Could we see significant delays as a result?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

No, we will not see significant delays, because processing times are being kept under close review. That is very different from what happens with a redetermination, which is, I think, what Jamie Halcro Johnston meant in his question.

I appreciate that, when the member and the Scottish Conservatives are preparing a press release, they want to go for the percentage figure, but if we genuinely want to talk about how to get the right decision first time round, it is important that we have a sensible conversation about the fact that, strangely enough, as a benefit goes from being rolled out in three council areas to 32, the number of applications—and, therefore, the number of redeterminations—will go up. That is why it is important that we look at the proportion of redeterminations overall, which is still exceptionally small. As I said in my earlier answer, the absolute figure remains small. That is the important aspect in getting perspective on and context around the matter, rather than going for a cheap headline.

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

Recipients of disability benefits in Scotland will, understandably, be concerned following the United Kingdom Government’s recent proposals to cut social security, given the implications for disability benefits in Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the Scottish Government’s engagement with the UK Government on those proposals? In addition, what reassurance can she provide to disabled people and those living with long-term health conditions that their interests are being protected?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is very important that we provide reassurance for disabled people. As I said, we are prioritising getting the decision right the first time for all benefits. It is also very important that we give reassurance that the Scottish Government will not undertake the cuts to disability benefits that are, unfortunately, still happening at Westminster. There was, rightly, great pushback on the threat to take away personal independence payments for people. The Scottish Government clearly laid out that it would not follow suit on that. However, cuts are still being made to the incomes of disabled people because of what is happening with universal credit, which is part of the reserved benefits system. I will make clear to the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the impact that that has, not only on disabled people but on child poverty levels.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Government what funding and timelines will support the new disability equality plan to ensure that its aims deliver real change for disabled people. (S6O-04924)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I was delighted to attend the launch of the disability equality plan over the summer and to see the energy and commitment behind it. It is encouraging to witness progress and to know that real change is being prioritised. Timely and targeted funding is essential to the plan’s success and to disabled people’s organisations across Scotland, which play a vital role in advancing equality and inclusion. To support the plan, we are investing £2.5 million in key services and initiatives, including a new £1 million improving access fund to enhance advice, digital inclusion, mental health support and access to health and social care.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I thank the minister for that encouraging reply. Many disabled constituents struggle with accessible transport, housing adaptations and local mental health services. How will the plan directly improve support and accessibility in communities throughout Strathkelvin and Bearsden and the rest of Scotland?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

We believe that Scotland should be a place where disabled people can live the lives that they choose with the support that they need to do so. Everybody should be able to participate in society, access their rights, take advantage of opportunities and thrive in their communities, including in Rona Mackay’s constituency.

In addition to the £1 million improving access fund to enhance digital inclusion, mental health support and access to health and social care, the disability equality plan directly links to and aligns with the work of the mental health and wellbeing strategy and delivery plan. We are focused on improving access to care and support, including through grass-roots projects that are supported by our communities mental health and wellbeing fund for adults.

We have successfully reopened the independent living fund for new applicants for the first time since 2010, enabling up to 1,400 disabled people in Scotland who face the greatest barriers to independent living to access the support that they need. We continue to work on ensuring that disabled people can travel with the same freedom, choice, dignity and opportunity as other citizens.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government says that it is committed to improving the lives of disabled people, but, for many people living with disabilities, there are still far too many barriers to getting into employment. In particular, people in rural areas have a huge issue, which we have seen in Moray, Orkney and the Highlands, where disabled employment gaps are much larger than those across the United Kingdom. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that those gaps are closed, particularly in rural areas?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

It is unfortunate that UK Government leaders are backing cuts in that area, which is not helpful. Due to my extensive engagement with disabled people’s organisations, I am well aware of the variance in availability and access across rural and urban areas. One measure to address that is the launch of the pilot scheme in which funding is provided to enable companions of people who are blind or partially sighted to travel on trains. That helps people to access not only work but leisure activities and to be connected to communities. That has never been so important across areas where it takes longer to travel.

