Scottish Parliament, 6 November 2025

375 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government about the impact of its energy profits levy on business confidence, investment and jobs in Scotland. (S6O-05106)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have had multiple discussions with my UK Government counterparts on that issue, and I have also written directly to the minister on it.

As introduced by the Conservative Government, the energy profits levy was always supposed to be a temporary measure, and we must see the earliest possible end date for it, or a complete reform of it, as it is now affecting investment and jobs in the north-east, including in the low-carbon energy sector and the energy supply chain.

The fiscal regime for offshore oil and gas is reserved to the UK Government, but I will continue to raise those concerns with the UK Government and call upon it to bring forward at the budget a stable and long-term fiscal regime to replace the EPL and deliver business and investor certainty for the North Sea.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Data from the UK Offshore Energies Association and Scottish Renewables shows that £40 billion of investment could be unlocked if the energy profits levy were to be replaced. That would deliver £137 billion of gross value added to the UK economy and safeguard 160,000 jobs, building on the 47,000 jobs and £15.5 billion of output that are already supported by Scotland’s renewable energy industry and the supply chain. What is the Scottish Government continuing to do to persuade the UK Government to abolish the energy profits levy in its forthcoming budget and replace it with a successor regime that focuses on protecting and growing energy jobs?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The data that Kevin Stewart has cited is from a range of industry bodies, and it emphasises what I said in response to his first question. Alongside other parts of the UK economy, the offshore energy sector must be treated fairly to unlock investment and ensure that workers are at the heart of a just transition by protecting their jobs for as long as possible. That is why we will continue to call on the UK Government to bring forward at the budget a stable and long-term fiscal regime that will replace the EPL and deliver much-needed business and investor certainty for the North Sea.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The EPL is destroying the oil and gas industry, but so is the Scottish National Party’s presumption against oil and gas, which the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was celebrating again last night. Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that, while the SNP has a presumption against oil and gas, and while it will not support Rosebank or Cambo, she has a brass neck to come here and pretend to support the industry?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Our view is that climate compatibility assessments and checkpoints should inform any decision that the UK Government makes on new licences, and that domestic energy security must also be a consideration.

I would ask Douglas Lumsden whether he agrees with his former leader, Theresa May, that the UK should be net zero by 2050, but we all know the answer to that.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the Ayrshire growth deal. (S6O-05107)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Significant effort is being made by partners across the Ayrshire growth deal to accelerate delivery of that important programme, which will see Scottish Government invest more than £100 million in Ayrshire. Construction is now under way on the £35 million Ayrshire innovation park, which will support the advanced manufacturing, engineering and food and drink sectors. Phase 1 of the £14 million great harbour project is nearing completion and the Scottish and UK Governments recently approved a request from partners to progress a new approach for the Prestwick proposition, which will pave the way for significant investment to support the Prestwick cluster.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the Government tell us why only 5 per cent of the £251 million that was allocated to the project in 2020 has been spent? We have also seen the recent cancellation of projects such as the Prestwick spaceport. Has the minister considered appointing an independent chair to push the project along?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The point of a growth deal is that local partners have a key role in making decisions. The Government will continue to make funds available for projects and will work with local partners to do what we can to ensure that projects are taken forward. Local input is hugely important.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

This week, I met a community group with a particular interest in restoring the pilot house. Although the pilot house appeared in plans for the great harbour and the maritime mile in Irvine, I understand that an expected feasibility study on restoring it might not be funded. Does the minister, like me, recognise the potential in protecting such unique heritage sites? Further to that, does he recognise that, when communities’ expectations and aspirations are raised in respect of growth deals, it is crucial that they are met?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I understand that the great harbour project, which has been led by North Ayrshire Council, intends to deliver improvements to the setting and facade of the pilot house as part of a wider project that aims to create a unique waterfront destination in Irvine. The Scottish Government has not been closely involved in the specifics of the support for the feasibility study on the pilot house, but I will instruct officials to speak directly with the council to learn more about the issue and provide the member with a response by correspondence.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it is taking to safeguard the future of the Alloa campus of Forth Valley College. (S6O-05108)

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

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and I met the principal of Forth Valley College and the Scottish Funding Council to discuss progress, next steps and how the Scottish Government can further help to safeguard the future of the Alloa campus. I am assured that the principal is committed to finding a solution, taking into account the needs of the community, local employers and the wider region.

The SFC is supporting those efforts by providing additional funding to support an urgent feasibility study to identify all possible options for the campus. We will ensure that all relevant public sector bodies play their part in that. I also plan to visit the Alloa campus soon, and I will endeavour to keep Mr Brown updated.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Given the vital role that further education colleges such as Forth Valley College play in improving opportunities and life chances for people from our most deprived communities including Clackmannanshire, which has some of the most deprived communities in Scotland, will the Scottish Government support the Scottish Funding Council’s requiring colleges to ensure that there is a minimum level of course provision in those areas? For example, it could mandate that a set number of credits be delivered at campuses such as Alloa and that similar safeguards be applied consistently across Scotland.

Will the minister ask the Funding Council to meet me so that I can make clear the extent to which we are having to deal with a college board that is determined to end further education provision? What can be done to stop that approach?

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

Keith Brown raises some important points and in recent weeks has advocated for his constituents in Alloa admirably on those issues. I am happy to impress on the Funding Council that it should meet Mr Brown, and I am also happy to meet him to explore the ideas that he has raised in the chamber.

The Scottish Government recognises the vital role that our colleges play in their local communities. We will sustain our investment in the sector, and we remain committed to giving young people and others who are retraining the opportunity to gain the skills that they need to succeed, with the ability to do so in their locality, as that will help our economy grow and prosper.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There has been a campus in the Alloa area since the 1960s, and it would be a disaster if it were to close. Does the minister recognise the massive financial pressures that colleges are under? Will he do more to ensure the future of colleges in Clackmannanshire and across the country?

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

As I have recently been articulating in the chamber, the Scottish Government and I recognise the challenges that our college sector is facing and the various publications that there have been on that in recent weeks. I am keen to work with Mr Rowley and all members across the chamber on how we can create a sustainable future for our colleges, given the important role that they play in communities, in addressing poverty and in the future of our economy. I am grateful for the excellent and constructive engagement that I have had so far with Colleges Scotland on how we can support our college sector in the period ahead.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made regarding the number of households whose council tax bills could rise as a result of the proposals in its consultation on the future of council tax. (S6O-05109)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The consultation on the future of council tax does not set out a specific proposal for change. The scenarios are not Government policy; the consultation instead seeks views on a range of illustrative options, with the aim of building a consensus. Independent analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that was published alongside the consultation provides a detailed assessment of those models. The IFS also modelled a number of transitional and mitigation schemes that would each impact on the overall assessment of the different models. I encourage the member to read the IFS report.

Sandesh Gulhane (Conservative, Glasgow)

Glaswegians with a band E property have seen their council tax increase by 42 per cent since the Scottish National Party came to power. This SNP Government starves councils, which leads to serious cuts in services and people paying more and getting less.

These people are not rich, and many struggle to get by. In my constituency, Morag, who is a single, widowed pensioner who has been living in her home for 50 years, cannot afford to pay more on her fixed pension income. Does the minister think that it is right to continue to hammer those people?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The member might have forgotten that the Scottish Government implemented a council tax freeze for many years. Council tax bills in Scotland—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Council tax bills in Scotland are many hundreds of pounds cheaper than those south of the border, where the member’s party was in control for most of that period. There are significant savings for Scottish council tax payers. The member should reflect on that and on the fact that his party is never shy to stand up and ask for more investment, but always does so at the same time as calling for tax cuts, which clearly demonstrates its inability to understand fiscal matters.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure the sustainability of town centres. (S6O-05110)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting vibrant, thriving towns and town centres and to putting them at the heart of investment and planning decisions through the town centre first principle and delivery of the town centre action plan. National planning framework 4 further embeds that approach by recognising town centres as national assets.

Over recent years, support for town centre regeneration has been backed by our regeneration capital investment programmes, as well as our support for Scotland’s Towns Partnership and the Scotland Loves Local programme. That continues in 2025-26 with regeneration investment of more than £62 million, which includes support for town centres.

I was delighted to speak last night at the cross-party group on towns and town centres and to recognise the great work that is happening across the country, including in Paisley, which has been recognised as Scotland’s town of the year.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I was not going to mention that, as I mentioned it last week. The minister will be aware of the major regeneration work that is under way in Paisley town centre, including plans to explore future use of the Paisley Centre site. This week, Renfrewshire Council confirmed that it will work with the developer to move that important project forward. Will the minister commit to engaging with Renfrewshire Council, once its proposals are ready, to help to ensure the best possible outcome for Paisley?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

We are always keen to ensure the best possible outcome for Paisley and other towns across Scotland. I am aware of the plans that have been put forward by the owners of the Paisley Centre, and the Scottish Government remains in close contact with the local council and the developer, Beyond Retail, on those ambitious plans. I understand that discussions are on-going between the developer and Renfrewshire Council to understand the feasibility and viability of the project and to seek assurance over the proposed development plans. As the member will be aware, any decision rests with Renfrewshire Council in the first instance, but the Scottish Government will closely follow the project as it moves forward.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to increase the current threshold of 50MW for approval by its energy consents unit of onshore electricity-generating stations, to allow more decisions to be taken by local planning authorities. (S6O-05111)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government will consult on increasing the current threshold of 50MW for applications for onshore electricity-generating stations to be considered by local authorities.

We will also consult on our new regulatory powers over Electricity Act 1989 applications through the United Kingdom Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Those new powers will enable changes to be made to address many of the concerns raised by local communities and to provide earlier, more structured engagement opportunities and better alignment with local planning procedures.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Decisions such as those about the 500MW battery storage plant at Rothienorman should be taken by local planning authorities. Before the cabinet secretary jets off on her latest taxpayer-funded jaunt to sell Scotland’s countryside to the highest bidder—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Lumsden.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary explain to her constituents in Aberdeenshire East why local democracy is being ignored and energy projects are being decided by central belt, eco-zealot bureaucrats who are not answerable to local residents? [ Interruption .]

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Well—what to say to that? Decisions about energy consents are made by local authorities if they fall under the threshold and by the Scottish Government if they are over the threshold. Regulations are put in place to determine the processes that are followed, and those processes are regulated by the United Kingdom Government.

I was about to say that I am looking forward to reading Douglas Lumsden’s submission to the consultation but, after that diatribe, I do not know whether I am. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us not be shouting at one another.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of school swimming provision, including the number of children who leave primary school unable to swim. (S6O-05112)

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Scottish Government believes that every child should be given the opportunity to learn to swim. Swimming is a life skill that can save lives. There is currently no requirement to report a child’s swimming ability, either locally or nationally, but Scottish Swimming estimates that 25 to 30 per cent of children leave primary school unable to swim.

School swimming reduces poverty-related barriers for children and has a significant role to play in addressing inequalities. We are continuing to work with key stakeholders to ensure that all children have the opportunity to become confident, safer and competent swimmers.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Research from Scottish Swimming has found that only 16 per cent of community swimming lesson participants come from the most deprived 20 per cent of areas in Scotland, and the cost of lessons has more than doubled since 2018. Cost should not be a barrier to accessing a life-saving skill, yet thousands of children are missing out on crucial water safety skills.

Last year, there were 33 accidental drownings in Scotland. As well as each drowning being a tragic loss of life, each one is estimated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to cost £1.7 million. It is estimated that investing in school swimming would cost only £6 million.

When will the Scottish Government take the matter seriously and make the national primary school swimming framework a priority, to ensure that every child in Scotland gets access to that life-saving skill?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Mr Bibby picked out a couple of points. The Scottish Government continues to fund RoSPA’s provision of operational support to Water Safety Scotland so that it can lead a co-ordinated and preventative approach to water safety.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport have met Scottish Swimming to discuss the school swimming framework. It remains an ambition to double the sports budget before the end of this session of Parliament. Should that be delivered, the Scottish Government will support the implementation of the school swimming framework nationwide. We understand how important it is for children to have those opportunities, given what they mean for both safety and future life opportunities.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with North Lanarkshire Council regarding the reported coal spoil fire in Shawhead, Coatbridge, and any assurances that can be given to the public. (S6O-05113)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

My officials have been in touch with North Lanarkshire Council and have been updated on the progress that has been made towards safely resolving the underground smouldering at the site in Coatbridge. Work has been led by specialist environmental engineers, in close co-ordination with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

Air quality monitoring is carried out daily. The latest monitoring results show that air quality levels remain well within safe limits, and independent analysis confirms no exceedances of health-based thresholds.

Residents in the immediate area have received regular updates via letter, the council website and social media.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I thank North Lanarkshire Council and highlight its work in this fairly unusual and rare situation. It has been very proactive. I have an update meeting next week with the chief officer responsible and the local ward councillors.

