Scottish Parliament, 15 January 2026

273 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what the current status is of its plans to add sex to the characteristics covered by the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. (S6O-05371)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government is currently considering responses to the public consultation that we undertook last year on the draft Scottish statutory instrument to add the characteristic of sex to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, and we intend to lay the final SSI in Parliament in the coming period.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I was listening very intently for something substantive in the cabinet secretary’s response. What I really want is a personal commitment from her that the SSI will be laid before this Parliament goes into dissolution, because I cannot see how it is conceivable that sex should be the only protected characteristic that is not covered by the 2021 act when, as the Scottish Government says, women experience bad behaviours because of their sex class. I seek a personal commitment from the cabinet secretary that that will happen.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I very much appreciate Mrs Thomson’s interest in the matter. I assure her, both personally and politically, that the Scottish Government wants to ensure that women and girls have the new criminal protections that are provided through the 2021 act for other characteristics such as age, disability, religion and so forth.

Mrs Thomson will be aware that we have to follow a super-affirmative process, which is what Parliament agreed when the hate crime legislation was passed. That means that we have to publish a draft SSI and consult on it, and we are obliged to analyse the consultation responses and publish them, where permitted, with the analysis. That will be done when the SSI is laid, and it will be laid in due course.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The minister says that the SSI will be laid “in due course”, but we do not know when that will be. Only this Tuesday, at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, the Minister for Equalities informed us that she had not met the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to discuss the nine protected characteristics—sex being one, as now defined and clarified by the Supreme Court judgment. That was absolutely alarming

You have still not included sex in the hate crime legislation and have still not told us when the SSI will be laid. Also, why have you not met the Minister for Equalities?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In summary, I will repeat the essence of what I said to Michelle Thomson: I will lay an SSI well in advance of the end of this parliamentary session, because I want to ensure that women and girls have those protections in the format of hate crime legislation, in the same way that those with other protected characteristics do. I assure members that that is all in hand.

As for the second part of Tess White’s question, I would note that the Minister for Equalities has certainly not met me in recent times on the various equality duties. I recall that, some time ago, soon after her appointment to her post, she met ministers collectively and I know that she has, on more than one occasion, reminded all ministers of our collective responsibility to meet our equality duties. If need be, we could go back into the records and find a note of the meeting that Ms Stewart had with me and a range of other ministers, but that is going back some time, and I will have to come back to the member on that issue.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that, as this is our shortest question session of the week, concise questions and responses are appreciated.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government how many people in Mid Scotland and Fife who are eligible for the pension-age winter heating payment have not yet received their payment for winter 2025-26. (S6O-05372)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Pension-age winter heating payment will support at least 880,000 pensioners with heating bills this winter. The United Kingdom Government’s 2024 decision to cut winter heating payment was a betrayal of millions of pensioners. Although the belated U-turn was welcome, costs are rising, and many people will struggle with household bills this winter. That is why the Scottish Government is taking action and will deliver the strongest package of winter support compared with anywhere else in the UK. By 14 December 2025, £124.9 million was paid through more than 837,000 winter heating payments, with updated figures due on 4 February.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That means that around 300,000 people have not yet received their payments. The First Minister promised that they would receive them by St Andrew’s day. Now, more than six weeks after St Andrew’s day, and well into the winter weather, there are still people wondering where those payments are.

Will the cabinet secretary advise why it has taken so long for a payment to be made and when those who are still waiting for payments will receive them? Will the Scottish Government apologise to all those pensioners who were promised payment in November but did not receive it?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Just as the Scottish Government laid out, the payments began in November and will continue through the winter. We have also ensured that the winter heating payment, which goes to pensioners on low incomes, is being paid throughout the winter; that payment is not guaranteed anywhere else in the UK but in Scotland. We have also paid the child winter heating payment to children on the highest rates of disability payments.

The package that we have in Scotland is stronger and more robust than anywhere else in the UK. Payment began in November, and it is moving through the winter months according to the timetable that was set out previously. We are on track to deliver it this winter.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the independent review of maternity services in Caithness, including the remit and timescale of the review, and what detail has been shared with relevant duty bearers. (S6O-05373)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish maternity and neonatal task force will look at the requirement for, and scope of, a national review, based on the emerging themes and outcomes of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland inspections of maternity units across Scotland and any other area that the task force might identify. The cabinet secretary has been clear that the task force will look at rural maternity services as one of its first areas of focus, and will review the issues in rural communities, including Caithness and Stranraer. A full work plan will be agreed by the task force following the first meeting in January 2026, and Parliament will be updated in due course.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In a freedom of information response, NHS Highland said that there were no plans for an independent review of Caithness maternity services. Instead, it would sit within the wider remit of the task force.

The cabinet secretary knows that this Parliament voted for an independent review of Caithness maternity services; indeed, the need for it was further highlighted when Caithness was cut off from the rest of the country for days during the recent weeks of bad weather and no one could get to Raigmore hospital.

Will the task force be independent of Government? Will it be asked specifically to examine all aspects of Caithness maternity services, including the journey to Inverness, and to make recommendations for the safe delivery of maternity services in the county of Caithness?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Rhoda Grant for her follow-up question. I also thank the staff in NHS Highland for the way in which they have coped with the really difficult weather, including the wonderful midwives who are based in Caithness.

As I said in my first response, it is for the task force and its expert members to determine whether further action is required—they will determine the scope. As Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, I will chair it, but my co-chairs are both independent of Gov—well, my co-chairs are Ann Gow and Professor Anna Glasier.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the importance of the supply chain to the Scotch whisky industry. (S6O-05374)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scotch whisky industry is one of Scotland’s most significant economic sectors, contributing more than £5 billion in exports, and a resilient, competitive supply chain is essential to its continued success. The industry supports thousands of jobs across Scotland, not only in distillation and maturation but in farming, malting, packaging, logistics, engineering, tourism and professional services.

The wider supply chain is therefore integral to national economic growth, rural sustainability and export performance, and it is crucial to safeguarding the global reputation of Scotch whisky and ensuring the long-term competitiveness of the sector.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The First Minister has led from the front to protect Scotch whisky from US tariffs, taking the case directly to the US Government. Does the minister have any update on whether the United Kingdom Government has followed up the matter with the United States in order to protect the whisky industry and its supply chain, which includes packager Eurostampa, in my constituency, which recently expanded its site in Cumbernauld with Scottish Enterprise support? Or are we left with the view that the UK Government views the Scottish food and drink sector as nothing more than a cash cow to support the UK Exchequer?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Jamie Hepburn makes a good point—the whisky sector is not just about distillers but about the wider supply chain, which benefits constituencies such as Jamie Hepburn’s.

On the tariffs issue, the First Minister was highly praised by the sector in Scotland, including in Speyside, in my constituency, as he picked up the cudgels on behalf of the sector and took its case directly to the White House.

I raised the issues with my UK counterpart, Chris Bryant, at our meeting earlier this month. We are still waiting for the UK Government to deliver on what we all expect—to give Scotch whisky the priority that it deserves in those negotiations and to secure tariff exemptions from the US.

We are also disappointed that our calls to address the disparity in alcohol duty in the latest UK budget went unheard. Instead, the spirits sector faces a further increase in duty rates, which will rise by 18 per cent in three years. That takes the tax burden on a bottle of Scotch to an eye-watering 72 per cent.

