Scottish Parliament, 20 November 2025

299 contributions from 75 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time—our shortest question session of the week, colleagues.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the demand for neurodevelopmental assessments and treatment for children and adults, what its assessment is of the recommendations by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, such as its four-tiered service model for assessment and intervention. (S6O-05171)

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

The Scottish Government welcomes the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on meeting the needs of autistic people and people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in Scotland. I agree with the royal college that the demand for neurodevelopmental assessment and support now exceeds what Scotland’s current mental health infrastructure can deliver and that a different response is needed. We are taking time to consider its report fully, including whether a stepped care model could be considered for neurodevelopmental assessment.

We are also driving forward our improvement work, including the establishment of our children and young people’s neurodevelopmental task force and our on-going work with the national autism implementation team, or NAIT.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

As the minister will be aware from my correspondence and our discussion, the rising pressures and demands are acute and are having an impact on many individuals in my Falkirk East constituency.

The Scottish Government’s director of mental health wrote to all health boards to seek clarification of what assessment and support they have in place, because of the diversity across different areas and because the local protocols are different, too. Have there been any findings from that letter, and is the minister able to give us any further information in that respect?

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

I confirm that we have now received responses from all of the health boards, and we are considering the findings in more detail and what next steps should be taken. The information is not publicly available yet, so there are no findings to share at this time. However, I recognise the member’s long-standing interest in this issue on behalf of her constituents and I will ask the Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing, Tom Arthur, to ensure that he shares the findings with her and with Parliament more broadly when they are available.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

Parents and adults who are not parents in the Glasgow region have approached me because they are very worried about access to ADHD assessments for adults. They have been waiting a long time for a pathway to support, and some of them are struggling to continue with work and other responsibilities. What reassurance can the minister give that pathways will be available for people in the Glasgow region to access adult ADHD assessments?

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

I understand the member’s concern. Long waits for support are unacceptable, and I am committed to improving timely access to support, diagnosis and support for autistic people and people with ADHD.

In July, we announced the reopening of our £2.5 million multiyear autistic adult support fund. That fund supports third sector organisations that help autistic adults reach their full potential and supports them, their carers and their families to understand what neurodivergence means for them and to improve their wellbeing.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what legislative action it plans taking in the remainder of this parliamentary session to protect farmers from the threat of rural crime. (S6O-05172)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Rural crime is a serious issue. It affects individuals, communities and businesses, and the Scottish Government fully supports efforts to tackle it.

The Scottish partnership against rural crime—or SPARC—which is chaired by Police Scotland, brings key justice and rural sector partners together to provide a robust, multi-agency approach to preventing rural crime and to support actions taken at the local level.

The member will be aware of the legislative programme for the rest of the term, and the short time we have left. There are no plans for rural crime legislation in what remains of this session.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Following a meeting in June, the minister agreed to write to the Home Office. The letter highlighted that the Scottish Government had missed an opportunity to introduce a legislative consent memorandum in June 2022 that would have allowed for further safeguards and deterrents to stop rural crime. Since the LCM was missed, rural crime has cost Scottish farmers and rural businesses nearly £5 million, and the letter states that my constituency of Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire is a rural crime hotspot.

Police Scotland and the National Crime Agency wanted regulations to be introduced last summer, so will the minister, despite her answer, introduce an expedited bill and work with me to tackle rural crime before the end of this session of Parliament?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I thank the member for her continued interest in equipment theft and the serious issues affecting rural businesses.

For clarity with regard to the LCM, the relevant legislation has not yet come into effect in England and Wales. As the member has alluded to, I wrote to the United Kingdom Government earlier this year regarding the process of its implementation, and it recently published a summary evidence response ahead of planned regulations being introduced. That is an important step towards the legislation being put into effect in England and Wales. I reiterate my willingness to work with the member on legislative options, but it will not be in this parliamentary session.

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

As Rachael Hamilton knows, my constituency is adjacent to hers. As a former lawyer, I have to say that I am not too hot on legislation—it is not always the answer.

I refer the minister to the recently published three-year policy by Police Scotland, in collaboration with SPARC, which focuses on such things as the prevention of agricultural machinery theft using technology. There are now 100 specially trained officers, so I hope that the minister will agree that action might be more effective than legislation.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

There is some great work being done in that respect. The three-year strategy for SPARC was published in June, and for the first time, it has adopted the four Ps model of prevent, pursue, protect and prepare. The refreshed strategy includes a number of actions on how perpetrators will be brought to justice, how rural communities can safeguard against such crimes and how individuals can be diverted from being involved with them. Part of SPARC’s work also involves working with other forces in the UK to disrupt the activity of criminals who travel across our border.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government when the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will be fully implemented. (S6O-05173)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Although some sections of the act have already been commenced, some areas of that wide-ranging act are outstanding. However, we remain committed to commencing them. I am providing updates to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee on implementation, and did so most recently on 26 September.

Two Scottish statutory instruments on the regulation of child contact services were approved by Parliament earlier this month and will be implemented on 1 April 2027. A further set of commencement regulations is planned relating to hearing the child’s views, additional factors for the court to consider and delay in contact and residence cases.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Parliament voted for the act with great hopes that it would centre children in child contact cases and address some real difficulties that we had heard about. I am still receiving casework in which children who have witnessed their father terrorising their mother, physically and emotionally, are being forced by courts to have contact with their father, despite restraining orders and so on being in place. Is the minister confident that, when the legislation is fully enacted, it will address that disaster, or do more actions need to be taken to ensure that the judiciary truly puts children’s wellbeing at the heart of decisions that it makes on contact?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Ensuring the child’s best interests is central in any contact case and was the key aim of the 2020 act. I believe that implementation will bring big improvements for children in the cases that Ms Maguire referred to—for example, enhancing how their views are heard and ensuring that child welfare reporters who are appointed to hear the child’s views are properly trained in understanding domestic abuse.

The regulation of child contact services will help to ensure that centres are safe, conflict-free places for children. We are also progressing wider work to improve how the civil and criminal courts interact, including how the civil courts get information on domestic abuse.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support tenants and owner-occupiers affected by RAAC in the North East Scotland region. (S6O-05174)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

It is a worrying time for those whose homes are affected by RAAC. I met residents in Aberdeen, Dundee, Angus and Clackmannanshire just yesterday to discuss the challenges that they face.

We are working with local authorities, who are responsible for finding local solutions. For example, I recently agreed to Aberdeen City Council’s request for flexibility in an existing housing infrastructure fund commitment to allow the council to provide additional support for residents from within its own budget.

I have repeatedly pressed the United Kingdom Government for a central dedicated RAAC remediation fund. It has failed to provide that thus far. In the meantime, I will continue to consider requests for flexibility in existing budgets.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Last month, Aberdeen City Council told Torry home owners that they would be offered the full value of their homes before RAAC was discovered, given the £10 million fund that the Scottish Government had made available. However, in the worst-affected city—Dundee—there is still no RAAC fund. Home owners in Dundee and Angus are wondering why they are still waiting for information and support. When will the cabinet secretary announce support for RAAC-affected home owners who face financial ruin in more ways than one in Dundee and Angus?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We have to be clear that the arrangements that have been reached with Aberdeen City Council were bespoke to Aberdeen. As I said in my initial answer, they were about offering flexibility in honouring an existing housing infrastructure fund that had not been drawn down. In fact, that was not doable, and we ended up by offering flexibility through the affordable homes supply programme, which allowed the council to create headroom elsewhere. That was a specific response to an Aberdeen-specific case.

However, as I said in my initial answer, I will consider requests for flexibility within existing budgets from any council with RAAC-affected residents.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

RAAC-affected home owners in Aberdeen’s Torry who have already sold their homes under value fear paying tax on the compensation and losing benefits. That would pile yet more injustice on a nightmare that they have faced for years. Will the cabinet secretary instruct officials to help Aberdeen City Council prevent that from coming to pass?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Those are entirely matters for Aberdeen City Council to work through with the residents of Torry, and I encourage it to do so.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work it has been doing regarding people obtaining in-person GP appointments. (S6O-05175)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The latest published data—Public Health Scotland’s general practice in-hours activity visualisation—shows that, as of September, as many as 81 per cent of appointments with GPs and other clinicians in general practice were physical. That is not as high as the proportion before the pandemic, when approximately 87 per cent of appointments were physical, but we always expected the overall proportion of physical appointments to reduce as options for virtual appointments became more available.

In 2022, my predecessor, Humza Yousaf, wrote to GPs to advise them that the de-escalation of infection prevention control measures gave them much greater latitude to see patients in person. That, alongside our record funding increase for core GP services and walk-in clinics, should continue to improve access to one of the critical primary care front doors of our national health service.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

In my constituency, access to general practice remains a concern, particularly in rural communities. The position varies between practices, but constituents contact me regularly about the matter. Does the cabinet secretary agree that investment must be matched by concerted targeted support for recruitment and retention to ensure sustainable care in all parts of Scotland, including Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I absolutely agree with Elena Whitham. A core element of the record funding increase for general practice is contingent on increased employment of general practitioners and wider practice staff.

Alongside that, through our GP recruitment and retention 20-point action plan, we are taking substantive steps to support practices in rural areas. Our £10,000 golden hello scheme incentivises GPs to take up rural positions. The early-career GP fellowship programme is reaching new rural areas across seven health boards, thanks to our investment this year. Our Scottish graduate entry medical programme—ScotGEM—focuses on rural medicine and healthcare improvement. We also continue to fund the rediscover the joy of general practice project, which supports rural and island practices with short-term GP cover.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the number of repeat shoplifting offenders, in light of reports that 10 individuals have accumulated over 1,500 charges in the last four years. (S6O-05176)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government recognises the harm that is caused by retail crime. Our budget for 2025-26 has made an additional £3 million available to tackle the issue as part of our record investment in policing. Police Scotland has used that funding to establish a retail crime task force, which aims to prevent such incidents and pursue those responsible. Police Scotland’s plan includes specific actions to target repeat offenders by using analytical data and intelligence to carry out proactive enforcement activities in areas that are most heavily impacted. Investment is also being used to develop diversionary programmes that are aimed at reducing reoffending.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Retailers Against Crime and other industry partners have made it clear that intelligence sharing is essential in identifying repeat and organised offenders. Given that Police Scotland’s retail crime task force has, in its first six months, supported the detection of more than 500 retail offences, will the minister commit to extending and increasing that funding beyond March 2026 to tackle prolific shoplifters?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Discussions are on-going with Police Scotland about its budgetary requirements, and I hope that Ms Dowey will appreciate that I will not be making any budgetary announcements during general question time today. However, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has confirmed that the Scottish budget will be published on Tuesday 13 January 2026.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to address waiting times for gynaecological diagnostic procedures in NHS Fife. (S6O-05177)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

This year, we have allocated an additional £135.5 million to health boards to tackle the longest waits. That includes an allocation of more than £1.1 million to NHS Fife for gynaecology to support extra full-day theatre lists and new full-day out-patient clinics.

I understand from NHS Fife that it is on track to have no patient waiting for more than 52 weeks by our 31 March 2026 target. Beyond that, we are working with the centre for sustainable delivery to ensure that all boards deliver a sustainable solution for the future.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have been contacted by a constituent, a 23-year-old woman, who has been advised that she might face a wait of more than a year for keyhole surgery that is needed to diagnose the source of on-going severe pelvic pain. Over the past year, the constituent has experienced two miscarriages, recurring pelvic infections and severe pelvic pain that has significantly impacted her quality of life. I have raised the issue directly with NHS Fife, but I would be grateful if the minister would look at the details of the case, which I will pass to her. It is all very well to talk about 52 weeks, but, in the case of this constituent, that is not acceptable.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Alex Rowley is absolutely right that that length of wait is not sustainable and is not good for women’s health. That is why we have invested the funding. I am very happy to follow up with him afterwards.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to providing full details of why each of the 3,537—or 47 per cent of—applications to the future farming investment scheme were deemed ineligible, including whether ministers raised any concerns when presented with this figure. (S6O-05178)

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

As a matter of routine, the Scottish Government does not provide individual responses to explain why an individual agricultural grant application was unsuccessful. A breakdown of the broad categories of reasons for applications not being taken forward will be published shortly, and I will write to the member concerned to provide the information on the scoring criteria. Scottish ministers were made aware of the scoring criteria, the numbers of successful and unsuccessful applications and the overall value of support offered, but ministers do not routinely become involved in day-to-day scheme-management issues.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but that is just not good enough, minister. Surely, routinely, 50 per cent of applications are not deemed ineligible. Something has gone badly wrong here, and it looks as though the minister was asleep at the wheel and did not even ask any questions. Given the numbers involved and that many people are questioning why almost 50 per cent of applications were deemed ineligible, is there not a duty on the Government to tell each and every applicant why they were deemed ineligible and what went wrong, and to sort it out?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair.

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

The scheme was co-designed with the industry—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the minister.

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

The scheme was co-designed with the industry, including NFU Scotland. It was designed to help eligible active farmers and crofters to improve the environmental performance of their businesses in relation to climate change and biodiversity benefits.

Applications were assessed through a standardised framework that cross-checked application data against the single application form and other system-held data to ensure consistency, transparency and audit defensibility. The scoring model looked for six core objectives: business efficiency, business sustainability, environmental protection, greenhouse gas reduction, climate adaptation and public good.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please be brief, minister.