Given that the situation is not common, the most pressing concern for people in the area is whether the emissions that they are experiencing are safe. Can the Scottish Government provide any further assurances that the treatment of such coal spoil fires does not impact on the health of residents? Does the cabinet secretary believe that there is scope for public education to prevent such fires from occurring in the future?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I said in my first answer, those involved are doing everything to suppress the smoke. Additional sand continues to be used effectively to suppress smoke and smouldering. Thermal imaging and temperature mapping confirm that the smouldering remains contained. Contractors and geotechnical specialists remain on site daily, with regular meetings taking place between the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service as part of the process.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time. Before we move to the next item of business, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery Kenneth G Forslund, First Deputy Speaker of the Swedish Parliament, and Julia Kronlid, Second Deputy Speaker of the Swedish Parliament. [Applause.]

Remembrance Sunday

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Before we move to First Minister’s question time, party leaders will make some remarks before remembrance Sunday.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This Sunday, we will once again pause to remember the brave men and women who selflessly laid down their lives to protect our country and to provide us with the freedoms and security that we enjoy today. In our shared moment of silence, in the poppies that we wear, in parades and in solemn ceremonies, we honour their courage and their sacrifice. We will always remember who they were and what they did for us: countless men and women who fought to protect and preserve our democratic way of life. Alongside our acts of remembrance over the coming week, let us commit ourselves once again to the same fundamental values that define who we are as a nation. We do that so that their great sacrifice may never be in vain.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

On remembrance Sunday, our nation will stand in collective silence to remember the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country and our freedom. The powerful symbol of our remembrance is the poppy that grew on the battlefields of the first world war. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the Lady Haig Poppy Factory in Edinburgh. The veterans who work there have seen service in every British military campaign since the early 1970s. It was an honour to talk with them about conflict, loss and remembrance. They want us to remember not just on one day but every day, and to remember not only those who served in the past but those who are serving now. Our remembrance is about history and about respecting those who keep us safe today.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

In the coming days, we will mark remembrance day, a time when we reflect on the heroic sacrifices by armed forces across world war one and world war two, and since those wars, in defence of our freedoms and democracy and to highlight the struggle against fascism in the second world war and against the forces that seek to divide us today. We should also remember those who continue to serve in our armed forces, and we should make a commitment to them that we will protect them and their families while they serve and after they retire from service. Remembrance day is also an opportunity for us to redouble our commitment to peace and freedom for all across the globe. Let us remember all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us redouble our commitment to all those who continue to serve. Let us remember them and say that their service will never be forgotten.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Sunday is a time to remember and to mourn every victim of war—we should always remember that civilians bear a particularly heavy price—but it is also a time for us to honour those who fought and died for us, particularly in the fight against fascism. It is a day to remember and to give thanks, but also to recommit to preventing a repeat of the darkest periods of our history. As has just been mentioned, the politics of hate and division are on the rise again today. We honour the sacrifice of those who were forced to defeat that by force of arms in our past, but we also need to work to ensure that no generation is ever forced to do so again.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

This moment must never be routine. As the years pass, it is natural that the sense of sheer enormity of the horror of the first and second world wars diminishes. However, the more years that pass, the more important it is that we all stand together to make the simple but powerful point that we will never forget their sacrifice, because it was horrific. Every family was affected right across the land. The more years that pass, the more we must stand together and never forget those sacrifices or our commitment never to repeat that again.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Rachel Reeves is going to raise taxes. Is John Swinney going to do the same?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There has been a huge amount of speculation about the United Kingdom Government’s budget. The Scottish Government will set out our position on tax in the budget on 13 January, and we will consider all the issues and the implications of the UK Government’s budget in November.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Labour is breaking promise after promise. Rachel Reeves called last year’s budget a “once in a Parliament” event. She claimed that she would not be coming back with more tax rises this year. She claimed that she would stick to her manifesto promise not to raise income tax and not to hit working people with higher bills, but that is exactly what Labour is set to do. If John Swinney will not rule out tax rises, does he think that Labour is right to increase income tax?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Decisions on tax issues have to be taken very carefully. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be accountable for the decisions that she makes, and the Scottish Government will take our decisions accordingly and respond.

I observe that the decision that was taken in last year’s budget, to which Mr Findlay has referred, to increase employer national insurance contributions has had a profoundly damaging effect on the economy in a variety of areas, because it has increased the cost of employment. It was an absurd policy decision to take by a Government that is apparently focused on a growth agenda, because the decision is stifling growth in our country today.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I agree entirely with the First Minister about employer national insurance contributions, but he does not seem to know whether he supports Labour’s tax rises. I remind him of what he said after last year’s UK budget. He said:

“the UK Government should have increased income tax.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2024; c 13.]

The tax rises will be a hammer blow to Scottish workers. We have two left-wing parties that only want to tax, tax, tax. Labour is doing the same as the Scottish National Party has done for the past decade. Most workers in Scotland pay more than those in the rest of the UK who do the same job and earn the same amount. The SNP has increased taxes, driven away aspirational workers, damaged business confidence and held back Scotland’s economy. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

People deserve a break, so will John Swinney give a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no further tax rises—whether it is income, business or property tax—in the Scottish budget?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay will not be surprised to hear me say that those questions will be answered in the budget when the Scottish Government sets out to the Parliament the commitments that we are going to make.

We have asked some people in Scotland to pay more in tax, but I note that the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission has confirmed that the majority of taxpayers in Scotland are set to pay less this year than they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the judgment of the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission.

Of course, the public finances that we provide as a consequence of our decisions pay for different provisions in Scotland. Our decisions mean that university students pay no tuition fees. They mean that there is free bus travel for under-22s. They mean that no prescription charges are levied in Scotland. They mean that the Scottish child payment is helping to keep children out of poverty, with the level of child poverty falling in Scotland. Yes, there are tax issues to be confronted, but there are also public expenditure decisions that are improving the lives of people in Scotland.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney is spinning like a washing machine. Last month, he accused me of misleading the Parliament in what I said, but, in doing so, he misled the Parliament. He is at it again today. I will say it once more: most Scottish workers pay more income tax than is paid by those in the rest of the UK.

John Swinney’s answers today will not reassure any Scottish home owner or business owner. He will not rule out increasing the tax on buying a home, he will not rule out raising taxes on businesses, and it seems that he is plotting yet another income tax raid on hard-working Scots. On top of all that, the SNP’s plans could result in massive rises in council tax—reportedly as high as £6,500 a year. Raising taxes every year is not sustainable. Workers and businesses cannot afford it. People deserve to keep more of their own hard-earned cash. Should John Swinney not be looking to bring bills down, not hiking them higher, year after year?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I simply point out to Russell Findlay that council tax in Scotland is lower on average than it is for properties in England. That is the position today: council tax is much lower. Furthermore, as I said in my earlier answer, the majority of taxpayers in Scotland are set to pay less than they would elsewhere in the United Kingdom this year, according to the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission.

My Government will do what we have always done, which is to bring forward orderly budget provisions relating to tax and spending commitments, so that we can fund our public services and our investments in the Scottish economy.

We have heard from Russell Findlay and the Conservatives for a consistent period that they are not prepared to engage in the tough judgments about delivering public services. They keep on asking for more money, but they will not take the decisions to enable money to be raised. That is pure and utter hypocrisy, and it is what we get from the Conservatives.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I start by welcoming the First Minister’s change of heart on holding an investigation into Scotland’s maternity services. Less than 24 hours ago, after hearing the heartbreaking testimony of mothers, he whipped his MSPs to vote against such an investigation. I am glad that he went home and thought again. Unfortunately, the situation in maternity services is just a snapshot of the crisis and chaos in our national health service. Scotland’s ambulance service is also in crisis.

This week, we heard about Queen’s Park Football Club defender Charlie Fox, who suffered a serious knee injury during a match at Firhill stadium that had a 3 pm kick-off. An ambulance was called, but it did not arrive until 1 am, nearly 10 hours later—10 hours lying in pain.

That happened just weeks after footballer Brooke Paterson was left abandoned on the pitch, waiting for an ambulance. What does John Swinney say to Charlie, Brooke and all other Scots waiting in pain?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very open with Parliament about occasions when public services do not meet the reasonable and legitimate expectations of members of the public. I looked into the Brooke Paterson case, and the examination of the information that was available to me showed that an error had been made in the classification of that call. That is regrettable, and I have apologised in writing to her.

In relation to the case of Charlie Fox, the length of time that he was left to wait appears to me to be completely unacceptable. The Scottish Ambulance Service is investigating the circumstances behind the incident, and I apologise for the length of the wait that he experienced.

Our public services continue to operate under enormous pressure, but they also deliver a fantastic service to members of the public in most cases, although not in all cases. In those cases in which they do not deliver, people can expect the First Minister to address those issues and to apologise accordingly.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Week after week, John Swinney apologises for the Government’s performance and things continue to get worse. A month ago, he apologised for long ambulance waits, but apologies simply will not cut it any more. When Scots call 999, they expect help to come.

That is what David McClenaghan expected when he had a heart attack. He called for help and gave his address, but when the ambulance arrived, the crew never even got out. David was later found dead on the floor. That was seven years ago, and a fatal accident inquiry is now under way. Since then, response times have got worse. Ten years ago, 83 per cent of life-threatening cases saw an ambulance arrive in 10 minutes; when David McClenaghan died seven years ago, that figure had fallen to just 73 per cent; and now, it is 61 per cent. That is shocking.

Why is the situation continuing to get worse and worse on John Swinney’s watch? Do not simply stand up and say that you are sorry.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise that there will be occasions on which public services do not meet the expectations of members of the public. I think that the right thing to do—I will do this no matter what Mr Sarwar puts to me or how he characterises my responses—is to be honest and open with the public and to apologise when those standards are not met.

I can say that Scottish Ambulance Service staffing has gone up by 31 per cent in the past 10 years and that we now have more paramedics—the number of paramedics has gone up by 57.6 per cent in the past 10 years. I can also say that, according to the most recent data that is available to me, the median response time for purple calls was 7 minutes 51 seconds. That information is relevant and important because it relates to the optimum time for the delivery of a response by the Scottish Ambulance Service.

Our staff are working with more resources, under incredible demands, to meet the expectations of members of the public, and, in the overwhelming majority of cases in the country, that is exactly what they do.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That is the First Minister’s response to hearing that, 10 years ago, an ambulance arrived in 10 minutes in 83 per cent of life-threatening cases; seven years ago, that happened 73 per cent of the time; and, now, the figure is only 61 per cent. That is putting lives at risk right across the country.

John Swinney and the Scottish National Party are failing our national health service and failing the people of Scotland every single day. On his watch, we have an ambulance crisis that is putting lives in danger, a patient who has been waiting for more than four years for cardiology and neurosurgery consultations, another patient who has been waiting for six years for general surgery and a child who has been waiting for five and a half years for surgery. Shockingly, one Scot has been waiting for eight years to be seen—eight years. In that period, we have had five SNP health secretaries and three SNP First Ministers—we have even had a new King and a new Pope—but that person has still had no treatment. So, enough of the apologies, because they simply will not cut it any more.

Does that not prove that Scotland’s NHS cannot risk a third decade of this tired and incompetent SNP Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I have said, where there are failings in our public services, I will honestly and candidly accept them and be held to account for them, but, equally, I will set out to Parliament the progress that has been made under my leadership in improving the performance of the national health service.

Mr Sarwar has cited issues to do with long waits. I have looked closely at long waits, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In a range of individual cases, there can be significant complexities and health implications that make it impossible for particular procedures to be undertaken because of the vulnerability of the patients involved.

In general, however, there are too many people who have been waiting for too long. That is why we are now seeing reductions in the size of waiting lists and in long waits, with the figures in all the long-wait categories of 12 months, 24 months and 36 months coming down. We are also seeing an increase in the number of procedures that are being undertaken within the national health service. That means that more people are being treated and more procedures are being delivered. Of course, last year—I have told Parliament about this before, but I will say it again so that Mr Sarwar does not forget about it—a record number of hip and knee operations were carried out. That demonstrates the progress that the NHS is making under my leadership.

I am determined to deliver for the people of Scotland. That is what our initiatives and the investment that we are making are delivering, and we intend to ensure that that is applicable for people in every part of our country.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The fossil fuel giant Equinor has submitted a new application to drill for more oil in the North Sea, but—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us be courteous.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

This time, it has had to admit that the Rosebank oilfield will be 50 times more polluting than it first claimed. There will be 250 million tonnes of carbon emissions, which will accelerate climate breakdown and destroy our hopes of keeping our planet safe.

The First Minister’s predecessors were crystal clear in their opposition to Rosebank. Nicola Sturgeon agreed that it would be

“the greatest act of environmental vandalism in”

her

“lifetime.”