The delivery of targeted financial support, including the pension age disability payment, provides between £290 and £434 per month to eligible disabled people over state pension age. Measures such as the child winter heating payment also help in that regard.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Scotland’s population being around 5.5 million and the reported need to expand the housing sector capacity, whether it will provide an update on what targeted support it is providing to address the reported decline in small and medium-sized home builders. (S6O-04925)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Over the summer, I worked extensively with partners, including small and medium-sized enterprise house builders, to inform the housing emergency action plan, which I presented to the Parliament last week.

A key pillar of the plan, as I said in response to an earlier question, is creating the optimal conditions for confidence, investment and growth in our sector. The actions in the plan which speak to that aspect include specific cross-Government interventions to better support SME builders and Scotland’s housing sector, including by working with the Scottish National Investment Bank, with investment over four years of up to £4.9 billion. That is complemented with an all-tenure delivery ambition across all sectors to grow by at least 10 per cent each year over the next three years.

Planning is another area that has been raised with me as being critical. As I announced, we will shortly write to planning authorities to set out our expectation for proportionality when dealing with SME house builders. We will extend the forthcoming planning consultation on accelerating the build of new homes to specifically cover measures for SMEs. I am very pleased that some of the actions that I announced were welcomed by Homes for Scotland, among others.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her full reply and agree that all steps must be taken to support SME house builders, particularly around planning and certainty over access to finance. House building is part of the picture to address pent-up demand; another part is retaining existing stock. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s recent warmth to the removal of rent caps to mid-market rent and build to rent, but will she extend that to all types of provisions, such as private landlords, or, as a minimum, will she allow rent rises between tenancies? My concern is that the Government could be at risk of legal action in differential treatment or, even worse, mass exit, which would inadvertently exacerbate the current undersupply of housing stock.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I reiterate that one of the principal concerns in responding to the housing emergency is about creating confidence in the sector. I hope that responding to key calls for multi-annual certainty, for an uplift in funding and for an all-tenure target will create optimal circumstances.

In respect of Ms Thomson’s specific question on exemptions from rent control, I was able to confirm last week our intention in principle to exempt from rent control build-to-rent properties and mid-market rent properties. That was informed by consultation, as well as by our housing investment task force. Included in the consultation was the question of exemptions for, for example, rents that have been below market rent or where repairs and investments have readily been made. I will confirm our position in respect of those exemptions as part of stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the report that was published by Homes for Scotland on 17 June. In it, Homes for Scotland recommended an overhaul of Government regulations to reduce the cost and complexity for SMEs that are trying to build more homes across the country.

However, I will ask the cabinet secretary about planning hold-ups, specifically. I was appreciative of the cabinet secretary’s previous commentary in response to Michelle Thomson’s question, but 96 per cent of SME house builders still believe that the planning process is slow. Is the cabinet secretary working cross-Government, with different portfolios, to ensure that we speed up the planning process and that SMEs are not disadvantaged when they try to build more homes?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

In general, regulation and planning are good things. Regulation provides us with some of the best homes in the country. For example, those that are being built under our affordable housing supply programme are warm, modern and efficient. However, regulation needs to facilitate progress and not hinder it. I am very mindful of the cumulative effect of regulations in respect of house building, as I am with planning.

In response to the point about cross-Government working, absolutely; I am undertaking that, not least with Ivan McKee, the Minister for Public Finance. He and I are very closely engaged in the suite of planning adjustments that are being made as part of the Government’s programme for government, and also in those that I included in my statement last week—specifically, the new planning direction that ministers will give for the monitoring of the application of national planning framework 4, which will give us the ability to intervene in that process. That will sit alongside our expectations of proportionality, customer service and delivery.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is no real surprise that, in recent years, 100 per cent of houses in Orkney have been SME built. Although it is clear that SME firms across the country face challenges of the sort that Michelle Thomson alluded to—including, ironically, the availability of housing for those working in the sector—there are specific barriers for those that are operating in island communities, with increased development costs, a one-size-fits-all approach to planning requirements and a lack of sufficient funding to take forward key projects. The cabinet secretary has helpfully committed to visit Orkney to meet those involved in housing development in the islands. Ahead of that visit, will she commit to looking at what further tailored support might be made available for small house builders to address the concerns that they have raised?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As housing secretary, I will remain in on-going contact with SME house builders, as I will with other representatives in the sector, because it is very much in my interest to understand the barriers as they see them and to seek to overcome them. Aspects of the plan that I set out last week intended to do exactly that, not least in respect of planning and my clear expectation of proportionality in the treatment of SMEs.