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

Priority group status, which Douglas Ross asked about, did not alone guarantee funding investment. Applicants also had to demonstrate strong alignment with the scheme objectives and the ability to deliver measurable outcomes.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

In 1998, aged 25, I spent three glorious weeks at France 98. There was no Google, no smartphones, no social media and no Scottish Parliament. It has been almost “30 years of hurt”, as our English friends would say, but we never stopped dreaming. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and the tartan army, I congratulate and thank our Scotland heroes. [Applause.]

I turn to my questions for the First Minister. Hundreds of Scottish jobs are at risk, this time in Fife. Thousands have already been lost: 400 at Grangemouth; 250 at Harbour Energy; 200 at Hunting PLC; 500 at Apache and 2,000 at Petrofac. Now 400 more jobs are at risk at Mossmorran. Scotland’s oil and gas industry is being destroyed before our eyes and the Labour and Scottish National Party Governments are causing that to happen because it suits their net zero agenda.

John Swinney’s Government promised a Mossmorran transition plan 18 months ago, so where is it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I begin by expressing my warmest congratulations to Steve Clarke and the Scotland squad. It was an absolute privilege to be present at Hampden park on Tuesday night and to see such an exciting football game with spectacular goals. The Scotland national team has brought joy to everyone in Scotland and I pay warm tribute to the players for what they achieved on Tuesday. [Applause.]

Russell Findlay raises important issues about the future of employment in Scotland. We in the Government will do everything that we can to support the workforce at ExxonMobil in light of the challenges that are now being faced as a consequence of the decision in connection with the Mossmorran plant.

It is absolutely vital that we take forward measures to ensure a just transition, which means that we must manage the issues that confront us in relation to the future of the North Sea oil and gas sector and the implications for other communities.

On Tuesday, the Government signalled our determination to use the learning that has come from the work that we are undertaking on Grangemouth and apply it to the situation at Mossmorran to provide every support that we can to the employees, who are facing a very difficult future as a consequence of Tuesday’s announcement.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Where is the Mossmorran transition plan that was promised? The reason John Swinney did not produce one is because he instead fixates on net zero policies that will hit Scots in the pocket, such as fining householders £15,000 if they do not get rid of their gas boilers. Scotland’s oil and gas infrastructure is being decimated because of Government policies,

Last week, alongside Kemi Badenoch, I held a round-table discussion with leading figures in the oil and gas industry, who all say that the most damaging policy that threatens jobs is the energy profits levy. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Their number 1 ask of Labour’s budget next week is that the levy should be scrapped. Today, I am writing to Rachel Reeves to urge her to axe the EPL. Will John Swinney add his name to my letter?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

For completeness, I point out to Parliament that the energy profits levy was introduced in the first place by a Conservative Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It was also extended by the Conservative Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The issues around the energy profits levy are now acute in relation to the oil and gas sector. I do not need to add my name to the letter that Russell Findlay is talking about, because the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has already made those representations to the United Kingdom Government.

We are at a pivotal moment in sustaining employment in Scotland’s economy as we ensure that we build up to our clean energy and renewables future. That requires the UK Government to heed the concerns that have been expressed by many people, including the Scottish Government, about the continuation of the energy profits levy, which was introduced by the Conservatives.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The EPL must go, and both Governments must change direction. If they do not, the industry body, Offshore Energies UK, warns that 1,000 jobs will be lost every month until 2030. This is a national emergency.

The Fraser of Allander Institute today released a new report that warns that

“jobs, tax revenues and regional economies”

are

“at risk”.

It says that skilled workers are leaving either the country or the industry altogether, and it estimates that the cost to our economy could reach £13 billion. Unless Labour and the SNP change course, Scotland’s world-leading oil and gas sector will be wiped out entirely, never to return.

Does John Swinney at least accept that his Government’s hostility to oil and gas has contributed to this national emergency?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government has put in place practical support to assist the communities that will inevitably be affected by the transition to net zero, particularly as the oil and gas sector in the North Sea, which is a mature basin, reduces. That is a geological factor that we have to come to terms with.

For example, we have set up the oil and gas transition training fund, which supports eligible workers with funding for training to build the skills required for the sustainable energy approaches of the future. We have also put in place the north-east and Moray just transition fund, which is about practical financial support to assist in that transition. Indeed, I was privileged to take part in the opening of the new skills hub, which took place in Aberdeen just a few weeks ago.

The Government will take forward sustained support to assist in the management of the transition, which I recognise is a significant threat to companies and employees. The Scottish Government will do all that we can to support workers, and I appeal to the United Kingdom Government to take sympathetic policy decisions that will also help in that respect.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

That is just an evasive insult to the oil and gas workers. He is offering a sticking plaster for a shotgun wound. The SNP opposes Rosebank, it opposed Cambo and Jackdaw, and it supports a ban on any new North Sea development. John Swinney could change that now, so why does he not? He does not because he is worried that extremists in his party would unite with the Greens and he would lose a vote in this Parliament. Let me make him another offer—my party will support his Government to overturn its presumption against new developments. We will give him the votes to protect thousands of Scottish jobs, so is he prepared to do the right thing?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government’s position is that any new oil and gas developments have to pass a climate compatibility assessment to ensure that they are consistent with the agenda that we have to take forward on net zero. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That is the position of the Scottish Government. Indeed, court judgments in the United Kingdom have reinforced that position, so it is now necessary for the UK Government to consider developments in that context.

We will set out what we have done and what practical assistance we are delivering, such as the measures to support new business ventures in Grangemouth and the transition funds that we have made available in the north-east of Scotland. Those measures recognise that Government has to be an active player in protecting industry and employees, and that is exactly what the Scottish Government will do.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I join others in congratulating Steve Clarke and the Scotland men’s team on qualifying for the world cup. They have done the entire nation proud. I remember rushing home from school to watch the Scotland v Brazil game in 1998 and the absolute jubilation when John Collins scored that penalty against Brazil, only for that to be followed by a goal. Anyway, we enjoyed John Collins scoring that penalty. Honestly, I am so proud that my kids will get to experience Scotland playing at the world cup, cheer the team on and develop their own memories for the generations to come.

Later today, the Covid inquiry report on political decision making will be published. Covid-19 shook all our lives, with thousands of lives lost in Scotland. The United Kingdom Covid inquiry is vital so that we can learn lessons, acknowledge mistakes and give answers to mourning families. Given that John Swinney was central to the Scottish Government’s operations before, during and after the pandemic, does he regret deliberately deleting evidence for the inquiry, which frustrated its process? Will he take the opportunity to apologise?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Covid-19 was incredibly difficult for everyone. I express my heartfelt sympathies to everyone who lost a loved one during the pandemic and to those who suffered a tremendous level of disruption to their lives.

At all times, ministers’ actions were based on the best information that was available to them at the time. I have set out to the Covid-19 inquiry the basis of the decision making with which I was involved. The Scottish Government took those decisions incredibly seriously to ensure that we took the necessary action to protect the population at a time when we had no guidebook on what we were dealing with. We supported establishing a public inquiry so that all Governments can learn the necessary lessons for the future. That is exactly what the Scottish Government will do.

All the actions that I took regarding information were consistent with Scottish Government policy.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney was the Deputy First Minister who deliberately deleted evidence, which is shameful and unforgivable. He was the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills who shamefully downgraded the exam results of working-class kids, and he was the Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery who failed to deliver any recovery.

The most devastating decision that was made by ministers was to send untested and Covid-positive patients into care homes, even when it was known that older people were the most vulnerable to the virus. More than 100 Covid-positive patients and more than 3,000 untested patients were sent into care homes. The devastating consequence was that more than 4,000 people in care homes died of Covid. That is now being investigated by the police. We do not need clinical advice to know that sending people with the virus to live with those who are the most vulnerable to it would lead to deaths. Will John Swinney apologise for that disastrous and catastrophic decision?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I indicated in my first answer, at the time, ministers were dealing with an evolving situation during which advice was being formulated by scientific experts. Clinical experts were assessing the right judgments to be made in dealing with an emerging and fast-changing situation. Ministers were open with the Parliament about the dilemmas and challenges that were involved. Those decisions were subjected to scrutiny by the Parliament and, of course, they are now being subjected to scrutiny by the Covid-19 inquiry.

I have been very clear that I regret the suffering that individuals experienced during the Covid pandemic. It did enormous damage to people, including those who lost loved ones, and to our society, and we are still dealing with the consequences of it. I understand the scale of the impact and the damage that was done. As I have indicated, the Government will listen carefully to the inquiry and respond accordingly to the recommendations that it makes as we seek to learn lessons from a traumatic period in the country’s history.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

We do not need clinical advice to know not to send Covid-positive patients into care homes. Right across the country, people have the common sense not to visit their granny when they have a cold, never mind putting Covid-positive patients into care homes. John Swinney was the Cabinet Secretary for Covid Recovery, and this was supposed to be the Parliament’s Covid recovery session, but look at where we are.

In one month at the start of this parliamentary session, 16,798 Scots waited for four hours in accident and emergency; now 45,639 are waiting. At the start of this session, 1,810 waited in A and E for eight hours; now 15,821 are waiting. At the start of this session, 96,053 people were waiting for in-patient treatment; now 155,849 are waiting. At the start of this session, 391,938 were waiting for an out-patient appointment; now 559,077 are waiting. John Swinney promised recovery and he delivered catastrophe. He has a shameful record, and it is one that he cannot delete. Is it not clear that we cannot afford another five years of this and that Scotland needs to recover from John Swinney and the Scottish National Party?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

One of the many flaws in the argument that Mr Sarwar has just put to me is that he is comparing this moment today with the start of this parliamentary session. At the start of this session, the country was still dealing with Covid. We were still in the midst of Covid. We still had a pause—for at least a year beyond the start of this session—on routine scheduled cases because of the priority to sustain the national health service during that period. The idea that Mr Sarwar is comparing like with like ignores—as he always does—the reality of the Covid pandemic and its significant disruption.

I can reassure Mr Sarwar that, under my leadership, the scale of national health service activity is increasing in order to tackle those very issues. We had more than 10,000 extra out-patient attendances in September compared with August. Activity in our national health service has increased: from April to September 2025, there were over 31,000 more appointments and procedures than in the same period in 2024. We are now seeing the total list size and the longest waits coming down. We are also treating more people, with activity increasing significantly compared with last month and last year.

The actions that Mr Sarwar is calling for—of increased NHS activity, increased numbers of procedures and increased solutions for the people of Scotland—are happening, and they are happening under my leadership. They will carry on happening under my leadership, because I am determined to support our population to recover from Covid.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Like the First Minister and colleagues, I start by congratulating Steve Clarke and the national team. I cannot remember 1998—[ Interruption .]—so, like many other people across Scotland, I am looking forward for the first time to the experience of having our national team compete in a world cup.

On Tuesday, workers at ExxonMobil’s Mossmorran site were locked out of their workplace and told that they would lose their jobs. Two hundred staff and 250 contractors are facing unemployment. Ludicrously, ExxonMobil has suggested that it could support workers to get a job at its other site, which is 500 miles away in Southampton.

We all knew that this was coming. For years, the Scottish Greens called on the Government to develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran. In April 2024, the Government agreed, and it promised that that work would commence within months. That was 18 months ago. On behalf of the workers and their families, who thought that the Scottish Government had their back—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Greer.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

—can I ask the First Minister where that transition plan is?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The work that the Government is undertaking, as set out by the Deputy First Minister on Tuesday, is focused on learning from the experience of what we are taking forward in Grangemouth and on the business ventures and developments that can come forward, supported by Scottish Enterprise, to enable us to assist companies and individuals to meet the just transition. That is the work that the Government is taking forward as a consequence of the very damaging decision that was taken on Tuesday. We will support that activity with the assistance and the intervention that the Government has set out.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

It is quite clear from that answer that the reality is that there is no plan and the Scottish Government has broken its promise to the workers at Mossmorran. The Government made a commitment to the workers and their community, and it is clear that it has done nothing to fulfil it.

The Scottish Greens have pushed for that just transition plan for years. In 2022, Fife’s Green MSP, Mark Ruskell, published plans that he developed. He has held summits that have brought together workers, their unions and the wider community, and he pushed Government ministers to make that commitment in the spring of last year, but we have heard nothing since—not even in the climate change plan that was published earlier this month, despite Mossmorran being responsible for 10 per cent of Scotland’s emissions.