Humza Yousaf said that approving the field was the “wrong decision”. However, so far, John Swinney has avoided taking a position. He has quietly ditched the Scottish Government’s energy strategy, the first draft of which opposed new oil and gas exploration.

The science is clear: if we are to have any hope of changing course and preventing total climate breakdown, there can be no new oil and gas fields. Does the First Minister agree with Nicola Sturgeon that it would be the greatest act of environmental vandalism in our lifetime? Will he oppose the Rosebank oilfield?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The approach that the Scottish Government has taken consistently through my time as First Minister, and the terms of Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon, is to insist on the importance of a climate compatibility assessment for any development that is proposed. That is the position that has been adopted in legal judgments that require the United Kingdom Government to go through the process that it is currently going through in relation to the applications that are being made. That is the point of consistency.

Any development of oil and gas licensing has to be compatible with our journey to net zero. The importance of that—which is widely accepted, and I think that even members of the Green Party accept it—is that, for some time, there will be a requirement to utilise fossil fuels as we transition from our current situation to net zero. The question that must be addressed, given society’s requirements in that respect, is: can any of that activity be compatible with our journey to net zero? That is the policy position of the Scottish Government.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I asked the First Minister a yes or no question, but I did not get an answer. Both his predecessors were capable of giving a clear answer to that question. He says that it is a question of climate compatibility, but Equinor has just admitted that Rosebank would create 250 million tonnes of new carbon emissions. That is clearly incompatible with any chance of meeting our climate ambitions.

However the First Minister spins it, approving Rosebank would be a disaster for people and planet. It will do nothing to reduce energy bills. All that it will do is funnel more money into the pockets of Equinor’s super-rich shareholders. Every single penny that those mega-polluters and Governments sink into new oil and gas projects takes us even further away from the investment in renewables that we really need.

The two most recent former First Ministers were brave enough to say that but, today, the Scottish National Party’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn, demanded that the UK Government—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Briefly, Mr Greer. You must put a question.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

He demanded that the UK Government give those planet-wrecking corporations a tax cut. The First Minister needs to pick a side.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Ask your question, Mr Greer.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I asked him again: will he oppose the Rosebank oilfield?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I think that, generally, people will see me as being on Scotland’s side in everything that I do. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am finding it difficult to hear the First Minister from here and I know that those who have gathered with us in the gallery would like to hear whoever is called to speak.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have to be mindful of the fact that we are delivering a just transition—not any old transition, but a just transition.

A just transition enables me to look the staff of oil and gas companies in the eye and say that we are doing everything possible to manage the transition to avoid the industrial devastation that Scotland experienced under the mercenary actions of the Conservative Government in the 1980s, which I will not repeat.

The Scottish Government recognises that, as I explained in my first answer to Mr Greer, there will be a need for the utilisation of some oil and gas resources for the foreseeable future. That has to be undertaken in a way that is compatible with our journey to net zero. That is the approach that the Scottish Government will take.

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

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the implementation of the proposed scheme for the renovation of military homes in Scotland. (S6F-04415)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

When I provided evidence on behalf of the Scottish Government to the UK Government’s strategic defence review, I raised the fact that the quality and maintenance of service accommodation are a major concern for service families based in Scotland, and said that the UK Government should ensure that our service personnel and their families live in accommodation that is fit for purpose.

Plans for investment were initially announced in the strategic defence review earlier this year but, to date, there has been no discussion of the renovation of Ministry of Defence-owned housing in Scotland.

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

I am delighted that the UK Government is, at last, set on remedying the state of some military housing. I represent Glencorse barracks, which is in my constituency, and am well aware of how tough it is already for the families of servicemen and women who do not have a settled home and are nomadic on account of their partner’s postings. The very least that they deserve is decent accommodation, so I give a big tick to that.

However, the recently published 124-page UK “Defence Housing Strategy 2025”, makes only four references to the devolved nations and the use of surplus MOD land for civilian housing takes us straight into the issue of devolved competencies. Paragraph 3.13 of the strategy says:

“It is important that the Defence Housing Service works in a collaborative way across the UK Government”

and

“devolved governments”

but it appears that there has not been any collaboration. Will there be any, or is that another trampling over devolved powers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

All I can say to Christine Grahame is that the Scottish Government would be very willing to take forward discussions with the UK Government but that there have been no discussions with the Ministry of Defence on its proposals on funding for the renovation of military housing. The Scottish Government stands ready to do that because of the important issues of community connection that Christine Grahame raises; I assure her that the Government is willing to take part in discussions.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will announce a timetable for improvement works on the A96 north of Inverurie, following the publication of its corridor review consultation report. (S6F-04416)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government’s position is that it is committed to fully dualling the A96. The feedback received following the publication of the draft corridor review outcomes, a summary of which was published in June, will help to inform the final decision on how best to take forward improvements, while recognising the current economic challenges. Future decisions will be shaped by the available and planned budgets, which will be influenced by the United Kingdom Government’s autumn budget and by the forthcoming Scottish Government infrastructure investment plan, which will be published in the new year.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The north-east has been named Scotland’s road death capital after 24 people were killed and a further 384 were injured across the region last year.

Since the Scottish National Party first promised to dual the A96 under Alex Salmond’s Government in 2011, there have been no fewer than 16 transport secretaries and ministers, all of whom have kicked the can down the road. Will the First Minister give us an answer today, stop playing games with the lives of motorists in the north-east, and finally honour his party’s 2011 promise to fully dual the A96?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A range of different measures have been taken by ministers to address the issue of safety on the A96. I recognise that significant challenges remain, but ministers are fully engaged in that particular question. In relation to the capital investment programme, the Government will set out to Parliament in January the infrastructure investment plans and the issues that we can take forward within the current fiscal context. That information will be shared with Parliament and subject to the usual scrutiny.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Auditor General’s report, “The 2024/25 audit of the Scottish Government Consolidated Accounts”, which indicates a £1 billion underspend by the Scottish Government. (S6F-04424)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I welcome Audit Scotland’s unqualified opinion and the points raised by the Auditor General, which recognise that the underspend does not represent a loss of spending power to Scotland.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

This knackered Scottish National Party Government’s handling of public money is a disaster for Scotland and the Auditor General could not be clearer on that point.

Labour has delivered an additional £5.2 billion for Scotland’s services. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Marra.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Mr Swinney ludicrously labelled that a continuation of austerity, but we now know that he underspent that budget by £1 billion while one in six Scots suffer in pain on national health service waiting lists. First Minister, where on earth has the rest of the money gone?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If that was an explanation of the intellectual capability of the aspiring Labour finance secretary, Scotland has a lot of trouble coming its way if Mr Marra gets anywhere near the public finances.

Mr Marra is a member of this Parliament—indeed, he is a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee—and he should have some idea of what he is talking about, but he has just demonstrated to Parliament that he does not have a clue about the public finances.

Not a single penny of the underspend announced in the annual accounts of the Scottish Government—on which I repeat that the Audit Scotland opinion was unqualified, as has been the case for every single year of this Government’s term in office since 2007-08—represents a loss of spending power. Every year there has been an unqualified opinion. Mr Marra does not understand that the resources that are contained in the underspend are all used in this current financial year—they are allocated, supporting the reductions in waiting lists that I am presiding over and providing—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

They are providing for the expansion of social security, including the Scottish child payment. For absolute completeness, I also say to Mr Marra that £247 million of the underspend cannot be used for public services in Scotland because it is part of the United Kingdom’s control of the budget.

I suggest that Mr Marra goes away and gets a book about elementary accounting before he asks me any more questions.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent news that Eastern Airways, which runs lifeline regional services in the Highlands and Islands, has entered administration. (S6F-04425)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The decision by Eastern Airways to file a notice of intention to appoint administrators is a matter of significant concern, and it will have a significant impact on communities and businesses. I understand that this will be a worrying time for the airline’s staff, including those who are based at Sumburgh airport in Shetland. Should individuals be facing redundancy, the Scottish Government will provide support through our initiative for responding to redundancy situations, which is partnership action for continuing employment. Individuals can access support online or by calling the helpline. Advice for affected customers is available on the Highland Council website.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The news about Eastern Airways will be devastating to the more than 330 workers who are facing redundancy, including nine people in my constituency. The Wick to Aberdeen public service obligation contract is a lifeline route for people in the far north, and passengers need assurances now about its future. The First Minister will be aware that Sumburgh airport, given its proximity to the offshore energy sector, is a vital part of the North Sea connectivity network. What discussions has the Government had about an alternative airline for the PSO route and transport for oil workers? Will he commit to a statement from the Scottish Government outlining its approach to the impact of the collapse of Eastern Airways?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the significant practical issues that Beatrice Wishart raises. The Aberdeen to Wick PSO is a Highland Council PSO. We are engaged with Highland Council in trying to find alternative solutions to the situation, and we are in regular contact with the council. Measures have been put in place for alternative transport arrangements, but I accept that the Aberdeen to Wick link is very important to the local community. We are working with Highland Council to establish what alternatives can be brought forward. I will, of course, be very happy for members to be kept updated on the issue by the relevant minister.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

One of the issues with the link was the unreliability of the aircraft. People were maybe not using the link as much as they would have done had it been more reliable. Has the Scottish Government given any consideration to doing the same thing that it did in Barra when the aircraft there was unreliable, by purchasing an aircraft and leasing it to an operator, so that the service is reliable and can be used?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very happy to explore particular issues. As I said in my answer to Beatrice Wishart, the Aberdeen to Wick PSO is a Highland Council PSO. The Barra PSO is a Scottish Government PSO, I think.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

No.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is not—I am being corrected. I will take the issue away and we will explore the possibilities. I acknowledge that the connections are important and that the distances that are involved for other transport mechanisms are very significant for members of the public. We will explore the idea that Rhoda Grant has put to me.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The UK Government recently announced £547 million for Wales as part of its local growth fund, which is to be delivered directly by the Welsh Government. If this is a union of equals, surely Scotland must receive its consequential share. Will the First Minister confirm whether the Scottish Government has received any information as to whether that funding will be replicated in Scotland, or is Scotland being short-changed yet again?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This issue relates to the successor funds to European funding, which has been of great significance to Scotland for many years. That funding has helped us with a range of priorities, particularly in relation to employability and the delivery of local infrastructure. In essence, the UK Government has provided a sum of £547 million to the Welsh Government but it proposes to bypass the Scottish Government in not deploying those resources in Scotland. The finance secretary has raised the issue with the UK Government, but the responses have been unsatisfactory, as have the details from the UK Government about the direct connection that it has established with local authorities. Frankly, the information is woefully presented to local authorities.

However, the key point that Mr Gibson raised is that the Labour Government in the UK is bypassing democratic procedures in Scotland. It is another example of how the Labour Government in the UK is determined to undermine the Scottish Parliament, and people in Scotland need to wake up to the threat from the UK Labour Government.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Is the First Minister aware of the swingeing budget cuts that are being proposed by SNP-run Dumfries and Galloway Council? Those include the closure of the Hillview leisure centre in Kelloholm, the removal of free music classes for children, and cuts that would result in the closure of the entire citizens advice bureaux network. Will the First Minister look the people of Dumfries and Galloway in the eye and answer the question of why those cuts are being proposed? Is it because the SNP Government in Edinburgh is not properly funding Dumfries and Galloway Council, or is it because the SNP-run administration is not properly managing its finances?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The local government settlement provides record funding of more than £15.1 billion, which is an increase of more than £1 billion, or 5.5 per cent in real terms, compared with the figure for 2024-25. Local authorities have to look at all the choices they have and at the issues that affect the delivery of public services, and that is exactly what Dumfries and Galloway Council will do. The administration in Dumfries and Galloway is led by my party, and I am very proud of the work of my party leadership in Dumfries and Galloway. It has taken over from the Conservatives, and everyone who takes over from the Conservatives has to clean up the mess that the Conservatives leave behind them.

Let me just say to Mr Hoy that it is a bit rich for him to come to this Parliament asking for more money for local government when he is not even prepared to vote for the money that we have put in place. That is yet more hypocrisy from the Conservatives.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of the chief constable’s comments to the Criminal Justice Committee this week that reports of online child abuse have more than doubled in the past year. The chief executive of Children First, Mary Glasgow, has said that Scotland is sleepwalking into the digital destruction of childhood.

How will the young people of Scotland see the First Minister and his Government commit to meeting this crisis? How will the Scottish Government draw on children’s services, education, child protection, justice, the third sector and technology companies to solve the crisis?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge the seriousness of the point raised with me by Martin Whitfield and the comments made by the chief constable. Police Scotland has adapted and changed its presence and the composition of its staff to ensure that it has more capability to interrupt the networks that Mr Whitfield raises with us. I pay tribute to Police Scotland in that respect.