I agree with Jamie Hepburn’s comments, and we will continue to pursue the case.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I recently visited the Annandale distillery in Dumfriesshire and was impressed by its commitment to reaching net zero, with a significant investment in a multimillion-pound, game-changing thermal energy storage system, which was partly funded by the previous UK Conservative Government. What support can the Scottish Government give to the Scotch whisky industry to meet its decarbonisation and sustainability goals, not just in our world-class distilleries but throughout the wider supply chain?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have not had the privilege of visiting that distillery in the member’s region, but perhaps one day I will have the opportunity to do so.

In recent years, the Scottish Government has given substantial support to the whisky sector to decarbonise its operations. The sector is playing a really important role in achieving the country’s national decarbonisation aims, and we will continue to work in partnership with it.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether reliance on local enforcement to tackle antisocial and dangerous e-scooter use is creating a postcode lottery in public safety, with some communities protected and others left exposed. (S6O-05375)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government does not accept that reliance on local enforcement creates a postcode lottery in public safety. Police Scotland operates within nationally set strategic police priorities, which apply to the whole of Scotland and emphasise public safety, prevention and consistency, while allowing appropriate local flexibility to respond to community needs.

The Scottish Government continues to support policing capacity through record funding of £1.64 billion in this financial year. Scotland has a higher number of police officers per capita than England and Wales, and Scottish Government funding enabled Police Scotland to take on more recruits in the most recent financial year than at any time since 2013.

Operational policing decisions, including taking enforcement action against illegal and antisocial e-scooter use, are rightly a matter for Police Scotland, and the member will be aware of my commitment to working collectively to address concerns that were raised during the debate on 9 December. I welcome the positive examples of Police Scotland’s enforcement activity in this area.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

I struggled to hear the answer, so I will do my best.

In Edinburgh, in my region, the number of e-scooter confiscations has tripled in just two years, while some areas have recorded none. E-scooter use is clearly a growing menace to everyday Scots, who feel unsafe just walking about in their high streets. The statistics show that there is a lack of consistency, but the minister has denied that there is a postcode lottery in public safety. Will the Scottish Government finally press the United Kingdom Government for a clear national framework on registration, insurance and licensing instead of letting the problems get worse?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We have had lots of meetings about the matter over the past year and will, I hope, have another one with MSPs who have an interest in it. Jim Fairlie and I wrote to the UK Government regarding it in October. I received a letter last week saying that the Labour Government did not feel that any legislation was necessary, which is disappointing, but I will keep members updated on that.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the open letter from Scotland’s elite swimming athletes sent to the First Minister on 6 November 2025. (S6O-05376)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government agrees that there is a real opportunity to create a lasting legacy for children across Scotland from the 2026 summer of sport. I know that Liz Smith cares a great deal about that and shares my enthusiasm for it.

The 2026-27 budget announced an additional £40 million of funding for sport and physical activity. That includes the universal offer of swimming tuition for primary school children in Scotland to give them vital water safety skills. I hope that members will welcome that announcement and support the budget proposals, which provide vital support for the sector and open up a range of sports and activities to more children.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that, earlier this morning, first at 9.48 am and then at 10.15 am, Shona Robison made a request to correct the record—I am not sure whether it is another of those “production errors”—to say that her answer to the question that Jackson Carlaw asked on Tuesday on the budget statement was factually inaccurate? Namely, the one-year commitment is not, in fact, one year but is being rolled out over a sustainable period. That is welcome, but what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the 18 local authorities that are not making full provision for swimming lessons will now do so and that children in those areas have access to swimming pools in the first place?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I confirm for the record that the funding is, indeed, recurring, which is incredibly positive. Liz Smith shares my enthusiasm for the project, which is good news for swimming provision and is giving children life-saving skills. [ Interruption. ]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is also good news for ensuring that we provide opportunities for the next Duncan Scotts and other elite swimmers to come through the system.

On progress with local authorities, we are providing the funding to enable local authorities to make provision for all primary children in Scotland precisely because of the variability in provision. Those engagements with local authorities will continue, and, given Liz Smith’s interest, which I genuinely accept and understand, I will ensure that she is kept updated on the matter.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government how the measures announced in its draft budget for 2026-27 will further its aims of tackling child poverty. (S6O-05377)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Eradicating child poverty is at the heart of the Scottish budget and the Scottish spending review, which outlines how we will drive continued progress. That includes developing the systems and legislation to increase the Scottish child payment to £40 for children under one year old. We are also investing more than £100 million across the spending review to support the delivery of a universal breakfast club offer for primary school-aged children, alongside increased investment in wraparound activity clubs. Through an annual £50 million package of whole-family support, we will ensure that families receive the support they need when they need it.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting the best cost of living support package anywhere in the United Kingdom front and centre of its approach. I particularly welcome the boost to the Scottish child payment, raising it to £40 for families with a baby from 2027, which the United Nations Children’s Fund—UNICEF—has welcomed. Save the Children Scotland has said that it is a “bold action” and that

“This is a moment of hope for families, and for all of us.”

Will the cabinet secretary say what analysis the Government has undertaken of the impact of the policy on child poverty?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The new premium will undoubtedly assist and deliver increased support for families with children under the age of one. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that around 12,000 children will receive that increased support when the payment begins, in the financial year 2027-28.

That support will make a real difference. Only this morning I heard from mums in Pilton about the difference that the Scottish child payment makes and how they think that the premium will make even more of a difference. As Save the Children Scotland has said,

“Investing in the tiniest members of our society ... is how we sow the seeds of a brighter future.”

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cost of living is hitting hard for people across Scotland, and John Swinney promised to help—so, what is he doing? He is cutting income tax—but only for some, and by a maximum of £31.75 a year. That works out at 61p a week. That would not even buy you a bag of peanuts.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Peanuts!

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney’s budget might even—[ Laughter .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us carry on with our business.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Rachael Hamilton is entirely right—it would not even buy you a bag of peanuts.

John Swinney’s budget might even have broken a world record, because a Scottish Government tax adviser says that it

“may be the smallest tax cut in history”.

Does John Swinney really think that his insulting tax cut will actually help Scotland’s struggling households?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am pleased to see that auditions for pantomime dame are being entered early by Rachel Hamilton in Parliament today. Frankly, that was pantomime stuff from the Conservatives.

The Conservative Party has come forward with a proposition for tax cuts that would involve £1 billion-worth of cuts to public expenditure, but with not a scrap of detail about how those would be delivered. That is a false proposition.

My Government has brought forward a range of measures that build on existing cost of living support, such as free prescriptions, free eye tests and the free bus travel that is available in Scotland—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Can I just ensure that we can all hear one another? That would be helpful—and it is, of course, necessary.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—with an expansion of support for breakfast clubs and additional investment in after-school activities, with measures that have been taken through the extra time programme, with an increase in the Scottish child payment and with an expansion of the Scottish child payment for babies under one year. That is a demonstration of a Government that is on the side of the people of Scotland, and I am proud of the measures that we set out in the budget on Tuesday.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney gave those taxpayers a miserly cut—not to help anyone, but to get a cheap and easy headline. For many others, income taxes will rise even further.

One of the reasons for John Swinney’s tax raid is so that he can spend even more on benefits. We value the safety net for those who are in genuine need—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

—but the Scottish National Party’s benefits bill is out of control, and it will now go up by another £650 million. [ Interruption .] I will keep saying it, no matter how noisy SNP members are: Scotland cannot afford this. The Scottish Conservatives believe that taxes cannot keep rising in order to fund higher spending on benefits. Why does John Swinney not understand that his reckless approach is unfair and unsustainable?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Nobody in Scotland takes seriously Russell Findlay’s claim that the Conservative Party values the safety net of social security, because, every week, its members come to the Parliament and attack the very social security expenditure that is keeping children out of poverty.