Can the First Minister name a single thing that the Government has done specifically for the workers at Mossmorran since announcing that it would develop a just transition plan for them 18 months ago?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has taken forward a number of steps in relation to the work that has emerged from Grangemouth on identifying low-carbon solutions and economic opportunities for Scotland. That is what the Government has done. A range of business opportunities and projects have been developed by Scottish Enterprise and are designed to address the need to provide sustained employment in the Mossmorran area. Those ideas and arguments are central to the propositions that we can take forward. They are part of the Government’s transition to net zero and to a just transition, but they happen in the context of the damage that is being done to the whole process by the perpetuation of the energy profits levy. That is clearly damaging, and the Mossmorran leadership has ascribed to it a contribution to the damage to employment that has been experienced at Mossmorran.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

To ask the First Minister, in light of the United Kingdom Government’s reported decision to revisit compensating women against state pension inequality, what assessment the Scottish Government has made of the potential social security implications for those affected in Scotland. (S6F-04468)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We welcome the UK Government’s long-overdue announcement to reconsider the decision on compensation for women born in the 1950s who were impacted by the maladministration of the changes to state pension age. Around 336,000 women in Scotland were impacted, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman recommended that they should receive compensation of up to £2,950 each. The Scottish Government has and always will support the WASPI campaign, and I urge the UK Government to finally do the right thing and compensate the women affected now.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

It is welcome that the Labour UK Government has been forced into this latest U-turn, and it is vital that it stops dragging its feet. WASPI women have waited long enough, with many having died while waiting for justice. Will the First Minister provide any update on the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the UK Government on steps being taken to set this injustice right, and will he join me in calling on Labour to immediately honour the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and deliver full compensation for WASPI women now?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I echo and support that call from Clare Haughey. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions the day after his announcement, asking for the earliest possible clarification of when exactly UK ministers were first made aware of the new evidence, and urged him to complete the review at pace. She further reiterated that the Scottish Government has always supported the WASPI campaign and that compensation must be delivered now to right that historic wrong.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take in response to reported figures from the road safety charity, Brake, which show that over the last year road deaths and serious injuries rose by 2.8 per cent nationally, with Moray recording the highest increase, with a rise of 83 per cent. (S6F-04462)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Any death or serious injury on our roads is a tragedy, and I offer my sympathies to everyone affected by the loss of a loved one. The Scottish Government is taking forward measures on road safety, including investing £48 million in road safety this year, which is a 33 per cent increase on last year’s amount, and supporting engineering improvements, education and enforcement nationwide.

I recognise that more work has to be done, and the Government will continue working with partners to reduce harm and keep communities safe.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This is road safety week, but those figures confirm that Scotland’s roads are getting more dangerous—more people are dying or being seriously injured on Scotland’s roads, and the figures for Moray are shocking and devastating. In the past year, 43 people have been killed or seriously injured on our roads. Far too many families are grieving the loss of loved ones.

The main road through Moray is the A96, which the Scottish National Party promised to dual years ago. It has launched countless consultations but has failed to dual a single mile of that road. Will the First Minister say whether it is still the SNP’s policy to fully dual the A96 from Aberdeen to Inverness, and if it is, will he tell us when it will be done?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That remains the Scottish Government’s policy position. In my initial answer, I acknowledged the significance and seriousness of road casualties. I acknowledge that the data in Moray shows a significant increase. However, the wider pattern is that, in 2024, the number of casualties as a result of a road traffic accident was the fifth lowest on record and the third lowest outside the pandemic years, and, compared with the 2014-18 baseline, there has been a reduction in road deaths, serious injuries, child fatalities and serious injuries among children. I acknowledge that more has to be done, and the Government is taking forward that work.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Eight months ago, I raised the issue of rising road casualties in Renfrewshire. I asked the First Minister why the Scottish Government has delayed introducing speed awareness courses in Scotland, despite first promising to look into them 16 years ago. In his answer, the First Minister said that he would write to me to outline what steps the Scottish Government would be prepared to take. I am still waiting for his letter and, more importantly, we are still waiting for the speed awareness courses. Is this not another case where, when the First Minister is found wanting, he gives us warm words, promises action and then does nothing? When will those courses be introduced in Scotland, as they are in England and Wales?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will look into Mr Bibby’s point about my reply—if I promised a reply and it was not forthcoming, I apologise for that. I will look into the issue immediately after First Minister’s question time.

As I said in my answer to Mr Ross, the Government has increased the funding available for road safety activity in Scotland by 33 per cent. Road Safety Scotland is undertaking a range of national behaviour change campaigns in 2025-26 relating to motorbikes, speed, drink and drug driving, fitness to drive, distractions and young drivers. Police Scotland and partners have been undertaking road safety activities, including the fatal 5 campaign, the motorcycle safety campaign, the 2 wheels campaign, operation spotlight and national drunk driving week. A whole range of measures have been taken to improve road safety. However, I will look into the specific issue that Mr Bibby has set out for me and will take forward the necessary response.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to news that public satisfaction with the NHS has dropped to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to the Scottish household survey. (S6F-04472)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is responding to that information by maintaining its focus on improving the delivery of the national health service. We have seen waits, particularly the longest waits, reduce for four months in a row. There is more to be done, and the Government is making the necessary investment in reducing those waiting times. We are beginning to see the effect of that in the data that is available to us.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

When the First Minister’s party first took office in 2007, following eight years of a Labour-led Government, 83 per cent of Scots were satisfied with the NHS. That figure is now just 61 per cent. Does the First Minister agree that a failure to show leadership and very poor decision making have led us to this situation? Given that the Scottish National Party has been in power for almost two decades—almost 20 years—how does he plan to convince the Scottish public that the SNP should be in charge of our most valued public asset, the NHS, for another five years?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Carol Mochan asked a question that made absolutely no reference to the impact of the pandemic. The global pandemic resulted in a period of almost two years in which scheduled care essentially had to be paused to enable us to sustain the national health service. Carol Mochan’s party leader just asked me about Covid, and yet she has asked me a question about the performance of the NHS that takes no account of Covid.

I am intensely focused on making sure that we improve the recovery of the NHS. In that respect, we saw the number of hip and knee operations reach an all-time high in 2024, which is really welcome.

In the 12 months to September 2025, there was an increase in the number of operations performed compared with the previous year. In September 2025, the number of operations performed was nearly 14 per cent higher than it was in September 2024.

What we are going to do is exactly what I and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care are focused on: we are going to deliver for the people of Scotland, which is what this Government always does.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am sure that Carol Mochan will recognise that, in Labour-controlled NHS England, levels of dissatisfaction are currently at their highest since the British social attitudes survey began, and it is four decades since that came into being. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Stewart.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

In Labour-run Wales, the NHS has the lowest satisfaction rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. Does the First Minister therefore agree that Scottish Labour needs only to look at its colleagues’ records on the NHS to know that those in glass houses should not throw stones? Will he reaffirm his commitment to ensuring that the SNP Government continues to tackle the longest waits, increase access to care and improve delivery in Scotland’s NHS as a matter of priority?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that concise questions enable more members to take part. I also remind members that a focus on devolved responsibilities would be helpful.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In Scotland, there are more staff working in our national health service now than there were when this Government took office. There are more midwives, more nurses and more dental consultants, and general practitioner numbers are going up. On discharges from Scottish hospitals, 97 per cent happen without delay. More patients are being seen and treated in shorter periods. There were 23,181 operations performed in September 2025, which is 13.7 per cent more than in September 2024. The number of hip and knee operations reached an all-time high in 2024. That is delivery, and that is what people get from an SNP Government.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

In Scotland, people living with chronic pain have been expressing concern that the Scottish national residential pain management programme, which is based in Glasgow and provides intense support to people from all over Scotland who live with chronic pain, will no longer be directly funded by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Parliament voted to create that national service and, since 2015, it has been free for all boards to refer patients to the programme, to help those who are living with chronic pain to self-manage. Will the First Minister investigate why that decision has been taken and why boards will now be forced to pay to refer patients to the service? Will it be a national service for people who live with chronic pain, wherever they live in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is vital that those services are available. However, fundamentally, we have to take decisions about the sustainability of services as they relate to individual parts of the country where demand for services lies. I will look at the details of what Miles Briggs has raised with me. Obviously, the Government is focused on ensuring that we have sustainable public services in place, which includes the national health service.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The announcement this week that Mossmorran is to close by February next year comes as devastating news to the hundreds of workers and contractors at the site. On Tuesday, ExxonMobil was very clear that the United Kingdom Labour Government’s damaging and uncompetitive economic and fiscal policies led to that decision. Will the First Minister outline in a bit more detail what action the Scottish Government is taking to secure a future for the site?

Does the First Minister share my utter disbelief and anger that, although the UK Labour Government can somehow find hundreds of millions of pounds to save steel production in Scunthorpe, provide a £600 million loan guarantee for a petrochemical plant in Belgium and change the regulatory regime to help the car industry in England, it cannot find one penny for Mossmorran?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Ewing.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The only conclusion to draw is that, when push comes to shove, Scotland simply does not matter enough to the UK Labour Government.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I share Annabelle Ewing’s concern about the lack of intervention from the UK Government when it is able to intervene in other situations in other parts of the UK. She puts on the record the comments from ExxonMobil about what led to the decision, and the unsympathetic and unhelpful actions of the UK Government.

The Scottish Government will do the following things: we will provide direct support to the workforce who are affected, through the partnership action on continuing employment. We will take forward measures that arise from the work that we are doing in Grangemouth to find alternative opportunities for industrial sites. Details of that work were shared with the Parliament on Tuesday by the Deputy First Minister. We will continue our engagement with the company and the trade unions to identify approaches that will help to support the workforce—Ms Ewing’s constituents—who are severely affected by the announcement was made. The Scottish Government will do all that we can within our powers to support those who are affected.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The number of questions that we have had this afternoon on Mossmorran shows the significance of the situation and the concern about its seriousness. The First Minister talks about lack of intervention. Was the Scottish Government aware of the report in the Financial Times in September that said that, at that point, ExxonMobil was looking to sell the site? What was the Scottish Government’s response to that report and what engagement did it have with ExxonMobil?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government engaged when it was apparent that ExxonMobil was marketing the site, but the announcement that was made this week was one that the Government did not expect to be happening on such a short timescale. We will sustain our engagement with the company as a consequence.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mindless vandalism and antisocial behaviour on Stagecoach buses in my region are at a crisis point. Those mindless acts endanger lives, damage vital transport services and cause significant disruption for the communities that rely on those services. What action will the Scottish Government take to protect drivers, passengers and the wider communities?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Any acts of violence are completely unacceptable in our society and individuals should not be perpetrating those attacks. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport is exploring measures around whether there are any circumstances in which there is a reason or justification for restricting access to public transport concessionary travel as a consequence of any behaviour. Policing in our communities is an essential part of that endeavour but, fundamentally, it is about how individuals behave. Any act of violence is unacceptable in our society.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

On Tuesday, people across Scotland were able to watch the national men’s football team’s historic and amazing victory on free-to-air television, because of a successful campaign by many of us in the Scottish National Party and across the political spectrum. As the current broadcasting arrangement comes to an end, people risk being shut out of future successes and of nights like that one. Will the First Minister put his weight behind the campaign to keep Scotland’s international games free to air and will he raise the matter with the United Kingdom Government, broadcasters and football authorities, to ensure that all future “no Scotland, no party” matches are on terrestrial television and available to everyone?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with Fulton MacGregor’s point and recognise the importance of there being free-to-air television access for matches of that nature. I will be happy to ensure that ministers support and take forward Mr MacGregor’s representations.

The Scottish Government has long called for national sporting events, such as men’s and women’s football qualifiers, to be protected for free-to-air broadcast. We will continue to make that case on behalf of fans across the country. It is a matter of enormous significance that all of us were able to experience the joyful scenes at Hampden on Tuesday evening. It should be free for members of the public to be able to see those events.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sure that the First Minister will share my utter dismay at the Auditor General for Scotland’s report, published today, on the unacceptable lack of progress on reform of NHS Tayside’s mental health services. I have raised that issue with the First Minister on numerous occasions but, from the two Strang reviews to the ministerial oversight group, nothing seems to be able to force real change. The leadership of NHS Tayside has waited until attention is elsewhere, scaled back the process and returned to business as usual. When he is digesting the report, will the First Minister give urgent consideration to appointing external leadership to finally deliver the change that is required?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am sympathetic to Mr Marra’s point. I have constituents who are affected by the issue that he has raised, so I understand its significance.

A whole range of external scrutiny has been undertaken and—frankly—that should be enough for all the action that is required to happen. Earlier this year, officials met the new chief executive and leadership team to understand how they were responding to the challenges. NHS Tayside is committed to addressing those challenges by December 2025, and it has already put many plans in place, including the adoption of a unified strategic approach in relation to the delivery of the service, consistent with the enhanced monitoring and scrutiny executive group.

The next three months will be critical in that endeavour. I give Mr Marra an undertaking that I will review the issue in January, once I have seen the conclusions of the work that NHS Tayside has committed to doing. At that point, I will address the point that Mr Marra has raised. We must expect the leadership of health boards to get on with meeting the challenges that they face. I am not dismissing Mr Marra’s suggestion, but I will return to it once I see what progress has been made by December.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Community councils and communities across the Highlands are being swamped with planning applications for pylons, battery storage sites, switching stations and, now, workers’ villages. Although some of those applications extend to thousands of pages, communities have only 30 days to respond to the energy consents unit on each application. Given the complexity of those projects, does the First Minister agree that it would be more democratic to extend the 30-day period to allow Highland communities to be fully consulted and to respond?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is an important point underlying Mr Mountain’s question, which is that communities must have adequate and appropriate opportunities to be involved in decision making in that respect. I hope that that can be undertaken within the available timescales, but I will consider the specific point that Mr Mountain has made about the appropriateness of the 30-day timescale and will write to him in due course as to whether any flexibility can be applied. I cannot quite recall the status of the 30-day period, but I will check that and come back to him.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Given the emphasis on healthcare in the report by the abortion law expert group that came out last Friday, can the First Minister give an assurance that the health of all unborn babies, wanted or not, will be at the centre of the Government’s thinking?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise that this is a sensitive issue. In 2023-24, the Government committed to undertaking a review of the legislation on abortion. The recommendations in the report are those of the expert group, and the Government fulfilled its commitment to publish those recommendations.

