Scottish Parliament, 1 October 2025

329 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement its marine directorate has undertaken to progress any plans to reopen a boat-based cockle fishery on the Solway Firth. (S6O-04994)

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

The marine directorate of the Scottish Government has been considering a proposal that it received for a Solway cockle scientific trial using fishing vessels. During portfolio question time on 10 September 2025, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands assured Mr Carson that a discussion would be arranged with him once further information had been received from the marine directorate, and steps are currently being taken to arrange such a meeting.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I thank the minister for his response. He will no doubt know that the Solway Firth has long been recognised as one of Scotland’s most productive shellfish areas, with a rich history of cockle fishing that has supported generations of coastal communities. The potential reopening of a vessel-based cockle fishery in my region represents not only an opportunity to revive a once-thriving industry but a chance to deliver sustainable economic growth in a region that faces persistent challenges around rural employment and depopulation.

I have worked with local scientists and stakeholders over the past few years, and it is clear that a well-managed boat-based fishery could deliver environmental safeguards, traceability and economic resilience, all while respecting the unique ecology of the Solway. With that in mind, will the minister and the cabinet secretary agree to meet me and stakeholders to accelerate the process so that the economic benefit is realised sooner rather than later?

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

Mr Carson has been pursuing the issue for years now—a long time, as far as I am aware—and I spoke to the cabinet secretary before she went away on her trip. I have been told that, as well as the arrangements that have been made for the cabinet secretary to meet Mr Carson, officials from the marine directorate intend to reconvene a meeting with the party that put forward the cockle proposal and the relevant fishers.

Opening a fishery is not a straightforward or quick process, and there are aspects of the proposal that has been made that require some clarification, but arrangements are currently being made for such a meeting as Mr Carson has asked for. I know that officials and the cabinet secretary will keep Mr Carson updated as that develops.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when information on farming payments will be publicly available, in accordance with section 19 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024. (S6O-04995)

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

Scottish ministers are co-developing the approach to future agricultural support, and our agricultural reform route map will continue to update farmers and crofters on the changes. The rural support plan will set out the intended agricultural reform and the use of the 2024 act.

Our future approach to reporting on the publication of support information will be part of the aforementioned co-development process. In the meantime, the Rural Support (Simplification and Improvement) (Data Publication) Scotland Regulations 2025 will allow us to continue publishing information relating to payment recipients.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that reply.

I wrote to the cabinet secretary as far back as 21 June last year, seeking clarity and a timetable on this. I raised it in Parliament with the minister on 7 May of this year, who told me, in his words, that it is “a complex issue”, but it is not a complex issue—it is a straightforward issue. It is simple. Is the Government on the side of secrecy or on the side of transparency, on the side of concealment or openness? When will it implement legislation passed by Parliament over a year ago so that it is a matter of public record just exactly who is in receipt of the £660 million of public money that is paid out through the farm payment system?

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

I dispute Richard Leonard’s position that we are doing anything other than being open and transparent. I suggest that data will be published annually by 30 June, following the financial year end. It will remain publicly accessible for two years from the date of publication. In addition, the Scottish Government’s publications must be approved by the Information Commissioner’s Office. What we are doing is anything other than trying to hold information back.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have requests for two supplementaries—-I will take both. Christine Grahame can go first. I remind members that all supplementaries have to be supplemental to the question in the Business Bulletin .

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

I know that the minister recently had a meeting on farrowing crates. Would he consider using rural payments to support animal welfare improvements such as transitioning from farrowing crates to free farrowing?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question in the Business Bulletin relates to the publicly available nature of the information on whatever the farming payments are made to promote. With that in mind, minister, please respond to Ms Grahame.

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

Certainly, Deputy Presiding Officer.

As the member has just talked about, I recently stated, at the alternative farrowing systems round-table discussion that I chaired in Parliament, that, once a definitive direction as to what will replace farrowing crates is determined, we will consider what options are available. We will continue to listen to and work with the industry and key stakeholders on how best to achieve improvements in animal welfare, as well as monitoring industry information to allow us to determine how to ensure that best practice is delivered.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, minister—I am not entirely sure that that related to the question in the Business Bulletin. We move to a supplementary from Mr Halcro Johnston; I hope that this might be closer to the mark.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests as a partner in a farming business in receipt of farming payments and a member of NFU Scotland.

It was reported in The Scottish Farmer that the Government’s farming future investment scheme has been heavily oversubscribed, with more than 3,000 farms—including our own—applying to the £14 million scheme. What consideration is the Scottish Government giving to NFUS calls to increase funding for the scheme in 2025-26, and when will the offer of grants and payments to those farms that accept the offers start being made?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Again, if we could relate all the supplementaries to the actual question in the Business Bulletin—that includes the minister’s responses—that would be really helpful.

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

Okay—I will try to get my answer somewhere in relation to the question that was originally asked. We will make publicly available the amount of money that is going to be delivered via the farming investment scheme. We will, I hope, publish that information as farmers get it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 3 has not been lodged.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last engaged with the United Kingdom Government on domestic food and drink markets. (S6O-04997)

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

The Scottish Government has consistently urged successive United Kingdom Governments to safeguard our domestic market and ensure fair competition for producers. However, recent trade deals, especially those affecting beef, sheep and dairy, have exposed Scottish farmers to increased risk, amid rising costs and an uncertain trade environment.

Meanwhile, meaningful collaboration between the Government and industry is vital to assess those trade impacts and protect domestic producers. It is, therefore, deeply concerning that the current UK Government shows only limited ministerial engagement on trade issues, despite the devolved nature of, and shared economic interests in, many aspects.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Farmers have warned that our food security is under serious threat as a result of the UK Government’s decision to scrap skilled worker code 5111, which effectively blocks farms from hiring skilled overseas workers. That leaves pig, poultry, dairy and horticultural producers struggling to fill vital jobs. In Dumfries and Galloway, more than 25 dairy farms depend on staff from the Philippines and other nations to keep operations running.

Does the minister agree that that is yet another example of a UK Government that is ignorant of, and does not care about, the needs of Scotland’s farmers?

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

It is clear that the UK immigration system no longer meets the needs of our economy, our public services or our communities. Scotland urgently requires tailored migration routes, such as the rural visa pilot, to reflect our distinct needs.

Labour shortages in the food and drink sector stem largely from Brexit, which led to the departure of many European Union citizens and the loss of vital skills. The UK Government’s removal of skilled worker code 5111 has worsened that situation, severely hindering the recruitment of overseas talent in sensitive sectors such as pig, poultry and dairy and making it unnecessarily difficult to fill essential roles and support industry sustainability.

Indeed, as the member is aware, an article in Farmers Guide by Aleksandra Cupriak, on 29 September, warns that the UK’s food security is at risk following the decision to remove skilled worker code 5111, taking skilled roles off the temporary shortage list, despite maintaining the code for builders. I would argue that folk who are working in the pig, poultry, dairy or processing sectors are skilled enough to keep food on our plates, so we should have a scheme that would allow us to issue visas to bring them to Scotland.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the agriculture minister has had with the justice secretary regarding support for farmers in relation to rural crime. (S6O-04998)

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

I have not spoken directly to justice ministers about rural crime, but clearly issues such as machinery and livestock theft have a hugely detrimental effect on Scotland’s rural communities, including our hard-working farmers and crofters. A wide range of rural organisations, including NFU Scotland, are represented in the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime—SPARC—alongside Police Scotland. SPARC aims to prevent, reduce and tackle rural criminal activity and, in association with local partnerships, is seen as a success story in combating rural crime. The Scottish Government is a member of SPARC and is fully supportive of its work.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Farmers will be surprised and disappointed by the minister’s lack of action on rural crime. According to NFU Mutual, the cost of rural crime in Scotland increased by 34.9 per cent in 2022-23 and cost the Scottish economy £1.2 million last year. Around 2.7 million quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles were stolen in the past year and, last month, five were stolen in Aberdeenshire, possibly from the same outfit. What specific actions will the minister and/or his justice colleagues take in order to prevent north-east farmers from suffering from rural crime? When will those farmers see results?

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

I take Liam Kerr’s points on board. I accept that farm theft is a heinous crime that takes away the tools of a working farm. Farmers can do a number of things for themselves in order to protect their vehicles, such as placing blocks on the ground or using spray paint. As I have already stated, the Scottish Government is a member of SPARC and we continue to work with the industry to ensure that stakeholders have the information that they need to protect their businesses.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Previously, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety admitted that the Scottish National Party Government missed a legislative consent memorandum on a rural theft bill that was passed by a previous Conservative Government. In the light of the recent news of the rising cost of quad bike theft in Scotland, which Liam Kerr has referred to, does Jim Fairlie accept that the SNP’s significant oversight on the issue has left farmers and rural businesses such as those in my constituency in the Scottish Borders much worse off?

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

No, I defy that point. The Scottish Government has done everything in its power to ensure that Scotland’s rural communities are protected and supported at every turn.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what long-term action it will take to support farmers growing malting barley. (S6O-04999)

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

I am aware that Scottish arable producers face significant challenges, including volatile markets and extreme weather. That is why the Scottish Government continues to provide certainty through direct support via the basic payment scheme, as set out in our vision for agriculture, in stark contrast to current and past United Kingdom Governments. This year, the Scottish Government launched its future farming investment scheme, offering at least £14 million to accelerate change in Scottish agriculture and support the Government’s vision. With 7,500 applications received, Scotland’s farmers and crofters have shown a strong commitment to key outcomes such as emissions reduction and nature restoration.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister will be aware that farmers growing malting barley have faced challenges this year, including a difficult harvest, falling prices, increased production costs and reduced demand from the Scotch whisky industry. Worryingly, it is anticipated that the challenges facing the industry will be long term and will affect farmers for years to come. Will the Scottish Government commit to increasing farm payments to compensate farmers for the losses that they are incurring? Will the Scottish Government liaise directly with the Scotch whisky industry to ensure that arable farmers are supported?

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

I take Meghan Gallacher’s points on board. We continuously engage with the Scotch Whisky Association as well as the Scottish agricultural community. In fact, the First Minister went to the White House to ensure that he was representing the Scotch Whisky Association to get the best possible deal, which should feed back into the industry. As far as funding is concerned, I reiterate that the Government has made sure that we keep direct payments in place, which is giving farmers in Scotland the security that they need.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the existing conditions and regime that seek to protect inshore fishing from the impact of any loss of fishing grounds due to the seabed installation of cables for, and construction of, offshore wind installations, require to be reformed in order to provide full compensation for any loss of fishing revenue as a result of having to avoid an area of 0.25 nautical miles from any such cables. (S6O-05000)

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

The Scottish Government very much values the fisheries sector and recognises the need to address fishers’ concerns in relation to offshore wind development. We want a prosperous future for both sectors.

In relation to fishing over cables, fishers should continue to use their expert judgment and knowledge to guide where they fish. However, I agree that it is right to explore the matter. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands has asked officials to work with the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council’s barriers to deployment group, which brings both sectors together to consider solutions, and to report back to her.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

East-coast inshore fishermen are seeing valuable fishing grounds lost because they cannot fish within a quarter of a nautical mile over any seabed cabling that leads to offshore wind installations.

In the headlong dash for offshore wind projects—some apparently with little discernible direct benefit to Scotland—fishermen are simply not getting the compensation that they deserve. The Scottish National Party stood up for our fishermen for half a century. Will the Scottish Government now stand up for them by instigating an independent review to consider how our fishermen can get a fair deal from their own Government?

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

I dispute the suggestion that fishermen cannot fish over cables. My understanding is that there is no specific exclusion of fishing activities over or near a submarine cable, but it is an offence for fishers to wilfully or negligently damage cables or pipelines.

On whether there will be an independent review, there is already a cross-Government and cross-industry review looking at all the issues that Fergus Ewing has raised, which will be taken forward when the cabinet secretary returns.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In committee this morning, we heard from fishing stakeholders who said that everyone knows the value of oil and gas and the renewables industries, but that decision makers often forget about the economic value of fishing.

We need to plot the areas where fishing occurs and factor that in when we are planning for new developments. We desperately need a spatial plan for our seas. When will the Scottish Government bring that forward?

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

I am not privy to conversations that took place this morning.

I am sorry, but I have completely forgotten the question that Rhoda Grant asked—I was reading something. Could she ask it again?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

No, we do not go backwards, I am afraid.

Ms Grant, given that the minister cannot now recall your question, he will probably wish to agree to write to you—and, indeed, all members—to say what his answer would have been if he had remembered the question. Minister, do you undertake to do that?

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

I am happy to answer the question if the member—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

No, we do not go back and repeat questions, minister. Will you respond to the chamber with your answer in writing?

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

Yes.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The truth is that fishermen are increasingly being squeezed out of prime fishing grounds. NnG Offshore Wind agreed compensation for people using static and mobile gear. However, since then, wind farms have given compensation only to people using static gear—the creel fishermen. Will the minister intervene and make sure that all wind farms give compensation to all parts of the sector?

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

As Willie Rennie knows, fisheries compensation is a private matter between the wind developers and the fishers. The Scottish ministers have no regulatory or statutory mechanism for involvement in leveraging such financial payments. However, I am quite sure that, if the member writes to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, she will pick up that point for him.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The common theme in most of the answers today is, “We’re talking, we’re talking, we’re talking”, but we do not see any action. Fishermen are facing the problem of spatial squeeze right now, every single day, and they need some action. When is the Government going to act and put something in place, rather than just talking?

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

As usual, I will respond to Mr Eagle by saying that the talking will continue, because that is how we get resolutions, and that is what will happen.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

To ask the Scottish Government what benefits it anticipates the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will deliver for rural and island communities, including in relation to breaking up concentrated land ownership and ensuring that land is used in the public interest and communities are not locked out of decision making. (S6O-05001)

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

Scotland has one of the most concentrated patterns of land ownership in the world, so the bill sets out ambitious proposals that will change how land is managed in our rural and island communities for the better.

The bill will prohibit certain land sales of more than 1,000 hectares until ministers can consider the sustainability of local communities, and it will require the owners of large landholdings to engage with local communities about how they use their land. It also includes measures to give greater protection and fairness to tenant farming, making it fit for the future.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

Former MSP Andy Wightman has called the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill

“the least ambitious ... ever introduced”,

saying that it creates

“new complexities, friction and conflict in the land market for no evident gain.”