Mr McArthur is right that not only is supporting our SME house builders important in and of itself, but it also supports the development of much-needed housing in rural and island Scotland, where we know that SME house builders have an important part to play. I assure Mr McArthur and other members that the needs of SME house builders have been a very important consideration for me and my team as we have developed our housing emergency response. It has been informed by collaboration with them and it will continue to be.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The number of SME house builders in Scotland has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. According to the Homes for Scotland report that was published in June, nine in 10 SMEs say that it is their perception that the Government’s policies make building harder. I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about her forward direction in addressing that. Is it her intention to intervene in the local government planning process to speed things up? If it is, how will she go about that?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Local authorities are independent corporate organisations, and planning is a semi-judicial process. I would not propose to seek to usurp or take the place of the planning authority’s job in carefully considering all that has to be weighed up. However, we have been clear about the Government’s expectation of a significant uplift in the development of housing and affordable housing.

Through the new notification direction, which I will set out, we will monitor how NPF4 is applied on housing across the country. That will give us the opportunity to intervene in the normal way when we believe that that is needed.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Inverclyde Council, private developers and registered social landlords operating in Inverclyde regarding housing development activity planned for the current financial year and for 2026-27. (S6O-04926)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

My officials hold regular meetings with key housing stakeholders in Inverclyde to discuss progress, to share updates and to engage on key aspects of the affordable housing supply programme. At the most recent meeting, which took place in August and involved Sanctuary Scotland Housing Association and Inverclyde Council, the discussions focused on current priorities and future programme planning. This financial year, we are making £9.6 million available for affordable housing in Inverclyde.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The cabinet secretary is aware of the on-going discussions between RSLs in my constituency and Inverclyde Council, which are aimed at improving the local housing stock, but she might not be aware that River Clyde Homes currently has more than 400 void properties, some of which will be razed to the ground shortly.

Given that it already has a significant number of properties, River Clyde Homes is in a unique position in relation to the housing emergency. With targeted funding and support, some of those properties could be brought back into use to help to address the national housing crisis. Would the cabinet secretary be willing to meet senior officials from River Clyde Homes to discuss that opportunity?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Stuart McMillan is absolutely right to identify that how we deal with voids is a critical part of how we respond to the housing emergency. I am very much of the view that, in the same way as we must invest in new affordable housing and seek an all-tenure development uplift, we must also work closely on existing stock. That means returning social voids to use and bringing long-term empty private homes back into use.

My officials are in regular discussion with River Clyde Homes and Inverclyde Council, and I am sure that they would be happy to meet the association to further discuss how properties in its ownership might be brought back into use. I thank Mr McMillan for his invitation, and I would be happy to take it forward.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that question 6 has not been lodged, and nor have questions 7 and 8. Therefore, that brings portfolio question time to a close. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow the front-bench teams to change over.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There are three questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson will fall.

The first question is, that amendment S6M-18795.3, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

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

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Daniel Johnson will fall.