We will, of course, give consideration to these issues, but that will have to involve extensive engagement with a broad range of stakeholders. The legitimate point that Mr Mason has raised will have to be central to the analysis of the issue, along with a range of other matters that will have to be considered in relation to any future actions that the Government may decide to take at some stage in the future.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has announced a brand-new plan to deliver the Scottish National Party’s promise on reducing teacher contact time. Can the First Minister tell us what is new about that plan? I assume that there was engagement and consultation with the councils and unions, so I assume that the strikes at the end of January are now off. When, therefore, will the plan be implemented?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The education secretary’s announcement set out the Government’s commitments in that respect and the progress that needs to be made. I answered a question on the subject from Mr Cole-Hamilton last week or the week before—in fact, it was last week, because I then went to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities conference in St Andrews, in Mr Rennie’s constituency, at which I set out the Government’s expectation that progress is to be made on class contact time. I hope that the education secretary’s proposals will help to advance the timescale for implementing those changes, because the last thing that I want to see is any industrial action in Scottish education.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

With regard to the United Kingdom Government’s asylum proposals, the assessment of the Scottish Refugee Council, which is exhibiting in Parliament this week, is that the proposals risk pushing the national conversation into dangerous territory by mirroring the language and tone of the far right. Does the First Minister agree with that assessment, which I believe will be shared by constituents across Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I share the concerns that Mr Kidd has set out to Parliament. The proposals run the risk of undermining the cohesion of our communities and pushing more people, including families with children, into poverty, destitution and increasing homelessness, and leaving local authorities to pick up the pieces. We need to take a sensitive approach to the whole question of asylum and immigration. Scotland is a welcoming country, and I want to make sure that that continues to be the case in the future.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Douglas Ross for a point of order.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In April 2024, Màiri McAllan announced that the Scottish Government would develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran. Russell Findlay and others have asked the First Minister about that plan, but he refused to give any answers.

The ministerial code says that ministers must be open and transparent with the public and the Parliament. Would it be a breach of the ministerial code and, potentially, the standing orders of the Parliament if the First Minister is aware of where that plan is, but has refused to tell Parliament, or is aware that the development of the plan was never progressed and has not told Parliament that?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

As members are aware, the content of a member’s contribution is not ordinarily a matter for the chair to comment on. However, as a matter of courtesy and respect, I expect all members to strive to be accurate in their contributions.

That concludes First Minister’s questions. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Clare Adamson. There will now be a short suspension to allow those in the chamber and in the public gallery who wish to leave to do so.

Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-18938, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I call Ivan McKee to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Ivan McKee]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

Pancreatic Cancer Awareness

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I encourage those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible as we move on to the next item of business, which is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19074, in the name of Clare Adamson, on pancreatic cancer awareness month and world pancreatic cancer day 2025. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, which takes place every November, and World Pancreatic Cancer Day 2025, which falls on 20 November; believes that, for decades, pancreatic cancer has been left behind; understands that it receives just 3% of the UK cancer research budget; considers that an increase in long-term investment in such research could transform persistent low survival rates; notes the view that there is an urgent need to improve early diagnosis and outcomes for people affected by the condition; considers that extremely low survival rates in Scotland exist largely due to late-stage diagnosis and limited access to robust diagnostics and treatment resources; notes calls for further action to ensure that people at higher risk of cancer are identified earlier and consistently across the country; further notes the view that both the development of a centralised, nationwide case-finding programme is necessary to proactively identify high-risk people across multiple cancer types and that it is vital to ensure that the provisions of the Rare Cancers Bill are fully implemented, including the development of a national prospective observational cohort study for rare and less survivable cancers to support ongoing research; commends all of the charities and activist organisations, and their dedicated supporters, on what it sees as their relentless efforts to improve outcomes for people with this condition, and wishes everyone involved with Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month and World Pancreatic Cancer Day every success in raising awareness of this devastating disease.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank everyone who supported the motion recognising pancreatic cancer awareness month and world pancreatic cancer day, which is today for 2025, and all the members who took part in the photo call in the garden lobby a few weeks ago. I hope that members of Pancreatic Cancer UK and Pancreatic Cancer Action Scotland are with us today on this important occasion.

Although this might be the last pancreatic cancer debate in this parliamentary session, I trust that it will not be the last that we have in the Parliament, as we have established this regular debate as an important moment when we look at the impact of this incredibly devastating cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer. Each year, just under 900 people in Scotland are diagnosed, and the statistics remain stark. Half of those diagnosed die within three months, eight in 10 are diagnosed too late for life-saving treatment and only seven in every 100 survive beyond five years. I know that it has touched members since our previous debate, as it has touched all of us over the years. On world pancreatic cancer day, it is crucial that we remember that those numbers represent families that will never be the same and lives that are cut painfully short.

The central problem that we face is that of late detection. Symptoms of pancreatic cancer are vague—back pain, indigestion, weight loss and jaundice—and are often viewed as non-urgent in primary care settings. Nine in 10 patients visit their general practitioner multiple times before being diagnosed. However, by that time, the cancer is often too advanced for surgery or other life-saving treatments.

We know that progress is possible, and we must have better outcomes. It is encouraging that research into early detection of pancreatic cancer is showing progress and has the potential to shift the dial towards earlier diagnosis during the next few years. That is because of organisations such as Pancreatic Cancer UK and Pancreatic Cancer Action, which fund research and are working to help doctors in primary care detect the disease earlier.

One such project is the volatile organic compound assessment in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma—known as VAPOR—study, led by Professor George Hanna at Imperial College London. His team is developing a breath test for use in GP surgeries to rapidly identify patients with pancreatic cancer. Early results indicate that the test accurately detects the disease at its earliest stages. The study will advance to its second phase in the new year, which will see about 40 hospitals across the United Kingdom, including some here in Scotland, take part in a national trial. If successful, that simple test could transform the way in which people are referred for assessment, allowing the disease to be caught at a stage at which treatment is still possible.

We are also seeing pioneering work from researchers across Scotland. At the University of Glasgow, Professor Nigel Jamieson is leading a project to identify which pancreatic cysts are most likely to turn cancerous. That could allow early intervention for those who are most at risk. Other UK studies are developing blood and urine tests and tools to identify new-onset diabetes that can signal the earliest stages of pancreatic cancer. Each of those projects is a vital step towards earlier diagnosis and, ultimately, saving lives.

However, research alone is not enough. Pancreatic cancer research receives only 3 per cent of the UK’s total cancer research funding, despite being on track to become the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in the coming years, overtaking breast cancer. That imbalance and delay in progress is costing lives, and we urgently need a UK-wide commitment to achieve substantial improvements in survival rates for cancers with the poorest outcomes, including pancreatic, brain, liver, lung, oesophageal and stomach cancer. That must be achieved by the end of the decade.

We wait for the progress that new research will undoubtedly bring, but we must not lose sight of the patients who are facing cancer right now. Since I spoke in last year’s members’ business debate, another 900 people in Scotland will have been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, and many of them will be subject to delays and variation in care.

I have been working closely with representatives of Pancreatic Cancer UK and Pancreatic Cancer Action and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to ensure that the new national hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer pathway covers referral, diagnosis and treatment. It is vital to ensure that no patient slips through the cracks. As part of that, the national centre for sustainable delivery will commence work on an optimal diagnostic pathway for HPB cancers, which is expected to be completed by 2026. I welcome the excellent opportunity to strengthen the diagnosis capacity across the health service and ensure that patients are referred for investigation as quickly and early as possible.

I think that there will be an opportunity for members to visit Pancreatic Cancer Action Scotland’s pan can van outside the Scottish Parliament today. I commend Tunnock’s, a Scottish icon that I am sure is in all our thoughts, given Scotland’s wonderful performance the other night. Every year for pancreatic cancer day, Tunnock’s produces tea cakes with an iconic purple covering, and this is a rare opportunity to see those in action. I urge all members to support the incredible work of Pancreatic Cancer Action and Pancreatic Cancer UK in raising awareness of the disease.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can confirm that the Tunnock’s wafers on my Loganair flight were suitably badged.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank Clare Adamson for securing the debate once again this year. I sometimes wonder where the year goes between these debates. This has become an annual debate and I hope that that continues to be the case in the next session of Parliament, because these debates are important.

As co-convener of the cross-party group on cancer, I thank the many campaigners who have joined us in the public gallery, not just for joining us but for their advocacy on the issue over many years. Like so many of us, they have had friends and family members who have been devastated by pancreatic cancer, which is what drives their desire for not only life-saving but life-improving healthcare for all those affected by the disease. I also put on record my thanks to Pancreatic Cancer Action Scotland and the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce for their hard work and the briefings that they provided ahead of the debate.

Today is world pancreatic cancer day 2025. As many of us are aware, pancreatic cancer is one of the six less survivable cancers on which action is still greatly needed to improve outcomes. Less survivable cancers—those of the brain, liver, lung, stomach, oesophagus and pancreas—account for around a quarter of all cancer diagnoses in Scotland, affecting more than 9,000 people a year. That is not an insignificant number. However, in spite of that, the prognosis for those cancers has not improved in the way that we would want—the average five-year survival rate still sits at just 16 per cent.

Pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers, with just 7 per cent of all patients surviving for five years or longer. In 2010, when Pancreatic Cancer Action was founded, the rate sat at just 3 per cent. Progress has been made, but not fast enough. Every one of us in Parliament wants that rate to improve, which is why so many members speak in the debate every year. Input and support from those with lived experience is crucial in helping us better understand pancreatic cancer. As we know, it is a fast-developing, devastating cancer that needs to be caught early.

Last week, I co-chaired the Scottish cancer conference at the University of Strathclyde, alongside Jackie Baillie. I had a number of interesting conversations about pancreatic cancer that day. There is a real call to ensure that the Scottish Government supports the national HPB pathway—a national approach that aligns closely with the new cancer action plan for 2023-26. The commitment to invest in improving the pathway for less survivable cancers, particularly pancreatic cancer, is really important. I hope that we see that turnaround.

The national model will ensure uniform care across all regions of our country, helping to reduce health inequalities and improve outcomes across Scotland. Therefore, it is a real step forward. It is also hoped that that pathway will address Scotland’s record long cancer waiting times, on which we need to keep a focus as well.

I urge ministers to support the implementation of the pathway to ensure that there is genuine progress on care targets. That call for action has been heard from campaigners for some time and if, as I hope we do, we see that progress, it will very much be down to their hard work.

Scotland has done a huge amount to ensure progress in tackling pancreatic cancer. We cannot forget that and we need to celebrate it. Although outcomes for patients might not be where we want them to be, we have made progress as a country.

I will end on a point of hope. I often come into contact with our former MSP colleague John Scott. Last weekend, I met him on Saturday in Stranraer. He was bouncing around my colleague’s constituency delivering leaflets. John is an example of what I pray and hope that we will all see: a case in which cancer is detected early, it is treated and the person goes on to have good life expectancy and outcomes. For me, he is an example of where we should be.

On world pancreatic cancer day, let us honour those whom we have lost, thank those who are still fighting and pledge to do the very best that we can to ensure a brighter future so that those who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will be able to seek treatment and tackle their cancer.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am grateful to Clare Adamson for bringing the debate to the chamber and I thank her for doing so.

I am delighted to hear Miles Briggs’s update on John Scott. Those of us who had the pleasure of serving in the Parliament with Mr Scott all have enormous affection for him, despite political differences. Through Mr Briggs, I pass on my best wishes.

I thank the charities, survivors and family members for their work to keep the spotlight on the condition not only during pancreatic cancer awareness month but year round.

I was keen to speak at the request of a number of constituents who have been in contact with me asking if I would do so, because it enables me to mention their experience and allow their voices to be heard in the debate.

One constituent told me of losing her father to pancreatic cancer last year. The diagnosis came too late, as it often does, which gave him no chance. She told me of the devastation that that understandably caused her and her family. I was able to correspond with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and raise some of the issues in the family’s experience of engaging with the national health service for his treatment. I was grateful for the response that the cabinet secretary sent me.

Another constituent spoke of losing her brother and yet another wrote to me to say that they themselves have, sadly, been diagnosed and described the obvious impact that that has had on them.

I send each of those constituents my best wishes. It is for them that I speak in the debate. For too many people, including too many of my constituents, this is a deeply personal debate on a disease that has a sudden and traumatic impact on their lives. I am sure that we will be united—we have already heard that—in pushing for more awareness, more research and earlier diagnosis and treatment for the condition.

The reality is that pancreatic cancer remains one of the less survivable cancers. It is a tough disease to diagnose and treat. Too many people are diagnosed only once symptoms have become severe and, by that stage, treatment options can be limited. The challenge for any health service is that a delay in diagnosis or treatment can prove fatal.

However, those challenges also point us to where we can make a difference as policy makers by improving early detection. I welcome the Scottish Government’s detect cancer early programme, which takes a whole-systems approach to early detection that encompasses primary care, diagnostics, public education, data, innovation and screening. The new rapid cancer diagnostic services—including one in the NHS Lanarkshire area in which my and Ms Adamson’s constituencies are located—are a further addition to how cancer can be diagnosed.