Scotland cannot afford a land reform bill that just tinkers around the edges while ignoring the harsh reality of concentrated land ownership. Rural communities are being locked out of housing and local economies, as land and property are treated as investments.

Will the Government commit to ensuring that the bill will release land for genuinely affordable community-led housing and, possibly, self-builders, rather than add bureaucracy and leave local people behind?

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

I dispute Ash Regan’s point. The bill will, for the first time in Scotland, give ministers powers to ensure that the public interest is considered when more than 1,000 hectares of land is being sold. The Scottish ministers will require land to be sold in lots, and those lots will be offered to different buyers, where ministers determine that that could make local communities more sustainable.

The bill also seeks to empower communities with more opportunities to own land through the introduction of advance notice of certain sales from large landholdings of more than 1,000 hectares.

There are a number of different measures in the bill, which I am quite sure will take us forward in the journey towards proper land reform.

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

Thanks to the radical action that has already been taken on land reform by the Scottish Government, many community groups have been able to successfully purchase estates. Today, there are two potential buyouts at different stages in my constituency—the Bays of Harris and Bernera. How will the next phase of land reform legislation further support such community buyouts, particularly those on crofting land?

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

Scotland has had a proud history of land reform since devolution, and I wish the communities in Mr Allan’s constituency well in their potential buyouts.

Alongside what I said in my original answer, the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will require greater transparency of land sales from large landholdings so that local communities are informed about when land is to be sold and have greater opportunity to make a community right-to-buy application.

The Government continues to make further improvements to community rights to buy. We also introduced the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill in June, which will give crofters and their communities a greater say in how the land that they work with is used.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Thanks to the campaigning efforts of the local community, the sale of Kinloch castle on the Isle of Rum by NatureScot will be subject to a public interest test that will be applied to potential buyers. The Scottish Government’s Kinloch castle study found that the most important aspects of a sale were long-term contribution to the community, as well as to nature, sustainability, culture and the local economy.

Given that study and the tenacity of the people of Rum, does it not make sense to include in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill a public interest test for the buyers in land transactions?

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

As I said, the bill is currently going through Parliament, and I am quite sure that Mercedes Villalba will make that point to the cabinet secretary.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on rural affairs, land reform and islands. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to quickly change positions.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the chair of NHS Grampian and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05002)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The chair of NHS Grampian participated in the most recent meeting of the NHS Grampian assurance board on 23 September. The board, which provides oversight of NHS Grampian’s improvement plan, comprises Scottish Government officials and NHS Grampian leaders. The agenda for that meeting included the financial position of the local system, engagement between NHS Grampian leaders and the local workforce, and improvement plans for unscheduled care.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As an MSP, I regularly write to NHS Grampian to raise serious concerns on behalf of constituents. The board has now taken to responding to MSPs by saying that it will not meet the 20-day target for a response. However, it is not that the board is not meeting the target—it is missing it completely. Months are going by without my getting any reply.

I raised an issue with the health board on 22 May. It was raised here, in Parliament, with the First Minister on 5 June, and we have still had no response. In another case, I contacted NHS Grampian on 29 April. I have had a number of automatic responses to say that it is still looking into the matter, but there has been no reply. The constituent whom I was advocating on behalf of has now passed away. They had no closure on the issue that they raised with their elected member in Parliament.

Does the minister agree that that is simply unacceptable? What will he do to encourage NHS Grampian to fully respond to those serious concerns?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

To give a direct response to the question, yes, I agree that that is unacceptable. I expect complaints or concerns that are raised with national health service boards to be responded to timeously, regardless of whether they have been raised by elected members or by individual patients, and I expect progress to be made in resolving the issues that have been raised.

A new chief executive, Laura Skaife-Knight, has just taken up post at NHS Grampian—she has been in post for just over a week. I will ensure that Mr Ross’s concerns about ensuring that there is better communication with elected members are raised with her. What Mr Ross has raised with me just now is not the standard that I would expect, and I pass on my sincere condolences to the family of his constituent.

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

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s continued focus on NHS Grampian and the issues that it has been facing. It is vital that patients in my constituency receive the care that they need when they need it. Will the cabinet secretary outline what work the Scottish Government has done and is doing to stabilise and support NHS Grampian to ensure that patients are able to move quickly through the system?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I agree fully with Karen Adam. The whole purpose of the escalation work with NHS Grampian is to ensure that local patients have access to responsive, high-quality, safe and sustainable services. To that end, we are providing enhanced scrutiny and support to ensure that the health board has robust improvement plans in place and implements them effectively. The Government’s assurance board, which oversees that activity, will actively monitor the development and implementation of several NHS Grampian work strands, from improvements in the overall financial position to specific work regarding better patient flow in line with the recommendations that were made in the independent diagnostic report over the summer.

I am confident that, through those actions, we will soon have a clear plan to stabilise the system in NHS Grampian and set the right conditions for the necessary longer-term transformational work that will be done under the new chief executive.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Government what recourse is open to patients who have experienced complications following a national health service operation. (S6O-05003)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Any patient who experiences complications following surgery should discuss their concerns with the healthcare professionals who are responsible for their care. In addition, everyone has the right to make a complaint about the NHS treatment that they have received, and their concerns should be addressed at a local level through the NHS complaints-handling procedure. When that is not possible, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman is the second and final stage of the process.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Last week, I met a constituent, Patrick Higgins, who underwent a routine operation. He now has severe mobility issues due to a nerve in his leg accidentally being severed. Patrick feels that he is being ignored by the health services that are involved in his care, which cannot give him clarity on why the complication occurred or on what can be done to address it. The cabinet secretary will know that I have written to him this week regarding this case, but what can be done to ensure that the NHS has policies in place to ensure the least stressful and best outcomes for patients in what I understand is the very rare event of complications?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Fulton MacGregor for raising that case with me here, in the chamber, and in writing. I am very sorry to hear of Mr Higgins’s situation, and I will provide a full response to Fulton MacGregor’s correspondence as soon as possible.

Following an adverse event, no patient should be left in the position that they do not know what has happened. When an NHS board undertakes a significant adverse event review, the patient or their family should be kept fully informed throughout that process.

Furthermore, the Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 and supporting legislation provide a specific right for people to make complaints and place a duty on NHS boards to thoroughly investigate and respond to any concerns that have been raised. If a person remains dissatisfied following the board’s decision on their complaint, they can ask the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to consider the complaint.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

My constituents Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall have a petition before the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee relating to complications that have arisen from the use of surgical mesh by the NHS. The Scottish Government has previously indicated that it will monitor the progress of the new British Hernia Society registry, to gather more information about the scale of the complications that have arisen from the use of mesh in hernia repairs. I previously submitted freedom of information requests to health boards across Scotland, and I got information from some health boards but not from others. We have the British Hernia Society registry, but will the cabinet secretary ensure that all health boards retain records on complications arising from the use of hernia mesh and that that information is made available to inform decision making?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank Katy Clark for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and for the work that her constituents have done through the petitions process. I appeared before the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee last week, and I have found the petitions system to be an excellent means by which members of the public can raise their concerns directly in Parliament. It is a very effective process.

I know that the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health has met Katy Clark on the matter, and I will consider the position that she has asked for and make sure that either the minister or I reply in writing.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its approach to considering a hypermobility pathway for healthcare, in line with that being brought forward in Wales. (S6O-05004)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I reassure members that the Scottish Government, through the Scottish rare disease implementation board and through wider engagement, is continuing our commitment to improving the lives of people living with rare conditions and enabling resources to support clinicians.

Guidance on assessment and referral for hypermobility is available on Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s right decision service. I am aware that Ehlers-Danlos Support UK has been working with NHS Wales to co-produce a national pathway for those with hypermobility disorders in Wales.

I am waiting to see the outcome of that work and any learning that can be applied to Scotland. We will continue to implement our action plan to support people with rare conditions in Scotland.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister knows, I, too, have been engaging with Ehlers-Danlos Support UK about the many cases that it has come across in which folk have struggled to get access to diagnosis and treatment, often being bounced from one specialist to another without any conclusions. I have appreciated the minister giving her time to speak to me about that previously. Will she speak more to what resources have been allocated or are planned to be allocated for developing and implementing a pathway, whether or not it echoes the pathway in Wales?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Ms Roddick for the work that she has been doing to raise my awareness, and awareness more widely in the Parliament, of hypermobility conditions. As she knows, we have consulted on a long-term conditions framework. I am aware that representations have been made by the rare diseases community, and those are being fed in. Those views will be captured in the review work, and the allocation of resources will be determined as that work progresses, in line with the Scottish Parliament’s budget work.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress being made in developing the next phase of the “Women’s Health Plan”. (S6O-05005)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have been speaking with women and girls, gathering evidence and consulting with interested organisations to develop the next phase of the plan. The first stage was completed in 2024, and we want to make sure that the next phase builds on that progress. I am pleased to say that work has been progressing well, and I hope that the next phase will be published in January 2026.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for that update and for the way in which she keeps us all apprised of progress on the plan. I know that the minister will be aware of the situation regarding maternity services in Wigtownshire and the concerns around last week’s decision to keep services at Galloway community hospital closed. That comes despite strong opposition from the Galloway community hospital action group, which fears that the closure puts mothers and babies at risk. The group has described current maternity care in Wigtownshire as being

“like something out of the Middle Ages”.

Even the new Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland, who met the group only two weeks ago, feels that there is a “gap in care”.

Women are fearful, so will the minister join me and other interested parties in meeting the group to listen to its concerns directly and hear the testimonies of some of the mothers affected?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I very much appreciate the dialogue that we have been able to have across the chamber on the “Women’s Health Plan”. I am well aware of the situation with maternity services in Wigtownshire, having met Finlay Carson and Emma Harper.

Safety is the key concern, but I have to remember that the integration joint boards make those decisions. The cabinet secretary is due to meet the Patient Safety Commissioner shortly, and ministers would be happy to engage more with the community.

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

It is deeply concerning that the United Kingdom Labour Government has been criticised by a coalition of charities that have said that women are

“not a special interest group”

and that they are being deprioritised, with targets cut in half and funding slashed south of the border. A range of women’s health issues appear in my constituency casework regularly. Will the minister further outline how the Scottish Government is prioritising women’s health and ensuring that women are supported through the Scottish National Party Government’s investment?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise what the member says, as my own constituency inbox receives inquiries on women’s health issues.

As we move to the next phase of the plan, we will continue to invest in women’s health. We have provided £8.8 million to target long waits for gynaecology, £4 million to enhance general practitioner services and support access to long-acting reversible contraception, £1.5 million for miscarriage care and £1 million each year to broaden access to cancer screening. We have also invested more than £21 million this financial year by delivering the equally safe fund to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls.

We will continue to do all in our power to seek the best outcomes for the health of women and girls throughout their lives.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Earlier this year, 1,200 women were asked about the impact of the “Women’s Health Plan” and 90 per cent still had concerns about accessing comprehensive health screening for conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and female-specific issues. Many expressed the fear that there is just not enough help for people suffering from menopause. What will be different about the next phase of the plan that will mean that it will ensure that the concerns of women, including those of my constituents in Glasgow, are addressed?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome Annie Wells to her shadow portfolio on women’s health and to the group where we have been sharing progress in that area.

It is important to recognise that Scotland was the first of the four nations to produce a women’s health plan. We recognise that we have a distance to go, but with the leadership that we have in the Scottish Government, the cross-party support, and we should not forget the amazing support of the women’s health champion Professor Anna Glasier, we are making a difference. We have been very clear about ensuring that we are bringing women of all ages into the work on the next phase of the plan, and I hope that Annie Wells can welcome it when it is launched in January next year, as I do.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what provisions are in place to support people in hospitals and care settings who have serious spinal injuries resulting in paralysis from the neck down. (S6O-05006)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Queen Elizabeth national spinal injuries unit in Glasgow is responsible for the acute and lifelong care of all adult patients with traumatic and non-progressive spinal cord injury. We are committed to ensuring that all adults who require rehabilitation in all settings have timely access to the right services at the right time.

The once for Scotland rehabilitation approach sets out commitments that will shape a national programme of improvement work, under which national health service boards will be expected to demonstrate rehabilitation provision in a variety of settings, including in-patient and community settings, and at a range of intensities.

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

My constituent, Graham Wright, suffered a freak accident last year. His spine was paralysed from the neck down. Sadly, he died recently. Although his wife had praise for the three months that he spent in the spinal unit at Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, the planned transfer to Borders general hospital exposed dreadful deficiencies in its ability to look after him, including not even knowing initially how to use a hoist.

Will the cabinet secretary meet my constituent to hear her experience, as it is disturbing that in an area known for rugby, horse-riding and agriculture, where a spinal injury might not be so uncommon, the appropriate training for spinal injuries appears to be lacking in the local hospital?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am grateful to Christine Grahame for raising the case. I am sorry to hear of Mr Wright’s passing, and I offer my sincere condolences to his family for their loss. I know personally about the truly remarkable specialist care that is provided at the spinal injuries unit at Queen Elizabeth university hospital, because my father was a patient there.

I am concerned by the point about Borders general hospital that Ms Grahame has raised. I expect national health service boards to provide high-quality, person-centred care and support for all people. It is always disappointing to hear of instances where that care has fallen short of the standard that is expected.

I hope that Christine Grahame will understand and appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases. However, I welcome a discussion to better understand the circumstances, and I invite her to write to me with further details so that we can arrange a meeting to explore them fully.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support NHS Dumfries and Galloway in addressing financial pressures. (S6O-05007)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Following NHS Dumfries and Galloway’s escalation for finance, the Scottish Government has provided increased oversight and engagement to ensure that the board is provided with support that is commensurate with its financial circumstances.

So far, that has included an on-going whole clinical services review, which involves NHS Dumfries and Galloway closely collaborating with the Scottish Government in order to identify changes to its models of care and improve sustainability while protecting patient outcomes. In addition, NHS Dumfries and Galloway has received £7.4 million of additional funding to support its financial position.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Any additional money is welcome, but with a record deficit of £58 million, as predicted by the health and social care partnership for 2025-26, the board’s financial position continues to deteriorate.