As a matter of fact, the updated Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts show a substantial reduction in the Scottish Government’s benefits investment over and above the block grant adjustments received from the United Kingdom Government. That demonstrates that the action that the Scottish Government is taking is sustainable. As is demonstrated by our budget—and as we have always done since we formed the Government—we propose costed financial programmes that deliver real benefits for the people of Scotland. The Conservatives are unable to match the Scottish Government’s record on financial stewardship and support for vulnerable people in our country.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

We value social security, but we will always tell the truth about the SNP’s out-of-control, unaffordable benefits bill. John Swinney’s economic approach is ruinous, but there is another way. The only responsible, credible and sustainable way to raise more revenue for public services is by growing Scotland’s economy, which can be achieved by supporting those who create jobs and generate wealth.

However, Scottish businesses face tax rises of almost £300 million in the coming weeks, and their verdict on John Swinney’s budget is damning. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland is calling it a “missed opportunity”; UK Hospitality Scotland says that it “missed the mark spectacularly” on business support; and the Federation of Small Businesses says that ministers must “urgently reconsider their approach” to economic growth. When will John Swinney learn that he has to back business and not attack it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the challenges that are always felt in the business community. Of all the things that I could be accused of as a member of the Government, that is not one. I have always had very close and active dialogue with the business community in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s budget for the forthcoming financial year will ensure the lowest basic property rate since 2018-19 and will support business and communities with a package of reliefs that will be worth an estimated £864 million in 2026-27.

In response to a key ask from the business community about increased support for the college sector, the Government has increased the colleges budget by £70 million. Another call from the business community was for support for infrastructure investment. We have set out our plans on infrastructure. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport told the Parliament about the delivery of plans to dual the A9, which is one of the central economic pledges of the Scottish Government.

At a time when unemployment is lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, and gross domestic product per capita has increased at a faster rate in Scotland than it has in the rest of the UK, the Scottish Government is delivering for the Scottish economy, and we will carry on doing so.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister says that he recognises the challenges facing businesses, but then he decides to make them worse.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the Scottish Conservatives will not and cannot back a budget that does nothing to help Scotland’s workers and businesses. Having been delivered by a finance secretary who is running for the hills, this budget hammers people with higher taxes to fund a bloated benefits system. It is absolutely mind blowing that Labour and the other so-called Opposition parties will let this SNP boorach of a budget pass. It is a desperate budget that kills aspiration, a damaging budget that harms business and a dishonest budget that will need to be fixed within months.

It is the same old John Swinney. Do the people of Scotland not deserve lower taxes, fairer benefits and a Government that is focused on economic growth?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Our budget delivers on the priorities of the people of Scotland, strengthening our national health service and supporting people and businesses on cost of living challenges. In the budget, the Scottish Government is expanding the best package of cost of living support anywhere—

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Rubbish!

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am sorry to interrupt, First Minister. I know, Mr Kerr, that you share my view that we should always carry ourselves in a very parliamentary manner. I would be grateful if you might demonstrate that.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I said, this budget delivers on the priorities of the people of Scotland about strengthening our national health service and about supporting people and businesses with the cost of living. Thanks to our decisions, 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers are now expected to pay less income tax than they would do if they lived in England. The people of Scotland have a Government that is on their side, and all the current indications show that the people of Scotland want to have this Government here for the long term, to stay on their side.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney’s 19th budget lacks ambition for Scotland, and it fails to deal with the structural issues that are created by this tired Scottish National Party Government, which can be resolved only by changing the Scottish Government in May. While he brags about his £6-a-year tax cut for the lowest paid, a million Scots—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

While he brags about his £6-a-year tax cut for the lowest paid, a million Scots, including nurses, teachers and police officers, face being forced to pay more, all while his Government wastes billions of pounds. That is a tax cut worth 11p a week for the lowest earners, while thousands of nurses pay £400 more and thousands of teachers pay £600 more than they would in the rest of the United Kingdom—even his own tax adviser says that this is a political stunt. Why does John Swinney believe that someone earning £33,500 has the broadest shoulders and, therefore, should pay more tax in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will explain to Mr Sarwar that a band 6 nurse who is at the bottom of the scale will take home an additional £1,994 after tax, compared with someone in the same band in England. A qualified teacher at the bottom of the band will take home £6,365 more after tax in Scotland than the equivalent teacher in England. Those are the facts for Mr Sarwar. A band 6 nurse living in Scotland will take home—[ Interruption .] Mr Sarwar asked me about nurses, and I am giving him an answer about nurses. A band 6 nurse at the bottom of the scale will take home an additional £1,994 because they live in Scotland and not England, and a teacher in Scotland will take home £6,365 more than they would in England. That is because this Government delivers fair pay for public service workers.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney deliberately focuses on the lowest band and ignores the thousands of nurses and teachers who are paying more tax in Scotland.

Although a million Scots face paying more, the 19th John Swinney budget does not even try to deal with the issues that are leading to billions of pounds being wasted and opportunities being squandered. There is no plan to deal with delayed discharge, meaning that taxpayers pick up a bill of half a billion pounds; there is no plan to deal with Scotland’s prison system, while people pay £1 billion and rising for the new Barlinnie prison in Glasgow; and there is no plan to grow Scotland’s economy, costing us £800 million. All those plans can only come about with a change of Government in May. John Swinney cannot solve the big issues that he has created—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

There is an urgent new issue that risks the future of thousands of businesses. Why has there been no pause to business rate revaluations? They have meant that many businesses face a 400 per cent increase—far greater than any rate relief—and risk their survival and the loss of thousands of jobs. Why has there been no pause to those revaluations?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I notice that Mr Sarwar has moved the subject on from the tax position of teachers and nurses, because I have completely demolished the arguments that he has put in front of me today.

On the subject of business rates, the business rates position is a product of two elements: the independent valuation that is undertaken and the policy decisions that are taken by the Scottish Government. The independent valuation, which was agreed to across the Parliament, has taken its course. In policy terms, this Government has put in place a 15 per cent relief to retail, hospitality and leisure premises in mainland Scotland that are liable for the basic or intermediate property rate; we have expanded the 100 per cent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on our islands; we have maintained the small business bonus scheme; and, crucially, we have put in place a package of business rates reliefs worth an estimated £864 million in the forthcoming financial year. That is the Government investing to support business and the economy, alongside a range of other measures in the budget that I hope that Mr Sarwar will support.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

In the words of his old pal Alex Neil, the First Minister is talking “rubbish”. He has failed to deal with the serious question of—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—revaluations that will see some businesses being forced to pay 300 or 400 per cent higher amounts, which risks the survival of those businesses. He completely ignored that question.

The one bit of good news is that Scots do not have to put up with his failure for much longer: in May, they can choose a new Government. The Scottish National Party has spent the past 19 years—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Sorry, Mr Sarwar—it is somewhat noisy. Let us hear one another.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

It is okay—we will say cheerio to Shona Robison in four months’ time too.

The SNP has spent the past 19 years failing to deal with the real issues that are facing Scotland. It has nothing new to deal with the crisis created on its watch: nothing to deal with the hundreds of thousands of Scots who are stuck on national health service waiting lists; nothing to deal with the drug deaths emergency that is killing hundreds of people a year; nothing to address the homelessness crisis that is leaving 10,000 kids stuck in temporary accommodation; nothing to help businesses, wages or the economy to grow; and nothing for the thousands of our amazing young people who are missing out on the education that they deserve.