The child sexual abuse and exploitation national strategic group, which comprises operational partners including Police Scotland, is taking forward a series of priorities and actions to prevent and disrupt child sexual abuse and provide support to victims and their families. I assure Mr Whitfield of my Government’s determination to work with all relevant partners—including Mary Glasgow, whom I met yesterday and who is a fantastic individual and advocate on behalf of children—to do everything in our powers to address the situation.

However—I do not make this point in any way pejoratively; I make it deadly seriously—the regulation of social media companies is the preserve of the United Kingdom Government and Ofcom. I will be the most trenchant supporter of the toughest measures that the UK Government puts in place to regulate those individuals and organisations. The UK Government is taking steps in the Online Safety Act 2023, but we will be prepared to work with the UK Government to maximise the effectiveness of those measures. I assure Mr Whitfield that we will take all the actions that we can, but we also need to take the toughest stance on social media companies, because there is lawlessness out there online. That lawlessness is damaging our children and must be arrested.

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

A recent report from Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce found that one in four businesses in the north-east has cut jobs as a result of the United Kingdom Labour Government’s fiscal regime. Does the First Minister agree that the UK Labour Government must urgently change course to protect the supply chain and local jobs? What steps can the Scottish Government take to protect industry and livelihoods in the north-east?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I recounted in my answers to Mr Greer, a significant economic challenge is coming to individuals who are employed in the North Sea oil and gas sector, which is why the issues that Audrey Nicoll raises are so serious. There is an opportunity for us to build the renewable industries and clean energies of the future, and the Scottish Government is taking that forward. However, we have to ensure that that activity is aligned with activities in relation to the oil and gas sector.

The energy profits levy, which has been a key part of UK Government interventions, was always supposed to be a temporary measure. Anyone looking at the performance of the levy could demonstrate that there are significant issues with its performance in relation to the UK’s public finances that are also having an effect on employment in the oil and gas sector. There has to be a careful reassessment of the energy profits levy, and I encourage the UK Government to do that.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Last week, a receptionist in a local general practitioner surgery in Galloway in my constituency had to call 999 for an ambulance for a patient. It took more than 55 minutes for that call to be answered and, when it was answered, the receptionist was told that there would be a four-hour wait for an ambulance. That does not even take into consideration the one-hour drive to the nearest accident and emergency department. First Minister, can you imagine being with a loved one who has suffered a heart attack, a stroke or an asthma attack and having to wait almost an hour just to have your 999 call answered? What reassurance can you give my constituents that they can expect a fit-for-purpose emergency response, both in getting through to 999 and in receiving timely ambulance care? There is no way that 55 minutes is an emergency response. What urgent action will the First Minister take to stop such unacceptable delays?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Through the chair, please.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If Mr Carson wants to furnish me with the details of the specific case, I will examine it, because waiting that length of time for a call to be answered sounds completely unacceptable to me. I will look at the case, if Mr Carson gives me the details.

The median response time for purple calls is 7 minutes and 51 seconds. The Scottish Ambulance Service will work extremely hard to ensure that it meets the public’s expectations.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Last week, one of my constituents waited for more than six hours, after presenting at A and E with significant blood loss and severe pain. Not only was he left for hours, but he was kept on a plastic chair with no blanket or pain relief. Having lost blood, he was extremely cold and could have become hypothermic.

Another constituent attended A and E following gallbladder removal. She had been vomiting, was in agony and had not been to the toilet for ages. She was left sitting in a corridor without pain relief or medical attention for an entire day.

Those constituents do not need apologies—they need action. What specific action will the First Minister take to ensure that my constituents get seen quickly, are warm, comfortable and given appropriate pain relief, and are not abandoned in a corridor to fend for themselves while they wait?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The action that I take is the action that I take every single week, which is that I meet the leadership of the national health service to press for the strongest possible performance in our national health service. As I explained to Mr Sarwar a moment ago, the fruits of that activity are that we now see falling waiting lists, a reduction in long waits and more people being treated in our national health service. That will be the focus of my attention.

On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I met the chief executives of all the national health service boards around the country to reiterate the importance of timely attention to scheduled and unscheduled care. It is unscheduled care that Pam Duncan-Glancy raises with me. That, along with maternity issues, was the subject of discussion with the health service leadership, and that will continue to be my focus.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The First Minister will be aware that energy bills across Scotland have risen yet again. That increase has been partly caused by the United Kingdom Labour Government’s costly nuclear tax that we are now paying for Sizewell C—the world’s most expensive nuclear plant. It is estimated that it will cost Scottish households something in the region of £300 million over the next decade alone. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact that that will have on Scottish households, and does the First Minister agree that further expansion of nuclear power will bring not only environmental risks but the risk of pushing up energy prices even further?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That issue lies at the heart of the choices that are to be made about our energy future. That is why I believe that expanding our renewables, storage, hydrogen and carbon capture activities will help us to build an affordable, resilient and clean energy system. That is why I do not support the development of nuclear power resources in Scotland: I think that they are expensive and we have alternative sources that are much cheaper.

The practical effect of all that is that a Labour Government that pledged to cut bills by £300 has presided over an increase of bills of £190 since the general election. Let us hear that again: the Labour Government promised to reduce bills by £300 but they have gone up by £190. No wonder the people of this country do not trust the Labour Party in Scotland.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I will take two further brief questions.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Earlier this week, I wrote to the First Minister urging the Scottish Government to support the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the so-called Hillsborough law—and to lodge a legislative consent motion so that its provisions can be fully applied to Scotland. The bill, which has now passed its second reading in the House of Commons, establishes a statutory duty of candour for everyone in public office and guarantees parity of legal representation and non-means-tested legal aid for families that are impacted by state failures. Will the First Minister ensure that families in Scotland are not left at a disadvantage in seeking truth and justice?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is in dialogue with the United Kingdom Government about the bill. In principle, we support it. We obviously have to go through the process of consideration around legislative consent, which the Scottish Government will do in a timeous fashion, and Parliament will of course be engaged in that consideration. It is important that the principles and values that are enshrined in the bill are taken forward.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Cameron barracks in Inverness is close to the city centre, near two schools and lies in a residential area. Many constituents harbour serious concerns about the Home Office’s plans to house up to 300 unchecked males of whatever colour—their concerns are not born of racism. Will the First Minister do something that he has not done so far and publicly and expressly call on the United Kingdom Government to rethink those proposals, to abandon Cameron barracks as a location and to work positively with the Scottish Government to come up with a fair, reasonable and suitable location, which many people of compassion in Inverness feel is the right approach?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I assure Mr Ewing that we are engaging constructively with the United Kingdom Government on the housing of asylum seekers, and particularly on the Cameron barracks proposal. The social justice secretary answered a question in some detail on the issue in the Parliament, setting out the importance of dialogue in ensuring that the legitimate issues and practical concerns that I understand the Highland Council will debate today are properly and fully addressed.

The social justice secretary also had a conversation with the UK Government on Tuesday morning, in which she set out the range of practical questions that must be explored to address the issues that Mr Ewing is, understandably, raising on behalf of his constituents. However, I have to say—and I say this for transparency in the Parliament—that there has been no substantive, detailed response to the legitimate points that have been made. The starting point for any consideration of the matter must be substantive engagement on the issues of substance so that members of the public in the Inverness area, the Highland Council and the Scottish Government can come to a conclusion on a matter that must be addressed.

Asylum seekers are housed in the city of Perth, right in the heart of my own constituency, and they are supported with appropriate arrangements. I therefore recognise that the task must be undertaken, but there has to be good and substantive engagement with communities and public authorities. Regrettably, in relation to Cameron barracks, such engagement has been completely absent from the United Kingdom Government’s approach.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s questions.

The next item of business will be a members’ business debate, in the name of Audrey Nicoll. There will now be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public galleries to do so.

Protecting Scotland’s Rivers

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19194, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, on protecting Scotland’s rivers. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament believes that Scotland has abundant rivers and streams, which support a diverse ecosystem and are the lifeblood of the landscape and central to the nation’s brand, economy and sense of place; considers that they are now one of the country’s most nature-depleted and endangered habitats; believes that this has arisen from a range of factors, including major flood events, water scarcity and increasing temperatures; expresses its concern regarding what it sees as the devastating decline in the population of freshwater pearl mussels in Scotland’s rivers, including the River Dee, which flows through the Aberdeen South and North Kincardine constituency; notes the commitment of organisations, including the James Hutton Institute, Dee Catchment Partnership, Dee District Salmon Fishery Board and Cairngorm National Park Authority, to make the freshwaters and freshwater pearl mussel population more resilient to extreme climate events; believes that there is an opportunity provided by the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to establish a legal framework for biodiversity targets, including in the freshwater ecosystem to ensure healthy invertebrate diversity as an integral part of a fully functioning ecosystem; welcomes the Programme for Government commitment to extend the Nature Restoration Fund to enable funding of multi-year projects to help deliver the priorities set out in the Biodiversity Strategy, and commends everyone working to restore and protect Scotland’s rivers.

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

I thank colleagues from across the chamber for supporting my motion on protecting Scotland’s rivers. My thanks go, too, to Susan Cooksley from the James Hutton Institute, and Craig Macadam and Rebecca Lewis from Buglife for their support in developing the motion. I also commend the many organisations, some of which are referred to in the motion, and individuals who are working hard to protect our wonderful rivers.

As the motion says, our rivers provide Scotland with stunning landscapes and a huge ecosystem of animals, plants and micro-organisms. They flow from our mountains through our glens, they cross our lowlands and they eventually reach the sea. They are the lifeblood of the landscape and are central to Scotland’s brand, economy and sense of place. However, our rivers are under threat, causing them to become more nature depleted than ever before. Flooding is among the largest threats to Scotland’s rivers, eroding the soil from riverbanks and leading to the destruction of habitats.

As the nature champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, I draw members’ attention to the findings of a 2023 NatureScot report centred on freshwater pearl mussels in the River Dee, which runs through my constituency of Aberdeen South and North Kincardine. The report found that the mussel population had decreased by 90 per cent since 2002. For context, more than 1 million freshwater pearl mussels have been lost, which is a truly shocking amount. The report links that decline to the devastating effects of storm Frank in 2015, which caused significant damage to the river bed, rendering it largely unsuitable for mussels. The River Dee is the only river in Scotland to have suffered such a loss. However, our other rivers are similarly vulnerable.

Although significant flooding is a natural and important feature of a river’s hydrology, flood events used to be infrequent, occurring once in a generation. However, there has been a marked increase in the frequency and severity of floods. The same climate pressures that have led to increased flooding also contribute to water scarcity. During periods of drought, our rivers face severe stress. Reduced water levels, rising temperatures and lower oxygen concentrations combine to create harsh conditions for aquatic life. Additionally, pollutants become more concentrated, further degrading water quality. Although all river species are affected, those that are unable to move, such as mussels, are especially vulnerable.

Water scarcity poses a significant risk to Scotland’s rivers, and the risk will grow as climate change accelerates. Just this year, we experienced our driest spring in 60 years, leaving the entirety of Scotland in varying degrees of drought. Rivers used to be able to rely on snowmelt from the mountains to ensure healthy and cooler water levels. However, due to rising temperatures, that is no longer the case. In summer 2018, it is estimated that 70 per cent of Scotland’s rivers experienced temperatures exceeding 23°C. That figure is notable, as it is the temperature at which Atlantic salmon exhibit thermal stress. It is of concern that the Met Office is projecting that similar conditions could impact our rivers every other year by 2050.

Many of our native species require colder river temperatures in which to live. As such, riparian woodland expansion not only benefits biodiversity and the overall habitat but provides much-needed shade to cool our river waters. I commend the River Dee Trust on its work to expand riparian woodland along the river. That work is absolutely vital to the long-term survival of Dee salmon. Salmon, of course, host pearl mussel larvae until they drop off, sink to the river bed and grow into mussels. Many such projects are already supported through, for example, the Scottish Government’s nature restoration fund; the Riverwoods initiative, which co-ordinates nationwide efforts to restore and protect Scotland’s riverbank woodlands; and the peatland action project, which supports the improvement of degraded peatlands across Scotland. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill offers an opportunity to establish a legal framework for biodiversity targets, including in the freshwater ecosystem. However, an even greater scale of action is urgently needed.

My call to action is to build on the work that is already under way and to develop a national approach to make our rivers and freshwater populations even more resilient to extreme climate events. Further still, considerations could be given to land management policies that drive evidence-based, prioritised catchment-scale management, development of riparian woodland and the diversification of upland land use to protect our natural water stores.

I believe that that aligns with the recently published Scottish Environment LINK report, entitled “Restoring Scotland’s Waters”, which highlights 10 key areas for improving Scotland’s freshwater ecosystems, including adopting a source-to-sea approach, restoring natural processes to rivers and lochs and tackling invasive non-native species. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s response to that proposition.

The future of our rivers depends on the actions that we take today. The devastating decline of freshwater pearl mussels in the River Dee serves as a stark indicator that change is urgently needed. Our rivers are crucial to sustaining Scotland’s unique wildlife and biodiversity. More than that, they are central to Scotland’s brand, economy and sense of place.