Local communities have real concerns about the impact of drastic reductions in spending. Fundamentally, it will not be possible to save such a sum without reducing services, which will leave rural communities even more isolated. Cost pressures are starting to dictate services, rather than, as the cabinet secretary talked about, services becoming more patient led.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

When such situations arise, I expect us to move to a position in which we have services that are sustainable but that ensure the needs of the population that they serve are being met. Yes, difficult decisions will be required across not only our health services but our public services in general, because of the corrosive impact that years of high inflation have had on our spendability, as well as the demand that is coming through.

That is why it is so important that we use tools, such as the population health framework that we have set out, to shift the balance of care, reform our health and social care services, reduce demand and address demand more directly. I will continue to work with NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and its chief executive Julie White, to ensure that that will be the case in Dumfries and Galloway as it is elsewhere.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on Scotland’s dentistry sector of the United Kingdom Labour Administration’s recent changes to the skilled worker visa. (S6O-05008)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Home Office changes to skilled worker visas mean that dental care professionals such as therapists, hygienists, technicians and nurses are no longer supported. According to the General Dental Council, more than one fifth of new applicants in 2024, which is more than 2,000 workers, were from non-UK backgrounds.

It is clearer than ever that the UK Government is not interested in Scotland’s healthcare sector’s migration needs. I am sure that Jackie Dunbar will agree that the only way that Scotland can create the immigration system that it needs is with full powers as an independent country.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I totally agree with the minister. It is clear that the UK Labour Government is determined to lurch even more to the right on immigration than even the Tories did while in power. That is having a hugely damaging impact on constituencies such as mine that rely on skilled workers in health and social care.

What assessment has been made of the harms that those Labour policies are having on the wider health and social care sector, including dentistry? Will the minister join me in calling for the repeal of the damaging policies by this reckless UK Labour Government?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I want to let members know that, in August, I wrote to Stephen Kinnock, the Minister of State for Care, to highlight our concerns at a time of continued pressure on the dental workforce. The UK Labour Government’s decision will have consequences for hard-working people who make such a valuable contribution to our communities and our healthcare system. The Scottish Government will continue to call on the UK Government to reverse the proposals.

The UK Government has not worked with us on developing a Scottish visa or a Scottish graduate visa route, despite repeated asks. We are clear that Scotland should have an immigration system that meets Scotland’s economic and demographic needs. The best way for Scotland to do that is to be an independent country.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister will be aware that more than 300 dentists have taken early retirement since 2020, at the same time as 36,000 patients have been forced to go private. It is clear that the funding model is still not working. The Scottish Dental Association reports that nine out of 10 dentists say that the national health service is not an attractive place to build and maintain a career and that further reform is needed. Will the Government listen to them, stop more dentists leaving the NHS and ensure that our rural areas are not left as dental deserts?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I made it clear in November 2023, when we introduced the new payment system for dentists—which has been welcomed by dentists—that that was the start of a journey. We are talking about governance and training, and we provided more investment in dentistry in the most recent budget, which the Conservatives did not support. We are moving along with dentists, whom I thank for their work in ensuring that Scotland’s teeth health is as good as it can be.

Can we do more? Yes. Are we doing more? Yes.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The minister is not living in reality. The reality is that we are losing NHS dentists. The Cupar Dentist is providing an emergency service only, and it has been like that for months. We have lost dentists in Newburgh, Leven and Glenrothes. In many parts of Fife, people simply cannot get treatment. The minister surely has to accept that the payment review that she introduced in November 2023 is just not working. When will she get back to reality?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am living in reality. The conversations that I have had with a number of dentists show that they are pleased with the funding change that we introduced two years ago. However, as I said to Mr Whittle, do we have to do more? Yes, we do.

Unfortunately, we have one hand tied behind our back, given that the UK Government has changed visa allowances, which affects our ability to ensure that people can come into the country so that we have the right dental teams. We are investing in education to open up more places for dentists in Scotland. I point out that NHS Fife has benefited from the Scottish dental access initiative, which enables more dentists to open up practices in Fife. I regularly have such conversations with NHS Fife.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Paul Sweeney, who joins us online, to ask a brief supplementary question.

I give one last call for Paul Sweeney. Are you there?

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask for a brief supplementary question. We have now lost a bit of time.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

We know that the problems with NHS dentistry are caused primarily by dentists leaving the NHS to go private. The Scottish Government’s response has been to promise to train roughly 10 extra dentists a year, while hundreds of migrant dentists are unable to work as NHS dentists because of huge waiting lists to access conversion training. Will the minister stop blaming the UK Government over a marginal dispute about skilled worker visas and take responsibility for creating an effective training and retention plan to serve the ambitions of Scotland?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I politely point out to Mr Sweeney that the waiting list for dentists from international countries to sit the examinations is down to the use of reserved powers. Your minister—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My apologies. The Minister of State for Care made a decision not to follow up on the request that we and the other devolved nations made. I call on Mr Sweeney to write to Mr Kinnock to try to persuade him of the need to get more dentists into this country.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in question 8, but I need brief questions and brief responses.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland remain above 1,000 for the 12th year in a row. (S6O-05009)

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The first thing to say is that behind those figures are individuals who have lost their lives, families who are in mourning and communities that are feeling the loss of those people.

The number of alcohol-specific deaths fell by 7 per cent to 1,185 in 2024, which is the lowest that it has been since 2019. The decrease is welcome, but we know that the number of deaths remains far too high and that all of them are preventable. The Scottish Government is committed to tackling alcohol harm and has allocated more than £160 million to alcohol and drug initiatives and services in 2025-26. Last year, we increased the minimum unit price as part of our world-leading strategy to 65p, and we expanded access to treatment, including residential rehabilitation. As a refreshed alcohol and drug strategic plan develops, I will continue to act, guided by evidence, to reduce harm and to support those who are affected.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Any fall in the number of deaths is welcome, but Alcohol Focus Scotland says that the level of deaths is “appallingly high” and that it is more than double what it was 30 years ago. In response to that, the minister said in an interview last week that she was considering increasing alcohol prices annually, in line with inflation. Will the minister confirm whether that is Government policy? Rather than doubling down on hard-working Scots with even more tax, why will the Government not take a positive approach, back our Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 next week and enshrine in law the right for treatment for those who are struggling with alcohol addiction?

Maree Todd (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

The minimum unit pricing policy is significant and world leading. It is vitally important that the minimum unit price is uprated on a regular basis to ensure that it is impactful. What I said in the interview last week was that automatic uprating was a reasonable idea to consider. Although the formula would be hotly contested and debated, it would be a useful thing to do. It is not yet Government policy; we are considering how to proceed with it. Undoubtedly, as the prices of everything increase, the minimum unit price will need to increase.

We will have the stage 1 debate on the Right to Addiction Recovery (Scotland) Bill next week. I recognise that the Parliament has had its say through the lead committee’s report on the bill. The committee cannot commend the bill to the Parliament because there are so many flaws in it. However, we will certainly listen to the debate and make our position clear next week.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions.

Mobile Phones in Schools

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19123, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, on mobile phones in schools.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Presiding Officer,

“It helped me focus.”

“Fights and bullying at breaks have got better—because no one has their phones in class to organise them.”

“I spend more time talking to my friends now.”

“I’m glad the temptation to go on my phone has gone.”

That is what young people told me about a ban on mobile phones in school classrooms when I met them last week, and that is why Scottish Labour has lodged a straightforward motion with a straightforward purpose: to ban mobile phones for learners in classrooms across Scotland in order to help to make classrooms calm and safe places to learn. We propose that because education is crucial. It is the ladder to opportunity for all, and it is our job to move anything that stands in the way of that vital goal.

All colleagues across the chamber know that there are many obstacles to that goal and that the atmosphere in too many classrooms is challenging for learning and teaching. Teachers are overworked and are firefighting disruption. The scaffolding that should be there to hold our young people up—timely mental health support, speech and language services and educational psychologists—has all been stretched thin, and in some cases it is non-existent. Bullying is up by nearly 200 per cent in just five years. A School Leaders Scotland survey found that pupil behaviour is increasingly difficult to manage, and the Government’s behaviour in Scottish schools research cites phones and social media as a factor, recognising that they are seriously disruptive.

Amid all of that, we are still allowing that disruption in classes and letting the online world pour into the school day through the rectangle in a young person’s pocket, with the constant of notifications, group chats, viral clickbait and rising amounts of harmful content. The cabinet secretary says that headteachers are empowered to end that if they see fit, but that is not leadership; that is passing the buck. Local delivery is indeed crucial, but it is the Government’s job to set clear expectations, and that is why I cannot accept the Government’s amendment to the motion. It leaves us where we are now, and I am not prepared to stand still on the future for our young people.

The pupils I met last week told me that, when the temptation is removed, they talk to their friends more, they concentrate more, they feel calmer and they can hear themselves think. A national ban on phones in class would free young people and empower staff and parents. It would change the temperature in the room and draw a sensible boundary during lessons so that pupils can concentrate and teachers can teach. Importantly, it can be implemented in a way that involves young people, engages parents and empowers schools. Leaving it up to headteachers lacks leadership and passes the buck.

Where the Government has failed to lead, schools have stepped in. In Portobello, the model is simple and it is delivered in a rights-protecting way. Pupils keep their property, but it is locked in a pouch for class and unlocked at lunch—not at break. Pupils can unlock it to call home if they need to, and pupils who need more regular access to their phones—for example, pupils with additional support needs or caring responsibilities and some pupils in the senior phase who might need messages about work—can access them. In Notre Dame high school in Glasgow, staff and pupils manage a clear off and away rule, together with classroom routines that everyone understands. Those are two different models with the same outcomes: more attention, fewer flashpoints and more time on task.

However, leadership cannot stop at the school gate. The Government issued guidance and then shrugged. We therefore have a postcode lottery, with teachers left to bear the weight of that crucial decision and parents left to navigate mixed messages. Empowerment without direction is abdication, and our motion corrects that.

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

I am interested in the member’s point about a postcode lottery. In Scotland, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 makes it clear that statutory responsibility for the delivery of education rests with local authorities. Our 32 local authorities very often interpret the curriculum in different ways. Is the Labour Party now suggesting that we repeal the 1980 act and centralise education? I am keen to hear the message on that.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to section 2 of the 1980 act, which has regulating-making powers for the Government in a wide range of areas. One has to wonder how on earth anything that the Government wants to do in schools can get done if the education secretary does not think that she has any power over schools. That leaves us in a situation where we can see an abdication of responsibility for Scotland’s children and young people.

In our motion, we ask for national clarity, with no phones in class for learners, clear expectations, clear consequences and clear exceptions, including for pupils with ASN and those who need devices for medical reasons, for example, as I set out. National guidance should codify decisions on all of that, so that families are confident, staff are empowered and young people are freed to learn.

We must acknowledge that technology is with us and that, of course, it has potential for our nation. Despite the Scottish National Party’s promises, however, not all pupils yet have the free iPads to learn on that they were promised, so some are relying on personal devices when teachers are using them in lessons. Therein lies inequity, however, in that not all pupils have devices. I am clear that we should not bake inequality into pedagogy by relying on personal smartphones where schools need devices for learning.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

In the absence of the iPads that the SNP promised, where teachers want to use devices in lessons in schools where bans exist, teachers have the option to say, “Take out your device for this task” for a specific purpose and in a specific period.

I am happy to take the intervention.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You do not really have time, Ms Duncan-Glancy.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I apologise to Karen Adam, but I cannot take her intervention.

With a national ban, the default changes from phones first to learning first. That is what we are asking for. We are asking the Government to take a practical, proportionate step, with a classroom rule being implemented with professional judgment and involving young people.

The Government has dithered and delayed. Schools have improvised, parents have worried and pupils have paid the price. Today, the Parliament has a choice: we can let schools keep muddling through or we can set a clear expectation that every child in Scotland deserves a calm, phone-free lesson as standard, not as a postcode perk. Our ask today is simple: to make the rules clearer, make the day calmer, give teachers back the time to teach and give pupils the space to learn and flourish. The motion proposes a national phone ban for learners during lessons. Our young people deserve that, and I urge members to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that mobile phones should be banned for learners in school classrooms.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I advise members that, as ever when there are two debates during the afternoon, we are pretty tight for time. There is not a lot of additional time.

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

The Government agrees with the premise behind the Scottish Labour Party’s motion that mobile phones should be banned in our schools. The motion from Labour is very simple. People like that from politics: simple solutions to the challenges of the modern age. However, I think that it is missing something—that is, the professional judgment of Scotland’s teachers, whom we trust to educate our children every day. I am sure that Scottish Labour is not suggesting that we ignore the views of Scotland’s teachers on this important issue. With that in mind, I am surprised to hear that Labour members will not be able to vote for the Scottish Government’s amendment, which makes the need for that judgment clear.

We should listen to our teachers. It is what I spend much of my time as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills doing. Understanding how mobile phone bans work is rather important. The national guidance that was published last August states:

“That means empowering headteachers to take the steps they see fit to limit the use of mobile phones in our schools, up to and including a full ban on the school estate during the school day, if that is their judgement. I am clear in publishing this guidance that, as Cabinet Secretary, I will support any headteacher who decides to institute a ban on mobile phones in their school.”

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The point that I made when I set out why we are proposing the motion is that you are leaving it up to headteachers to take a big decision on what goes on in schools. Does the cabinet secretary think that there should be a mobile phone ban for learners in classrooms, or not?

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

I say to the member, very gently, that it is quite clear in the national guidance that our headteachers are already empowered to carry out mobile phone bans. I must ask why Scottish Labour does not trust our headteachers to do that. It is not for me, sitting in an office in Edinburgh, to dictate to Scotland’s teachers. Why does the Labour Party think that it knows better than Scotland’s teachers?

What interests me in Scottish Labour’s approach—and I will be interested by how this argument develops—is how exactly it intends to implement a national ban. I presume that the proposal is for primary legislation; I think that I heard the member suggest something around regulations. Whether it is primary legislation or regulations—

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

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

I am happy to do so.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

We are not proposing primary legislation. What I said was that the cabinet secretary is the person who said that legislation was required. If you chose to do so, you could use the regulation-making powers in section 2 of the 1980 act. That is already in the gift of the Government.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Always speak through the chair.