John Swinney has had 20 years. He has had his chance and he has failed, has he not?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I do not think that today is the day that Mr Sarwar is in a strong enough position to accuse me of talking rubbish. This morning, a health campaigner raised publicly the fact that she has requested a formal apology from Mr Sarwar after a campaign leaflet—which I have in front of me—was posted to thousands of homes around the country with a false quotation in support of his party in it. The campaigner who was falsely quoted asked a fair question:

“If they’ve written that out of nowhere, what else have they lied about?”

So, I do not think that Mr Sarwar is in a position to say to me anything about the budget. Not only has he misled the public in a campaign leaflet—a member of the public has called him out—but he is wrestling with Reform to try to get into second place in the opinion polls. Mr Sarwar knows that it is all over. It is finished. The dream is gone. He is in opposition and we are going to stay in government.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

The First Minister’s Government has long aspired to Scotland’s being an independent Nordic nation. However, right now, our Nordic neighbours need our help. Yesterday, in the White House, Donald Trump repeated his threat to—in his words—“conquer” Greenland. That is no empty threat and comes directly off the back of his immoral and illegal invasion of Venezuela.

Scotland must stand up to Trump and his contempt for international law, and reassure the people of Greenland that we will not be complicit in any part of an attempted annexation. Can the First Minister commit to ensuring that the United States military will be banned from using Scottish infrastructure and assets, including all our publicly owned airports, if the US launches operations against our Nordic allies?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge the importance of the issues and the concern that Gillian Mackay raises. As I have made clear over the past couple of weeks, and over the entirety of my political life, I believe fundamentally in the international rules-based system for ensuring peace and security in the world.

As I expressed in relation to the situation in Venezuela—I put this on the record last week in response to Mercedes Villalba—I do not believe that the intervention in Venezuela could be justified within the international rules-based system.

Gillian Mackay raises issues concerning the use of infrastructure in Scotland that is under the control of the Scottish Government. I want to make it clear that I believe that it is important that all that infrastructure, if it were ever to be used, could be used only in a way that was consistent with the international rules-based system for the arrangements between countries. As First Minister, I will ensure that that is the case.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

It is not good enough for us to be vague on this. We are talking about a US Government that is pulling its own citizens out of their communities, that has shot a mother in broad daylight and that is actively advertising that it wants to invade other countries. People across the world are terrified, and we have—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Ms Mackay. Mr Kerr, I am chairing the Parliament at the moment, thank you.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

People across the world are terrified, and we have the ability to take action, so I again ask the First Minister whether he will stop the US military using all publicly owned Scottish airports if it launches operations against Greenland and whether he will stand with the international community.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I absolutely stand with the international community on the resolute views that have been expressed on the situation in Greenland and on protecting the status of Greenland and the right of the people of Greenland to determine their own future. I state that unreservedly to Parliament.

I also say again, in the hope that I express this clearly to the public and to Parliament, that I will insist that the infrastructure that is under the control of the Scottish Government can and should be used only to support the international rules-based system, because that is the foundation for the peace that I have enjoyed throughout my life, and I want to make sure that that is the case for my children and my grandchildren.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update regarding the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government in relation to the distribution of local growth fund allocations in Scotland. (S6F-04587)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Despite repeated requests over the past year, we have had no meaningful discussion with the UK Government on the local growth fund. The Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to us on the day of the announcement, stating that UK Government officials would be in contact, but we have no more detail on the programme. The announcement has come far too late.

The Scottish Government and local authorities repeatedly warned the UK Government that any reduction in funding would have a devastating impact, and we can now see that in the reports of some organisations issuing redundancy notices. The programme does not come close to matching the shared prosperity fund that it will replace, and it leaves nine Scottish local authorities with no allocation whatsoever.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The First Minister will be aware that, in Wales, the Welsh Labour Government will decide how to spend £547 million of local growth funding, whereas, in Scotland, it appears that the UK Government intends to spend Scotland’s £140 million for us.

At the same time, analysis shows that Forth Valley, which includes my constituency, faces a cut of around a third compared with current funding levels, which threatens employability, skills and business support programmes that sustain local jobs. In my constituency, local groups will lose jobs.

Does the First Minister agree that that represents blatant political bias, with Scotland’s communities being not only short-changed—[ Interruption .] I do not know why the Tories do not like that being raised. Does he agree that Scotland’s communities are being not only short-changed but denied the right to decide their own priorities? While Labour politicians in Wales have defended devolution, they called Starmer’s approach a constitutional outrage. Is it not time for Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament to do the same or to accept that Scotland would be far better served by a Scottish Parliament that had the full powers of independence?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are two issues that I want to address in response to the matter that Mr Brown has raised with me. The first is the fact that, when it comes to the quantum of support that is available, the resources that are available in Scotland are dwarfed by those that are available in Wales, so there is no equity in the arrangements that have been put in place.

The second point is that, in Wales, where there is a Labour Administration, the UK Labour Government has decided to allocate that money to the Welsh Government to enable distribution to take place in a way that is complementary to the priorities of the Welsh Government. That is a rational and logical position to adopt. In Scotland, the UK Labour Government has engaged in no dialogue with us whatsoever about the delivery of this funding, and it is being deployed in a way that was chosen by the UK Government with no regard paid to the priorities that are democratically agreed by this Parliament.

Worse than all of that, people in Scotland are now losing jobs because of the decisions of a Labour Government. When we add that to the decisions about employer national insurance contributions, it shows that the Labour Government is costing Scotland jobs. We cannot afford to have any more control from Labour in Scotland.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Clackmannanshire has just received £9.8 million of investment through the local growth fund. That money came from the UK Government, as already has been discussed. It came openly, transparently and in partnership with local leaders. In contrast, the 2026-27 Scottish budget has been called “misleading” and “not good enough” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Who is to blame for the flattering figures that have been identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Fraser of Allander Institute? Is it the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, or is it the First Minister?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I think that we are going to have to have some consistency on the Conservative benches. Alexander Stewart has turned up and spoken to Parliament as an advocate and a cheerleader for the Labour Government in London, when his party leader is denouncing the Labour Government in London. The Conservatives have got to get their act together—or, should I say, those who are left, because many of them are getting chucked out because they are dabbling with Reform. It is all over for the Tory party.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister for what reason the Scottish Government is going to court to continue to allow it to house male prisoners in the female prison estate, in light of any projections it has made of the cost to taxpayers in Scotland of challenging the Supreme Court ruling in this way. (S6F-04578)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The judgment of the Supreme Court is accepted by the Scottish Government. What we are doing—as any responsible Government must—is ensuring that our policies comply with all our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. Every key area of Government that is or might be affected by the Supreme Court judgment is carrying out assessments across legislation, guidance and policies, and changes have already been made in some areas.

The prisons guidance has not been changed, and it can be taken from that that the Scottish Government has concluded that it does not need to be changed in light of the Supreme Court judgment. For Women Scotland has brought proceedings challenging that conclusion, as it is entitled to do. The matter is now before the court.

The Scottish Government has to make difficult decisions that balance the interests and rights of individuals, often in complex situations, and this is one such situation.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am not allowed to call the First Minister a liar, but that answer was not truthful. I have just said that I am not allowed to do it, but he is not giving a truthful answer. It is desperate stuff from the First Minister. How on earth can he stand up here and say that the Government is respecting the Supreme Court ruling when it is in court arguing the very opposite?