We come to the vote on amendment S6M-18795.3, in the name of Murdo Fraser, which seeks to amend motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty. Members should cast their votes now.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-18795.3, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is: For 26, Against 88, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that amendment S6M-18795.1, in the name of Daniel Johnson, which seeks to amend motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My voting app would not refresh; I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will ensure that that is recorded.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am in the same position: my app would not refresh. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will ensure that your vote is recorded.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not refresh; I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-18795.1, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is: For 23, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The final question is, that motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-18795, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish exports in response to global uncertainty, is: For 60, Against 49, Abstentions 7.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament recognises that demand for Scottish exports is strong due to Scotland’s high-quality products and services, and its excellence in sectors such as food and drink, professional, scientific, and technical activities; notes that global trade challenges, including geopolitical uncertainty, Brexit, and trade tariffs, are having a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses; welcomes the Scottish Government’s Six Point Export Plan, which is supporting Scottish businesses to respond to these challenges; notes that the additional support being provided, builds on effective and continued delivery of A Trading Nation, the Scottish Government’s export growth strategy, as indicated through Scottish Enterprise’s highest ever level of forecast export sales in 2024-25; acknowledges that meaningful collaboration between partners to promote Scotland internationally, using the Scottish Government-led award-winning Brand Scotland collateral, will boost awareness of Scotland’s strengths and increase opportunities for export growth, and calls on the UK Government to fully address the continuing impacts of Brexit on Scottish and UK trade by rejoining the European Union, and reverse its damaging decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions, which is harming business confidence and Scotland’s economy.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes decision time.

GFG Alliance Business Operations

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Ivan McKee on GFG Alliance business operations in 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)

I make this statement today to provide an update to Parliament on the status of the Scottish GFG Alliance businesses at Lochaber and Dalzell. As the nature of the statement is such that it touches on subjects that are commercially sensitive, I will be careful in my responses to members’ questions to avoid saying anything that breaches commercial confidence or that might cause harm to the businesses in question and their workforce. We all want the same outcome, which is to see those Scottish businesses thriving and providing good-quality jobs.

It is no secret that GFG Alliance has been weathering a storm since the collapse of Greensill Capital in 2021 or that it has been working to refinance its debts since the collapse of its main investor.

In Scotland, GFG owns several businesses, including Alvance British Aluminium and SIMEC Lochaber Hydropower, which operate the aluminium smelter and the hydro power plant in Fort William respectively. The company also owns the Liberty Steel Dalzell steelworks in Motherwell and a related site at Clydebridge in North Lanarkshire, which are not operational at present.

Liberty Speciality Steels is an English business that had an insolvency case raised against it by creditors late last year. I understand that GFG Alliance was able to settle with some creditors and wished to run a sale process for the company. There was an intervention on 20 August by the United Kingdom Government, which provided a letter to the court advising that, if the court was minded to appoint the official receiver, the UK Government would back that. On 21 August, the official receiver was appointed and took control of the business.

Lochaber and Dalzell have limited exposure to the Liberty Speciality Steels business and their management teams have confirmed that the insolvency of that business has no impact on their operations in Scotland.

We are monitoring with interest the steps that the UK Government has taken in relation to Liberty Speciality Steels and my officials are engaging with the relevant UK Government departments to understand their plans for the business. I assure members that we have contingency plans in place to cover any eventualities for the Scottish businesses and that our priority is to see them being operational, employing skilled staff and providing economic benefits in their respective regions and across Scotland.

The then Minister for Employment and Investment, Tom Arthur, and I met Sanjeev Gupta on 12 January this year and pressed him for information on GFG Alliance’s refinancing. We discussed the global challenges faced by Mr Gupta’s business and he reaffirmed his commitment to the businesses in Scotland. I spoke with Jeff Kabel of GFG Alliance on 9 September and he advised me that GFG is working hard to support Lochaber’s growth and has a credible plan for restarting operations at Dalzell in the coming weeks.

I have also met the Community trade union, which represents workers at Dalzell, to hear its concerns and I agree with it that we want to see the plant back up and running and to see people back at work. The union also told me that speculation about the future of Dalzell has an impact on workers’ morale.

I attend the steel council held by the UK Government and I am eager to see the steel strategy that is expected this autumn. Given the level of intervention that we have already seen for steel businesses in England and Wales, I hope that there will be an equal sharing of the £2.5 billion that is being allocated to support the steel industry in the UK. The industry has repeatedly raised the issue of energy pricing and how that impacts the competitiveness of the Scottish plants and I am also seeking clarity on that from the UK Government.