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

As I have just intimated, whether or not it is primary legislation that is being proposed—I hear the member’s point in relation to regulations—I have to ask why. Regardless of whole-school approaches, it is not my experience that pupils are routinely sitting with their phones out in class—quite unlike members of the Scottish Parliament in this chamber.

There is an irony that I want to return to on that point: mobile phone use is corroding the way in which we all communicate. If Scottish Labour wants a ban on phones in our schools, what are its views on mobile phone use in this Parliament? For absolute clarity, I would support a day in this place being set aside in which we commit to not using our electronic devices. As politicians, we should be leading by example. It cannot be “Do as I say, not as I do.”

That is why, if Labour MSPs are interested, how our headteachers go about implementing full-scale bans is very important. I heard about that this morning, when I was in Portobello high school—the school that Ms Duncan-Glancy referred to, which took nine months in total to implement its ban because it had to listen to, and work with, its whole school community.

It involves communication. The national guidance on mobile phones that was published last year gives guidance on how schools can do it. Last year, I visited Stonelaw high school to launch that guidance. The headteacher at Stonelaw had all the young people buy into the ban. She achieved that, working with her staff, by doing several things; parental engagement and buy-in was key. That action helped to secure parental buy-in and support. Pupils’ buy-in involved pupils minding their own data use and checking how much time they were spending online. Teachers joined in. Staff and pupils alike were horrified by the amount of time that they were wasting online. Young people were receiving, on average, 80 notifications in a one-hour personal and social education lesson.

Pupils spoke to me with passion about how the ban was implemented in their school. The approach that was taken in Stonelaw allowed pupils to use their devices in social areas and during break times. The pupils felt that that was a fair approach, as it involved trusting them as young people. Being able to use their phones during breaks and in social areas was a privilege that they would not abuse. If they broke the rules, their phone would be confiscated until the end of the lesson.

How we get such buy-in is really important. If we simply ban something, behaviour change is not assured. We must educate people, which is the part that our schools—as opposed to MSPs in Holyrood—are experts in.

I agree that mobile phone use can be a distraction to learning and teaching. Indeed, the significant disruption that is caused by mobile phone use in classrooms was a key theme of the behaviour in Scotland’s schools research that was published in 2023. More broadly, there are a number of questions at the heart of the Government’s approach to the issue of mobile phone use in schools. In Scotland, as we have heard, it is our local authorities that have the statutory responsibility for running our schools, not the Scottish Government—I do not think that Scottish Labour is proposing to change that. Snappy one-liner debates might help when it comes to drafting a press release, but they rarely stack up when it comes to the detail.

The position that is taken in our guidance is that we trust Scotland’s headteachers to take the action that they consider necessary, which includes imposing a mobile phone ban across the school day. However, the question that I want to hear the answer to today is why Scottish Labour does not trust Scotland’s teachers to lead the change that we all want to see.

I move amendment S6M-19123.2, to insert at end:

“, and acknowledges that the Scottish Government’s Guidance on Mobile Phones in Scotland’s Schools makes clear that headteachers are empowered to implement full bans, should their professional judgment see fit to do so.”

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the Labour Party for holding a debate on mobile phone use in schools. The Scottish Conservatives held a similar debate in January this year, and I am pleased that, since then, other parties—and, indeed, the cabinet secretary herself—have moved towards supporting our call for a national ban on the use of mobile phones in classrooms. We are clear that there is growing concern about behaviours in our classrooms, and mobile phones are often at the heart of those behaviours.

As Pam Duncan-Glancy said, our classrooms must be safe spaces for pupils to learn in and teachers and classroom assistants to teach in, but, for so many of our young people, they are not. Concentration is a key thing that we must ensure is restored. Many schools can be and are great learning environments for our young people and great environments for teachers to deliver the lessons that we all want to be delivered. However, we also need to make sure that standards are set.

Last week, I was delighted to visit Leith academy, which I know that the cabinet secretary also visited last week. I welcome what the school is doing to support its pupils, some of whom I welcomed to Parliament yesterday. I have been really impressed by the work that the school is doing on pupils’ expectations with regard to mobile phone use in classrooms. Most schools can manage expectations in that way.

However, in too many cases, our school environments have become toxic, with students and teachers experiencing stress, bullying and other negative behaviours, and mobile phone use is often at the heart of that. Action must be taken to ensure that poor behaviour in the classroom has consequences, and we must look towards not allowing pupils to have phones out in classrooms. I therefore welcome the fact that there now seems to be a clear consensus across Parliament on our desire to send out the clear message that we want mobile phone use in classrooms to be banned and that we want all 32 councils to move towards implementing such a ban.

As has been stated, here in the capital, City of Edinburgh Council is leading by example. I welcome the fact that Conservative councillors have secured a ban on mobile phones in Edinburgh’s primary schools, which will be introduced in November. In addition, two secondary schools—Portobello high and Queensferry high—have piloted the issuing of special sealed wallets, which, once sealed, require a magnetic pad to unlock them. That allows pupils to keep their phones in the classroom. That is an expensive solution to the problem, and I know from speaking to staff that the additional staff support that is needed to seal and unseal the wallets is problematic. I am open to different approaches being taken, and I think that headteachers should be at the heart of that work. All schools already try to manage the situation, and their headteachers have policies on the issue.

The Scottish Conservatives have led the debate on our toxic school environments. We have called for a reset on that, and I hope that ministers have started to listen. I hope, too, that Parliament will continue to listen to some of the commonsense views of teachers, parents and our young people that we have brought to Parliament. I welcome the progress that has been made in delivering some of the changes that we want to see, such as the review of additional support for learning, which we secured in May. Ultimately, we want Parliament to send out the message that we want there to be a national ban on mobile phone use in classrooms, and that we want all councils to work to progress that. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve.

I move amendment S6M-19123.1, to leave out from “banned” to end and insert:

“subject to a clear national ban in classrooms, recognising the strong evidence of how distracting they are and how disruptive they can be to pupils’ ability to learn and teachers’ ability to teach; acknowledges that while headteachers and local authorities have some powers to restrict the use of mobile phones, existing Scottish guidance is weak, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected.”

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Pam Duncan-Glancy quoted young people welcoming the change of policy on phones in classrooms, and she talked about having a sensible boundary during lessons. I welcome that, and I will support the motion, but it is disappointing that Labour does not support the Government amendment, which also seems sensible and balanced to me. It seems that Labour wants to present the idea of a simple blanket and uniform rule while still acknowledging the need for exceptions and individual reasons and acknowledging different circumstances. I agree that we need to recognise the autonomy of schools.

That being said, I support the motion and the Government’s amendment. The cabinet secretary said that Labour’s motion is missing something, but I think that both the motion and the amendment are missing something, because the debate is not just about distraction in class but about young people’s ability to learn to navigate an increasingly fraught, hostile and disturbing information landscape. Many aspects of today’s permanently online life do not stop when the school day ends—far from it. Young people face multiple issues, including bullying, targeted abuse against minorities, marketing, conspiracy theories and racist and far-right content—all beaming at them 24 hours a day through these devices. It is not accidental. It is built into the business models of social media platforms and others.

I cite the death of 23-year-old Paloma Shemirani. Paloma’s mother had been radicalised against science-based healthcare by that type of content, and that influence led Paloma to refuse chemotherapy that could have saved her life. Her story has become a tragic example of the way that social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and X have become sources of health information and disinformation, with millions of people—increasingly, young people—relying on them for advice and being misled.

Health conspiracies on other issues, such as anti-vaccine conspiracies and the promotion of fake treatments, also circulate. Recently, days after Donald Trump promoted dangerous rubbish about paracetamol and autism, a member of this Parliament echoed that baseless idea. Scotland is by no means immune.

Prejudice, racism, anti-migrant propaganda, homophobia and transphobia have been growing in intensity to the point that, even at the highest level of politics in the United Kingdom, there are politicians who openly debate whether black or brown people can ever be British, English or Scottish—ideas that, not so long ago, would have been the preserve of the British National Party. Much of that activity is promoted and even directly paid for by social media platforms—X, YouTube and others are paying people huge sums of money to produce it and then aggressively pushing it out to audiences, especially young people. That torrent of far-right and conspiracist propaganda is the information landscape that young people are growing up in. If phones are switched back on as soon as young people leave the classroom, they are still vulnerable.

I will back the motion and the Government amendment at decision time. The policy stance on phones in classrooms is fine as far as it goes, but I am not sure that the debate about whether it should be a blanket decision by a cabinet secretary or up to the autonomy of individual schools and headteachers is really where the issue is at. We must not allow that action to result in complacency about the wider issue—the world of abusive, bigoted, conspiracist and untrue content that we have all created and the impact that it is having on everyone, including the young people who are growing up on it.

A policy of no phones in classrooms is fine, but it will not end the need to take a far more robust approach to regulating social media and tackling the far-right and toxic culture warriors.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I think that there is agreement that the use of mobile phones in the class can be incredibly distracting. There is growing evidence from across the education world that it damages academic performance and can be a major source of distraction.

The constant notifications that we all experience on our phones can create a state of hypervigilance and a lack of concentration. That has an effect on the school more widely—for example, on the number of conflicts and fights between pupils, and pupils’ conflicts with teachers. I think that members on all sides of the chamber accept that that is the case and that phone use in class contributes towards the trio of issues that the cabinet secretary often talks about: absence, additional support needs and behaviour. It adds to the mix and exacerbates the problems within that.

Patrick Harvie made the point that the wider world of the internet presents an extreme challenge to our way of life. School can often offer a haven of education and peace, and a bit of normality, away from everything in the wider world. If there is trouble at home, school can be a place of safety. What we are talking about today is exactly how we execute that.

I would like to see the evidence as to the impact of the cabinet secretary’s current policy so far. I hear of some good examples where phones are handed in at the front of the class at the beginning of the lesson and handed back at the end, which has an impact on the performance of the class.

Equally, however, I hear too often that there is still a debate about whether phone use in class is a good thing or not. We should recognise that the evidence and the science are clear: it is not a good thing for phone use to be happening in class. We should not leave any doubt about that, and the cabinet secretary needs to play a role in that regard.

There has been a bit of a difference in the way that the cabinet secretary has talked about the issue today. On the one hand, she has said that she thinks that phones are a distraction but, on the other hand, she has said that she wants to leave the power with the headteacher. I want to empower headteachers, but that indicates that there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate to have phones in class.

We need to be clear that the evidence is growing—the science and the studies are clear—that that state of hypervigilance is not a good thing. I would like the cabinet secretary to reflect on that in her closing remarks, because we need to send a very clear signal to headteachers about what we think that the balance is. The cabinet secretary has a leadership role in that regard.

In addition, headteachers need a bit of support, because they face a number of different challenges. Those include sometimes quite challenging parents who come into the class and demand things from teachers and from the headteacher. If direction comes from the education secretary, it means that the headteacher has her support. The headteacher knows that the cabinet secretary has their back, which perhaps makes it slightly easier to implement a ban.

A final point is peer pressure. I know many young people who would just love a day without having to go on their phone, because of the way that it changes their demeanour and their ability to talk in the playground, the canteen or the corridors. They would be able to get those human connections back again, rather than everybody being stuck on their phone all the time.

We can seek the positive of that change in behaviour with schools as a haven, and we should be aiming for that. I will support the motion and the Conservative amendment this afternoon, because we need to go further.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I believe that it is time to ban mobile phones in all Scottish classrooms. We need to shield children from harmful content, misinformation, bullying and other social pressures and—as Pam Duncan-Glancy said—make the classroom a safe place in which to learn.

I was shocked to read that research by Ofcom indicates that a quarter of three and four-year-olds in the UK now have a smartphone and that, by the time they are 12, the percentage rises to 89 per cent. That is the current trend in society, and by the time children come to education, it is much harder for educators to control something that is going on outside.

With the rise in cyberbullying, our children are exposed to an unacceptable amount of danger. There is pressure on parents to provide smartphones—Willie Rennie was quite right to talk about peer pressure—and I think that that would dissolve to some extent if there was a ban on mobile phones in schools.

It would also take the pressure off headteachers themselves, although they would still have to deal with a minority of parents who may still want to keep phones in class. The Government appears to clearly support a ban as long as headteachers make the decision. That is what we are arguing over, and I think that it is a responsibility for Government. Given the trend that I talked about and the harm that is being done to children, it is a decision for Government to make.

I do not believe that such a decision would undermine the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and the delivery of education by local government in any way whatsoever. The tech companies are incredibly powerful, and we know that there is a constant battle with them about social media content and a tension with the policies that we drive to reduce violence against women and girls. The tech companies’ algorithms drive people towards certain behaviours. One of my biggest reasons for supporting a ban on mobile phone use in schools is that an increasing body of data shows that being exposed to excessive social media is rewiring young brains during a critical window of their psychological development. That is my primary concern, and it always has been. I agree with Jenny Gilruth that we should listen to our headteachers, but we should also listen to our scientists. Their views are unequivocal and have been for a decade. I think that that is enough of a basis to say that we have a responsibility to impose a ban on mobile phones in schools.

The cabinet secretary is quite right that MSPs are some of the worst offenders, particularly during committee meetings—we know that. However, we are talking about children and the responsibility that we have towards them. That is why I am speaking in the debate. It is asking a lot of a child to ask them to navigate online content and to protect themselves. At some point in the future, I wonder whether those children will ask us why we did not act more strongly when we had the chance, and why we left it to them to make decisions about their use. Members may have noticed a recent survey of gen Z adults aged between 18 and 27, who have grown up with social media. Members can believe this or not, but the survey found that nearly half them wished that TikTok, Snapchat and Twitter—or X—had never been invented. That generation is already alive to the dangers of smart phone use.

In my final minute, or just under a minute, I want to touch on the wider harms that Patrick Harvie spoke about. He was quite right to say that, by banning mobile phones in schools, we will not reduce all the harm. However, we know that smartphones are used, especially by boys, for intimate image abuse, and that 12-year-olds are exposed to pornography on smartphones. It is as much about protecting boys as it is about protecting women and girls. Clearly, that is a wider issue, but much of that behaviour goes on in schools. For some time, I have been calling on the Government to collect data on what is going on in our schools, because England and Wales have done that. I hope that we will legislate further on what needs to be done to tackle the creation of that content and to teach children that that is unacceptable behaviour.