Clare Adamson’s motion rightly points out the need for further research on pancreatic cancer as, at the moment, it receives only around 3 per cent of the United Kingdom cancer research budget. Not only should we consider whatever means are at our disposal and open to us to increase that percentage and the overall spending on cancer research, but, collectively, we must ensure that our excellent, world-class research institutions are able to attract the fullest range of international research funding and that international researchers know that they are welcome to come here to contribute to that effort.

I welcome what will be a consensual debate, given the broad consensus that we have on matters such as the importance of early diagnosis, greater research and the steps that the Government is taking to improve pathways for patients who might need treatment. I look forward to hearing from the minister what more is being done to improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer in Scotland.

I conclude by thanking my constituents who took the time to contact me about their experiences, whether as a patient or as the loved one of a patient, ahead of today’s debate. It is not easy for people to talk about their own ill health or the loss of a loved one, and I am grateful to them for sharing their experiences with me.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Hepburn. I very much echo your comments in relation to John Scott.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I, too, thank Clare Adamson for bringing the debate to the chamber, and for all the work that she has done on pancreatic cancer over this session of Parliament.

I am glad that the Parliament is once again marking pancreatic cancer awareness month and highlighting the importance of greater awareness and timely diagnosis. I welcome the opportunity to contribute—I think that I have contributed in each of the previous annual debates.

It is important to take a moment to reflect on the scale of the illness and the profound impact that it has on many families. Others have mentioned the statistics, so I will not go back over them, but I will say that we must always remember that catching the cancer early dramatically improves the chances of treatment and recovery. We know from the statistics that eight in 10 people are diagnosed at a late stage, which means that they are often diagnosed too late for treatment. That is a tragedy. More than 50 per cent are diagnosed in emergency settings, such as accident and emergency, despite the vast majority of patients visiting their general practitioner multiple times before being diagnosed.

For patients, recognising the symptoms of pancreatic cancer represents a first step in diagnosis, especially in the absence of the early detection tests that others have mentioned. Symptoms can be vague, which can make the cancer really difficult to spot, so the public awareness campaigns that are run by charities and organisations to support early detection are crucial. I, too, thank the various organisations that do that work, and those that have contacted me ahead of today’s debate for their work and for all the helpful briefings. The briefings show the scale of the problem and the challenge ahead; they also show us what we have to work towards.

Other members have mentioned the importance of research and the related challenges and barriers, as well as the important tests that can detect the disease. We need all that work to come together so that we can improve survival rates. I noticed that, in the past 15 years, the five-year survival rate has increased from 3 per cent to 7 per cent. It has not moved at pace, but it shows that we can make a difference by working together, including with other nations.

Before closing, I will take a moment, as I often do, to reflect on health inequalities and their impact on outcomes for our constituents. We know that the detection of cancer in our more deprived communities can be very difficult. In those areas, people interact with health services in a very different way, and we have a responsibility to raise this issue time and again. The latest Public Health Scotland data revealed that the incidence of all cancers was 24 per cent greater in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived areas. Often, that is about early detection and supporting people to get the right advice at the right time.

In previous debates, I have warned about the impact of health inequalities on some of our most vulnerable communities and called for urgent action in that regard. We must do more to empower our communities to speak to healthcare professionals when they need help, and to ensure that a clear and understandable plan is put in place to address any inequalities that people might face.

I thank the guests in the gallery for their attendance and all the members who have contributed to the debate.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am grateful to my colleague Clare Adamson for bringing this important debate to the chamber during pancreatic cancer awareness month to mark today’s world pancreatic cancer day.

Since being elected in 2021, I have spoken in all the debates that my colleagues Clare Adamson and Willie Coffey have brought to the chamber on this topic—it is one on which I will always speak up. I extend my sincere thanks to the amazing charities, such as Pancreatic Cancer Action and Pancreatic Cancer UK, to the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce and to other dedicated organisations. I welcome them all here today. They are at the forefront of raising awareness and fighting for better outcomes for those with pancreatic cancer, and I thank them for that.

Unfortunately, pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer and is often referred to as a “silent killer”, because its early symptoms are difficult to spot. As has been mentioned, around 900 people in Scotland are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer each year, with most being diagnosed too late for effective treatment. Sadly, half of those who are diagnosed with that deadly disease will die within three months and 93 per cent will die within five years.

Those extremely low survival rates are largely due to late-stage diagnosis and limited access to robust diagnostic and treatment resources. That is why I reiterate the common symptoms for the benefit of anyone who is listening: the whites of the eyes, or the skin, turning yellow; itchy skin; darker pee; poo that is paler than usual; loss of appetite; losing weight without trying to; feeling tired or having no energy; and having a high temperature or feeling hot or shivery.

It is vital that we push for long-term investment in research to ensure that we can beat those low survival rates. Currently, pancreatic cancer receives only 3 per cent of UK research funding. More investment and time are needed so that we can ensure fast identification of those who have pancreatic cancer.

We can all agree that more must be done, because this remains one of the deadliest forms of cancer. However, despite those challenges, advances have been made. According to the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce, Scotland is leading the way on such cancers by identifying them as a strategic priority in the 10-year cancer strategy. If we can translate that into action that results in earlier and faster diagnosis, I hope that we will see significant improvements.

I also welcome the Scottish Government provision of funding from April 2022 to March 2024 for the then pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma pathway improvement project. According to Pancreatic Cancer Action, the data from the project has been encouraging and improvements have been demonstrated.

Where do we go from here? Given that time really is of the essence for those who have this cruel and devastating disease, it is crucial that we support and get input from those with lived experience and expertise. As stated by Pancreatic Cancer Action, it is essential that the work and learning from developing and delivering the pancreatic cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma pathway and the Scottish hepato-pancreato-biliary service are incorporated and built on as fast as possible. We must ensure that we focus on the next steps and urgently consider how the benefits demonstrated can be delivered as a priority.

Finally, I pay tribute to my constituents who have, sadly, lost their lives because of pancreatic cancer. Helen, Donald, Billy and Christine will forever be missed by family, friends and loved ones, but they will never be forgotten, and that applies to many others, too. We must work together in their memory to do everything that we can to raise awareness of that disease and to save lives.

Again, I thank Clare Adamson for bringing the debate the chamber.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I am grateful to Clare Adamson for securing this important debate, which marks world pancreatic cancer day during pancreatic cancer awareness month.

It is not the first time that I have spoken on this subject in the chamber. As deputy convener of the cross-party group on brain tumours and a member of the cross-party group on cancer, I have always maintained that raising awareness of all cancers is vitally important. As MSPs, we are privileged to have not just the opportunity but the duty to raise awareness.

At this point in the debate, there will always be repetition of statistics, but I make no apology, because highlighting them is so important. Pancreatic cancer is one of the six less survivable cancers and is known as a “silent killer”, because its early symptoms are difficult to spot. The grim reality is that only one in four people diagnosed survives more than a year. In Scotland, survival rates remain among the worst in Europe—we are 35th out of 36 comparable countries—and that is unacceptable.

Around 900 people are diagnosed in Scotland each year, and more than 10,500 across the UK. Tragically, half of those who are diagnosed in Scotland will die within three months and 93 per cent within five years. With incidence rising, pancreatic cancer deaths could soon overtake breast cancer deaths.

One of the major areas of concern is improving pathways for people with pancreatic and liver cancer. Scotland has been leading the way through the then—this is where I get tongue-tied—pancreatic and hepatocellular carcinoma pathway improvement project, whose work was peer reviewed and published in the European Journal of Surgical Oncology . The project has delivered statistically significant improvements across all seven key performance indicators for pancreatic cancer, reducing staging times and improving communication. It proved that expedited diagnostic pathways save lives. However, that service was closed—twice.

We cannot afford to lose momentum. The Scottish Government must act faster, by building on what has worked rather than starting from scratch. Late diagnosis remains a critical factor in influencing outcomes. We need urgent action now, and we need earlier and faster diagnosis, quicker pathways and greater investment in research. Lives depend on that. There is hope. Scotland is working on a national optimal diagnostic pathway for HPB cancers, but time is of the essence. Pancreatic cancer is different—it moves fast, and every delay costs lives.

Previously, I raised awareness of a major problem in Dumfries and Galloway, which was the lack of hospice care. With around 1,200 new cancer diagnoses in D and G each year, the need for accessible, compassionate support has never been greater. That is why I supported efforts to establish a Maggie’s centre in Dumfries, which is the home town of the charity’s founder, Maggie Keswick Jencks. Earlier this year, I was delighted to hear the announcement that a new cancer support centre will be housed locally. That is a giant step forward, because Maggie’s centres across the country are renowned for their holistic approach to cancer care, and having one in Dumfries will make a profound difference to those who live locally.

Returning to pancreatic cancer, the Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce recommends that the Scottish HPB cancer service should become a national initiative, not a regional model. I fully support that, as I did last year.

As I stated in my members’ business debate on rural healthcare yesterday, equity is essential in healthcare. In this instance, equity of access is key—ensuring uniform care across all regions, including Dumfries and Galloway.

Education must be one of the most powerful weapons. Raising awareness is critical, not just for early detection but for improving patient experience and outcomes. I will repeat the symptoms: yellowing of the skin or eyes; darker urine; paler stools; itchy skin; loss of appetite or unexplained weight loss; fatigue; lack of energy; and a high temperature or feeling hot and shivery.

Regrettably, our understanding of the disease is limited, but we know that smoking, obesity and family history increase risks.

Many of us have lost family and friends to pancreatic cancer. Today, on world pancreatic cancer day, once again, I will take the opportunity to remember my pals, Mark Caygill and Peter Murray Usher. This is the most difficult part of any speech—it is not about stats. They were taken far too young. The man who was my mentor, a dear friend and the person who is ultimately responsible for me being here in this place today, is a former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, Sir Alex Fergusson, who died of cancer only a few months after retiring.

This is Scotland’s deadliest common cancer, so we cannot accept the status quo. We must act urgently, collectively and decisively, because lives depend on it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Willie Coffey is the final speaker in the open debate.

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

I thank my colleague Clare Adamson for again raising awareness of pancreatic cancer. I have tried to participate in the debate on the subject each year in which I have been a member of the Parliament and in memory of my mother, who died from the disease in 1985—some 40 years ago—at the age of only 52. Although it remains one of the most stubborn cancers, progress is being made, with the emphasis on early detection of the vague symptoms that it presents. This will be the last time that I make such a contribution, but I will look in next year to hear the debate and to continue my support for the work that is being done to battle the cancer.

I am grateful to Pancreatic Cancer UK for its briefing. Among the stats and information that it provided, one thing stood out for me—that 80 per cent of people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed too late. Some members have mentioned that. I hope that that frightening statistic will alert the public to take seriously some of the vague symptoms that can appear. Early detection and diagnosis hold the key to more treatment options and lead to better survival rates.

Clare Adamson and other members have described those vague symptoms, and we need to repeat them—it is always worth doing that. Unexplained weight loss, indigestion, stomach and back pain, new-onset diabetes and even yellowing of the skin have already been mentioned by members, but we have to get that message through to the public. Folk should visit their GP to begin the process of being checked out if they experience those symptoms. Interestingly, around one in five people over the age of 60—as I am—will already have a pancreatic cyst, but only a small percentage of those will develop into pancreatic cancer.

I will take a brief look at some of the research that is going on. At the University of Glasgow, there is work being done to identify the features of higher-risk cysts in order to help doctors make the important treatment decisions. At the University of Liverpool, a test has been developed to identify type 3c diabetes, which may be an early indicator and an early warning sign. As Clare Adamson mentioned, Imperial College London is developing a breath test—a world first—that GPs could perform directly, after which they could make further referrals if need be. At the University of Essex, a new blood test is being developed that can help with early detection. Those are just a few examples of the fantastic work that is going on, which I hope will make a real difference to survival rates from the cancer.

We hear that family inheritance also plays a part. One in 10 cases are connected with inheritance. Even more work is being done on that, through the family history checker. I wish that some of that work had been funded 40 years ago.

I turn to some asks of the Government—basically, that it offers more support for diagnostic capacity across Scotland. If we are alerting the public to issues and conditions that may be a cause for concern, we need to provide people with easy, localised access to get the help that they might need. We need a centralised service to co-ordinate the family inheritance effort and to identify high-risk individuals across multiple cancer types.

Perhaps, in this day and age, we also need a wee bit more help from artificial intelligence, with the analytics and data analysis that are making great strides in medical science elsewhere. I know that the universities of Strathclyde and Glasgow are deploying AI techniques in their research, and I wish them good luck with that work. I wish all who are engaged in the research the very best of luck, and I ask the Scottish Government to help as best we can to support the research that might help us to begin to win the battle against pancreatic cancer.

Lastly, I thank my colleague Clare Adamson for again bringing the issue to the attention of the Scottish people, through their Parliament.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank my colleague Clare Adamson for bringing the motion to the chamber today and reminding us of the impact that pancreatic cancer can have. I took part in debates on the subject as a back bencher, because I recognise the importance of raising awareness.

I also thank Pancreatic Cancer Action, Pancreatic Cancer UK and others for their continued efforts in raising awareness of pancreatic cancer and supporting people and their loved ones who are facing that diagnosis. I, too, welcome those organisations to the Scottish Parliament today.