I say to members today that it was right for the Scottish Government to intervene to support the businesses at Lochaber and Dalzell. We provided Lochaber with a guarantee to protect those skilled jobs in the west Highlands, underpin additional investment at the site and promote industry in Scotland. Lochaber has more than 90 years’ experience of aluminium production and is a national strategic asset. Under the ownership of GFG Alliance, the business has created 40 new jobs since 2016 and a total of 204 people are employed there today, supporting a valuable supply chain with hundreds of associated jobs. Our intervention has sustained the business for almost a decade.

The guarantee—including its full value and total exposure and securities—was disclosed to Parliament’s cross-party Finance and Constitution Committee on 22 November 2016 and was approved unanimously by that committee. The total original exposure of the undiscounted guarantee was £586 million. That figure has reduced over the past nine years and all payments due to the Lochaber investors are up to date. The amounts guaranteed vary between £14 million and £32 million per annum over 25 years, with 16 years remaining.

We hold a robust set of securities, including the smelter, the hydro power station and extensive landholdings from which we could seek recovery if there was a call under the guarantee. The Scottish Government continues to earn the expected income in the form of guaranteed fee payments from GFG Alliance and has earned many millions in fees since 2017, an income that would not have existed without the deal. No public funds have been spent under the guarantee.

Lochaber is operating well and producing aluminium. The business has recently announced that it has sold 1,000 tonnes of its output to the United States of America, benefiting from the introduction of new US tariffs, and has committed £1 million to a summer maintenance programme that will see new equipment installed and improved efficiency measures.

The Lochaber businesses have had a combined turnover of more than £816 million since 2017. Lochaber has produced more than 300,000 tonnes of aluminium since then and the power station has produced 4,480 gigawatt hours of electricity during the same period. An upgrade to its grid connection during that period means that the power station is in a position to sell more effectively into the national grid. It has spent an estimated £52 million with Scottish suppliers and a total of £112 million across UK suppliers since 2017, providing an economic benefit to its region and beyond.

The business has seen £37 million of capital expenditure since 2017. It has a strong management team that is committed to the business and the local community and has an emphasis on providing benefits to that community, including the planting of 250,000 trees and 988 acres of peatland restoration since 2017. It has also spent £250,000 on donations and sponsorship. I know that members have been to the smelter to meet the workforce and see at first hand the good work that is done there.

I turn to Dalzell. We intervened to facilitate the sale and ensure the continued operation of this important industrial asset for Scotland, as the last remaining rolling plate mill in the UK. Dalzell received public sector support in respect of a £7 million loan from Scottish Enterprise to facilitate working capital, and Scottish Enterprise is currently in discussion with Dalzell regarding repayment of the loan. The Scottish Government’s intervention resulted in the continued production of steel and maintained skilled employment at Liberty Steel Dalzell. The plant has produced over 400,000 metric tonnes of metal since 2017, and it generated revenue of over £280 million during the same period.

Dalzell paused production in August 2024, with the staff being placed on a furlough arrangement that was agreed with the unions. That important step by GFG allowed staff to be retained and put the business in a strong position for recommencing operations. I have spoken with members of the workforce recently and I thank the entire workforce for its commitment. GFG Alliance has plans to recommence operations at Dalzell to supply plate for naval warship building and it has been awarded a contract by Navantia, with the opportunity to bid for more work in the near future from other customers.

I will summarise, Presiding Officer. There are no immediate risks to Lochaber and Dalzell from the court cases in England. We took steps to retain these historic businesses and ensure that Scotland preserves the ability to produce aluminium and steel. Lochaber continues to perform well and be a major employer in Fort William, and Dalzell has plans for a restart that will see it deliver steel plate for shipbuilding. We will, of course, continue to monitor developments closely, and I will update Parliament if a further significant development takes place.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The minister will now take questions on the issues that were 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. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. Indeed, I thank him for issuing the statement, which the Scottish Conservatives requested due to concerns among both the workforce and the wider communities around Dalzell and Lochaber that were caused by negative media publicity about GFG Alliance’s financial viability.