For those reasons, I believe that this generation expects the Government to take big decisions. I think that the time has come for there to be a national ban on mobile phones in our classrooms.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for bringing the motion for debate in the chamber. Many of us have had casework on the issue over the past few years. East Lothian Council has had a policy of allowing individual schools to decide on their own policies. I am also aware of differing opinions within schools in East Lothian, as well as among the parents whom I have liaised with. As the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlighted, it is about the Scottish Government empowering headteachers in schools to make the decisions on mobile phone use that work for them and best support their children and their local areas.

Of course, classrooms must be a safe environment—I do not think that any of us would disagree with that—and we must recognise the role that mobile phones play in contributing to distraction and challenging behaviour.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Some of the children whom I have spoken to in East Lothian and beyond say that they use their mobile devices in classrooms as a learning aid. Is the member embarrassed that the SNP’s commitment to provide every school pupil with an internet-connected tablet or laptop and the support to use them has not been delivered during the parliamentary session?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

No, I am not embarrassed. The Government has made good progress on that.

We need to equip headteachers with guidance and with the means to act in the best interests of their pupils in addressing concerns around mobile phones. The Government is supporting Scotland’s schools to take the necessary steps to tackle the negative effects that are associated with mobile phone use in order to enhance outcomes for all Scotland’s young people. Of course, as members have noted, there is growing evidence that suggests that overexposure to mobile phones can negatively impact concentration levels and result in isolation. The decision to implement a ban on mobile phones rests with headteachers. As I said, I have had discussions with headteachers in East Lothian. They know their pupils and staff best and are trusted to make decisions that are in the best interest of their pupils.

Those decisions are not made in isolation. Guidance on mobile phones was published in August 2024 to provide support to teachers’ efforts to ensure a consistent learning environment for pupils.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I am sorry, but I only have four minutes, and I have already taken one intervention.

The Government is now providing schools with comprehensive guidance on a range of approaches to responding to behaviour issues. That builds on the guidance that was published in June 2025 to promote positive relationships and behaviours across the whole school community.

Importantly, the guidance was developed with input from headteachers, teaching unions, local government and educational psychologists. It focuses on improving outcomes by reinforcing positive behaviour and working to reduce the likelihood of negative behaviour occurring in the future.

The Scottish Government guidance is the latest commitment to be delivered through the relationships and behaviours in schools joint national action plan, which covers the period from 2024 to 2027. It was developed in response to evidence from the behaviour in Scottish schools research that the Government published in 2023. Around 4,000 school staff from across Scotland participated in the production of the report. The joint action plan is a collaborative exercise and is informed by the work of the Scottish Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Education Scotland, as well as by the views of parents and carers. It contains 20 key action points that are designed to support schools in their practice and approaches. It will be delivered across three years and is led by partners, including national Government, local government and third sector organisations.

Scotland has a good education system, with great schools and great teachers. We should trust them more. We all want our children and young people to get the most out of the learning opportunities that are available to them, and all children and young people have the right to get the support that they need to reach their full learning potential.

There are real challenges in Scotland’s schools at the current time—we are all aware of that—and it would be far more beneficial for Scotland’s children and young people if parties were able to work together to respond to those challenges.

In my experience, schools know how best to use their local knowledge to develop their own mobile phone strategy.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s motion, which calls for mobile phones to be banned for learners in school classrooms. We have had to bring the debate to the chamber because of the continued inaction and dithering from the Scottish Government.

I declare an interest, in that I have two primary school-age children. They do not have mobile phones, because I do not think that it is appropriate for them to have them yet, but I very much recognise what Willie Rennie said about peer-group pressure.

I fully appreciate and understand that every parent will make choices about whether and when it is appropriate to give their child a mobile phone, with the best interests of their child in mind. I particularly understand that many parents give their children a phone for safety reasons, so that they can contact their child should there be an emergency. Many children take mobile phones to school for that reason. The proposal would not prevent that, but it would prevent the misuse of those mobile phones in the classroom.

Schools and classrooms should be a space for learning, growing and flourishing, but mobile phone use is a known distraction in the classroom, which is limiting the ability of teachers to teach and learners to learn. Not only that but, as we have already heard, bullying continues to be a problem in Scottish schools, with an increase in cyberbullying, which follows children inside and outside school, and sickening examples of vicious attacks in schools being filmed on mobile phones and spread across social media.

It is for all those reasons that Scottish Labour would implement a nationwide ban on mobile phones in classrooms in order to make schools safe and attentive places for learning again.

It is important to listen to what teachers and parents are saying. I have been listening to teachers and parents in my area, where good progress has been made to limit the misuse of mobile phones in classrooms. I have to say that the overwhelming majority of teachers and parents to whom I speak agree with a nationwide ban.

It is also important to listen to the views of young people, who are also saying that mobile phones are causing distractions in the classroom. Having listened to their concerns, I would also say that, of course, there would need to be exemptions for schoolchildren who have caring responsibilities or who need mobile phones for medical reasons, but the assumption would be that the vast majority of children do not require a mobile phone in the classroom. Messaging between pupils, filming in classrooms and doing pranks using mobile phones are unacceptable and should not be tolerated—I would say that they should not be allowed to happen in the first place. That is why we should have a nationwide ban on mobile phones in the classroom.

Of course, there has been progress in a number of areas, but I say to the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary that we should have a nationwide ban. I also say to the Scottish Government, which has recently announced its support for a ban on greyhound racing—despite there being next to no greyhound racing in Scotland—that we should have a ban that will make a significant difference to Scotland’s children and young people.

It is also not to say that digital learning cannot make a good positive difference to young people’s lives, but it should be done using laptops, tablets and technologies that are specifically designed for learning—not by using kids’ own mobile phones.

On the issue of laptops and devices, as we have just heard from Mr Hoy, let us not forget the SNP manifesto commitment in 2021 to provide every primary and secondary school-age child in Scotland with a laptop or tablet to get online. That pledge was scrapped last year. Mr McLennan said that the Scottish Government was making real progress. Apparently, in 2024, the Scottish Government had issued only 60,000 devices, despite there being 700,000 school pupils. I do not really count that as progress. If we were marking that progress out of 10, the Scottish Government would not even get 1. That is the story of this Government—big promises made and big promises broken; all talk and no action; all spin and no substance.

We have heard a lot about distraction this afternoon. Perhaps the Scottish Government should stop being distracted by the constitution and grievance politics, and focus on the issues that matter. The Scottish Government should introduce a nationwide ban on mobile phones in classrooms, which will make a difference to our children and young people.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

How about that? A Government that is not distracted by manufacturing grievance all day long—that would be quite an improvement on the Government that we have.

I know that there are wider issues—Patrick Harvie went on at length about the wider issues—but we are talking about the learning environment in schools. That is what we are talking about. I had not come across the word “hypervigilance”. I like that. It is a good description of exactly what we are trying to combat.

I make no apology for standing up to argue in favour of order and discipline in our schools, because order and discipline require consequences and sanctions. Without them there is no respect; without respect, there is no learning environment. Those are not optional extras—they are the very foundations of what makes an education system work.

I know that sometimes we have an aversion in the Parliament to looking at evidence, but we must look at the evidence of what has happened elsewhere. In Spain, they talk about gaining the equivalent of up to a year of extra learning in science, and there have been significant improvements in maths. In Norway, a ban has boosted girls’ grades, reduced bullying and lowered stress and anxiety. In North America, for goodness’ sake, the evidence shows calmer lessons, higher levels of engagement in the classroom and improved test scores.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is unequivocal that a smartphone should be used in school

“only when it supports learning”.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has shown that digital distraction costs people months of learning time, with two thirds of teenagers in its surveys admitting that they are distracted in class by phones—sometimes their own, often those of their classmates.

The Scottish Government has highlighted in its own behaviour in Scottish schools research report that the

“abusive use of mobile phones and digital technologies was one of the most ... serious”

disciplinary problems in our classrooms. The same report revealed shocking rises in violence and disruption. Almost 90 per cent of teachers in secondary schools said that pupils were sometimes or frequently off task, and more than half reported serious verbal abuse. Physical violence against teachers has also risen alarmingly.

The conclusion is obvious: mobile phones undermine learning, discipline and the happiness of children and young people, and they undermine the authority of teachers. As a general rule, they should not be seen or used in classrooms, save in the rarest of circumstances, when they directly support learning. However—this is the point, and I am aghast that the cabinet secretary cannot grasp this—teachers and headteachers cannot do this alone. We might say that they have autonomy to do this, which is true, but it is not an easy thing to do. They have to deal with the consequences of their decision to ban mobile phones in their schools. That point has been highlighted by other members. Headteachers are standing up to the everyday disruption, disorder and, often, violence. They are often left feeling—anyone who has spoken to a headteacher must know this—that they are alone in confronting those challenges, because the national direction and guidance are lacking and they are without the back-up from the Parliament that they badly need.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Kerr is just winding up.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Teachers and headteachers deserve the unambiguous backing not just of ministers but of every member of the Parliament. They must know that, when mobile phones are banned in their schools, they are enforcing that rule with the full support of the Government and the Parliament. Government action must reflect a broader society that backs parents and teachers in making the right choices for our children. It will take resolute, collective action—parents, teachers, communities and this Parliament acting together—to make a ban real and effective.

The choice before us is simple: order and discipline in our classrooms or continued distraction, disruption and decline. For the sake of Scotland’s children, it is imperative that we choose order.

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

It is important to recognise something that we do not say nearly enough in the Parliament: Scotland has fantastic schools that are led by great teachers and filled with hard-working young people. Too often we talk about education in the Parliament as if our pupils are a problem to be solved, which I find incredibly insulting and frustrating. Childhood and adolescence are not problems; they are very normal stages in human development that are full of learning and growth. Our job is to support that journey, not reduce it to soundbites that paint young people in the worst possible light.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

[Made a request to intervene.]

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

I have a lot to get into my speech.

Labour’s motion calls for a blanket ban on mobile phones in classrooms. I agree that mobile phones can and do cause distraction. There are times when they contribute to negative behaviour and there is growing evidence that overuse can affect concentration and social interaction. None of us would deny those facts. However, the real question is not whether those are challenges; it is how we can best respond.

Just last month, I spoke with a headteacher in my constituency who told me that they had introduced a phones away policy during lessons but that they still allow phones at lunch time. That is because, for some pupils—especially those with additional support needs—access to music or online communication is vital. That flexibility worked for their school. That can be compared to another school in which a complete ban during the whole day is also the right approach. Both policies are valid because they come from professionals who know their pupils and staff.

On the point about exemptions, would that not just create the same admin, policing and management but with fewer powers and more restrictions?

The Scottish Government’s approach to empower headteachers and schools to make the decisions that are right for their school communities makes far more sense. Labour would be the first to complain if the Scottish Government swooped in with central diktats on other matters and undermined the professional judgment of teachers. Local authorities and school leaders know their pupils, staff and environment far better than we ever could in the Parliament, and they are best placed to decide whether a mobile phone policy means a complete ban, restricted use or managed access—and they already have the power to do that.

Let us also not pretend that the Government has been idle. Last year, detailed guidance on mobile phones was published, which was designed with input from teachers, unions and educational psychologists. Just a few months ago, that was followed by new guidance on building positive relationships in schools. The guidance is not about leaving schools to fend for themselves—far from it—but it is about equipping them with evidence and support to make the best choices.

It is worth remembering the broader context. Almost 4,000 staff contributed to the behaviour in Scottish schools research report. The report showed that most pupils are well behaved and dedicated while also highlighting challenges such as misogyny and worsening behaviour in some places, as my colleague Patrick Harvie spoke about. That is exactly why the national action plan on relationships and behaviour was created, bringing together the Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, parents, carers and the third sector. It is about partnership, not grabbing headlines.

If we want young people to learn healthy communication, resilience and balance in a digital age, the answer cannot be to simply legislate phones out of sight. That will do little to prepare young people for the world beyond the classroom, where digital communication is a daily reality.

Let us not fall into the trap of making children the scapegoats for wider frustrations. Let us respect their development, respect our teachers and respect the principle that those who are closest to the classroom are best placed to decide what happens in it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to closing speeches.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The debate has been interesting. A number of members have used the word “distraction”, but it is coincidental that this has been a slightly distracted debate. I think that Neil Bibby was the first one to suggest that the Government is being distracted, when he said that it is being “distracted by the constitution”. I think that he is the only member who mentioned the constitution in the debate, proving that it is not only independence supporters who are distracted by the constitution.

There have, however, been aspects of the debate in which we have been distracted from the real issue—it is not only in classrooms where that happens. Should this serious debate really come down to the difference between a cabinet secretary issuing an edict and respecting the autonomy and the judgment of schools and headteachers? That, in itself, is a distraction from the wider issue that all members across the chamber are genuinely concerned about.

Members have spoken about the impact on learning and of conflict. Those are social and cultural phenomena that are part of our behaviour. They come from us and do not inevitably come from the technology itself.

I have been left thinking that, had someone described mobiles to me when I was a young person growing up in the west of Scotland in the 1980s, they would have sounded like something from science fiction—a great, enlightening and liberating technology, giving us all access to the sum total of human knowledge and the ability to communicate with anybody else in the world. They would have sounded so utopian. In reality, they have become something deeply dystopian.

When I consider the social and cultural environment in which I grew up as a queer, out young person in the 1980s, I just imagine how much worse that experience would have been had every homophobic bully on the planet—whether it was the person sitting at the next desk in my classroom or someone in Government or in a position of power in the country—been able to access me directly and to beam that prejudice right into my eyeballs. I also imagine how much worse it is for, for example, young trans people who are coping with the level of prejudice that is being beamed through those devices right into their eyeballs every day, let alone for young people who are being affected by racism or anti-migrant prejudice, those who are vulnerable to the pressure to present Instagram lifestyles and Instagram bodies, and those who are desperate for information about their health or their wellbeing and finding only lies and conspiracies.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am afraid that I do not have time.