Those actions threaten women’s safety. Right now, at this very moment, three biological males are housed in Scotland’s female prison estate. Alex Stewart was jailed for 19 years for murder after stabbing his victim 16 times in the chest. Melissa Young was jailed for 20 years for murder, having left his victim with 29 injuries from multiple stab wounds. Paris Green was jailed for 18 years for torture and murder. He recently assaulted a female member of staff, but has still not been moved to a male prison.

Let me ask the First Minister this question. Those evil killers are all housed with women prisoners. Are they male or female?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I indicated in my earlier answer, the Scottish Government must ensure that, on all occasions, our policies comply with our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998—[ Interruption. ]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—and the European convention on human rights.

In such situations, the Government must wrestle with complex issues and make difficult decisions that balance and reflect—[ Interruption. ]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—the interests and rights of individuals.

The matter is actively in front of the courts at this time. Scottish ministers appreciate the public interest in the particular circumstances of this case, so, in the interests of open justice, the Government will publish our written case—that being our answers to the judicial review and our note of argument—ahead of the hearing that is due to begin on 3 February. Making the materials that have been lodged with the court publicly available will allow anyone with an interest to follow, in a well-informed way, what is said in court.

I stress that the matter is actively in front of the court and that the Government is trying to make information available to ensure that members of the public—[ Interruption. ]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—can follow the case in a well-informed way.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The need for the protection of space on public boards for women has been accepted and the law corrected, but a policy that means that female prisoners, a majority of whom have experienced male violence, might have to share close quarters with male-bodied inmates while they are in the care of the state is being defended.

Knowing everything that we know about trauma, and given the countless testimonies from women on this matter—including testimony given both privately and publicly by a number of his own party colleagues—does the First Minister understand just how appalling the Government’s actions feel to many of us and how difficult it is to reconcile the Scottish Government’s words about the protection of single-sex spaces for females with its actions on the matter? [ Interruption. ]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge, understand and appreciate the strength of feeling expressed to me by Ruth Maguire. I understand her views and the points that she makes and expresses on behalf of those who have had traumatic experiences.

I stress what I said in my earlier answer. The judgment by the Supreme Court is accepted by the Scottish Government and what we are doing is ensuring that our policies comply with all our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The Government is obliged to ensure that that is the case. We have considered the issue and the actions that we are taking are consistent with that consideration.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The Government claims that it accepts the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of women in the Equality Act 2010, but I am not certain that it does. To be honest, I am not sure that the First Minister fully understands the impact that that is having.

The Government has chosen to advance an argument in court that a blanket ban on housing trans women in the women’s prison estate may violate their human rights under the European convention on human rights. What consideration did the Government give to the human right of female prisoners to serve their sentences with dignity and to be kept safe from male-bodied prisoners?

In the likely event of the Government losing its court case, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, how soon after that will the Government comply with that judgment? Will it change its policy as a matter of urgency?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Pauline McNeill questioned the Government’s acceptance of the Supreme Court judgment, so I say once again that the Government unreservedly accepts the Supreme Court judgment. As a consequence, we have revised guidance that is in place in other areas of policy to ensure compatibility with that judgment.

In the case of the guidance on prisoners, the Government has made an assessment, and that is now being tested in the courts. The issue will be determined by the courts. Out of the respect that I have for the decision making of the courts, I want to make sure that the court is free to make its judgment on the application of the guidance that the Government has put in place.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to findings published by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow indicating that a majority of clinicians anticipate practical challenges in implementing the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. (S6F-04588)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I am somewhat disconcerted that we do not have a live audio and video feed for Ms Duncan-Glancy. I will let the question go ahead in this instance while we seek to resolve the issue.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government is aware of the findings of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, which detail its members’ views on assisted dying legislation. Similar to the college, the Scottish Government maintains a position of neutrality on the bill. Our stage 2 assessment of non-Government amendments to the bill, focusing on the technical, legal and delivery aspects, was informed in part by the evidence that stakeholders provided to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and we continue to pay close attention to stakeholder views.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I hope that the technical issues with the audio and video feed have resolved themselves.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. It is important that we, as MSPs, listen to experts, including those who will be tasked with implementing any change in the law—in this case, those who will be helping people to die. Does the First Minister agree that, if those experts tell us that the legislation could be unsafe and inoperable, we should listen to them?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I indicated in my earlier answer, the Government is neutral on the bill. It is a matter of conscience and personal decision making, I think, for all members of Parliament. My view, of opposition to the bill, has been expressed publicly and is well known. It will be up to individual members to assess the points that are expressed by a variety of stakeholders as Parliament considers this important bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As the First Minister will recall, Parliament voted to support the general principles of my bill at stage 1, since when both the Scottish and UK Governments have worked constructively to ensure that a comprehensive system of assisted dying can be implemented if that remains the will of MSPs. I put on the record my thanks to both of them for those efforts.

At this point, however, can the First Minister assure the Parliament that the Scottish Government will now engage on any amendments that it believes will be necessary at stage 3 to deliver a safe and compassionate choice for terminally ill adults in Scotland who wish it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is actively considering the issue. Obviously, the Government has to be mindful of the position, which will be sustained during consideration of the bill, that it has a neutral position on the bill.

I acknowledge that there will be technical, practical, operational and legislative questions that the Government will be called on to engage with, and that issue is under active consideration within Government at this time. I stress that a multiplicity of questions will have to be wrestled with, and the Government will give consideration to those in good faith.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.

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

The First Minister will be aware of the outbreaks of avian flu at Glenrath Farms in my constituency, which is the largest egg producer in Scotland, producing 1 million eggs a day. Thousands of birds have been culled and all the Glenrath eggs on the shelves have been recalled.

I ask the First Minister for an update on the contamination security measures at the site. At the risk of reprising the infamous Edwina Currie egg panic, I also ask for an assurance that, given the recall, the eggs that are on shelves now are safe.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We are aware of a cluster of outbreaks of the highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in the Scottish Borders.

Food safety is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. On the point that Christine Grahame asked me about, Public Health Scotland advises that the risk to public health from the virus is very low, and Food Standards Scotland advises that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk to consumers. On the advice of Public Health Scotland, properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat.

I also assure Christine Grahame that rigorous safety measures are in place to monitor the condition of different sites, and those are what highlighted the issues that are being faced in the Borders.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On Saturday, I will meet more than 40 community councils at an energy convention in the Borders. They feel voiceless because monster pylons and other infrastructure are industrialising the countryside in the Borders without a clear plan from the Scottish National Party Government.

An invitation to the convention was sent to your energy secretary, Gillian Martin, nearly a month ago, with no response having been received. Now we have learned that she has abdicated responsibility for consents to another SNP minister. Does that chaos not prove that your energy strategy is confused, incoherent and failing communities? First Minister, will you personally guarantee that those communities will receive a response from Gillian Martin by the end of the day?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair, please.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Ministerial invitations will be considered and judgments will be arrived at as to whether it is appropriate for ministers to be undertaking engagements. A decision has been taken that Ivan McKee will determine applications, given his wider planning responsibilities and the importance of those approaches being taken.

I say to Rachael Hamilton that the Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Scotland’s enormous renewable energy wealth is utilised for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I look forward to making more progress on that when Scotland is able to exercise the powers of independence to lower fuel bills by putting Scotland’s energy wealth to work for the people of Scotland.