Sanjeev Gupta has a track record of broken promises. He said that none of his steel plants would close and that he would not give up on the workforce—a promise that has clearly already been broken. At the time when he acquired the Fort William complex, he promised not to break up the assets and that he would transfer parts of the estate to the local community. Those are two more broken promises. At the time, he promised what turns out to have been a pie-in-the-sky proposal to create 2,000 new jobs in an aluminium car wheel factory, with apparently no thought as to where the workforce would come from—or, for that matter, where they might live. That is yet another broken promise. Can we really trust a word that this man says? Should Scottish ministers put much reliance on his statements?

Let me ask three specific questions about the content of the minister’s statement. First, the minister stated that the original exposure of the guarantee was £586 million, which has now reduced. What figure does the guarantee now stand at?

Secondly, what is the current value of the securities and how does that relate to the outstanding guarantee?

Thirdly, the minister referenced contingency planning for the future of Dalzell and Lochaber. Is that a guarantee to workers at both plants that their jobs are secure?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I reiterate that, if the Government had not taken the steps that it took in 2016-17, the plants would now have been shut for almost a decade. I might be wrong, but I think that Murdo Fraser was on the Finance and Constitution Committee with me at the point when we unanimously agreed that the deal was a good one and should be taken forward.

On the value of the guarantee, I have indicated that payments of between £14 million and £32 million have been made every year. They have been made for the past nine years. The £586 million value has therefore reduced, and it is clearly moving on a quarterly basis. As I indicated at the beginning of my statement, there are some commercially sensitive issues here, but I will seek to be able to provide further information on the guarantee value.

The same applies to the securities. As Murdo Fraser will be aware, that data is published every year through an audit process and the value of the securities is identified. That changes depending on a range of factors, but that is published information.

I have been working on the contingencies in various ministerial roles over a number of years. Extensive work has happened, within Government and using external advisers, to ensure that we have contingency plans in place for a range of options if some of the guarantee payments were to be defaulted on or for other situations in which we felt that we had to take further steps.

Our commitment is demonstrated by our actions over the past nine years in keeping the workforce at both plants in employment. As I indicated, if we had not taken those steps in 2016, that would not now be the case.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I, too, thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and agree with him that our focus has to be on securing the sites and the jobs. I also remind members that I am a member of the Community trade union.

In his statement the minister said that there is no immediate risk to the taxpayer. However, given the meetings, the fact that a statement has been given, and the fact that 15 GFG entities across nine jurisdictions are in insolvency, there are clearly concerns, particularly about Dalzell. Given that there are orders on the books but the site is furloughed, there is clearly a working-capital issue.

Will the minister confirm the likely forecast for the repayment of the loan to Scottish Enterprise? Will it be extended to provide the lacking working capital? Would that be contingent on some sort of equity in return?

If the site were to cease operations, there would be significant contingent liability for the Scottish Government, so will the minister provide an updated statement on the scale of the contingent liability for clean-up?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The order for Navantia, which had been placed with the Dalzell plant and which Daniel Johnson referenced, is moving forward. Commercial discussions are happening but, according to the latest information that we have, the business has secured the working capital to enable it to start production. As I said in my statement, we hope that that will happen in the next few weeks, so there is no plan or need to put more Government money in to support it.

Discussions continue on the loan from Scottish Enterprise to GFG—the £7 million plus interest payment—but it is in everyone’s interest to get the plant back up and running so that it is in a position to generate revenue and not only support jobs but, in time, repay the loan from the public purse. I think that we would all agree that it was right to keep the plant operating and paying wages.