I thank my colleagues in the chamber for sharing such valuable contributions to the debate. Like Jamie Hepburn and other members, I have been contacted by constituents, in Argyll and Bute, and I have heard from families who are grieving the loss of a loved one through pancreatic cancer. I thank them for their courage in sharing their stories, with the heartfelt aim of improving knowledge and awareness.

Pancreatic cancer awareness month comes as a stark reminder to us all of the dreadful impact that a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer can have. The outcomes are typically poor, and we must significantly improve that situation at pace. I thank Marie McNair and Finlay Carson for describing the symptoms so clearly in their contributions. Willie Coffey and Finlay Carson are both absolutely right that we, as MSPs, are privileged to be able to help raise awareness.

The Scottish Government’s ambitious 10-year “Cancer Strategy for Scotland 2023-2033”, which was published in 2023, makes clear our determination to improve cancer survival rates. Our earlier cancer diagnosis vision underpins our investment in a range of programmes that are aimed at supporting early diagnosis, which will help us to improve survival rates. It includes publishing the refreshed Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancer, which support primary care clinicians in recognising the symptoms that may indicate cancer, including pancreatic cancer. The guidelines include, for the first time, criteria for non-specific symptoms; that is especially important for pancreatic cancer, as its early signs can be subtle and easily missed.

As Jamie Hepburn noted, we launched Scotland’s sixth rapid cancer diagnostic service this year. Those services are diagnosing cancer faster for those with non-specific symptoms. An independent evaluation by the University of Strathclyde found that hepato-pancreato-bili—it is my turn to get it wrong; I will just say HPB—cancers made up 17 per cent of the cancers that were found. I note the valuable work of all those involved in pilot projects to speed up the time from referral to diagnosis and treatment for patients with HPB cancers. Those involved have a key role in making it clear that we must do more for patients with pancreatic cancer across the whole cancer care pathway, not just part of it.

As Carol Mochan noted, collaboration is important. That is why we commissioned the Scottish HPB network to take forward the consensus and develop national recommended pathways for HPB cancers. The SHPBN has started to develop the clinical management pathway for those cancers, which will promote equitable routes to cancer care across Scotland, with patients at the centre. The network has also provided its clinical consensus on what optimal diagnosis for patients should look like to the centre for sustainable delivery, for use in its delivery of the upper gastrointestinal optimal diagnostic pathway, which will include HPB cancers. Those pieces of work will both be delivered in 2026.

As members have said, a pancreatic cancer diagnosis is devastating for those who are diagnosed and for their loved ones. I cannot stress enough the importance of person-centred care, to ensure that all patients get access to support throughout their cancer journey and that their voices and needs are heard.

The Scottish Government continues to support and invest in our single-point-of-contact pilots. Those aim to ensure that all patients have a point of contact to support them in navigating their cancer care, thereby improving shared decision making between the individual and their clinical teams and access to timely reporting of results. It has been found that the single-point-of-contact pilots have had more than 30,000 patient interactions, freeing up more than 3,970 hours of clinical nurse specialist time and improving experiences. We are actively considering how we best scale up that approach in order to benefit all patients with cancer in Scotland.

Through the transforming cancer care programme, the Scottish Government is working in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support to improve the service that we offer patients with cancer. That partnership is worth £27 million and is the first of its kind in the UK. From April 2024 to March 2025, more than 6,000 people across Scotland were supported through the programme by a specialist key worker, who signposted them to emotional, financial and practical support. That includes considering what local community assets and support services are available. I recognise Carol Mochan’s points about inequalities, and I believe that this service goes some way towards alleviating those.

We have taken important steps to improve care for people at every stage of their journey. This autumn, we published the “Palliative Care Matters for All” strategy, alongside refreshed national guidelines and new training resources to support those who deliver care.

I, too, would like to reflect on the positive news that Finlay Carson mentioned about the Maggie’s centre in Dumfries and Galloway, which makes a profound difference to those living with cancer and their families. We are working to strengthen bereavement support, where required, and to ensure that spiritual care is not just available but truly embedded in everyday practice.

Investment in our understanding of pancreatic cancer is key to the ability to prevent, identify and treat it. Our strategy makes clear the importance of research to our strategic aim of improving cancer survivability and providing excellent equitably accessible care to patients in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s chief scientist office directly funds research projects and fellowships. Last year, we committed more than £620,000 to fund two research projects at the University of Glasgow. The first project is looking at cells in pre-cancerous lesions that are at high risk of progressing to pancreatic cancer, and the second is looking at how cancer cells and immune cells interact in a way that can affect responses to initial chemotherapy. Our chief scientist office will continue to work with the University of Glasgow as the research progresses.

I want to make clear the Scottish Government’s enduring commitment to improving pancreatic cancer outcomes and supporting the importance of raising awareness. In doing so, we can improve early diagnosis rates as well as patient experience and overall outcomes. I look forward to seeing flashes of purple in support of pancreatic cancer awareness month, which will include lighting up the Scottish Government buildings St Andrew’s house and Victoria Quay tomorrow.

I thank everyone for their contributions and I especially thank the charities that are in the Parliament today. I hope that we can move to improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio is climate action and energy, and transport.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to its climate policies, what it hopes to achieve through its representation at COP30 in Brazil. (S6O-05179)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government’s representation at COP30 delivered on our programme for government commitment to lead on climate action internationally. At COP30, I pressed for the scaling up of quality finance to meet the needs of the most vulnerable; advocated for greater recognition of states, regions and devolved Governments in global climate processes through Scotland’s leadership roles as president of Regions4 and a co-chair of the Under2 Coalition; and confirmed funding for loss and damage, human rights and adaptation projects as part of the £36 million climate justice fund. I also showcased our climate justice and loss and damage programming, ensuring that the voices of the global south were amplified.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s funding for loss and damage, human rights and adaptation projects, which were announced at COP30 last week, and the continued commitment to climate justice and action. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about the Scottish Government’s domestic work to reach net zero, including through the recently published draft climate change plan?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I thank Rona Mackay for giving that context. Our climate change plan is very important when we represent internationally what we do and share our thoughts on how we can all decarbonise. Our plan sets out 150 actions across transport, buildings and agriculture that are aimed at meeting Scotland’s carbon budgets while supporting people to make and adjust to the changes that are required.

The plan introduces new measures to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, electrify industry and reduce emissions while making Scottish industry more competitive. The plan also describes how we will ensure that the opportunities that net zero presents for new jobs and economic growth, better infrastructure and energy security, cleaner air and improved public services are seized and fairly distributed as part of a just transition.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether she flew business class to Brazil and the total cost of the trip for her and her officials? Can she explain why that money would not have been better spent on constituents who are seeing their communities ruined by monster pylons and battery storage?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

A Government does international engagement as a matter of course. It is very important that every Government—whether it is a devolved Government in Scotland, the UK Government or any other Government—engages with international partners on items of great importance. Climate change is a global emergency and it requires an international response.

Douglas Lumsden knows that every Government will have expenses associated with any international travel, and he knows how to find out my expenses for that trip.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding plans for the proposed Clyde metro. (S6O-05180)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The on-going stage of the development process for Clyde metro, known as the case for investment, is being led by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. It is being supported by Glasgow City Council, with Transport Scotland providing a project assurance role. That key stage, which will inform decisions around network selection, phasing and implementation, is well under way and is anticipated to be complete in 2027.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that one of the proposals for Clyde metro is to have a rail link from Glasgow airport through Paisley Gilmour Street station. Given that Paisley Gilmour Street is one of the busiest stations in Scotland, does she not agree that having that link would make the entire project more viable and offer economic success for the town of Paisley? Does the cabinet secretary agree that the station would be one of the more important parts of the Clyde metro, as it is smack in the centre of the universe of Paisley?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The on-going stage of the development process for the Clyde metro will inform decisions on network selection, phasing, implementation and funding. I confirm to George Adam that the work includes consideration of access improvements to Glasgow airport by public transport. I am sure that he will make representations to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport on the case for links to Paisley Gilmour Street as part of that process.

The Clyde metro is a transformational project. It would address the gaps that he has identified in public transport provision in the region and make sure that there is connectivity between sectors of education, employment, leisure and tourism, and it is clear that Paisley is one of the key areas that need to be connected. However, as I set out, it is SPT’s role to develop those network selections.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the fragmentation of control between the Scottish Government and the regional transport partnership militates against efficiency, when compared to other jurisdictions that have delivered metro rail very efficiently, such as Madrid? For example, the advanced manufacturing innovation district Scotland—AMIDS—south project in Paisley cannot consider very light rail in order to get a quick win with a shuttle train between the airport terminal and Paisley Gilmour Street because of the lack of span of control between rail and road, and because road projects always take priority by default.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

It is open to Transport Scotland to work with SPT on all those connectivity issues at the request of SPT. I am sure that Paul Sweeney will make those representations to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport as it sets out the network selections and connections. If he is saying that we should centralise all the decision making over transport in Scotland, I am not sure that that would be good, but synergy between rail and road and other forms of public transport, as has been set out in the options for Clyde metro, would make sense. I encourage everyone to look at the issue from a place-based perspective.

Graham Simpson (Reform UK, Central Scotland)

I agree with the cabinet secretary that the Clyde metro could be transformational, but we need to see more detail. She mentions that there could be some kind of update by 2027. Will that provide more detail on what routes there might be and the kind of transport that would be on them?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The case for change, which strengthens the rationale for Clyde metro, will be set out with a vision and objectives. The development of potential network options to address problems and opportunities will also be identified in the case for change, as well as the emerging shortlist of network options, which is what Graham Simpson is asking for. Those will be taken forward for further development. That will all be considered along with the potential modes for Clyde metro, including bus rapid transit, tram, tram-train and metro, which also relates to the question that Paul Sweeney asked.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting communities and local authorities to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including through nature-based solutions. (S6O-05181)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Nature is one of the best tools that we have to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Nature can support our physical and mental health, cool our urban areas in summer and, critically, protect our places from heavy rain and floods.

Scottish Government funding streams such as the £65 million nature restoration fund, the water environment fund, our network of climate action hubs and practical resources from NatureScot and Adaptation Scotland support the huge efforts of community groups and local authorities, which are already delivering those nature-based solutions on the ground.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

A recent poll by the MCS Foundation found that although more than a third of Scots do not feel informed about what action is being taken to meet their climate targets, a clear majority still see climate action as important, with 66 per cent of people saying that they would replace their current fossil fuel boiler to help tackle climate change. The Government’s existing support, including Home Energy Scotland’s advice service and the roll-out of local heat and energy efficiency strategies, already helps individuals and local communities to make the right decisions about how to decarbonise their home heating.

Will the cabinet secretary say more about the differences that those services are making and confirm the Government’s continued commitment to delivering a national advice service so that households can make well-informed and confident choices about the future of heating their homes?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am pleased that David Torrance highlights the local heat and energy efficiency strategies and Home Energy Scotland. It is absolutely the duty of a local MSP to highlight the support services that are available to allow households to decarbonise. It is crucial that we help people to make informed, positive climate choices. Councils have completed their first round of local heat and energy efficiency strategies, which help to set out likely solutions across Scotland. The right solution in each case is dependent on individual properties and choices, and those choices need to be informed and made with advice.

Our Home Energy Scotland advice service continues to support thousands of households annually with free bespoke and impartial advice to make their homes easier, cheaper and greener to heat. The service also points people to sources of grant support, including the warmer homes Scotland scheme and the Home Energy Scotland grant and loan schemes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 4 has not been lodged.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I apologise to the chamber for my late arrival—I had not realised that the timetable had changed.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support the growth of the domestic supply chain for energy infrastructure. (S6O-05183)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We are directly supporting the sector through the just transition fund and our commitment to invest up to £500 million over five years in offshore wind infrastructure and manufacturing. That includes support for projects such as those involving Maritime Developments, Verlume and Sumitomo’s cable factory. We are also supporting ports across Scotland—including at Ardersier and Kishorn—which are critical to the deployment of all those projects. Over the past 18 months, we have invested almost £150 million and have leveraged about £740 million of wider investment into 10 projects, which have the potential to support about 5,000 jobs across Scotland. That is just the start—we have seen that port developments can support hundreds more jobs indirectly.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

If we are to make the most of the economic opportunities that come with modernising and expanding our energy infrastructure, having a strong domestic supply chain is vital. We are already hearing warnings from across the sector that, due to a lack of domestic manufacturing capacity, it risks missing out on tens of billions of pounds of inward investment. However, we are still not even close to providing enough college and apprenticeship places to meet the demand for engineers, technicians and those with other trades that those sectors are desperate to recruit in order to build that capacity. In fact, many places for such courses are being cut because of financial pressure. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, without a skilled workforce, we cannot possibly hope to reap the benefits that would come from modernising our energy infrastructure and that cutting places is the absolute worst thing that we could be doing?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am glad to hear Brian Whittle focus on the economic opportunities that are associated with energy infrastructure. He makes very good points that are often missed by his colleagues about the economic importance of that.