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

It is understood that the tanker that was seized by US authorities last week is currently in Scottish waters. I understand from reports that the First Minister was not briefed on that by the United Kingdom Government. Can the First Minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s understanding of the current situation with regard to the seized tanker?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Audrey Nicoll has recounted, the Government was not advised that that vessel was coming into Scottish waters. It is pretty obvious that, when such an event happens—when a vessel of that type comes into Scottish waters—there could well be implications for the exercise of Scots law and Scots jurisprudence.

I have raised with the UK Government my complete dissatisfaction at the absence of prior notice that that was going to be undertaken, because of the potential interaction with our responsibilities. One example of that is that the Lord Advocate is seeking to establish that all aspects of the rule of law are being respected with the presence of the tanker in Scottish waters, which is her statutory responsibility, and that we can be assured that the health and welfare of those on board are preserved.

Given the total absence of proper formal communication from the UK Government to the Scottish Government about an issue that has implications for the delivery of our responsibilities, this is an example of shockingly poor conduct by the UK Government.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

My constituents are deeply alarmed that Dumfries and Galloway’s integration joint board plans to end Alzheimer Scotland-commissioned dementia support on 31 March. They fear that that change will seriously harm the care of the 373 people who are currently supported, including 235 who are in the year of guaranteed post-diagnostic support.

I am aware that you have recently been heavily engaged in looking at the future of dementia support through your advanced dementia round-table work, precisely to avoid changes being made without proper consultation. Will you instruct your officials to engage urgently with the health and social care partnership and the IJB in Dumfries and Galloway to secure and make public a dated continuity plan that includes single family contacts and named leads and a timetable for consultation under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, and will you commit the Government to give support, if required, including bridging arrangements, so that there will be no cliff edge in April?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members of the requirement to speak through the chair.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Carson makes a series of reasonable points. I have been very pleased to convene the round table on Alzheimer’s care suggested to me by one of Scotland’s leading and most distinguished industrialists, Sir Iain Anderson. I welcome Sir Iain’s intervention to advance these issues, and the active participation of clinicians.

Mr Carson makes a strong point about the early intervention support that Alzheimer Scotland makes, particularly in community settings, which I suspect must be the context of the arrangements in Mr Carson’s constituency. I give him the assurance that I will take the issue away and explore it with the health secretary to see what steps we can take to ensure that there is continuity of service. It is obvious that any disruption to the care arrangements of individuals with Alzheimer’s is likely to be damaging to them.

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

I welcome the announcement this week in the Scottish budget of a mansion tax on properties valued at more than £1 million. Although I am sure that he is not being singled out, it seems likely that the new leader in Scotland of Mr Farage’s party will be among the first to pay the tax. Does the First Minister agree that it is fair to ask the wealthiest to contribute to public services and that it will be good to see certain figures in the House of Lords doing so more evidently?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government has a foundation to its tax approach; it is based on the progressive principle. We have taken that principle and applied it to the council tax provisions at the higher end of the spectrum. Those policies will be brought forward as part of the Government’s budget process.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

The latest Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service figures show a 43 per cent post-Covid rise in under-16s who are reported for rape and sexual assault. There is a crisis of violence against women and girls in Scotland. What we are currently doing is not working. Will the Government please do something different and start with what the Lord Advocate has described as root-cause offending: the violence against women of prostitution? Prostitution dehumanises women and girls, and that human rights abuse is currently state sanctioned. Will the Government take this opportunity to stand up for women and girls, protect them and support my unbuyable bill?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I acknowledge unreservedly the significance of the issue that Ash Regan puts to me and, in particular, the significant increase in sexual violence and the reporting of sexual violence in our society. That is evidenced in a lot of the data that we have wrestled with in Parliament and it has resulted in the Government’s actions to ensure that more cases are pursued, more cases are taken to court and more prosecutions are successfully achieved.

However, that is not to suggest in any way that there is not more that we need to do, which is about education, advice and intervention to create a different culture in the attitude towards women and girls in our society—an attitude that is being fuelled by so much of the unacceptable material that is floating around on social media. I welcome some of the steps that the United Kingdom Government has taken in the course of this week alone to apply greater regulatory force to many of these issues.

Ash Regan asked me specifically about her bill. The bill is at stage 1 consideration, and the Government has engaged with that process. We will listen with care to the conclusions of the Criminal Justice Committee when its report is available to us.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In relation to the question that I raised during First Minister’s question time, a supplementary question from Alexander Stewart contained the statement that Clackmannanshire has received £9 million or more. The truth, of course, is that Clackmannanshire has not received a single penny. I think that Mr Stewart may be confused with the award that is said to have been given to the whole of Forth Valley rather than Clackmannanshire.

It is also true that the money has not been paid yet and will not be paid for several months, and that the United Kingdom Government has allocated it to something called the Forth Valley regional partnership—a body that does not exist. Given the importance of those facts for jobs in my constituency, I wonder whether Alexander Stewart can be given the opportunity to apologise for his error in order that the facts can be put into the Official Report .

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Brown. You will be aware that the content of members’ contributions is not a matter that the chair would ordinarily rule on.

Point of Order

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The chamber will be aware of reporting by Alice Faulkner of Clyde 1 news that a campaign leaflet issued by Labour features a made-up quote that is incorrectly attributed to maternity campaigner Claire Fleming, who has publicly denied saying those words, and—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Stewart, points of order should refer to whether proper parliamentary procedures have been followed.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I am coming to the parliamentary aspect of the issue, Presiding Officer.

Despite promising on multiple occasions to publicly apologise to Ms Fleming once he found out about the issue, I note that Mr Sarwar has yet to do so. Blatant disinformation of that type undermines trust in politicians, our politics and this Parliament. Although you are not responsible for the output of members in a political space, Presiding Officer, I point out that fabricating quotes from members of the public has repercussions way beyond that political space and has serious potential for this very institution to be brought into disrepute.

Presiding Officer, can you outline how members can ensure the accuracy of our output, both inside and outside the chamber? Will Mr Sarwar take this opportunity to put his full apology to Claire Fleming on the parliamentary record?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

As I indicated, that is not a matter for the chair, but, of course, members should strive to be accurate always.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate, and there will now be a short suspension to allow those leaving the public gallery and the chamber to do so.

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20218, in the name of Maggie Chapman, on a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service fit for the future. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament recognises, and is grateful for, the work of the around 7,600 firefighters and support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), who help keep people and nature in the North East Scotland region and across the country safe; understands with concern that, since 2013, the SFRS resource budget has been reduced in real terms by £58 million per annum, with 1,239 firefighter posts lost, and that the recent Service Delivery Review could see the loss of fire stations and appliances across the country; welcomes the dedicated work of Fire Brigades Union (FBU) Scotland in campaigning for a well-resourced and well-equipped service, and its 2023 paper, Firestorm, a Report into the Future of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; notes the shared commitment of FBU and SFRS to firefighter role expansion and, in particular, the FBU’s campaign, DECON, which aims to shed light on the health risks of fire contaminants to firefighters; understands that firefighters have a mortality rate from all cancers 1.6 times higher than the general public; notes the DECON campaign’s recommendations, which include annual health monitoring and recording of exposures for all firefighters; further notes what it sees as the impact of the climate emergency on the SFRS, including an increasing frequency and severity of wildfires and flooding, and notes the FBU’s Climate Emergency campaign, which aims to highlight the impact of the climate crisis on fire and rescue services.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to those who supported my motion to allow this debate to go ahead today. I led the Scottish Greens’ first members’ business debate in this session, which was on St Fittick’s park, and I am proud to devote this penultimate Scottish Greens members’ business debate to the fire service.