Ending the use of phones as a distraction in class is fine, but we must also enable our schools to give young people the skills to navigate their lives in this age of information and disinformation. If we want schools to teach those skills, sometimes the question to ask is what the right role is for phones in classrooms, in the right context; it is not just about having a blanket ban.

I will finish by saying, once again, that the problem does not stop when the school day ends, when young people leave the class or leave the school—far from it. The harms that all members are concerned about in the debate are not inevitable. They are really the result not of the technology itself, but of the deliberate choices of the wealthy, powerful people whom we have permitted to control the technology and how we all use it.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, and I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy and Scottish Labour for again bringing to the chamber an issue of concern that I think we can all see within Scotland’s education system.

The use of mobiles in classrooms has been a concern of the Scottish Conservatives for many years. The point was first raised by my colleague Sue Webber back in November 2023. I think that we were discussing violence in schools at the time. We are almost two years on and are still debating the negative influences of mobiles being incorrectly utilised in our schools.

The Scottish Conservatives have been aware of the issue for years and have been lobbying to ensure that Scotland’s young people have suitable learning environments in the classroom.

Surely we must all agree that it is essential that our classrooms are conducive to inquiring young minds learning, inquiring and growing. That has to happen in a structured atmosphere and without external influences or mechanisms to distract young people from the task that is in front of them.

In 2024, a Scottish Secondary Teachers Association survey found that 71 per cent of its members believed that the misuse of mobile phones had a negative impact on behaviour and learning, while more than 90 per cent of their lessons were being interrupted by students having to be asked to put away their mobile phones. Three quarters of teachers said that mobile phones disrupted nearly all their lessons. Those are very stark figures.

Even though some local authorities have availed themselves of the guidance that empowers headteachers to restrict mobile use, there is still uncertainty and there is more room in the guidance. That is why national guidance must be clear about what is expected of our headteachers.

I will mention a couple of points that came up in the debate. I listened to Karen Adam’s contribution, but I do not think that it was about what we have been discussing in the debate. Pam Duncan-Glancy and Miles Briggs mentioned the violence in the classroom that is exacerbated by mobile phones, which was also mentioned in the teachers survey. I think that we can all agree that teachers and classroom assistants should have a working environment that is completely free from violence, threats and bullying.

Stephen Kerr’s contribution was excellent, highlighting the international results that have come from mobile phone bans.

Patrick Harvie made a valid point, but the influence of social media is a different debate . We know that there are algorithms that can spin us off down a rabbit hole, and whether it be far-right or leftist propaganda, we are aware that many of our young people might be seeing harmful ideology on social media. However, that is definitely a different debate.

Finally, on Willie Rennie’s point, there needs to be a clear signal to our headteachers so that they know and can believe that we are behind them and that they will be listened to in what they are calling for.

We have recently heard many positive accounts from schools that have taken steps to limit or even ban mobile phones in classroom time. The results in increased learning and attainment among the pupils in those schools are there for all to see.

I have previously highlighted the fundamental point that children should be children. There is an innocence that we, as a nation, should nurture rather than destroy. The effects of mobile phones on growing and developing minds are only just beginning to be explored. So far, the isolation and anxiety that come from social media are deeply concerning. The issue is more important than we currently know or are aware of, and I urge the Scottish Government to update its guidance with clear national direction on what is expected, just as the Scottish Conservatives’ amendment suggests.

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

I welcome the contributions made by members this afternoon. As I said in my opening remarks, there is a lot of consensus around the chamber on the issue.

We all recognise the significant harm that mobiles can cause when they are used inappropriately or maliciously. Many of us will have had personal experience of that. This morning, I was listening to a group of pupils at Portobello high school, and one of them spoke eloquently about the impact of the mobile phone ban in Portobello. She said:

“When our phones went down, our heads went up.”

The comment stayed with me throughout the morning, during our interactions with the international council of education advisers, which is here at the moment.

We also recognise more broadly the impact that mobile phone use can have in our classrooms, such as in a class of 30 pupils, each of whom is receiving 18 notifications an hour, which causes significant disruption to learning and teaching.

There is also a consensus that, when mobile phones are causing problems, it is entirely appropriate for schools to act to restrict young people’s access to them. However, where we differ—Willie Rennie rightly spoke about this—is in how potential bans should be implemented. Let us remember that the headteacher of Portobello high school took nine months to implement his full ban, and it was not a top-down ban—he was working with the whole school community.

Neil Bibby rightly pointed out that some pupils have additional support needs and caring responsibilities. Every headteacher I know who has implemented a ban has worked to provide support to those groups. It is important that headteachers can do that, and the national guidance gives headteachers advice and guidance on how they might do it.

We have heard contributions from members across the chamber, so I will comment on some. With his impassioned delivery, Stephen Kerr spoke about the importance of evidence, and I agree with him whole-heartedly on that point. That is why the Scottish Government regularly commissions evidence on behaviour in Scotland’s schools, the last round of which was published two years ago. We should also remember that the findings from the BISSR reflected wider societal changes, which is the point that I think that Patrick Harvie was making.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Would the cabinet secretary like to see a ban of mobile phones in Scotland’s schools? I am not saying that she will direct it or legislate for it, but would she like to see it?

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

I will read to Mr Kerr my own words from the national guidance on mobile phones. It states:

“I am clear in publishing this guidance that, as Cabinet Secretary, I will support any headteacher who decides to institute a ban on mobile phones in their school.”

I give my full backing to headteachers to do exactly that. Stephen Kerr and I have discussed at length the impact that a such a ban might have on learning and teaching in schools.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

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

I will, but I am mindful of the time.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary not understand that teachers, including headteachers, whom we all trust to implement policy and create good education environments in their schools, are desperate for the Government to show leadership and set out its expectations on a ban of mobile phones in schools? That is what the motion is asking the cabinet secretary to do today. Will she do it?

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

Ms Duncan-Glancy and I have debated this point at length previously. The points that I made in my introductory remarks relate to the legal framework as it currently operates. However, I am somewhat confused by the Scottish Labour Party’s position on the issue. Only in March, Keir Starmer, Ms Duncan-Glancy’s boss, said that a complete mobile ban in schools is “completely unnecessary”, so there seems to be some dubiety about the Labour Party’s position on whole-school bans.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way on that point?

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

I am aware that I have no time in hand. I want to make some progress, but I am happy to discuss the matter with Pam Duncan-Glancy outwith the chamber.

It is important to be mindful of those wider societal issues. Pauline McNeill rightly spoke about the increase in misogyny and the recent increases in toxic behaviour online, which are not limited to our schools. It is important that we recognise some of those societal shifts, which impact, and hold a mirror up to, some of the behaviour that we now see in our schools.

More broadly, I go back to the implications of implementing such a ban. We have to trust Scotland’s teaching profession. In the national guidance, I have made it very clear that headteachers have my full support to implement a mobile phone ban should they so wish. Many schools have already done so, and many local authorities have already undertaken that work. Mr Rennie rightly spoke about the need for evidence to inform any future thinking on the topic. I agree with him, which is why, in advance of the next election, the Government will review the impact of the bans and seek to understand how they operate across the country. That is the right and proper approach to informing future policy developments.

It is important to trust our teaching profession. The national guidance, which has been criticised throughout the afternoon, was developed by the Scottish advisory group on relationships and behaviour in schools. The group’s membership includes the Educational Institute of Scotland, the NASUWT, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, School Leaders Scotland, the Association of Headteachers and Deputes in Scotland, and Unison. Members purport to represent the views of teachers across Scotland, but I know that our approach has the backing of Scotland’s professional associations. Those professional associations and trade unions are best placed to make such decisions and represent their members. They have my full trust and the Scottish Government’s backing to do so, which is exactly what the national guidance on mobile phone use makes clear.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

It is a pleasure to close for Scottish Labour in the debate. I will perhaps contradict some of the contributions, which I have found remarkably interesting. Before I start, I should declare an interest to those viewing and those in the chamber, which is that I was a teacher some while ago, a role that straddled the start of my time in this place.

Mobile phones and digital technology have generally had a huge impact and have huge potential, and they touch every aspect of our lives. Even in the 1980s, when telephones were still attached to the wall, they tended to cause anger among parents when phone calls came in. They are genuinely a hugely valuable tool that allows young people to access information. However, a lot of this afternoon’s contributions have shown how seriously we now need to take mobile phones, the internet and the worldwide web of fake and false information, because they have a negative impact on our pupils throughout their whole lives, but particularly in the classroom.

To pick up on what Neil Bibby said, the evidence of bullying that continues on our school estates, which then carries on afterwards through the use of mobile phones—there are sickening examples of children being filmed fighting each other, which has often been provoked by the use of mobile phones—is incredibly worrying, as is the content that is being beamed down to those phones. We need to be concerned, because smartphones are damaging the environment in our classrooms.

That brings me to the speeches of various members. I will start with that of the cabinet secretary. I remind her of the requirement in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which states:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the standards and ... requirements to which every education authority shall conform in discharging their functions under section 1 of this Act”.

That relates to providing the right educational environment and the right number of facilities in which education can take place. I make that point because we do ban things for children. Roz McCall is right that children are entitled to a childhood. They are entitled to be told not to smoke, and they are entitled to be told not to drink alcohol. In due course, they might be entitled to be told not to attend greyhound races. We place parameters around our children’s lives because we are adults and parents, and because—regarding the stages of development that children go through—it is good for them sometimes to push up against walls, to see how far they can go and why those walls are there.

A number of members have said or have implied that Scottish Labour has no trust in teachers, including headteachers, in schools. That is simply nonsense. We trust our teachers to deliver curriculum for excellence, which requires certain signposted activities to be arrived at, and we empower them to teach that curriculum in the way that is appropriate and correct for a small group, for a large group or for the entire school.

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

I am interested in the point that Martin Whitfield is making. Of course, any regulatory move of the type that he has suggested would take power away from local authorities and centralise power with the national Government. More broadly, I am struck by the approach of the NASUWT, which has been quite critical of the UK Government’s position on the matter. Dr Patrick Roach said:

“If the Government introduces blanket bans that are unenforceable, this will make the behaviour crisis worse, not better.”

That takes me to the point that the issue is about how bans are enforced and how we trust Scotland’s teaching profession.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Briefly, cabinet secretary.

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

Will Mr Whitfield respond to that point?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I offer my deepest regret for interrupting the cabinet secretary’s contribution.

Of course, education policy is devolved in Scotland. On the issue that the cabinet secretary was talking about, it would be easy to go to article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and ask, “Why are children not involved in this decision?” Children are, of course, involved in the decision. We have heard brilliant examples of headteachers working with their communities on how to implement a ban.

On the genuine question in today’s debate, we have to turn to Willie Rennie’s opening speech. Our schools, our headteachers, our parents and our children are looking for authority in that message. Our headteachers need support, and there needs to be a clear message. To slightly corrupt Willie Rennie’s contribution, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should give our schools the agency to be able to say that there should be no mobile phones in classrooms unless there is a need for one. The detail of “unless there is a need for one” can be devised through discussions with young people, the school community and parents.

We have heard that there is overwhelming evidence that smartphones are potentially rewiring the brains of our young people, but we cannot go down the route of a ban without providing full and proper support. We cannot have leadership if there is no listening, but we need leadership when there has been listening. The cabinet secretary has the power to make the change, not in a directorial and top-down way but by saying, “This is the message—implement it in the way that you need to.” To be fair to Stephen Kerr, in relation to his intervention, I am not sure that the cabinet secretary has gone that far by referencing support for headteachers who introduce a ban.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate on mobile phones in schools.

Protecting Scotland’s Fire Service

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19124, in the name of Katy Clark, on protecting Scotland’s fire service. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Scottish Labour has lodged the motion because the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is in a state of crisis. The Fire Brigades Union Scotland has been warning for years about the devastating impact of underinvestment in our Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and about the threats that we are now facing after years of cuts and failure by the Scottish Government to deliver investment.

Over the past 13 years, 1,250 firefighters’ jobs have been lost, which represents more than a sixth of the total workforce. That figure includes 729 whole-time operational firefighters and 368 retained operational firefighters. Those are direct cuts to vital, life-saving front-line services. The number of volunteer firefighters has also reduced by 35 per cent, which negatively impacts on emergency cover in many of our remote and rural communities. In control rooms, there has been a 26 per cent reduction in staff—staff who are vital in handling calls and supporting individuals in emergencies, including those that pose a risk to life.

When I met FBU Scotland yesterday, its representatives laid out the impact of those job losses on response times. Average response times have increased from six minutes and 51 seconds to eight minutes and 20 seconds. Every second counts when waiting for a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The FBU fears that, without the investment that is needed in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, response times could eventually reach more than 10 minutes.

Response times to incidents that pose a risk to life have also increased. In 2016, the average response time to such incidents stood at around seven minutes and 30 seconds. Last year, it stood at eight minutes and 50 seconds. In such situations, when there is a risk to life, every minute counts.

In control rooms, job losses have contributed to an increase in call-handling times. Call-handling times for incidents that pose a risk to life have increased from one minute and 10 seconds in 2016 to one minute and 32 seconds. Staffing levels in control rooms are generally considered to be inadequate and regularly fall below agreed safe levels.

FBU Scotland is calling on the Scottish Government to commit to no further cuts to firefighter numbers. I urge the minister to give such a commitment today. Since its creation in 2013, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has faced cuts of tens of millions in funding from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service resource budget for this financial year stands at £332.1 million, which represents a real-terms cut of more than £56 million in the past 12 years.

Sustained underinvestment in our fire capital budget has also led to a capital backlog of more than £800 million, and many fire stations are no longer fit for purpose. The fire service has estimated that £80 million per year would be needed to improve the condition of fire stations and control rooms. FBU Scotland is calling for increased and sustainable real-terms investment in the service from the Scottish Government. Ahead of this year’s budget process, I urge the minister to engage with the firefighters’ union, with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and with firefighters across Scotland.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s service delivery consultation recently closed, with more than 3,500 responses. The consultation outlined several options, including changes to fire cover, the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances and the closure of 13 fire stations.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Does the Labour Party believe that rural areas could be disproportionately affected by the proposals from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, because they cover such a large geographical area, and that losing a whole-time service would be so detrimental to anyone who was involved in a road traffic accident or a fire, particularly in rural areas?