I again thank members for their support in lodging the motion for debate. I very much look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests regarding the River Dee.

I previously had the privilege of serving as the Scottish Environment LINK species champion for the freshwater pearl mussel, and I am delighted that Audrey Nicoll has taken on that role and has brought today’s debate to the chamber. I support the motion, which addresses the urgent need to protect our rivers and the species that depend on them.

The River Dee is recognised as a special area of conservation for its efforts to protect Atlantic salmon, freshwater pearl mussels and otters. Despite its protected status, the River Dee remains in crisis. Wild Atlantic salmon numbers have dropped to critical levels—NatureScot reports a 70 per cent decline in population over the past 25 years. Atlantic salmon are now officially classified as an endangered species in Scotland, yet they play a central role in our ecosystem and economy. Wild fisheries contribute more than £100 million annually to the national economy—supporting jobs, tourism and local businesses. The Dee alone accounts for £15 million of that, and it plays a vital role in the north-east economy and the constituency of Aberdeenshire West.

In 2022, the Scottish Government published its wild salmon strategy, but, since then, we have seen no meaningful action. External damage is caused by sewage spills, but monitoring of Scottish Water’s activities on the Dee is almost completely absent.

Further damage is caused by the salmon farming industry. The recent storm Amy saw 75,000 farmed salmon escape, to the detriment of wild salmon. The dangers of salmon farming are clear, and I am glad to see this morning that, even if the Scottish Government will not act, the King has continued his purge of titles by removing his royal warrant from Mowi, Scotland’s largest salmon farm. The move is described as “a wake-up call” by campaigners and is one that I hope spurs the Government into action. However, we need a positive strategy that focuses on restoring wild stocks through hatchery support and habitat restoration.

One of the most urgent threats that Scotland’s rivers face today is seal predation. Seals are now frequently observed far upstream in the Dee, even as far up as Banchory, where they are causing significant damage to already vulnerable salmon stocks. I have received a substantial volume of correspondence from constituents, who raise serious concerns about the increased seal activity.

To understand the issue, we must first understand the numbers. Seals eat between 4,000 and 5,000 salmon on the Dee each year, and a salmon will lay more than 6,000 eggs; therefore, the river is losing about 24 million eggs each year. The Dee’s catch this year was 1,500 salmon, and its population is only 11,000 salmon. Despite 45 per cent of the Dee’s salmon stock being removed by seals, the Scottish Government has stated that seal control is unnecessary. That directly contradicts the commitments that were made in April 2024, when NatureScot, the marine directorate and Fisheries Management Scotland acknowledged the problem and pledged to find solutions by October. That deadline has passed, yet seal predation continues unchecked.

The Government’s third review of the seal licensing system, which was published in September, recognises that even a small number of seals can have a damaging impact on wild salmon populations. The same review recommends clearer guidance and more flexible licensing options for conservation purposes, specifically to address seal-salmon interaction in rivers. However, feedback to an application this year showed that NatureScot views seal control as unnecessary. Will the cabinet secretary correct that and commit to real action? Will the cabinet secretary listen to Deeside and ensure that seal licensing is not just considered but progressed, before the conservation of Scotland’s endangered salmon is added to the ever-growing list of Scottish National Party failures?

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I thank Audrey Nicoll for her motion and for securing the debate this afternoon. As the Scottish Environment LINK nature champion for ponds and small lochs—I am the natterjack toad champion, as well—I have a particular interest in today’s debate. Dumfries and Galloway is home to some of our country’s most spectacular and important rivers and waterways, from the Ken and the Dee, whose power is harnessed through forward-thinking hydro schemes that were built nearly a century ago, to the Liddel and the Sark, which have formed the border with our neighbours to the south for centuries.

As Audrey Nicoll’s motion makes clear, the biodiversity of our waterways is crucial to ensure not only that the areas they are in have a blossoming ecosystem but that we, as humans, are able to enjoy what they have to offer. That was not always the case. As a society, we have a lot to be proud of when it comes to the improvement of the cleanliness and sustainability of our rivers in the past years. Not so long ago, rivers such as the Clyde and the Carron could well have carried a Government health warning next to their lifebuoys. We had built industries—not just in the central belt but in our more rural communities—that used our waterways as dumping grounds and made biodiversity a bit of science fiction.

In my region, the work of organisations such as the Galloway Fisheries Trust has been hugely important and a local cornerstone of the wider work that is going on nationally. The existence of the trust is a demonstration of how our use of river resources and the conservation of our rivers go hand in hand. Without the coming together of local district salmon boards in Dumfries and Galloway, the trust would not exist.

The value of freshwater fishing to fragile, rural local economies is huge. We have a world-quality offering of that, and anglers from around the world come to experience it. If our waterways and rivers become biodiversity deserts, we lose not only the natural resource but the economic benefits that it brings.

Groups such as the Galloway Fisheries Trust are not just helping to clean up water. They are working to eradicate invasive non-native species such as Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed, both of which can have huge and devastating impacts on the wildlife along the riverbanks as well as destroy riverbanks through degradation and erosion, forever changing the local environment. Anyone who has tried to buy or sell a house where Japanese knotweed has been found will tell you the huge challenges that it brings. Therefore, although the primary aim of such work might be to protect our natural environment along waterways, it can also bring big economic and social benefits that might not be immediately connected to biodiversity.

The on-going scrutiny and passage of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill will, I am sure, result in an act that will put nature restoration and biodiversity in our waterways at the heart of Government policy. As climate change figures increasingly in our public policy and decision making, we have to protect the balance in nature, which, as Audrey Nicoll’s motion says, is,

“the lifeblood of the landscape and central to the nation’s brand”.

This debate reminds me of the work that Galloway Fisheries Trust is engaged in—lots of research and lots of projects. I have lodged a motion to recognise one of its recent initiatives, called flowing forward—restoring Galloway’s rivers. When I recently met the trust’s chief executive, Jamie Ribbens, and its chair, Mark Davies, they told me all about some of the work that was going ahead. Jamie described a local project in the River Bladnoch. A farmer there had said that the land was not productive. However, once Galloway Fisheries Trust started its work to remeander the river, do riparian repair and increase the area’s biodiversity, the farmer changed his mind about what “productivity” means—in his mind, it had been only about farming rather than biodiversity and nature restoration.

Galloway Fisheries Trust has also engaged in a temperature-checking project for local rivers, which Audrey Nicoll described. Temperatures have reached more than 30°C in some of our waterways. There is lots to talk about, and I am celebrating Galloway Fisheries Trust today.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I congratulate Audrey Nicoll, the member for Aberdeen South and North Kincardine, on her excellent members’ business motion and particularly for highlighting the concerns in relation to the River Dee. Those concerns give light to wider issues to do with the river basin management planning process in Scotland and how we are dealing with improvements to water quality and riverine protection in the country. The Government’s policy seems to be centred around the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s management of river basin management plans, but there is a lack of clarity on how those integrate and on how SEPA can be held accountable for them, and that situation certainly requires improvement.

I had recent cause to engage with this somewhat esoteric issue through a public petition. One of the great aspects of the Scottish Parliament is that the public petitions process can bring to light a lot of issues that are otherwise obscured by the parliamentary agenda. I particularly commend author Louise Welsh and architect Jude Barber, who have recently produced an amazing award-winning podcast called “Who Owns the Clyde?” They set about establishing, in a fairly iterative way, the complex patterns of land and river ownership. A lot of interesting aspects have been unpacked, which precipitated and stimulated a public petition about the idea of creating legal personhood for the Clyde so that certain rights would be attributed to it. Sadly, the Government was not in agreement with that proposal, and the petition was closed last week.

Nonetheless, the process of discussion and the different stakeholder representations elicited a lot of interesting ideas. The fundamental issues are control and accountability. There is no formal mechanism for all stakeholders—there is a vast number of them—who might have a role to play in a river basin to be represented in a coherent manner. There is a real opportunity for further development. Myriad private owners with significant interests are in control of our river landscapes and hinterlands, but there are no formal obligations for them to engage or consult with stakeholders beyond fairly threadbare planning and statutory obligations, which often do not get considered in the round but are considered in little silos by different local authorities. There is a need for greater oversight. For example, the way in which we have developed the national parks process could be a benchmark for future arrangements for our rivers and river basin management.

The Clyde has a long, complex history. Responsibility for it was originally held by a trust port that was established in 1770, before coming under the scope of the River Improvement Trust in 1809. It was then further developed by the Clyde Navigation Trust in 1858, which was subsequently privatised in the 1990s. Those bodies were primarily concerned with the development of industry on the river, but wider considerations now need to be brought to the fore.

In the greater Glasgow and Clyde area, we now have the Glasgow city region and its Clyde mission. They have made it clear that they do not have a role in dealing with the preservation and protection of the Clyde. That is not within their remit; they are purely concerned with economic development considerations. The question then turns to who is responsible for preservation and protection and whether that responsibility should be joined up.

Although the minister is likely to refer to the river basin management plan process, I ask her to consider in her response how those responsibilities, particularly in relation to the Clyde, can integrate better with the Glasgow city region that has been established in the past 10 years and its new role in adopting the Clyde mission. I also ask her to consider how we can bring all that together so that the environmental impact of development of the river, rather than just issues of economic development, are brought into the consideration.

Other rivers in the world have such guardianship arrangements, whether that is the River Ouse in England, the River Atrato in Colombia or the River Meuse in the Netherlands. In her 2025 book, “A Barrister for the Earth: Ten Cases of Hope for Our Future”, lawyer Monica Feria-Tinta notes that rivers should have rights. We need to recognise that emerging reality and the fact that we need a much more considered approach to the development of our river landscapes in Scotland.

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

It will not surprise you, Deputy Presiding Officer, that, apart from congratulating my colleague Audrey Nicoll on securing the debate, most of my speech will be dedicated to the River Tweed and its tributaries.

First, however, I will take a wee detour to Galloway—to Rose cottage in Minnigaff. It is where I lived for more than a decade, with two rivers right at the bottom of my garden: the Penkiln and, just beyond it, the Cree. My early experience with rivers was close and observed, with the salmon run in the Cree—the poachers gaffing the fish at night—and the brown trout in the Penkiln when their dorsal fins were exposed to the air because the summer had reduced the river to a wee stream. I saw scary flooding when the two rivers and the mill that lay beyond merged into a sea, with Rose cottage’s garden disappearing below the muddy waters. I saw kingfishers and herons, and I encountered Japanese knotweed for the first time, which was not at that time considered to be an ecological predator.

My love affair with rivers was born then and continues today with the grand old lady: the River Tweed. I even made a point—you might call it a pilgrimage—of going to where it is reckoned the Tweed has its source, which is high above Tweedsmuir, inconspicuous and with not a hint of the grandeur to come.

Our villages and towns have naturally grown around rivers—back then, the rivers were their dual carriageways—but their source of power must not be taken for granted. Two issues that require our attention are pollution—deliberate and casual—and the real and recurring threat of floods where floods did not occur before. We have come to realise that, and not before time.

The Tweed flows 97 miles to the North Sea at Berwick-upon-Tweed, forming part of the boundary between Scotland and England. It travels in my constituency through Peebles, Innerleithen, Walkerburn and Galashiels. It is one of the most ecologically important rivers in the United Kingdom, supporting Atlantic salmon, otter, lamprey and water crowfoot vegetation. Much of the catchment is designated as an area of special conservation and a site of special scientific interest. To this day, even though textile industries, which once perched precariously on its banks, have all but disappeared, it still supports local economies including angling, tourism and agriculture. Of course, it is central to the entire cultural identity of the Borders.

However, the Tweed, like other rivers, faces pressures from diffuse agricultural pollution, invasive non-native species and river bank erosion. Protection and restoration are delivered through co-ordinated catchment management plans under the water framework directive, local action plans, the Scottish Borders habitat action plan and SEPA’s Tweed area management plan. Those provide key policy frameworks to protect water quality and habitats.

Flood protection is major. Although sandbanks have not quite been consigned to a superfluous sandbank pile, other more creative methods are being implemented. I reference, as I have done before, the Eddleston Water project, which, by making it wind and through suitable waterside planting, has methodically changed the direction of the water and slowed Eddleston Water’s flow onwards to join the Tweed. More of such flood protection is done upstream these days.

From Penkiln to Cree to Tweed, I confess that, for me, there is a romance about rivers. They dictated where we live today, what industries we once had and those that we have now. I am with Mr Sweeney: rivers should have rights, if that does not sound a bit strange.