I speak today with immense gratitude to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and say hello to its members who are in the gallery this afternoon. I am grateful to all of the roughly 7,600 firefighters and support staff who, every day, place themselves between danger and the people and places they serve, and support those in need. They are there at the worst moments of our lives: when a family home is ablaze, when a car is twisted around a tree, when floodwater rises, when wildfires rage and when the climate emergency stops being an abstract concept and becomes an immediate terrifying reality.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I stand with Ms Chapman’s comments about our immense gratitude to those who risk their lives for us.

Hawick fire station is at risk of having its full-time-equivalent service cut. I agree with Maggie Chapman about the incredible risks that we face from wildfires, climate change and so on. Does she agree that now is not the time for that cut to happen? Some 1,250 jobs have gone from the service. The Scottish Government must back it now, while we face those increased risks.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I will come on to the service delivery review in a moment, but it is important that we recognise and acknowledge that the staff who work for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are there for us when it matters most. I have outlined their work when family homes are on fire and in response to the climate emergency, as Rachael Hamilton highlighted, but, as is often forgotten, it is also about someone being on the phone, hoping for rescue, even when the service just cannot get to them in time.

Firefighters are not just emergency responders; they are a national strategic asset. Yet, for more than a decade, it sometimes seems as though we have treated them as if they were expendable. Since 2013, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service resource budget has been cut by £58 million a year in real terms and 1,239 firefighter posts have been lost. Appliances sit uncrewed and response times have lengthened year on year.

Now, through the service delivery review, communities are being asked to contemplate the loss of stations and appliances that they know, in their bones, keep them safe.

Let us be honest. This is not modernisation driven by vision; this is change driven by austerity.

I will speak directly about the north-east region and, in particular, about Balmossie community fire and ambulance station. The message from the responses to the consultation on the service delivery review could not be clearer. Communities, workers, unions and local representatives all said the same thing—Balmossie must stay open, with no loss of appliances. This is not special pleading; it is common sense. Balmossie serves a growing population in an area where there are complex industrial risks, major transport routes and communities that already feel stretched. Closing or downgrading the station would increase response times and put lives at risk. I pay special tribute to Alan Park at Balmossie for his tireless activism—raising awareness, supporting people to understand how the consultation worked and so much more. Thank you, Alan.

Of course, similar concerns are being expressed elsewhere, such as in Lochgelly in Fife. I know that my colleague Mark Ruskell would be here if he could, representing the workers and constituents who worry about the proposed changes there. If we ignore these warnings, we will not be able to say that we did not know.

Firefighters are being asked to do more with less in conditions that are increasingly intolerable. That is why the work of the Fire Brigades Union matters so profoundly. I thank the FBU for its tireless campaigning and its 2023 report, “Firestorm”, which set out not just a critique but a credible vision for the future of our fire service.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Last year, the Health and Safety Executive issued an enforcement notice to the SFRS about welfare facilities at three fire stations in Shetland. There were no fixed toilets, rest facilities, showers or changing areas. Although I understand that progress has now been made at the stations concerned, does Ms Chapman recognise the impact on personnel, especially when they are trying to decontaminate after attending an incident, and the potential impact on firefighters’ health? That is an example of what can happen when there is inadequate funding for emergency services.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Again, I can give you the time back, Ms Chapman.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Absolutely, we need to make sure that we are investing in the decontamination facilities that all firefighters need. I will speak particularly about the FBU’s DECON campaign, which the Parliament has debated before and which I have been proud to support.

In comparison with the general public, firefighters are 1.6 times more likely to die from cancer, five times more likely to die from a heart attack and nearly three times more likely to die from a stroke. That is not a coincidence—it is an occupational scandal. The science is clear. Fire contaminants—toxic carcinogenic substances that are released during fires and are in some of the firefighting equipment—are killing firefighters slowly, long after the flames are put out. The World Health Organization recognises firefighting as a carcinogenic occupation. Professor Anna Stec’s research has reinforced what firefighters have known for years: their work is poisoning them.

The DECON campaign is not radical; it is responsible. We need annual health monitoring, recording of exposures, proper decontamination facilities, clean kit, clean stations and safe systems of work. Some progress has been made—as Beatrice Wishart highlighted—and that should be acknowledged; however, without sustained, ring-fenced investment, these measures will remain patchy, unequal and inadequate. If we know the risk, and we fail to act, that failure is on us.

This debate is also about the future and about potential. There is a shared commitment between the FBU and the SFRS to role expansion. Firefighters already prevent, protect and respond. With the right training, staffing and funding, they could do even more, thereby alleviating pressure on the Scottish Ambulance Service, supporting the national health service and strengthening community safety and resilience.

However, let me be absolutely clear: role expansion cannot be a back-door cost-cutting exercise. It cannot be done on the cheap and it cannot be imposed on a service that is already stretched to breaking point. An agreement in principle was reached in 2022, but what has been missing ever since is Government backing. Political leadership means turning warm words about public sector reform into real investment that allows reform to happen safely, fairly and effectively.

We cannot talk about a fire service that is fit for the future while firefighters work in stations that lack basic dignified facilities, while more than 100 stations do not meet minimum toilet standards, while hundreds lack proper changing areas, and while capital investment lags hundreds of millions of pounds behind what is needed. We cannot talk about climate resilience while not investing properly in the very service that responds to floods, wildfires and extreme weather events.

Our firefighters do not ask for praise; they ask for the tools to do their job, the numbers to do it safely and the protection that they deserve in return for the risks that they take. The Parliament now faces a choice: we can continue down the road of managed decline—consultation by consultation, closure by closure—or we can choose investment over cuts, prevention over reaction, and justice over neglect.

Keeping Balmossie open, backing the DECON campaign in full, funding role expansion properly, rebuilding stations, recruiting firefighters and reducing response times—that is what a fire and rescue service that is fit for the future looks like. Scotland’s firefighters step up every day—it is time for us to do the same.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Maggie Chapman for securing the debate.

In her motion, the member quite rightly mentions the DECON campaign, and I very much associate myself with her remarks about it. The campaign has indicated and highlighted the excess mortality rates in relation to cancer, heart attack and stroke, which we would all agree are an obvious concern for us. When the evidence starts to emerge, including through academic research, it requires a response. There are recommendations in the FBU report, and I am keen to hear the Scottish Government’s response to them.

Maggie Chapman is also right to highlight, as she did in her contribution as well as in her motion, the impact of climate change. I have spoken in the Parliament before about having seen the effects of climate change locally in my constituency. Last spring, we saw a major wildfire at Palacerigg, which required a significant response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. The service certainly rose to the occasion, and I am grateful to it for doing so.

The Scottish Government held the wildfire summit, and I am grateful for the Government’s update to MSPs on the work that has arisen out of that. It would be useful to hear from the minister about what might emerge from that, if she is able to provide us with an update.

I will focus my remarks primarily on the fire service delivery review, as it impacts my area. As a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, I am grateful to the Fire Brigades Union for coming along to speak to us about its perspective on the review, and I look forward to having the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service speak to us before any final decisions are made. I know that a decision has been delayed, which reflects what has been, as members might have expected, a significant response to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s consultation, and I look forward to being able to question the SFRS on aspects of the review.

The proposal in my area is, thankfully, not to close the fire station; indeed, I would have been surprised if there had been a closure, given the size of my community. However, there is a proposal to move from two full-time appliances to one operating full time—which would be welcome, of course—and another operating full time during the day on weekdays only and then being operated by retained firefighters at night time during the week and at weekends.