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Rachael Hamilton makes her point well, and I agree.

The plans that have been outlined would further damage the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and add to the negative impact that underinvestment and cuts have already had. Fire cover would change across Scotland, including in rural areas, but also in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Dunfermline. In my region—West Scotland—fire cover would be affected at the Milngavie, Inverclyde and Helensburgh stations, and in many other parts. Let us be clear that those changes to fire cover would lead to increased response times.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board is set to decide on the consultation proposals by late December. Although it is the board that will ultimately decide, we should remember that the board members are appointed by the Scottish Government, and the Minister for Victims and Community Safety is ultimately accountable to the Parliament for the delivery and provision of fire and rescue services. After the board makes its decision in December, MSPs must have adequate time and opportunity to scrutinise and debate any proposed changes, especially as those changes are set to have a negative impact on service delivery if some of the proposals proceed—particularly due to the likely increases in response times. I therefore call on the minister to commit today to a debate in Government time, to ensure that Parliament gets its opportunity to have a say on any proposals.

I am sure that other colleagues will pick up the many other issues that I could have raised in this debate on fire and rescue services, but I will conclude by thanking Scottish firefighters for their vital work in keeping our communities safe. I pay tribute to all our firefighters, and particularly to Barry Martin and Ewan Williamson—two brave firefighters who lost their lives while on duty. We owe it to them and to all of Scotland’s firefighters to ensure that Scotland’s Fire and Rescue Service gets the investment that it needs. I therefore hope that the Parliament will support Scottish Labour’s motion.

I move,

That the Parliament expresses concern at the cuts proposed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS); recognises the Cuts Leave Scars campaign, which was set up in 2023 in response to a decade of underfunding by the Scottish Government; notes the loss of over 1,250 firefighter jobs across Scotland since the establishment of the SFRS in 2013, leading to pumps being unavailable as a result of too few firefighters to crew them; regrets that, as a result of cuts, call handling times have increased in control rooms and response times have increased from 6 minutes and 51 seconds to 8 minutes and 20 seconds, which risks lives in Scotland; notes with concern the plans to close 13 stations and permanently withdraw 10 appliances, and encourages the Scottish Government to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union Scotland to ensure that there are no further cuts to firefighter numbers or fire cover and that safe crewing levels are guaranteed.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which has been a single national service since 2013, is one of Scotland’s success stories. We have a successful emergency service of dedicated firefighters that we should all be proud of, and I thank each and every one of the staff at the SFRS for their commitment to and their work on keeping our communities safe every day.

The vast majority of the reduction in firefighter numbers that the motion cites can be attributed to the reduction in duplication and layers of management that resulted from this significant public service reform.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I join the minister in paying tribute to our firefighters, who do a wonderful job. However, in regions such as mine—the Highlands and Islands—less than 10 per cent of fire stations are fully staffed. Those people have not disappeared—it was not that there was duplication of jobs. Many fire stations cannot put out a crew to deal with a fire.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The bill that became the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 was supported by Labour at the time. The reduction in the number of firefighters is primarily a result of the establishment of the single national service, which reduced the duplication in the eight regional services. I know what the member is saying about rural areas, which she mentioned to me yesterday, but, under the service delivery review, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service needs to keep evaluating its services as time progresses.

The single service has allowed for the delivery of additional specialist resources that serve the whole of Scotland, such as the water rescue capability, which is being rolled out to 20 fire stations.

In 2013, there were 357 fire stations in Scotland; today, there are 356—only one fewer. In that time, the risks that our country faces have changed, and it is right that we make sure that we are ready to respond to any new challenges. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 20 per cent reduction in the number of house fires. The overall number of incidents that are attended by the SFRS continues to fall.

Although the number of house fires has reduced, there have been other incidents, and new risks have emerged.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the minister be addressing the concerning increases in response and call-handling times?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I will get to that.

Climate change is contributing to warmer, drier conditions, which increase the likelihood and intensity of wildfires. As I said yesterday,

“Shifts in weather patterns, such as those that led to last week’s wildfire danger warning and this week’s yellow warning for rain, reinforce the climate challenges that we currently face.”—[Official Report, 30 September 2025; c 8.]

With that has come a change in the risks to our communities, as incidents such as those of flooding and wildfires increase. Our firefighters are trained to respond to both those types of incident, but the change illustrates the need for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be adaptable to such risks. That is why it is right that the fire service carefully considers how its services are delivered, to ensure that they are configured in the right way, and that it adapts to changing risks to remain effective and efficient, with firefighters in the right place at the right time.

Not adapting and changing over time—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I would like to make some progress.

Continuing to keep everything the same for decades would not be efficient or effective and would not ensure that taxpayers’ money was invested in the right way.

There is a wide disparity between the numbers of incidents that fire stations respond to, which is why the SFRS is looking to adjust the resources that are present in some locations. I emphasise that the driver for the changes that the SFRS proposes is to better align resources to current risks; it is not about saving money.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The minister will be concluding shortly.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I must make some progress.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plans to redeploy resources that are freed up by making changes to front-line delivery to provide greater resource to its prevention and protection function, and to boost training provision to ensure that firefighters remain fully ready and competent to keep us all safe from the changing risks that we face. The SFRS also aims to ensure that investment is going to the fire stations that need it most—for example, to tackle reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete roofs and to enhance the facilities for firefighters, including modern decontamination facilities.

Therefore, I do not accept the accusation that the service delivery review is a cuts exercise. Despite financial pressures in recent years—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Minister, you need to bring your remarks to a close.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I conclude by saying something about response times—that is really important because, if anything about that is misconstrued, it can cause public fear. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been clear that it advises against using response times as a meaningful metric for performance and that the focus should be on outcomes. There are complex and dynamic factors that impact on those times.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Minister, you need to conclude and move your amendment.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to update Parliament more in my closing speech.

I move amendment S6M-19124.2, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert:

“recognises that, whilst house fires have reduced by over 20% since 2013, due to the climate emergency, incidents and risk of flooding and wildfires have significantly increased; further recognises that the recent Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s (SFRS) Service Delivery Review aims to ensure that the service can respond to these changing risks and that the right firefighters and appliances are in the right place at the right time; notes that no decisions will be taken until an independent analysis of the public consultation has been carried out and that any changes would be implemented over a five-year period; agrees that all public services need to provide efficient and effective services that deliver value for the public purse, and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that Scotland has safer communities.”

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank Katy Clark for securing this important debate for the chamber.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is a life-saving organisation, which protects people, homes, businesses and the environment every day. Its importance can be seen in towns and cities, where firefighters race to put out potentially devastating fires in minutes, and it can increasingly be seen in the countryside, as they tackle raging wildfires that threaten to run out of control, ruin wildlife and pose risks for those who live in remote and rural communities.

The importance of firefighters is seldom more recognised than when they put themselves in danger, without hesitation, to ensure that we can live safely. In the process, many have been injured and some have tragically lost their lives. We should take the opportunity to again remember the ultimate sacrifices that were made by Ewan Williamson in 2009 and, more recently, by Barry Martin in 2023. In fact, it seems that the Scottish Government is alone in not fully comprehending the fire brigade’s importance. It is quick to praise firefighters and to talk up its support for them, but the money and the numbers tell a vastly different story.

Since the creation of the single fire service in 2013—a move that was supposed to create a nimbler and more effective organisation—things have got decidedly worse. There has been a reduction of 1,215 uniformed firefighters in that time, which represents a drop of almost 16 per cent, and, although ministers talk about uplifts in funding, the real-terms picture shows that there have been devastating cuts to the budget over a number of years. Scottish Conservative research shows the effects that those cuts have had on performance statistics. Average response times have increased by one and a half minutes.

That all begs the question, why? Why did the Scottish National Party Government centralise the fire service only to subsequently oversee brutal cuts and woeful mismanagement? The minister in charge likes to make the point that Scotland has more firefighters per head than England, but anyone who understands the geography of Scotland and appreciates how spread out and remote our communities are in comparison with those in England knows that that is a completely ridiculous argument.

The efficiencies that are proposed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are truly terrifying and difficult to believe. The chief officer, Stuart Stevens, is on record as saying that the efficiencies will go ahead only if they ensure

“the safety of the community of Scotland.”

If that is the case and the service’s damaging proposals can be vetoed on the ground of people’s safety, those changes must be stopped and an improved funding settlement from the Scottish Government delivered.

I fully support the FBU and its cuts leave scars campaign. Unlike the Scottish Government, it understands the genuine risks that the proposed efficiencies will pose. The fire brigade is facing a range of new challenges, yet it is expected to meet them with fewer tools.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Will Sharon Dowey take an intervention?

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Would I get the time back, Presiding Officer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is no time in hand.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am sorry.

Wildfires are on the rise. Newer developments such as recycling centres and battery energy storage systems also present a fresh challenge. Scotland’s population is increasing and ageing and is therefore becoming more vulnerable. Instead of constantly asking firefighters to do more with less, the Scottish Government needs to completely change direction. John McKenzie, the Scottish secretary of the FBU, said:

“The Minister’s call for improved fire safety at a time when she is overseeing a service being systematically stripped of jobs and fire fighting capacity shows she is in complete denial about what is going on in the service she is responsible for.”

Brave firefighters save lives, keep communities safe and place themselves in grave danger while doing so. They need to know that the Scottish Parliament has their backs. I ask all members to support my amendment, which will show firefighters that that is the case and will, I hope, trigger an urgent rethink on funding and resources.

I move amendment S6M-19124.1, to insert at end:

“; recognises that the Scottish Government’s mismanagement of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) has resulted in an £800 million operational backlog that has mostly resulted from the failure to bring stations up to modern standards, with 18 fire stations lacking running water; notes that the SFRS is coming under increasing strain thanks to the pressures presented by wildfires, and that the public are becoming more concerned about the fire hazards presented by battery storage sites, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that firefighters have the basic resources to do their job, to ensure that lives are not needlessly lost.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I invite Maggie Chapman to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I begin by paying tribute to all of Scotland’s firefighters—our fireys—who put themselves in harm’s way every day to protect us; to their families who live with the knowledge that, when their loved ones leave for work, they might not return; to the control room staff who stay on the phone for as long as it takes, even if that means to the end of someone’s life; and to the Fire Brigades Union, for its tireless work in defending not only its members but the communities that they serve.

The FBU is right when it says that cuts leave scars. That is not a slogan—it is the lived reality of communities up and down Scotland. That is why I will support Katy Clark’s motion.

Since the creation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in 2013, we have lost more than 1,250 firefighter jobs. Pumps are off the run because there are too few firefighters to crew them safely. Response times have gone up from 6 minutes 51 seconds to more than 8 minutes, and, as every firefighter will tell you, those 90 seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

The changes that are proposed by the SFRS might not be framed as cuts, but that is how they are understood. We are not trimming fat—we are cutting into the muscle of our fire service, which will leave scars that will last for generations.

Let us be clear about the reality of the modern fire service. Firefighters are no longer dealing only with house fires and car accidents. They are tackling climate change on the front line, with more frequent and severe wildfires and devastating floods. They are stepping into medical emergencies. They are doing more, and they are willing to do even more, but we cannot and must not ask them to do more with less. Role expansion must be matched with proper resourcing, staffing and training; otherwise, it is nothing more than exploitation of their dedication.

The FBU’s “Firestorm” report, which was published in 2023, makes that case powerfully. It shows the risks that our communities face if we continue down the road of cuts and underfunding; it shows the scale of the challenge in an era of climate crisis; and it demands that we all listen to the evidence and act accordingly.

We must not forget the silent dangers that firefighters face. I have championed the FBU’s decon campaign, which highlights the risks of cancers and other diseases that are linked to contaminants on the job. Firefighters risk their lives in the moment of a blaze, but they also risk their long-term health every time that they put on contaminated kit. The least that we owe them is a workplace that does not poison them. That means investment in equipment, decontamination facilities and safety standards.

In my closing speech, I will speak about the potential impacts of the SFRS’s proposed changes to fire services in the North East Scotland region—in particular, the impact on the Balmossie community fire and ambulance station. For now, I will just say that closing Balmossie will increase response times to some communities.

Our firefighters are not asking for luxuries. They are asking for the tools, staffing and safety to do their jobs and to save our lives. They are asking us to value their lives as much as they value ours. Cuts do indeed leave scars on our firefighters, our communities and our collective safety. We must all work with the FBU and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to stop the cuts, guarantee safe crewing levels and invest in the fire service that Scotland deserves. We owe our firefighters not just gratitude but respect—and respect demands resources.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank Katy Clark for lodging the motion for debate, which provides an opportunity to highlight the central role that the fire service plays in protecting communities across Scotland and making them safer and more resilient. I join other members in paying tribute to all firefighters and staff across the country.

The debate comes on the back of stark warnings from the SFRS about the threat of wildfires, and as communities across the Highlands and Islands come to terms with the devastating impact of the wildfires that we have seen over the summer, so it feels particularly timely. As other members have suggested, proposals for the potential closure of 13 fire stations and the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances are deeply concerning, not least for the workforce. We have been absolutely clear about the potential impact that those staff reductions will have.

The statistics for the period since 2013 are stark, too. There has been a 16 per cent reduction in uniformed staff, with 1,250 fewer firefighters working across Scotland. As a direct result, crews often do not meet safe staffing requirements, meaning that they cannot respond to calls, which, ultimately, and inevitably, leads to call times increasing, as we have seen.

Katy Clark is right that every second counts in an emergency, and that increases in average response times risk lives. In that context, the further cuts that are proposed to firefighter numbers and resource capacity seem untenable. Those cuts are also having an effect on the provision of training. As one firefighter put it in the “Firestorm” report, the public

“envisage a fully equipped, fully trained Service sending the requisite number of firefighters to any emergency situation ... The reality is poorly trained, poorly equipped firefighters who are sick of trying their utmost to carry out their duties against a background of cuts and a lack of training and support.”