Again, I thank my colleague Audrey Nicoll for giving me the opportunity to praise rivers and speak about their protection. I cannot have too many debates about rivers.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Christine Grahame is right—there is something about rivers that gets into one’s soul. They are really important for the lifeblood of the nation. They are important for the economy, leisure, the environment, biodiversity and the climate—there is a range of sometimes competing demands on them. I like nothing better than running along a riverside, and I have run alongside many in the Borders, so I concur with Christine Grahame.

I congratulate Audrey Nicoll on opening the debate and lodging this motion. The Dee is one of the great rivers; it is a powerful river that contributes significantly not just to the economy of the area—as Alexander Burnett, rightly, highlighted—but its biodiversity.

If anybody is in any doubt that there is climate change, they just have to look at water. In the past few years, we have had everything from devastating floods to water scarcity. That scarcity has had a dramatic impact on the yields of farmers. I had thought that vegetables and potatoes would be impacted, but it turned out—bizarrely—that, in north-east Fife, it was barley yield, of all things, that was affected. That was at a time when the whisky industry was under quite a bit of strain and taking less of that commodity. Nevertheless, the impact of climate change is very clear.

What has come through from all contributions to the debate, including Paul Sweeney’s, is the wide diversity of rivers. They are not all the same; they have different topographies, sizes, flows, soil types, economic value and surrounding populations. Therefore, we need different answers for every river.

I have heard people talk many times about Eddleston Water, which is a great project. They keep telling me that the same approach would apply to the River Eden in Fife, but there are so many differences between the Borders and Fife, and we should not think that simple, well-worked and successful solutions in one part of the country will apply without change to other parts of the country. I want a plan for every different type of area.

Solutions to flooding, for instance, are very clear. We have seen from infrastructure projects just how much money we are spending on flood prevention schemes—the cost is soaring. We cannot afford to do those things everywhere, so we need to look at natural flood management systems. However, I feel that we are not even at the races when it comes to discussing with farmers and landowners exactly what will work in their area. I know that it takes a lot of work to get down to that level, but river basin and catchment management plans are just so remote—they are way above everything else, and they do not involve discussions with landowners at ground level in the way that is needed to change their practice. Secondly, there are no incentives for them to change. Why would they? They know what they know about how to work their land, and they need to be encouraged and incentivised to make changes to the way in which they operate.

Just now, we are not making any such changes. Two years after the devastating flood in Cupar in my constituency, not very much has changed. We have lots of talk and lots of plans—a Cupar flood study is coming up—but I have not seen very much actual change.

I pay tribute to the River Eden Sustainability Partnership, which is working with landowners on removing invasive species from that river. It is doing some really good—and hard—work, and if we can get a partnership approach going between it, the farmers and all who have an interest in the river, we might be getting somewhere.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

What a great debate this has been about Scotland’s rivers, and I thank Audrey Nicoll for it. I always like such debates, in which people champion things in their constituencies and regions, and I agree whole-heartedly with Christine Grahame and Willie Rennie about rivers being part of our identity and where we live.

Members will forgive me if I squeeze in some mentions of rivers in my constituency; I know that I am not really supposed to speak in terms of my constituency, but I cannot talk about rivers without occasionally mentioning the Ythan and the Don.

I am in no doubt that members recognise the vital importance of protecting Scotland’s rivers and streams. The Tay, the Forth, the Spey, the Dee, the Don, the Ythan, the Eden and the Tweed have all been mentioned, and they support the nation’s economy. Thousands of jobs in rural communities are directly dependent on the food, drink, tourism and recreation industries that our rivers sustain, so any problems with the rivers will have massive knock-on effects.

I am very alive to Willie Rennie’s discussion of water scarcity, its impact on yields and the additional stress that it put on farmers, who, basically, were told that they could not take any water from rivers over certain periods. Rivers on the east coast, in particular, were at very low levels until recently.

The case for biodiversity is beyond dispute. Rivers and their flood plains support the highly diverse habitats and ecosystems of otters, salmon, dippers and damselflies.

Humans thrive in rivers, too. I hope that members will forgive me for mentioning that one of my most treasured recent memories of my late sister is of our swimming in the frankly perishing River Dee at Cambus o’ May two years ago. The water was not 23° on that summer day, I can tell you.

Indeed, I also want to mention wild swimming and how Scotland has become the destination for that activity, with people from across the UK coming to swim in our rivers. Swimming, wild or otherwise, is one of the best things to do in Scotland, and people are coming here for that new and trendy pastime. The fact is that Scotland’s rivers are respected and loved by people from well beyond our borders.

I have heard today about the on-going threats to our river environments and the species that depend on them. The freshwater pearl mussel has been mentioned, as has the Dee salmon. I recently met representatives of the River Dee Trust to discuss some of its suggestions for protecting salmon in that area, and I was also very interested to hear what Emma Harper had to say in her speech about what the Galloway Fisheries Trust has been doing.

In fact, I want to note the importance of river trusts throughout the country and of the incredible work that volunteers do, particularly in tackling invasive non-native species. Giant hogweed is a real threat to our riverbanks; it is nasty stuff, and it is particularly difficult to handle. It seeds at an alarming rate; in fact, it is almost a Sisyphean task to deal with it, and I commend the work done by river trusts in keeping giant hogweed and other species down.

At this point, I want to mention the Scottish invasive species initiative, which is a groundbreaking partnership led by NatureScot to tackle the problem alongside rivers. It covers a third of Scotland’s total area, and phase 2, in 2023, was awarded more than £2 million under the nature restoration fund.

I am pleased that so many people have mentioned the importance of that fund and the work that is being done on our rivers. The fund is a key lever in delivering our biodiversity strategy; it has funded numerous projects from the remeandering of rivers to the creation and restoration of ponds and wetlands, which enhance biodiversity. I was very interested in what Christine Grahame had to say about the tributaries coming into the Tweed, and I know of some particularly impressive work that has been done through the River Peffery catchment restoration programme near Dingwall.

Some members mentioned the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and the statutory targets. We will have plenty of time to talk about what we do in that regard over the coming months; the targets are challenging but achievable, and they will be developed using expert advice with significant stakeholder engagement. I do encourage volunteers involved in river trusts to get involved in the scrutiny of that bill.

I will take on board Paul Sweeney’s comments about integrating river management with plans. A lot is happening in and around the Clyde—and Mr Sweeney might know that my parents are from Clydebank. The Clyde looks in a lot better shape now than it did in the 1970s.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I certainly agree that the river has improved substantially. We now see much more wildlife, particularly on the upper Clyde, than one would have done half a century ago, given how poisoned it was with the effects of a century of heavy industry.

The petitioners I referred to in my speech were seeking for the role of the Clyde mission partnership board to evolve, purely to consider economic development projects around the city region and the wider issue of the integration of environmental protection. Perhaps the cabinet secretary could consider that opportunity with the city region.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Certainly, and that gives me the opportunity to mention that Glasgow City Council and its partners, have been shortlisted for a 2025 nature of Scotland award in the nature and climate action category, in recognition of the innovative work that the council has been doing to tackle flooding while boosting biodiversity through nature-based solutions. That also involves canals, of which Glasgow has many.

By anchoring the health of our rivers, streams, lochs and wetlands in our biodiversity strategy and delivery plan, the Government has demonstrated its commitment to tackling the biodiversity crisis and protecting our magnificent rivers, species and habitats that the strategy and delivery plan support.

A point that came out of the speeches by Christine Grahame and Willie Rennie—in fact, it came out of everyone’s speeches, from Alexander Burnett to Audrey Nicoll—is that we cannot take the health of our rivers for granted, because the health of our communities very often depends on it. We can see the effects of climate change in water scarcity or in high levels of flooding in winter—indeed, Willie Rennie made that point, too—so we have to do everything that we can to protect and cherish rivers all the more.

I thank Audrey Nicoll for bringing this debate to the Parliament.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

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

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what projection it has made of the cost of welfare payments after 2030. (S6O-05114)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Social security spending is an investment in the people of Scotland, as it provides vital support to disabled people, unpaid carers and children and families in poverty. The current forecast for social security expenditure in 2030-31 is £9.3 billion. That is about £2 billion more than the funding that we will receive from the United Kingdom Government through the social security block grant adjustment. The additional investment is less than 3.5 per cent of the overall Scottish Government resource budget.

In April 2025, the Scottish Fiscal Commission published its “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, in which it set out long-term projections for devolved public spending through to 2074–75. By the very nature of those projections, which extend over almost 50 years, there are inherent uncertainties.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The inherent uncertainties are down to the Government’s whole approach, which was highlighted last week by the Auditor General for Scotland, when he warned that the Scottish National Party Government is papering over the cracks with one-off savings and underspends and is taking a short-term approach that is not supporting fiscal sustainability.

Audit Scotland has reported that, by 2029-30, there will be a £4.7 billion funding gap, £2 billion of which will come from rising welfare costs, and that the Government does not even have a clear plan to manage the £770 million overspend on adult disability payment. Scotland cannot afford that benefits bill. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the Scottish Conservatives that the only sustainable route out of poverty is work, not ever-higher welfare spending?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Not for the first time, Stephen Kerr fails to grasp the basic foundations of the social security system. Adult disability payments are provided to support people with the additional costs of having a disability or a long-term condition. A person’s being in receipt of adult disability payments is not reliant on their being in or out of work. Indeed, adult disability payments support people by enabling them to afford to have transport to or support for their employment—that is what disabled people’s organisations have told me.

Stephen Kerr referred to an overspend on adult disability payment. As the Auditor General has pointed out, that is because we have a system that supports people to apply for what they are eligible for and that provides for people who were too timid to come forward to the Department for Work and Pensions because they feared the DWP system. If Mr Kerr thinks that we should not spend that money on disabled people, it is up to him to explain that to voters. However, this Government will continue to support Scotland’s disabled people.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am proud that, while Westminster Conservative Governments and Westminster Labour Governments clearly believe that cutting benefits for disabled people and carers is a vote winner, the SNP Scottish Government is leading by example and delivering a social security system that is based on dignity, fairness and respect. The delivery of such a system was supported unanimously by the Parliament.

Ahead of the UK budget, will the cabinet secretary commit to continuing to do all that she can to protect the most vulnerable from further Westminster austerity?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I again point out that Stephen Kerr’s questions suggest that he and the Tories believe that we should take money away from disabled people, given that he seems to want cuts to be made to adult disability payment. That process is continuing under the current UK Government, which has already put in place cuts for disabled people through universal credit, which, of course, continues to be reserved. In addition, there is talk about threats of changing the tax on Motability cars in the UK budget, which would impact people in Scotland.

Disabled people in Scotland are greatly concerned that funding for the reserved section that remains in our social security system will be cut, which would put them at a disadvantage and could cause them extreme difficulties.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Rachael Hamilton.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—my question is number 6.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding its plans for mitigation, how the United Kingdom Government’s two-child benefit cap is impacting children in Clydebank and Milngavie. (S6O-05115)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The latest data from the Department for Work and Pensions, in May 2025, suggests that about 1,500 children in Clydebank and Milngavie live in households that are affected by the two-child cap.

The Scottish Government’s national mission is to eradicate child poverty, but the two-child cap has been a key driver of poverty among children and their families in Scotland. That is why, subject to parliamentary approval, applications for our two-child limit payment will be taken from March 2026. Our payment will help to keep thousands of children out of poverty and reduce the depths of poverty faced by many more.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is appalling that so many children in my constituency have been scarred by that brutal policy, so it is no wonder that our plans to mitigate it have been welcomed by so many. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 30,000 children have been pushed into poverty because of the UK Government’s continuation of that approach. Put simply, it is Labour’s policy that those children should never have been born.

Will the cabinet secretary continue to make representations to the UK Government in advance of the budget and call for it to find some compassion and end that policy, which is harming children and hindering their long-term opportunities and life chances?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Indeed. It should not be for the Scottish Government to have to, once more, mitigate the worst excesses of Westminster austerity—which is what we are seeing again under the Labour Government. The Scottish Government is not alone in asking the UK Government to end the two-child cap. We stand with the United Nations, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children UK and the Child Poverty Action Group, all of which are making that call to ensure that the UK Government hears loud and clear that the two-child limit should be scrapped immediately. It must be remembered that, although we can mitigate, we cannot scrap the cap here and that, under Labour, the rape clause will continue to exist.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that housing supply in Glasgow will keep up with the predicted 10 per cent rise in population by 2032. (S6O-05116)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

As the statutory housing authority, Glasgow City Council is responsible for assessing the local housing requirements of all tenures as part of its local housing strategy, as well as for keeping its strategy under review. The local housing strategy should be informed by a robust housing need and demand assessment that takes into account key evidence, such as existing need and supply, and future household projections.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Glasgow declared a housing emergency and has been in that emergency since 2023. Unfortunately, the Government’s decision in 2024-25 to cut funding for the affordable housing supply programme by a quarter has had a significant effect on the pipeline of housing in the city.