With regard to the future, as contingency plans are developed, GFG is in discussions about the sale of the Clydebridge plant. I stress that, although GFG Alliance has been working through challenges, that has not impacted on the Scottish plants. However, should something happen to GFG, we have contingency plans in place to continue operations at the Dalzell plant and to seek alternative routes for the Lochaber and Dalzell sites.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

The minister mentioned the morale of the workforce at Dalzell. Can he provide any update regarding what steps the Scottish Government has been taking to support and communicate with the workforce and trade unions?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As indicated, we have been in contact with the Community trade union. I met its general secretary, Roy Rickhuss, in the past few days. I also met representatives of the Dalzell workforce and heard from them that they were eager to return to work. People recognise that being on furlough for that length of time is not an entirely comfortable situation.

We all agree that it is a priority for us to see the Dalzell plant up and running, and we recognise that it is an important strategic asset for Scotland. I thank the workers for their commitment to the business despite the challenges over the past 12 months. They have seen Dalzell through different owners and difficult times. They remain committed to their local business. My officials and I will continue to work closely with them as the plans for the operational restart develop.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I ask the minister to readdress the questions that Murdo Fraser asked, because he did not give us any numbers. I think that the number that he was looking for on current exposure is £286 million, but the valuation of the assets, which form the security against that, is from 2019. That is the most recent valuation, and it is in the company’s accounts. I must refer the minister to Murdo Fraser’s comments about the reliability of some of the information that we are working with.

In the event that something does befall the GFG businesses in Scotland, does the contingency that Ivan McKee refers to involve us in making a commitment to the jobs through the Scottish Government funding the business? If that is the case, which budget line would cover the cost in that eventuality?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I have indicated, repayments against that guarantee will continue to be made over that period. In relation to the quarterly amounts, with every quarter that goes by we are reducing the guarantee that is in place, which is obviously in everybody’s interest. It is also in everybody’s interest to keep that plant running, not least because of the workforce, but because it reduces that liability on Government. The value of the securities changes, and that data is published, but I can seek to provide more up-to-date information on that. There is an audit report every year that produces information on the extent of the value of those assets compared with the guarantee.

We have developed contingencies to cover a range of scenarios. Depending on what happens for each of those plants, we would have different options at that point in time. We keep that information up to date so that we can choose the most appropriate option should something happen. As I said, those worked-through options are available to deploy in the unfortunate situation that they are required. It is in everybody’s interest to keep the plant running under the current arrangement, which has continued over that period.

On the workforce, I reiterate our commitment to ensuring that those plants continue to operate. That has been witnessed by the fact that, over the nine years since the original guarantee was put in place, we have secured those jobs and, indeed, grown the number of workers employed at the Lochaber site, and we will continue to do so.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The Clydebridge works, which the minister referenced in his statement, is in my Rutherglen constituency. It has not been fully operational for a number of years, but it occupies a substantial footprint in Cambuslang. Constituents have raised with me their concerns about various issues, including historical land contamination and the impact that that could have on alternative use of the land and on the local environment. Will the minister advise what, if any, discussions have taken place on the future of the site?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I appreciate that Clare Haughey’s constituents will be concerned about the status of the Clydebridge site. We engage regularly with GFG at group level and management level on Clydebridge, and I discussed the matter with Geoff Cable of GFG Alliance when I met him on Tuesday. I understand that GFG is considering its strategic options for the site and recognises the environmental responsibilities associated with it. We will carefully consider that when assessing its options for the future of the site.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

In March 2024, I asked the then Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy to make a full statement to Parliament on the Government’s exposure to risk as a result of its arrangements with Sanjeev Gupta. I also called on the Government, in the interests of transparency, to finally publish, in full, details of all the deals that it has done with Mr Gupta, the GFG Alliance and all of its subsidiary companies. Now, with a continuing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering by the GFG group, with further financial meltdown and with no audited accounts lodged with Companies House for years, will the Government now publish the details of those deals?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

First, I am obviously not in a position to comment on the SFO investigation. It is not for us to comment on that. The business is taking steps to audit accounts, but, as Richard Leonard knows, company law is not a devolved matter. We have published information on the deals as far as we can within the limits of commercial confidentiality. Indeed, my statement included a series of numbers on that.