A source of great dismay to me has been that there are no local conditions as part of the National Energy System Operator’s procurement of an energy and electricity upgrade system. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about that issue. When we did our ScotWind round, we made sure that there were local procurement and local content provisions within the conditions. Doing so meant that the economic growth would stay in Scotland. We have also recently invested in a programme of offshore wind skills training provision, and we recently opened the offshore wind skills hub in the city of Aberdeen.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the outcome of its discussions with the UK Government regarding its Railways Bill. (S6O-05185)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The UK Government’s Railways Bill has, as we understand it, been informed by the success of the Scottish Government’s policy of integrated management of track and train in Scotland’s railway. Our preferred policy position remains that it is in Scotland’s best interests for rail powers to be devolved fully. However, we support the bill’s policy intent, as it seeks to maximise the benefits of greater rail industry integration while respecting current devolved responsibilities. The bill will allow the Scottish Government to have greater accountability for rail infrastructure, reflecting the significant financial investment that we make. It will also give the Scottish ministers new powers to give directions and guidance to Great British railways on Scottish railway activities.

Although we are supportive of the bill, it will be subject to further scrutiny, including through the Scottish Parliament’s legislative consent process, which we are now going through. Further updates will be provided in due course.

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

Despite the majority of funding for Scotland’s railways coming from the Scottish Government, not all aspects of them are fully accountable to the Scottish Parliament. The cabinet secretary addressed that point in her initial response. The bill will not alter the fundamental reality of that.

The Scottish National Party has shown what can be achieved when decisions about Scotland’s railways are taken in Scotland. Notwithstanding what the cabinet secretary has already said, does she agree that, despite the UK Government’s current position, the bill provides a major opportunity to devolve powers over Scotland’s railways fully into the control of this Parliament and Government and to let us get on with the job of running the best railways in the UK?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

In Scotland, public ownership by the SNP Government has created the opportunity to deliver a railway that is truly run for the benefit of passengers, our communities and our businesses. Our approach is widely admired and even envied elsewhere in Great Britain. Our counterparts in Wales and the north of England want to follow the success of our devolved model, which has resulted in consistently higher passenger satisfaction in ScotRail train performance than the GB average.

It remains our strong position that the best policy is to devolve rail powers fully, which would enable us to build on success and would reflect the level of funding that we provide to Scotland’s railway—more than £1.5 billion this year. However, within the limitations of the bill, I have secured greater ministerial powers of direction for the aspects of rail that we fund and set strategy for.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Proposals in the Railways Bill would require the UK Secretary of State for Transport to set an overall target of a 75 per cent increase in the amount of freight moved by rail by 2050. I am keen to understand what engagement the cabinet secretary has had with the UK Government on rail freight. Does she agree that maintaining open access for rail freight companies is the best way to ensure that goods can be moved more effectively across Scotland?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As part of the bill’s development, I have had extensive discussions in person with Lord Hendy, the rail minister, and the secretary of state, Heidi Alexander. Issues of cross-border travel are part of continuing discussions—intercity travel and freight are essential parts of rail development, as are aspects of access. The issue of open access is critical to the UK Government’s decision making. We have set out in our strategy and our high-level output specification that freight is essential. I am pleased to see that the UK Government has copied that and reflected in its position the need to increase rail freight. That is encouraging, but, until rail powers are fully devolved, we will always have to protect Scotland’s interests in our on-going discussions with the UK Government.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It would seem that the UK Government takes a more positive approach, because the Railways Bill’s policy documentation says that all three Governments—UK, Scottish and Welsh—support the reforms and will continue to work together to deliver benefits. I urge the Scottish Government to work co-operatively on the bill, and I am encouraged to learn that work is being done on a memorandum of understanding between our two Governments.

The issue of freight has already been raised. What benefits can the cabinet secretary see from the Railways Bill in relation to increased partnership working between Transport Scotland and Great British rail?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The bill will give ministers control and direction over railways in Scotland. That includes the infrastructure that is currently under Network Rail and the infrastructure that we have in public ownership in relation to ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper.

I have had numerous extensive discussions with the UK Government, and those discussions continue. I am co-operating extremely well—I am sure that the UK Government would acknowledge that. However, I have been absolutely clear, as I was in the Parliament during our debate, that there is no way in which I would countenance any diminution of our devolved responsibilities.

We have to chart a way forward, and the bill is part of that. Claire Baker referred to the memorandum of understanding, which will be critical for the issues relating to rail freight, as set out by Sue Webber, and other matters. The bill includes aspects that, currently, we would be asked about or consulted on by the secretary of state. The situation will be reversed for some issues—for example, we will set the strategy for rail freight—but we will reflect and consult with the secretary of state on other matters. Therefore, in some instances, the roles will be reversed, and good co-operation and understanding will be required.

Although I support the bill, as I have said, we will have to go through the legislative consent memorandum process. Of the 90-odd sections of the bill, 27 will affect Scotland, so that is an extensive piece of work that will go to the committee. I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government can work constructively with the UK Government to ensure that we get the best result for Scotland. Full devolution would be the best result, but, short of that, I think that we can work with the bill.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in discussing Scotland’s draft climate change plan 2026 to 2040 with stakeholders and MSPs. (S6O-05186)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I wrote to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, the Climate Change Committee, the United Kingdom Government, environmental non-governmental organisations, the Just Transition Commission and business and third sector groups to inform them of the draft plan’s publication. A public consultation on the plan is now open on the Government’s website, and we will hold public engagement activities to make it as active and inclusive as possible. We will also continue to convene the climate change plan advisory group to gather expert views and will continue to engage with members of the Scottish Parliament throughout the consultation period.

I have offered meetings to the NZET Committee’s convener and to numerous MSPs—those invitations went out in the past couple of days—and my door remains open for anyone across the chamber to engage on the draft plan. I certainly include Monica Lennon in that if she wants to discuss the plan with me.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that welcome update. Organisations across the energy, manufacturing and housing sectors are expected to deliver the clean heat ambitions that are set out in the draft climate change plan, but many are saying that they cannot plan properly for the scale of the challenge, especially now that the heat in buildings bill has been kicked down the road until after the election.

I recognise the wider engagement that the cabinet secretary has carried out, and I welcome her offer today. What can she say to stakeholders who think that there is a lack of certainty and who want that effective engagement to continue?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I refer Monica Lennon and anyone from those sectors to the statement that was made by my colleague Màiri McAllan. She gave some of the reasons why she thought that it was best to publish a draft heat in buildings bill in this parliamentary session, but she could not make a commitment to get the bill through by the end of the parliamentary session because we do not have certainty about the UK Government’s warm homes plan or the electricity and gas pricing arrangements. That information is critical when it comes to taking a view on the measures that we can take, because the price of electricity is fundamental to the plans for decarbonisation of heat in Scotland. I refer Monica Lennon and anyone else who wants details on that to the statement that Ms McAllan made on Tuesday.

The draft bill is out for consultation. It is available for people to see, and the certainty on it and the trajectory are there for people to see. Ms McAllan was certain that she wanted to give that certainty.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Scotland will fail to meet its target to reduce food waste by one third by this year. In 2019, the Scottish Government said that it would deliver sustained communication to drive change. Unfortunately, that change was to increase food waste. What work is on-going to engage consumers and businesses to deliver behaviour change?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Maurice Golden will be aware that we have a circular economy route map, which has been worked on with the involvement of local authorities. We are working with them to reduce food waste, in particular, across the 32 local authorities. We are also working closely with my colleagues in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on that. I can signpost Maurice Golden to the more recent circular economy announcements about the publishing of the route map and the results of the engagement work that has been undertaken as a result of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024.

Offshore Wind

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Gillian Martin on offshore wind. 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)

Offshore wind development presents an era-defining opportunity to grow our green economy for the benefit of communities across Scotland while supporting our energy security and our journey towards net zero.

Through our world-leading ScotWind and innovation and targeted oil and gas—INTOG—leasing rounds, Scotland is at the forefront of offshore wind development globally, with a potential project pipeline of more than 40GW. That is more than 40 per cent of the United Kingdom’s total pipeline, which is one of the largest in the world.

Our abundant natural resources, world-leading subsea engineering capabilities, strong skills base in oil and gas production, and extensive potential pipeline of projects mean that we are uniquely positioned to lead the global charge on offshore wind and to be at the heart of Europe’s energy transition for decades to come.

Most importantly, Scotland’s offshore wind journey is about opportunities for the people of Scotland: opportunities for our communities and our workforce; opportunities for our young people who are just starting out in their careers; opportunities for supporting a just transition; opportunities for reinvigorating coastal communities; and opportunities for growing our economy in a sustainable way.

Although I acknowledge the uncertainty that global market dynamics—including the decisions by some to pivot away from renewables—are currently bringing to the offshore wind sector, there should be no doubt that offshore wind remains one of Scotland’s most significant economic opportunities and our key competitive advantage in the energy transition. Indeed, as several recent strategic acquisition and investment decisions by committed developers have demonstrated, it is clear that there is confidence in Scotland’s offshore wind market.

The Scottish public sector continues to be steadfast in its backing of the offshore wind industry. The Scottish National Investment Bank’s investment in the Pentland project, which was announced yesterday, sends a clear signal to the market that floating wind technology is of critical importance for Scotland’s energy transition, our supply chain and our economy. It also marks the bank’s and the United Kingdom National Wealth Fund’s first joint investment.

Our pipeline of offshore wind projects continues to turn potential into reality. For example, the Moray West and Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farms became fully operational earlier this year. They have a combined capacity of 1.3GW, which is enough to power more than 1 million homes. In addition, Inch Cape offshore wind farm is now under construction. The company took me through its plans at Montrose port the week before I stood alongside its micropiles on the quayside at the port of Leith as I launched the climate change plan.

We estimate that the potential capital value of the Scottish offshore wind market could be around £100 billion, given full deployment of the potential pipeline. We are in a unique position to maximise that potential and build on Scotland’s already strong reputation as a destination for offshore wind investment.

A key ingredient is our approach to leveraging wider investment. In the past 18 months alone, we have invested around £150 million in the offshore wind supply chain and ports. That has leveraged around £740 million of wider investment in 10 projects, which have the potential to support around 5,000 jobs in communities across Scotland, including at Ardersier, Montrose, Scapa, Lerwick, Nigg and Kishorn.

Scotland has already seen significant commitments from capital and inward investors. The development at Ardersier port, which has the potential to support around 3,000 jobs and reskilling opportunities, is one of the largest regeneration projects in the Highlands for decades. Forth Ports has invested £150 million in expanding offshore wind capabilities. Sumitomo is investing £350 million in a subsea cable factory, which is projected to support around 330 jobs over 10 years, and, just last month, Mitsui & Co Europe Ltd and MOL—Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd—announced plans for a multimillion-pound upgrade at the Port of Nigg. I was glad to meet them last month.

One of the most significant opportunities lies in the offshore wind industry’s ability to support well-paid, secure and sustainable employment for people across Scotland. As it continues to grow, the offshore wind sector is providing opportunities to those who are entering the job market for the first time, as well as those who want or need to change careers as part of a just transition.

Last week, we published “Scotland’s Offshore Wind Skills Priorities and Action Plan”. Developed in partnership with industry and public sector partners, the plan sets out initial actions that are to be taken over the next two years to support the pipeline of skilled workers that will be needed by the offshore wind sector right across Scotland.

The actions build on existing work that is aimed at upskilling Scotland’s renewable energy workforce, which includes the recently launched energy transition skills hub and the oil and gas transition training fund, which is supporting our valued oil and gas workers to retrain and upskill and move into new renewable energy job opportunities.

We are also working hard to manage the marine space in a planned way that ensures that the interests of the marine environment and all marine users, including our valued fishing sector, are properly considered. That is central to our considerations as we update the sectoral marine plan for offshore wind energy and work to support the delivery of strategic compensation and a Scottish marine recovery fund.

I am, of course, fully aware that where there is an opportunity to be realised there will also be challenges that need to be overcome. Current global market dynamics are bringing uncertainty, which is exactly why the Government chooses to back the sector and provide it with the regulatory, policy and investment stability that it needs to grow.

However, action also needs to be taken by others. We continue to work closely with the UK Government on our shared ambitions around clean power to deliver economic growth and energy security and to support net zero ambitions, but we need action on critical issues that relate to reserved powers. To secure project delivery in Scotland, the UK Government must prioritise the reforms that are necessary to make transmission charges fairer so that there is a level playing field for Scottish projects, and it must bring forward grid connection dates. A lack of certainty on network connection dates and the unfair transmission charging regime are the most significant barriers to the delivery of Scottish offshore wind projects.

This year’s contracts for difference allocation round 7 is a pivotal moment to inject fresh momentum into Scotland’s offshore wind sector and build on the strategic investments in our supply chain that have been made to date. In my ask of the UK Government I have been clear that the final budget for allocation round 7 must facilitate the deployment of fixed and floating offshore wind projects in Scotland while ultimately keeping prices affordable for consumers. Let us be clear that an underfunded auction would jeopardise the delivery of Scotland’s offshore wind pipeline, undermine investor confidence and risk pushing investment and jobs that are of critical importance, not least to those in the north-east, towards other markets.

We will continue to work constructively with the UK Government and other partners to ensure that Scotland’s offshore wind sector reaches its full potential, because we all need to play our part. It is imperative that all of us, as Scotland’s elected representatives, advocate for the sector, given the size of the prize for our economy, energy security and net zero ambitions. In doing so, we will reinforce to investors that Scotland is a prime destination for investment in offshore wind projects, supply chain and infrastructure.