Of course, maintaining community safety looks different in different parts of the country—a point that Rachael Hamilton made. In rural and island communities, the vast majority of stations are staffed on an on-call basis by retained crew. However, many of the retained stations across the Highlands and Islands face severe challenges in recruitment and retention. As Rhoda Grant highlighted, only 10 out of 125 fire stations across the region are fully staffed. In Orkney only 10 are fully staffed, and in Shetland none at all. In recent years, stations in Hoy, Eday and North Ronaldsay have had less than half a full complement of staff. That sees crews being taken off the run, which impacts on communities’ resilience.

Meanwhile, statistics published by SFRS suggest that fire casualties are higher in rural and island areas. That cannot be any coincidence. If we are serious about ensuring the safety of communities across Scotland, we must get serious about training, staffing and resourcing our fire service, not least in those rural and island communities.

As an aside, from my perspective, community safety extends to enabling others who require fire training to be able to undertake it. The upgrade in facilities at Kirkwall airport, for which I campaigned over many years, has undoubtedly delivered huge benefits, not least in reducing the need for fire crew members to leave Orkney for training. I understand from a recent meeting at Orkney College, however, that there are currently problems with local merchant seafarers getting the fire training that they need in the islands.

With greater use of indoor simulators, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has raised concerns about the reduced access to real fire conditions as part of the course. MCA representatives are due in Orkney soon, and I hope that an agreement can be reached between the MCA, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd and Orkney College so that merchant seafarers can, again, get the access to fire safety training that they need without the additional cost, time and inconvenience of having to travel to the Scottish mainland.

In the meantime, I again thank Katy Clark and confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support both her motion and the amendment in Sharon Dowey’s name.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

What is taking place in our communities is not a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service delivery review—it is an experiment, and it is one which, as a matter of public record, is causing serious concern to members of this Parliament from all sides, including members from the minister’s own back benches. The Government cannot contract out these decisions to the board of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It is this Government that is putting at risk public health, community safety and even the lives of its own citizens. It is this Government which must be accountable to Parliament.

We know that this risk—this experiment—will not be borne evenly, and that these cuts do not have an equal impact. We should look at the awful, distressing facts. We should look at what happened at Grenfell: 40 per cent of disabled people who lived in Grenfell tower died that night in June 2017. A quarter of all children who lived in Grenfell tower died as a result of the fire that night.

This is a public service that should be about people, and not about money. That includes the firefighters and their trade union, the FBU, who passionately tell us,

“We don’t just fight fire, we fight injustice too”

and who make it plain that, since the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was created, there has, in their words, been

“A decade of underinvestment—a decade of real terms cuts”.

There has been a net reduction of 368 retained operational front-line firefighters; a net reduction of 729 whole-time operational front-line firefighters; and cuts to control staff, cuts to volunteer firefighters and cuts to the number of appliances as well.

I vividly remember speaking to firefighters at the Hamilton station back in June 2023, where an appliance was being removed as “a temporary measure”. Over two years later, it has never returned. It was not a temporary measure—a temporary removal—at all. It was, as we warned at the time, a permanent measure—a permanent removal.

At Cumbernauld, we are now witnessing a plan to remove whole-time firefighters and to replace them with on-call crews. The reductions that are planned for stations in Glasgow will have a knock-on impact in Lanarkshire as well. The FBU, in its insightful “Firestorm” report, reminds us that, when the single fire service was set up by this Scottish Government, we were promised that it was about

“stopping duplication of support services ... and not cutting front line services”,

but that is precisely what we are witnessing today: downgrades, front-line jobs and service cuts, redundancies and a significant increase in response times as a result.

In every area, the pros and cons of the proposals have been set out. In every area, the pros include financial savings that are to be made. In every area, the cons include increased response times. In every area, there is a reduction of fire cover. Describing those proposals as anything other than an exercise in financial cuts is the real con. Do not anybody try to tell us that those are operational choices: they are policy choices, and they are political choices. I hope that, at decision time tonight, they will prove to be political choices that the Parliament resoundingly rejects.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

This is an important debate. I took part in the public consultation and have informed my constituents that I do not support the proposals for Inverclyde. To inform my submission to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s service delivery review consultation, I engaged with constituents, visited Inverclyde’s three fire stations and spoke to each of the crew members who were working when I visited. I attended the two Fire and Rescue Service public meetings in Greenock and Port Glasgow and met the local FBU Scotland representative. I also spoke to senior management during my visit to the Port Glasgow station. I thank them all for their contributions and for their information and assistance. I also thank all the fire and rescue staff across Scotland.

I approached the consultation with an open mind as I am acutely aware that time does not stand still and the delivery of public services also changes. If we delivered public services today in the way that we did 20, 30 or 40 years ago, there would quite rightly be a public outcry, and I am quite sure that we would be debating that in the chamber.

I was reassured that the changes have not been made as a result of a reduction in budget, as was suggested at the Port Glasgow public meeting. The local MP tried to make the accusation that the consultation was happening as a result of cuts, which was quickly rebutted. For the record, I note that, since 2017-18, there have been substantial year-on-year increases in funding to support the Fire and Rescue Service.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I will in two seconds. Actually, I have only four minutes, but I will come back to address the Tories—don’t you worry.

The current annual budget is more than £97 million higher than it was in 2017-18. Notwithstanding the additional resource over that period, however, the increase still does not guarantee the security and safety of my constituents in Greenock and Inverclyde, because both of the consultation’s proposed options will have a negative impact on the number of whole-time firefighters locally. I do not believe that the proposals will strengthen the on-call service, notwithstanding the various recruitment initiatives that the Fire and Rescue Service has planned.

Gourock’s on-call station regularly attends calls in Largs in North Ayrshire, because the on-call station at Skelmorlie cannot always send a crew. Half of Port Glasgow station covers the area up to Dargavel in Bishopton, in addition to elsewhere in the Inverclyde local authority area. Response times, which have already been mentioned, are clearly a hugely important part of the discussion. If Gourock station staff are having to go to Largs regularly, the addition of 650 homes on the Inverkip power station site will not help with the response times—it is complete folly and utter madness. That is why the decision by the Inverclyde Council planning committee to give the go-ahead for those homes is going to make the situation worse.

Approval has also been given for additional housing at Spango Valley in Greenock, which is not going to help at all. The fact that Inverclyde stations are serving other areas suggests that reducing the number of appliances for the whole-time firefighters in my area will only increase the strain on the existing staff. Safety is paramount, and I do not trust that the current proposals will make Inverclyde and the Greenock and Inverclyde constituency safer.

I will finish with a brief comment on funding. We have had 14 years of austerity. Anas Sarwar claimed at his party’s conference this week that Labour has ended 14 years of austerity. If that is the case, what was announced in June in the UK spending review? I urge the UK Labour Government not to continue with that austerity. It should stop the austerity and ensure that more money goes into public services such as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and other public services across the UK. If that does not happen, sadly, the situation that we are facing in Scotland and elsewhere across the UK will continue.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr McMillan, you will need to conclude.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Okay, Presiding Officer.

I support my constituency and I genuinely support the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service but, my goodness, the proposals that I have mentioned need to be scrapped. The SFRS must think again and come forward with something that will secure the safety of my constituents.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I was interested to hear what Stuart McMillan said and I commend him for standing up for his constituents. However, we are hearing from the Government front bench that it is not about the money, while we are hearing from the back benches that it is about the money. The Scottish Government needs to regroup and make up its mind, because what is happening feels like gaslighting of our firefighters and all the support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

I am proud to speak in this debate, which has been secured by Scottish Labour. I am disgusted that the Scottish Government is not supporting our motion. Instead, it has brought to the chamber an amendment that deletes our motion in its entirety and airbrushes out more than a decade of underfunding.

To recap, I note that, in 2023, after that decade of underfunding, FBU Scotland launched the cuts leave scars campaign. We have all been listening to our communities, but we are not just defending our own patches—we want to get this right for the whole of Scotland. It is not about pitting one community against another. However, I feel that the minister has come to the chamber and gaslit not just the members who are here, but also the firefighters in the gallery and people across the country by saying that any reduction in fire crews has been about reducing duplication of services. I hope that that suggestion will be corrected in her closing speech and that we will find out whether the minister agrees with Stuart McMillan.

Like Richard Leonard, I have been spending time in Cumbernauld, Hamilton and right across Lanarkshire and Central Scotland and listening to our communities and our firefighters. Richard Leonard made a point about the second appliance in Hamilton. We were told to trust in the process and that the arrangement was temporary, which is why there was no need for statutory consultation. We were told not to talk down the Scottish Government with regard to the issue. However, I have to say that people no longer trust the Scottish Government when it comes to the future of Scotland’s fire and rescue service. People in Hamilton do not trust what they hear. Why should people in Cumbernauld or anywhere else trust the Scottish Government?

At the public meeting in Cumbernauld—which was also attended by Jamie Hepburn, who heard the same testimony that I did—a woman who had been sitting quietly at the back of the room got to her feet and said to the top table, the politicians and everyone who was gathered there that her sister and her sister’s children had died in a tragic house fire. She made the same plea to decision makers that we are making.

This issue is about people and our communities, and it is about building resilience for the future. If we believe the science, if we watch the news and if we see the wildfires and the impact of floods and storms, we know that we need to act. Our firefighters do more than deal with house fires and other emergencies, and we have to give them the right equipment. I recently visited the national training centre in Cambuslang, and firefighters there told me that they have examples of out-of-date kit that cannot be used in emergency situations. There are many concerns about health and safety, and I pay tribute to Mercedes Villalba and Maggie Chapman for the work that they have done on that issue.

I ask the minister to please think again. She must not dismiss the Labour motion out of hand because of politics. We cannot go on cutting the service to the bone. It will risk lives. The cuts leave scars campaign tells us that, but tonight I am thinking about that sister—that aunt—who said that her family had been wiped out in a fire.

If the minister does not show some political leadership and deal with the reality, I fear for the future. I urge all colleagues to back the motion tonight.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am delighted to speak in the debate and I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen this topic for debate. We have rightly had unanimity in our praise of firefighters, who do an extremely challenging job in some of the toughest of circumstances. However, those warm words are not enough if they are not backed up by action. Tonight, the Parliament has an opportunity to unite behind the Labour motion, to dismiss the Scottish National Party amendment and to back up our warm words with action to protect our services on the front line in our communities the length and breadth of Scotland.

The SNP wants to delete all the negative references in the motion. It can delete the text, but it cannot just forget or ignore what is going on outside this building, because there is no doubt that we have seen a reduction in the number of firefighters across Scotland. Many of the stations in the area that I represent are now not manned at all, as Rhoda Grant said.

As we say in our amendment to the motion, some of the buildings that firefighters are using are completely unfit for purpose. There is a huge £800 million backlog in the investment that we need to see going into the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—that investment is not happening.

I say to the minister and members on the SNP benches that I am sorry, but we need more than warm words about the Government supporting our firefighters when it is clear from its actions that it does not. That is why the debate is important and why the votes this evening will be so important. I say to SNP back benchers that this is an opportunity to stand up to the Government and say, “No—this is wrong. We don’t want to support this and we can’t put our names to it”.

I have to say to Stuart McMillan that his very dismal speech was also extremely confusing. He spoke at length about how all the problems were caused by the other parties, ignoring what his party is doing, but he then said that he opposes the cuts. Which is it? How will he oppose the cuts in his local area? Will he vote against his Government? Will he and other SNP members show their constituents, who will go to the ballot box in a few months’ time to say who they want to represent them, that, on an issue as important as this—a life or death issue—they will stand up to the SNP Government? Will they say, “No more—we cannot take the cuts to our fire and rescue service.” Will they say that we cannot accept a greater reduction in the number of firefighters or the standard of service that will be delivered if more and more is taken out of the service when it needs investment? At decision time this evening, we will all be scrutinising which side members are on. Their warm words will count for nothing if they just line up as Government fodder and vote the way that the SNP whips tell them to vote.

This is a crucial issue because, since the single force was brought in, we have seen a cut to and diminution in the service that is provided locally. It is defended by Government ministers and bosses at the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who seem immune to the criticism that is clearly coming from the local community. They are deaf to it and unwilling to listen. What will it take for them to take on board the legitimate concerns of local communities, which are worried about the provision that is being stripped away day after day, week after week and month after month? At some point, it has to stop.

I was reminded that Colin Brown, FBU executive council member, said that the 2025-26 budget “won’t touch the sides”. This is not just about the future, but also about the past. The SNP Government has underfunded our fire and rescue service for far too long. It is to the credit of our firefighters and those working in the service that we have not reached breaking point before now. However, we are getting very close to that. The way to stop it is to back the Labour motion and unite as a Parliament to send the clearest message to our firefighters that we support them.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I join others in welcoming the debate. I am grateful to Katy Clark for lodging the motion, which touches on an important issue that is local to my constituency. Indeed, I have heard Mr Leonard and Ms Lennon mention Cumbernauld, which they do not often do. I commend to them mentioning Cumbernauld a little more often in this place.

First, I will try to place my remarks in some context. The motion refers to the 12 years that we have had a national fire service through the formation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I concur with what the minister said at the outset—I think that, overall, it has been a success story. It has enabled a more responsive fire service in many instances.

I will cite a specific example in my area. This April, in common with many other parts of the country, we experienced a wildfire—that was in the Palacerigg locality of Cumbernauld on 10 April. That required a significant response from the Fire and Rescue Service, with the deployment of firefighters from Cumbernauld and other stations. Many of those stations are in what was the Strathclyde fire service area, while some—Slamannan, Denny and Larbert—are based in the former Central Scotland fire service region.

I am not suggesting for a moment that that type of cross-border deployment did not previously happen. However, in my engagement with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, I am told that that process of deployment is far easier to achieve now. That is one practical example of an improved service, which is in the shape of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It would be remiss of me to not put on the record my thanks to the fire service personnel who responded to that incident.

I will touch on the service delivery review in relation to how it impacts my constituency. I understand—we hear this often enough—that we expect public services to be led in a way that is independent of ministerial direction. That is what we generally hear in relation to the Fire and Rescue Service, Police Scotland, the national health service and other public services. I understand that the process is being undertaken in that context.

I have written to the minister about the review and I am grateful for the reply that I have had. In particular, there was an emphasis that the changes that are being considered—we should say that they are only being considered at this stage—are about reshaping delivery in the context of a changed environment. That is instead of being in the context of seeking to—