Today, Glasgow City Council has approved a five-year plan for the construction of almost 6,400 new affordable homes, 75 per cent of which will be for social rent. It has also identified an additional series of sites that will allow for a further 4,648 homes to be developed. At a stretch, the cost of that will be £1.6 billion in capital investment, but the core plan will cost about £890 million. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that she will support that baseline plan and do what she can to push further towards the stretch target of £1.6 billion of funding to get those additional homes? As a baseline, we need 11,559 homes to be built in Glasgow.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am pleased to hear that that approach has been confirmed by Glasgow City Council. It builds on Scotland’s reputation for, and experience of, the delivery of affordable homes—for example, the Government has supported the delivery of more than 140,000 affordable homes since we came into office. Everything that the Government has been doing, particularly in relation to the housing emergency action plan, has been about understanding the need to step up that delivery and to put in place the funding to do that.

We have boosted Glasgow City Council’s budget this year by more than £24 million so that it can acquire properties and bring them into use. That brings the council’s total budget allocation for the affordable housing supply programme to more than £127 million in this financial year.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how it is using the Scottish social security system to alleviate poverty among pensioners. (S6O-05117)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are delivering real support to pensioners across Scotland by investing about £157 million to help approximately 880,000 pensioners stay warm during the coldest months. Unlike in the rest of the United Kingdom, eligible low-income households across Scotland, including pensioner households, are also guaranteed support through our winter heating payment.

We have issued more than £33 million since launching the pension-age disability payment to help to mitigate the additional costs that are incurred by older disabled people and by those with long-term health conditions. Meanwhile, take-up rates for pension credit remain low, and I urge the UK Government to do more to promote that reserved benefit.

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

I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned pension credit, which is key to supporting low-income households, including those with pensioners, but which often goes unclaimed, as she indicated. Benefit criteria are also too restrictive at times.

What can the Scottish Government do to assist with the take-up of pension credit, although it is a reserved benefit? Will the cabinet secretary say how the commitments on pension credit that are included in the Scottish Government paper “A Fresh Start with Independence” could ensure that pensioners get the support that they need?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Although the responsibility for pension credit ultimately lies with the UK Government and the Department for Work and Pensions, we will continue to explore the opportunities to raise the awareness of people in Scotland of that payment—once again, we are doing the UK Government’s job for it.

The Scottish Government is delivering a benefit take-up strategy, and I hope that the DWP could have a similar strategy, to include pension credit. As Mr Doris has highlighted, our paper “A Fresh Start with Independence” demonstrated how the social security system could be improved. For example, steps could be taken in the early years to ensure that people receive the pension credit that they are entitled to, and those steps could include issuing invitations to apply for pension credit to everyone who is approaching state pension age, which would be a proactive role to increase the take-up of benefits by those who are eligible.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the director of housing at Fife Council and what was discussed. (S6O-05118)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Following my appointment as Cabinet Secretary for Housing, I met representatives of the five councils that face the most sustained housing pressures, which included meeting Fife Council on 10 July. We discussed Fife’s local housing emergency, its affordable home supply programme, temporary accommodation and homelessness pressures. Following the development of the housing emergency action plan, I will now meet local authority leaders quarterly, and those meetings will run alongside regular engagement by my officials.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am pleased to note that there is indeed regular engagement, which is necessary at this time. However, although the Scottish Government has recently carried out a local adaptations policy delivery review and has more than doubled the funding that is available to local authorities, I fear that my constituents see no improvement whatsoever in Fife. In the recent case of a constituent who had been diagnosed with and treated for cancer, it took Fife Council more than a year even to carry out a survey, far less to install a wet room and shower. That is surely unacceptable. What can the cabinet secretary do to impress on Fife Council the need to bring its failing processes up to scratch, to ensure that people can live safely, and with dignity, in their own homes?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am sorry to hear of the difficulty that Ms Ewing’s constituent has experienced and I personally send them my best wishes. The Government wants everyone who requires an adaptation to be able to access that quickly, easily and in a way that meets their needs, which is why we increased the adaptations budget for registered social landlords to £20.9 million this year, as Ms Ewing mentioned, and why we have committed to a general review of the adaptations system.

I would be pleased if Ms Ewing and I could discuss the details of her constituent’s case, so that I can make representations to Fife Council to find out how that can be progressed.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a couple of supplementary questions.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One key solution to the housing crisis is to empower councils to purchase homes to create more social housing. A report last year found that Fife Council had purchased only four homes in the Dunfermline area and that the council’s buy-back scheme was underspent by £3.5 million. What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that councils buy up more housing stock to create more affordable homes for their areas?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Although we focus on creating the right conditions for the further development of affordable homes, we understand that we must deliver more now, while those homes are being built. Therefore, our focus in the past few years has been on directly funding councils to assist them both in turning round social housing voids and in acquiring homes on the open market, as Mr Stewart described.

We made £40 million available for that in the previous financial year, which delivered around 1,000 more affordable homes, and in the housing emergency action plan in September we doubled that to a further £80 million. If my figures are correct, that has translated into a further £2.2 million for Fife Council alone, and I would expect it to put the money to that use.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I agree with Annabelle Ewing about the adaptations process. It takes a very long time for some people to get the adaptations that they need. When the cabinet secretary met Fife Council to discuss the affordable housing programme and other matters, did she give the council more foresight about how much money will be available to it, so that it can plan for the future? I have never seen the housing situation in Fife as bad as it is now, and Fife Council is keen to get on with the work. I hope that the cabinet secretary was able to give it some foresight.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

One of the main representations that have been made to me is that multi-annual certainty is needed on funding, because that is essential for people to plan things that are by their nature multi-annual, such as house building. In the housing emergency action plan that the Government produced over the summer, we committed to just that, coupled with a commitment of up to £4.9 billion over the next four years.

The affordable housing supply programme is funded to the tune of £808 million this year, and we have committed on a multi-annual basis up to £4.9 billion over the coming four years. I will be working very closely with councils to ensure that that added certainty results in increased delivery, because I know that our communities need that.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Housing has had with the Minister for Public Finance regarding the consultation on permitted development rights to support the provision of new homes. (S6O-05119)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Scottish ministers have regular discussions regarding matters that affect our shared portfolio interests. There is clearly considerable crossover between the Minister for Public Finance and me. We meet regularly to discuss the planning system in respect of housing, and we did so most recently at the meeting of the housing emergency action plan oversight board on Thursday 30 October.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

House-building rates have plummeted under the Scottish National Party. To reverse the decline, I have long campaigned for the extension of permitted development rights to unlock opportunities to grow the rural economy in places such as my constituency in the Scottish Borders by allowing redundant buildings, barns and steadings to be developed and transformed into much-needed homes. Has the cabinet secretary or the Minister for Public Finance assessed how many homes across Scotland could be created to address the SNP’s woeful emergency crisis?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

On the contrary, the SNP Government has a very strong record on the delivery of affordable homes. I mentioned in an earlier answer that we have delivered more than 140,000 affordable homes since we came into government, 100,000 of which have been for social rent. That is 47 per cent more per head of population than in England and 73 per cent more than in Wales.

However, that is not to say that there is not work to be done. That is why, in my answer to Willie Rennie, I pointed out that we have, for the first time, offered multi-annual funding certainty. We have committed to an uptick in funding and to a suite of developments, including on planning and permitted development rights, which I hope will help to deliver the homes that we need.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I recognise that the recently announced housing emergency action plan commits to additional planning actions to accelerate housing delivery. Can the cabinet secretary speak to the positive impact that that is expected to have on the delivery of new homes in Scotland, including in Dumfries and Galloway?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We need our planning system to ensure that the right houses are developed in the right places and to be a facilitator of progress and not a hindrance to it. As well as speaking with the planning minister, I have been having extensive conversations with house builders about their experiences of the planning system.

The Government’s actions are being delivered—not least the 23 actions in the planning and the housing emergency delivery plan, which are all now under way or completed. There are also a number of actions in the housing emergency action plan, which was published on 2 September—not least, my communicating to the heads of planning that I expect an emergency-led approach to be taken and proportionality when dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises, and an important ministerial oversight direction whereby I will observe the application of the national planning framework 4 and will be able to intervene where needed.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to communities to promote cohesion and develop sustainable support networks for refugees and asylum seekers, to help ensure their full participation in civic and community life. (S6O-05120)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

We are committed to supporting the integration of refugees and people seeking asylum into our communities through our new Scots strategy, which was developed in partnership with the Scottish Refugee Council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We are funding the refugee support service to provide advice, information and resources to new Scots to help them to build networks and social connections.

In addition, the £300,000 of funding that I announced earlier will be used by organisations working across Scotland to strengthen community cohesion and ensure that our communities stand together to reject division and build solidarity by forging coalitions across a wide range of communities in Scotland.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Falkirk has seen sustained anti-refugee protests and counter-protests, resulting in on-going tensions, disruption and division in the wider community. What actions is the Scottish Government taking to tackle the spread of misinformation? Will it work in partnership with Falkirk Council, Police Scotland and any other relevant agencies to mitigate the disruption that is caused by the persistent cycle of protests and counter-protests?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I am deeply concerned about the harmful rhetoric that we see across the United Kingdom, which has no place in our society. It is vital that we remain united in the face of division and uncertainty so that that narrative has absolutely no place and gathers no traction.

When our communities tell us that they feel unsafe and that they are under pressure, it is our collective responsibility to listen and respond. I outlined earlier the work that we are doing through our new Scots refugee integration strategy, which has been held up far and wide as a very good example.

We are investing in strengthening our communities, but I call on members—and everyone else—to ensure that we all stand firm against falling for misinformation, check our facts, are mindful of our language and use our platform to ensure that we unite our communities.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what it anticipates to be the baseline figure for its ambition towards all-tenure housing delivery of a 10 per cent increase in house building each year over the next three years. (S6O-05121)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Government has instituted a new all-tenure delivery ambition. Working with the house building sector through close collaboration, we will seek to increase delivery across all sectors by at least 10 per cent each year during the next three years. As I stated at the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee on 7 October, the figure on which the delivery ambition will be based is that for all-sector new build completions for the year to the end of June 2025. The figure was published on 30 September and is 18,869.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

That is a welcome change in Government policy. We need to dramatically increase the amount of house building across all tenures. The Government could and should have been more ambitious than that 10 per cent to address the need. However, the key point is the baseline that the cabinet secretary sets out, because numbers in recent years have been so low.

As well as the completion figures, will the Government have targets on approvals and starts to give an all-round target to the housing sector? Can the cabinet secretary set out explicitly how many more houses the Government expects will be built as a result of the three-year target?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I will take the latter point first. We expect 10 per cent increases on the figure each year during the course of the three years. The target is for completions. I will not set one for starts, although we monitor starts, and they will be a strong indication of the number that will ultimately be completed.

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

Mr Griffin must surely recognise that one of the biggest barriers to delivering Scotland’s housing fund is the dire economic mismanagement by his Labour colleagues at Westminster, which is about to be laid bare in the next few weeks. Will the cabinet secretary advise how damaging United Kingdom Government policies, such as increases to employer national insurance and limits to legitimate immigration, are directly impacting on our housing and construction sectors?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

UK policies are indeed hindering progress. Immigration is absolutely vital to sustain multiple sectors of the Scottish economy, including construction, and the UK Government’s approach has completely failed to recognise Scotland’s needs. The same applies to the hike in national insurance contributions—I am sure that all members, when they make visits across Scotland, are being told how damaging that is to businesses and organisations, because it permanently uplifts labour costs.

All that comes atop the incredible economic self-harm of Brexit and the inflationary pressures that have led to construction costs being some 40 per cent higher this year than they were five years ago. I am afraid that that is, as has been set out, just another in the suite of reasons why it will always be to Scotland’s detriment to be governed by remote politicians in London.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio questions. There will be a brief pause to allow the front bench members to change over.

Draft Climate Change Plan

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a statement by Gillian Martin on the draft climate change plan 2025. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

This Government’s commitment to reaching net zero fairly remains unwavering. Responding to the climate emergency is both one of the most important challenges of our time and, done right, one of our country’s greatest economic opportunities, with benefits for everyone. I am proud of the progress that Scotland has already made in reducing our carbon emissions and unlocking new low-carbon economic opportunities. Others might try to present economic growth and emissions reduction as opposing aims, but we have shown that they go hand in hand. We are now more than halfway to net zero and, in the same period, we have grown our economy by more than 67 per cent. Although we know that the most challenging part of the journey lies ahead, I am confident that, with Scotland’s talent for innovation and skills, and the strengths of our people, we have what it takes to deliver.

Parliament can no longer sit on its hands. Since the previous climate change plan, we have seen parties in the chamber oppose even modest proposals for the sake of opposition when today’s citizens, as well as future generations, need us to back those aims with action and take responsibility. I hope that Parliament will engage constructively with the draft plan.