Offshore wind offers not just an energy solution but a huge economic and social opportunity for the people of Scotland. Although I acknowledge that there are challenges to be overcome, the fact remains that Scotland is seen globally as a country that is leading the way and one from which others can learn; a country that is doing everything within its power to deliver the benefits that our tremendous potential pipeline of offshore wind projects represents, and in a way that ensures that the environmental impact and the interests of all marine users are properly considered; and a country that is working hard to deliver sustainable opportunities for our supply chain that translate into good-quality, well-paid jobs for the people of Scotland and support prosperous, sustainable communities.

The opportunity before us all is vast. Let us continue working together to seize it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

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

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement, but it seems rather tone deaf of her to come here and talk about the jobs of tomorrow when jobs of today are being lost at Mossmorran and right across the North Sea oil and gas sector, with the Government’s presumption against new oil and gas. However, north-east fishermen will be dismayed to hear that the Government wants to sell our fishing communities down the river yet again, given the announcement. With it, the Government is sticking two fish fingers up to our fishermen. The scale of these projects is massive, and each and every time a new project is consented, it severely restricts where our fishermen can fish. What fishermen are asking for is simple—protection from reckless spatial squeeze, recognition that fishing must remain an integral part of Scotland’s future, and a moratorium on new offshore wind until the full impact on our fishing grounds is fully understood. Will the cabinet secretary urgently get around the table with our fishermen to ensure that they are not sacrificed on this Government’s ideological pursuit of net zero, and will she also instruct developers to engage constructively with our fishermen to ensure that they are properly compensated for their loss of fishing grounds?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

If I am in ideological pursuit of anything, it is prosperity and economic growth for the people of Scotland. It is a little bit strange that an energy spokesperson from another party, who would like to be standing where I am right now, would completely and utterly miscall a huge part of the energy sector and not give it support. It is astonishing that someone who represents the north-east, and who wants to continue to represent the north-east, would say to the people of that area that he is not interested in the future of the North Sea’s floating offshore wind or offshore wind. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Lumsden.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is a very strange attack, but I am not in the business of giving political advice to Douglas Lumsden.

I meet representatives from the fishing industry regularly, and I meet Elspeth Macdonald from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation regularly. I saw her this week, albeit informally. We have a fundamental role to play in managing the marine space. We are clear that the expansion of offshore wind must be achieved sustainably and with the consideration of other industries. The sectoral marine plan, which we are currently updating in consultation with all interested parties, is underpinned by comprehensive impact assessments that identify opportunities—[ Interruption .] Deputy Presiding Officer, It is very difficult to deliver the answer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I get that. Please resume your seat for a second. I am a bit weary of all the sedentary chit-chat. When a member has the floor, that is the member whose voice we want to hear. We do not want to hear any other voice.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The sectoral marine plan is underpinned by comprehensive impact assessments that identify opportunities and constraints for development. Those assessments are informed by the latest scientific evidence and extensive stakeholder engagement, including that from the fishing sector.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of her statement. Shell has returned its CampionWind lease to Crown Estate Scotland. Is she worried that other leaseholders are considering handing back their licences? What will she do to develop confidence in offshore wind and its supply chains and to promote new manufacturing?

The cabinet secretary referenced the Pentland project with investment from Great British Energy, the National Wealth Fund and the Scottish National Investment Bank, each of which has the option to invest up to £50 million. Does the Scottish Government have a plan to ensure that we will see more of that funding to get training opportunities and to create permanent jobs and investment?

Feedback from the renewables sector is that speeding up planning decisions is crucial to building investment confidence so that we can get manufacturing investment in Scotland rather than importing renewables components. For example, manufacturing renewables components at the port of Leith would be a huge opportunity. What is the Scottish Government doing to deliver on that ask? When will we see the energy strategy and the just transition plan?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I was going to praise Sarah Boyack for being a spokesperson who understands the economic value of what we are trying to do. Her Government in London has had a strong record of championing this area since it came into government, along with the Scottish Government; it is one of the areas of agreement that we have.

Where we do not have agreement is on the impact of the energy profits levy on confidence. Some very interesting work was done on the EPL by Offshore Energies UK, which put a proposal to the UK Government to set out how it can get more funds into the Treasury as a result of a reformed EPL. I hope that Scottish Labour has looked at its proposals and is advocating for them to be taken forward in the budget. People from the offshore wind sector and other energy companies tell me that that is the single biggest blocker to investment. However, I am still hugely confident that we will see ScotWind projects develop.

Obviously, Shell has made a different decision. It has, more generally, pivoted away from renewables projects because it wants to concentrate its operations on oil and gas. That is highly regrettable, but after the decision was made, I had a call with Crown Estate Scotland. It told me that there is interest in that licence and that it is confident that it will have new tenants, which is hugely encouraging. It told me that it was one of the most sought-after areas in the ScotWind round of licence auctions. It said that, apart from reaching out to organisations that were interested during the first round, it has had contact from interested partners.

Sarah Boyack mentioned some of the projects that are progressing.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Cabinet secretary, I ask for a wee bit more succinct approach. Otherwise, we will not get through all the members who wish to ask a question.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am happy to leave it there.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that more than half of ScotWind projects are floating offshore wind projects. Given the technological challenges in that sector, it is essential that, to support its deployment, we attract the blade and cell manufacturing for floating offshore wind to Scotland. Given Mingyang’s proposals for an integrated offshore wind production facility in Scotland, what engagement has the Scottish Government had with the company to support that investment? Will it engage with the UK Government to ensure that decisions are made in support of that proposal at pace, in order to allow that investment to go ahead?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We welcome Mingyang’s smart energy proposals for the £1.5 billion investment in a new turbine manufacturing facility at Ardersier port. The Deputy First Minister and I have been making representations in support of that, in exactly the kind of cross-Government deliberations that the member would expect.

It is not just the offshore wind supply chain that will yield a great amount of economic activity for Scotland, although, as I outlined in my statement, that is where the real prize is. The cable manufacturers that we are attracting to Scotland should also be considered when it comes to the transmission cabling that is required. That is happening right now. I wrote to the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about the fact that the National Energy System Operator has no local procurement conditions around transmission cabling. That would provide a great deal of comfort to those who are willing to base themselves in Scotland and give them additional orders that would turbocharge their investments and create economic value locally.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to bring this back to the voice of local people. A few weeks ago, I asked at First Minister’s question time how local people could engage on the proposed Moray FLOW-Park plans. Last week, 600 people crammed into Universal hall in Findhorn and Nairn community centre to put their views across. Murray Sampson of Moray Firth Wind Sports asked a question that is relevant not just to this project but to many projects. “Can we bring it back to basics?”, he asked—“Look at Nairn, Findhorn, Burghead. Look at the beauty. Is there anywhere that the Crown Estate looks at and just says, ‘No way’?” Today, I bring the voice of far more than the 600 people who were in the room with me last week—I bring the voice of fishermen and communities who do not feel listened to. Just like Murray Sampson did, I ask the cabinet secretary whether she ever hears the concerns of local people and just says, “No way.”

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that anyone in my position, whether it is a Labour, Scottish National Party or Conservative energy secretary, would adhere to the processes that are set out in UK and Scottish legislation on anything to do with planning.

On the development that Mr Eagle referred to—Moray FLOW-Park—no marine licence applications have been submitted. The project remains at a very early stage, although I believe that exploratory surveys have been undertaken by the developer. The developer is encouraged to engage with stakeholders and the local community. Such engagement is the very least that we should expect. Until an application comes in, I will not be in receipt of all of the developer’s plans. The consenting around the development will have to be undertaken thoroughly and rigorously. I do not think that anybody standing in my position, of whatever party stripe, would, without any knowledge of a development, applications or impact assessments, make a judgment on a project, whether it is based in the marine environment or terrestrially.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Neart na Gaoithe, Inch Cape and Berwick Bank come on shore or will do so in my constituency, East Lothian. The cabinet secretary recently visited Had Fab in my constituency to highlight successful contract awards. Had Fab is a successful fabrication company in East Lothian, employing many local people and local apprentices. What more can be done to grow local supply chains and all tiers of procurement through offshore wind farm development?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

When I was at Had Fab with Paul McLennan, Martin Whitfield and the former Secretary of State for Scotland, it was to celebrate a contract that the company had won for manufacturing. However, I was there previously to meet its many apprentices, and I was blown away by their enthusiasm for the fact that manufacturing was happening in their locality and that they would, effectively, have jobs for the rest of their lives.

On what Paul McLennan said about ensuring that we have more manufacturing in Scotland, we have £500 million invested in the offshore wind supply chain across five years. That money is for not only the development of supply chains but the pivoting of existing ones, because Scotland’s unique selling point is that we have a vibrant energy supply chain already. At the moment, the order books for many of those companies are largely oil and gas related, but they are pivoting towards renewables opportunities. They will pivot back and forth for years to come, so, as part of the ScotWind licensing obligations, there has to be local procurement. That was the smart thing to do. I would like to see it happen for transmission infrastructure as well.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

Continued uncertainty and chaotic decision making from private offshore renewables developers are harming workers and communities in the North East Scotland region. The mismanagement of UK oil and gas revenues by the privatised fossil fuel industry means that workers now face an unsure and unjust transition. It is critical that we do not repeat the same mistakes with offshore renewable energy.

One of the key recommendations in the Future Economy Scotland report “Rethinking ScotWind: Maximising Scotland’s Offshore Wind Potential” was for the Scottish Government to explore taking public equity stakes in offshore leasing and development. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the considerable long-term benefits that up-front investment from the Scottish Government would bring to renewables development? Will she ensure that the people of Scotland benefit from our common natural resources?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I found very little to disagree with in Mercedes Villalba’s question. I absolutely stand behind a lot of what she said.

ScotWind licences are available, but as licences in other areas for other projects in the future are granted, whether they be onshore or offshore, there will be an opportunity for Governments to take a stake in them. That is the right thing to do. In relation to onshore projects, I point out that, more recently, I have ensured that local communities have first option on repowering opportunities for wind farms on the Forestry and Land Scotland estate. I had in mind the ethos that Mercedes Villalba mentions.

If the transition is to be just, the wealth that is associated with the generation of energy should go to the people of Scotland who are hosting all the infrastructure. That should be in the form of not just community benefits but equity stakes. Fundamentally, developers should not wait for legislation on that; they should offer opportunities for communities to benefit from the funds that are generated as a result of production. They do not have to wait for Government to tell them to do that. It is the right thing to do and the way to get people on side for their developments. I would say that it is the smart thing to do

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

A number of members who have pressed their request-to-speak buttons have still not been called. I wish to take all of them, but I need more succinct questions and answers.

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

Ensuring that we retain the workers and the skills for the green energy transition is integral to the success of new projects. However, only this week, the chief executive of Flotation Energy warned that the UK Government’s energy profits levy was

“wiping out 1,000 oil and gas jobs a month—losing many of the workers whose skills”

are

“needed for renewable projects”.

Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns that Labour’s energy policies are continuing to jeopardise Scotland’s just transition?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I would go further than that: Labour’s energy policy with regard to the EPL is not just Labour’s energy policy but the energy policy that the Conservatives had. They are turning their backs on taking responsibility for that.

During portfolio question time, I mentioned that Offshore Energies UK has worked across the sector to put together a proposal for the UK Government that would generate more funds for the Treasury while making investment in projects and, indeed, in the decommissioning of projects more viable for oil and gas companies.

Let us face the fact that many of the oil and gas companies about which we are talking, with notable exceptions, are also investing in ScotWind projects.

I share the member’s concerns. There is a knock-on effect. The EPL is disproportionate. Indeed, it feels to me like a tax on the north-east, because it is jobs in the north-east that are being taken away. Everybody who has talked about the job losses is absolutely right. It was also supposed to be a temporary measure.

In the upcoming UK budget, there is an opportunity to unlock investment and certainty in the whole energy mix. I really hope that Rachel Reeves takes up OEUK’s offer. It is a sensible and very carefully worked out offer, and I urge her to read it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I make another plea for more succinct answers, cabinet secretary.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Only those who want to rip up the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and drag us back to the 20th century would fail to recognise the incredibly powerful role that offshore wind could play. However, we are in danger of repeating a missed opportunity in the development of onshore wind. Unlike some European countries that have managed to ensure a high proportion of public and community ownership of onshore wind, Scotland’s community ownership is marginal.

How does the Scottish Government intend to ensure that we do not repeat that missed opportunity? Instead of merely asking the developers to make a voluntary contribution to community benefit, how do we intend to lock in public ownership and community ownership?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are a number of things to say, but I have been asked to be succinct. We have the community and renewable energy scheme Scotland, into which we have put additional money, so that we can meet demand for community ownership of renewable energy. I mentioned to Mercedes Villalba the repowering opportunities. I am giving first options to community groups that want to take up those options.

Patrick Harvie made a good point about where the powers lie for mandating community benefits, which could include community ownership or part ownership. They lie with the UK Government. I am pleased to say that, where the Tories turned their back on communities and did not take up that option when they were in power, the current Government—[ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Lumsden! Cabinet secretary, please resume.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The current Government is at least consulting on the matter. I am hopeful that the consultation will confirm what the Scottish Government has been saying for years, which is that communities must have more tangible benefits.