However, the important point is that the plants continue to employ the workers and add value to local economies. Back in 2016, the Government took proactive steps to prevent their closure. If we had not done that, I think that Mr Leonard would, along with the rest of us, be facing a situation in which those plants would not be operating. Obviously, none of us would have wanted that. We have done the right thing, and we will ensure that those plants continue to employ workers.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Given the level of intervention in steel businesses in England and Wales and the news that the UK Government has taken control of Liberty Steel in Yorkshire, can the Minister for Public Finance provide an update on his discussions with the UK Government and his calls for equal sharing of the £2.5 billion that has been allocated to support the steel industry in the UK?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I met the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, and the former Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds, on 22 July, and we all agreed at that meeting that the Dalzell steelworks has a unique position as the last plate mill in the UK. I raised the issue of the £2.5 billion funding available to support steel across the UK, and we all agreed that it was in the best interests of the workers and for steel production in the UK that the business got back up and running.

As I mentioned in my statement, my officials regularly engage with the UK Government’s Department for Business and Trade to understand the steps that it is taking with regard to Liberty Speciality Steel UK. I also attended the steel council meetings that were chaired by the UK Government and advocated for fair sharing of the funds in that forum. I will be writing to the newly appointed Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Peter Kyle, and the newly appointed Secretary of State for Scotland, Douglas Alexander, to ensure that they are as committed to Dalzell’s future as their predecessors were, and as the Scottish Government is, and that Scotland receives its fair share of the funding, given that Dalzell is the UK’s last plate mill.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The metals industry in the UK has been described as being in paralysis, as the GFG companies face criminal prosecution for years of failing to disclose their accounts. It is surely a cautionary tale of allowing key industries to be concentrated in the hands of a single, powerful, wealthy man. The minister says that contingency plans are in place to cover any eventualities. Does that mean that Scottish public money might be required to bail out this possibly criminal billionaire, or would the minister propose nationalising key assets under new management?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I have indicated, contingency plans are in place. It is also worth noting that, far from public money being spent on the Lochaber site, we have received many millions in fees as a result of the guarantee that we have put in place, and up-to-date payments have been made against the payments to the bond holders. As I have indicated, we have been watching the situation closely for a number of years and, if something were to happen, we have contingency plans that would allow us to step in and take appropriate measures. I do not want to talk through the detail of that now, because of commercial confidentiality, but I hear Lorna Slater’s comments clearly, and she can rest assured that we have taken into account all the issues that she has raised.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

The problem is that the Scottish Government has never been up front about its dealings with Mr Gupta. We still do not know whether the £7 million loan from Scottish Enterprise will be repaid, and we have no idea when the plant will be operational again. There are still far too many unanswered questions from the minister’s statement, which I am afraid has told us nothing.

First, will the minister be willing to publish the minutes of his meetings this year with Mr Kabel and Mr Gupta? Secondly, does he believe that the company has the funds necessary to buy the materials needed to fulfil the Navantia order, which seems to be the reason for the current impasse and why the workers have been furloughed? Finally, I heard no mention of the new billet facility at Lochaber, which, as we all know, is much needed for the future success of the business at that site.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Scottish Enterprise is in discussions with GFG about the £7 million loan. Again, I think that we would all agree that that was the right thing to do, otherwise we would not be having those conversations, because the plant would have been shut for many years now.

As I indicated earlier, it is important that the business gets up and running, operates and generates revenue so that it is in a position to repay that loan. I also stated in my response that the company is expecting to reopen the plant within the next few weeks to supply plate to Navantia, and it has indicated that it has resolved the working capital issue to allow it to do so.

Of course, we would all like further investment in Lochaber, but we have to recognise that, had it not been for the steps that the Government has taken—again, I repeat that we have not spent any public money and, indeed, we have received fees worth many millions in addition to all the guaranteed payments that have been made over that nine-year period—we would not be having this conversation, because that site would not be here, either.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

The Scottish Government has previously provided much-needed financial assistance to prevent the closure of the site at Dalzell. Can the minister say any more about how we are working to ensure that both the workforce and the financial interests of the Scottish Government are being protected?