Delivering the plan will take more than Scottish Government action alone. The United Kingdom Government must do more to support Scotland by, crucially, reducing the price of electricity, which will unlock so many critical climate actions and improve people’s lives. I will continue to work constructively with the UK Government to make that happen.

That includes working on our shared commitment to decarbonise heat in buildings. It is an area where the Scottish Government has shown leadership, which is demonstrated by our legislative requirement for clean heat to be installed in new homes and our continued drive and ambition to promote investment and growth in heat networks. The plan maintains that leadership. It confirms our target to decarbonise the heat in Scotland’s buildings by 2045 in a manner consistent with our commitment to reduce fuel poverty by maintaining our support for those who need it most.

The UK Government must show similar leadership. The latest delay to its warm homes plan means that we still lack essential information on when and how the UK Government will use its reserved powers to make clean heat systems more affordable. I urge the UK Government to provide that clarity as soon as possible, and we remain ready to work with it to accelerate the transition to clean heat in our homes and buildings.

We will also continue to work collaboratively with other partners—local authorities, industry and the third sector—and we must bring people with us on that journey.

The voices of climate inaction are growing globally, and here at home. Some question the impact that a country of Scotland’s size can make. However, Scotland has demonstrated how smaller countries can contribute to global change. We continue to accelerate the ambition and action of partners globally through our leadership positions as Regions4 president and Under2 Coalition European co-chair.

We increasingly feel the real-life impacts of climate change domestically. The growing frequency of storms, heat waves and flooding events is impacting our health, our livelihoods and the resilience of our communities. Indeed, the Scottish climate survey shows that most of us see climate change as an immediate problem for our country.

Tackling the climate emergency remains a priority for this Government and must continue to be so for Parliament in this and future sessions. The draft climate change plan that we have laid before Parliament today sets out more than 150 actions that we must take between now and 2040 to grow our economy and reduce our carbon emissions. As well as reducing emissions, the plan is about how we unlock economic benefits, strengthen our communities, tackle poverty, restore nature and improve health and wellbeing.

Many of those wider benefits are already being delivered. The number of low-carbon, sustainable jobs is growing faster here than in the rest of the United Kingdom, thanks to consistent Scottish Government investment. Low or zero-carbon industries, such as renewable energy and hydrogen, have expanded by more than 20 per cent since 2022, contributing more than £9 billion to the economy and supporting more than 100,000 jobs. Our electricity sector exemplifies that. Between 1990 and 2022, emissions from electricity generation fell by 88 per cent, driven by our natural resources, community involvement, supportive planning and falling costs, with wind and solar now the lowest-cost forms of new generation. Today, Scotland generates more than half its electricity from renewables and, in 2020 alone, community benefit payments from renewables projects exceeded £30 million. There is still massive untapped potential in, for example, hydro, tidal and wave energy, anaerobic digestion and geothermal energy.

The transition and the action that we are taking are already ensuring major benefits for Scotland, with much more to come. However, as well as seizing those new opportunities, we have a particular responsibility to areas where change will inevitably be felt the most. That is why we have invested more than £120 million so far in the north-east through the just transition and energy transition funds, supporting workers into low-carbon jobs and enabling investment in offshore wind, port infrastructure and supply chains. We are also investing an additional £9 million in the oil and gas transition training fund to help North Sea workers to move into those low-carbon roles.

Those initiatives sit alongside the work that we are doing to support people through the transition and to deliver the wider benefits fairly. For example, the redesign of our energy and transport systems will also help to reduce household costs, improve air quality and enhance energy security. The draft plan includes new support for electric vehicle charging infrastructure and consumer incentives to encourage EV uptake. We will use commercial finance to support the decarbonisation of heavy goods vehicles. We are also introducing new energy performance certificate regulations and setting out proposals to boost heat network development by requiring large non-domestic premises, where they have the opportunity to connect to a heat network, to move away from fossil fuel heating systems. In that way, infrastructure and local places are being transformed to support health and wellbeing.

Our approach also focuses on nature-based solutions that will benefit communities, restore ecosystems and protect green spaces. In 2023, Scotland created more than 8,400 hectares of new woodland. To go further, we are supporting skills development in forestry management to increase farm productivity and tree planting.

We have restored more than 90,000 hectares of degraded peatland. Through the draft plan, Scotland’s new light detection and ranging—LiDAR—data will help us to accelerate the amount of peatland that is restored year on year. The speed of our decarbonisation follows advice from the Climate Change Committee. Scotland is delivering on the moral imperative to end our contribution to global emissions.

However, we will also make important departures from the committee’s policy advice, including on livestock numbers and agricultural emissions. We will support farmers, crofters and other land managers to continue to produce high-quality food and protect rural livelihoods, while enhancing diversity, soil health and agricultural business productivity. We can do that because of emissions savings in other sectors, including high fuel supply decarbonisation in energy supply and emissions reductions in peatlands. The plan reflects a distinctly Scottish way of achieving this.

I am grateful to the many people who have shaped our approach to the draft plan, including the climate change plan advisory group, the Just Transition Commission and scientific advisory bodies.

We know that involving people in the policy-making process makes policy smarter and more effective, so I encourage anyone who has an interest to respond to our consultation on the plan. My door remains open to any member who wants to engage constructively on the draft plan so that the final version is as strong as possible.

It is the Government’s responsibility to lead and, by doing so through the plan, we will enable others to act and innovate. However, we cannot reach net zero alone. People and businesses need to work with us on this shared national endeavour to fight against climate change and harness the possibilities that are before us. It is a national challenge that Scotland must win, because the prize is not only a healthier climate but warmer homes, cleaner air and happier, more equitable and prosperous communities.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I think the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Scottish National Party has been promising for months that its draft climate change plan would lay out definitively how it intends to reach net zero by 2045, but today’s plan just rehashes existing SNP policies that do nothing to bring down energy bills and it provides no clarity on how it intends to reach the 2045 target.

Families across Scotland are anxious about how much the SNP’s net zero obsession will cost them. Will they be made to rip out their gas boilers in favour of heat pumps? Will they be forced to trade in their petrol vehicle for an electric car? Will the SNP lift its presumption against new oil and gas? The plan answers none of those questions; it is yet another SNP pamphlet that is heavy on rhetoric but light on solutions.

The carbon budgets that the Scottish Government adopted were made in line with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. In order to achieve those budgets, the CCC claims that we will need to install 35,000 heat pumps a year by 2030, more than half of our cars will need to be electric by 2035, and cattle and sheep numbers will need to fall by 2 million.

When will the cabinet secretary come clean with the public about the true cost of achieving net zero by 2045? Will she commit to making a revised final plan that focuses on an affordable transition?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Right. Well, that is the tone that Douglas Lumsden normally adopts when he talks about climate change. It is plain for all to see that, when it comes to reaching net zero, the Tories do not have any plans. In fact, they are rolling back on the commitments that they made when they were in Government at Westminster.

Douglas Lumsden said that we have no new policies. Let us look at transport alone—

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Are we getting our £200 million for north-east rail?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Cabinet secretary, please resume your seat.

Mr Lumsden, you get to ask a question, which you have done. We now need to hear the cabinet secretary respond to it without a running commentary.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

On transport, we have: consumer incentives to encourage EV uptake by householders, sole traders and microbusinesses; draft targets in the first carbon budget to reduce emissions from cars by at least 16 per cent; investment in the replacement of heavy goods vehicles and the deployment of charging infrastructure; increased funding for the capacity and capability of local authorities and regional transport partnerships; additional support for the rapid roll-out of critical EV charging infrastructure; and support for skills development, with funding available for many things, including the skills required for offshore wind.

This is the thing about the Tories—they are trying to make it look as though achieving net zero is too expensive. The cost of climate action might look significant, but the economic benefits that are associated with all the policies that are laid out in the climate change plan—I stress that they are laid out there—are significant for the people of Scotland. If Douglas Lumsden had taken the time to even glance at the climate change plan, the text of which I gave to Opposition members a good hour in advance of my statement, he would be able to point to a number of policies that will have those benefits and improve economic growth.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I have tried to read the whole plan.

Climate campaigners are clear that we need a strong plan if we are to see the changes that are urgently needed. The SNP promised a publicly owned energy company, which did not happen. That was a massive missed opportunity. We have also not seen the manufacturing of renewables kit, even though there has been a big increase in renewable electricity production. We should compare that with the UK Government’s action in delivering Great British Energy and the national wealth fund, and supporting communities to install solar panels.

We urgently need action across Scotland, including a ramp-up of support for communities that are already experiencing the transition. Why is there no information in the plan about how the £500 million that has been promised will be spent and how communities will benefit from it? The cabinet secretary referenced heat in buildings, but not did not link that to the need to retrofit homes so that they are energy efficient. She also did not say how councils will implement their local heat and energy efficiency strategy plans. Shawfair received £7 million from the Government for 3,000 houses and Aberdeen Heat & Power was created 20 years ago, but council budgets have been slashed. What support will the Scottish Government give to councils, including those in Edinburgh and East Lothian, to maximise the opportunities from projects such as Berwick Bank to create new jobs and invest in our homes?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank Sarah Boyack for reading the climate change plan that I gave to Opposition members in advance of my statement. She has legitimate questions about the detail of it, and I look forward to engaging with her throughout its progress. She mentioned funding of £500 million, which I presume refers to money from the just transition fund. She will know that we have also established a just transition fund for Grangemouth, given that it is a high-carbon area.

An analysis is done on the just transition fund year on year, and we receive a list of outcomes for job creation and job retention, as well as information on the ability for companies in the supply chain and academic institutions to pivot towards demand. Just transition funding is not distributed for the first year only, with criteria that remain the same throughout: it is adaptive to the needs of the north-east. In particular, it is delivering for companies that are have been reliant on high-carbon activity and are pivoting towards being able to service low-carbon activity too. Personally, I think that it has been one of the best interventions from the Government, and I want to build on that work as much as possible. It also involves communities, who have their say in participatory budgeting rounds so that they can use the funds in their communities to reduce carbon and make them more resilient.

Sarah Boyack has asked me a number of specific questions about details including retrofitting and warm homes. I hope that she will join me in calling for the UK Government to bring forward its warm homes plan rather than delay it. Systematically across the UK, we all need to know what is being done at the UK level, because that will inform the decisions that are made in the devolved nations.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I welcome the commitment to ensuring that we maximise the economic and environmental benefits of transitioning to net zero. Although good progress has been made, the cabinet secretary will recognise that there is a need to ensure that, in order to meet the 2045 target and the UK’s 2050 target, policy actions on areas such as Acorn and carbon capture, use and storage need to be taken by the UK Government to support us in achieving that. Is the cabinet secretary satisfied that the UK Government has shown the necessary ambition and pace in such key areas to ensure that we can meet our 2045 target and that we can maximise the associated environmental and economic opportunities?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Michael Matheson knows the area well, so he will know that the UK will not meet its 2050 target without Scotland meeting its 2045 target, and vice versa. When I mention the UK Government, it is not to have a go, but is to say that we need to work together on those things. We have a Labour Government that has shared objectives on net zero, so we have a moment in time when we are able to work together and achieve our shared aims.

The Climate Change Committee’s advice to the UK Government in carbon budget 7 was clear that between 30 and 60 per cent of the emissions reduction that will be required across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be in policy areas that are mostly reserved. That emphasises just how crucial intergovernmental co-operation will be in reaching not only Scotland’s net zero target but also the UK’s.

I have engaged, and will continue to engage, with the UK Government across many different forums. This week, I wrote to the secretary of state to reiterate our asks of the UK Government with regard to the climate change plan, not least on rebalancing energy prices to reduce the cost of electricity, which intervention the Climate Change Committee views as critical to delivering emissions reduction, as it does CCUS.

I wrote again yesterday with regard to the UK Government’s carbon budget 6 response, which I thought was lacking in detail.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for finally publishing the 400-odd-page draft climate change plan, which I have to admit I have not read fully in the hour in which I have had it.

I remain seriously concerned that the Parliament does not have enough time to fully consider the plan before dissolution. However, I have briefly scrutinised annex 1, which covers the need to decarbonise our homes. It will cost the owner of a pre-1960s house in the region of £45,000 to decarbonise. What percentage of that cost will the Scottish Government make available to home owners to help them to achieve the Government’s decarbonisation targets?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As Edward Mountain knows, the decision on spending is made at budget time. We are quite unusual in Scotland in that our climate change plan must include the costs and benefits associated with all the policies that it contains. No other country in the UK has to do that. The costs and benefits will apply not only to the Government but to everyone, including the private sector.

Edward Mountain said that we have finally published the climate change plan. I point out that, legally, I had until the start of December to publish it.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Should have done it last year.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have published it so that we can have a finalised climate change plan by the end of this session of Parliament. Now that it is published, can we move on from the rhetoric around me taking my time to do things? I have been expediting work in this area, to allow Parliament the full period of time to scrutinise the plan—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

There is no time left.