Understandably, that has generated concern in the community, with the primary concern being about any delay to a second appliance arriving and the pressure that that might place on the crew of the first appliance that arrives on site. There is also concern about retained firefighter availability—we are already seeing that, with the Kilsyth and Stepps fire stations not always being available—and about the challenges with recruiting such personnel.

I have a particular concern about the review process, which I have expressed to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and which I now take the opportunity to place on the record in the Parliament. We benefit from having a national service—for example, we do not, as I have seen, have the same challenges with cross-boundary transfer—but I do not think that the Fire and Rescue Service’s proposals have considered that. For example, changes that are being talked about in Glasgow could impact my area—and, of course, vice versa—and I do not think that that has been considered.

I am glad that Maggie Chapman has brought the debate to the Parliament, and I am glad to have been able to place some of my concerns and those of my constituents on the record. I am keen to see where the review lands and, in that regard, I look forward to being able to question the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service when it comes before the committee.

I place on record my thanks to all existing fire service personnel and all those who have served in the past. They deserve our greatest thanks.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will start off with a couple of apologies. First, I apologise to Maggie Chapman. If I had known how you were going to address the debate and how it was going to pan out, I would have supported your motion, and I apologise to you for not doing so.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Please pass your apology through the chair, Mr Mountain.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I also apologise to members for having to slip away before the end of the debate. I forewarned you of that, Presiding Officer, and agreed it with you in advance.

I thank Maggie Chapman for bringing the debate to the Parliament because, as she rightly said, whenever we call for a firefighter or fire engine, it is because we need them. At that stage of need, we realise just how important they are.

That is why I have always campaigned across the Highlands for a local call centre. The difficulty of ensuring that we deploy our retained firefighters to the right places in the Highlands is often quite stark. I dread to think how many Kinlochs are dotted round the Highlands; when we call for a fire engine to go to Kinloch, it might end up near Tongue, near Skye or elsewhere. That is an important point that we have missed.

I must also compliment the Fire Brigades Union, which has been vocal in bringing these matters to the Parliament. I was going to say that I admire its militancy, but I think that that is the wrong word; perhaps I should say that I admire its tenacity in the way in which it has brought the issues to the Parliament.

Indeed, I thank it for doing so, because, in the Highlands, there have been various issues, especially in the past year, that have required a huge amount of support. I do not need to remind the Parliament that there were probably more than 70 wildfires across Scotland last year, the majority of which were in the Highlands. One of the biggest—which was in the Highlands—raged for weeks.

That proves that there is a lack of the equipment that we need to fight such fires. I strongly believe that there should be a centralised resource of equipment to enable firefighters to get to the hill. That could, and should, include equipment such as Argocats, which are hugely expensive—up to £30,000, in fact.

I also want to touch on certain issues relating to retained firefighters that I see when I travel around the Highlands. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude, but the problem is that we do not make it easy for people to become retained firefighters. Their training requires them to take quite long periods off work, which is an onerous commitment for their employers—even though it is vital for their communities—and I hope that at some stage the review can look at how that training could be made easier, not in terms of what the people involved have to do, but time-wise.

Furthermore, I hope that we can ensure that the training is appropriate, given that certain things that firefighters might have to deal with in one area, such as fires in flats, are not things that firefighters on, say, the west coast of Scotland have to deal with. The training should be made more appealing, too.

The other thing that has been definitely brought to my attention is the lack of facilities for firefighters when they return from fires. Too many fire stations have no showering facilities. It was only midway through last year that Inverness fire station ended up with suitable facilities for firefighters, so that they did not have to go home, reeking of smoke and carrying back to their families and homes the contaminants that they had been exposed to during that day’s firefighting experience.

That sort of thing is fundamentally wrong; I can say from personal experience that there is nothing worse than going home in soot-covered clothes and smelling of smoke. It takes days to get it out of your clothes and out of the house, and we should not impose that on firefighters’ families. Therefore, I hope that the review will cover that issue, too.

I support the motion, and I call on the Government to support our firefighters, for the simple reason that, when we need them, they have to be there—and they have to be properly equipped.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank Maggie Chapman for lodging the motion in Parliament, which I am delighted to support.

A few weeks ago, one Friday afternoon, I sat down with firefighters at the Cumbernauld fire station. It is a station which is set to be downgraded under the so-called service delivery review, with proposals to cut firefighters’ hours, with proposals to cut the number of fire appliances and with proposals to cut emergency cover on the night shift—even though the population that the Cumbernauld station serves is rising; even though, as one long-serving firefighter told me:

“Every bad incident I’ve experienced has been at night-time. It is when the risk is greatest”;

even though, as another younger firefighter told me:

“The very first video you are shown when you start your training is about time critical: the difference that two to three minutes can make”;

and even though, as Scott Fleming, the local Fire Brigades Union representative, told me:

“There are fewer house fires: but the fatalities from house fires have not dropped.”

So, even though these are the experiences, this is the evidence and these are the facts, the minister will tell us that these are purely operational matters for the service to decide, when, in truth, these are life-and-death matters, and so political and moral matters for this Government and for this Minister for Victims and Community Safety to decide.

There are other considerations, too. We also spoke that Friday before Christmas about the new fire station that had been promised when reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was discovered at the station, which was built back in the 1970s. We spoke about it, because that new replacement fire station has now been shelved, because of the same service delivery review. I have to say that it beggars belief that, as we marked in Parliament just last month, 70 years ago, an earlier generation could build an entire new town in Cumbernauld; now this Scottish National Party Government in this generation cannot even build a new fire station in Cumbernauld.

And what of this week’s budget? Well, as the Fire Brigade’s Union’s Scottish secretary, John McKenzie, has explained,

“the capital budget increase of less than £1.5 million”—

that is for the entire Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—

“is utterly inadequate and sits against an £818 million capital backlog, leaving fire stations not fit for purpose, some held up by scaffolding and many without adequate toilets or running water.”

Meanwhile, the Government continues to throw millions extra for a new information technology system for the Fire and Rescue Service at the US-owned multinational corporation Motorola, having already wasted millions on a botched IT system splashed out to the French-owned multinational corporation Systel.

And just last week in Parliament, I revealed that, while the SNP Government’s budget for the removal of dangerous, highly flammable cladding in the wake of the Grenfell tower tragedy was £35 million last year, only £6 million of that was spent. It is another example of how little this Government regards community and fire safety, how little it understands the risks posed to firefighters and the public by these unsafe buildings, how lightly it takes its serious duty of care to these residents—especially those who are most at risk: children, those with a disability, the elderly and the frail—who are still waiting more than eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, simply for their homes to be made safe.

It is high time that we ended this indifference, this callous disregard. It is time that we saw action and that we saw new investment in our Fire and Rescue Service, in our firefighters, in our communities. That is what I will continue to campaign for, inside and outside this Parliament.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I thank my Green colleague Maggie Chapman for securing this debate. I also express my thanks to Scotland’s firefighters and their support staff for their continuing dedication, professionalism and courage in keeping our communities safe across Scotland.

Many constituents have been in contact with me about their concerns about the proposed closure of Marionville fire station. Marionville fire station is located just along the road from the Scottish Parliament, less than a mile from the city centre. It serves a densely populated area and provides cover to a large part of Edinburgh, including the growing populations in the north and east, the Forth ports and the Scottish Parliament. It forms part of the broad response network that keeps our communities safe through rapid emergency response and prevention work. My constituents are deeply concerned about the proposal to close Marionville fire station and relocate its services to Newcraighall, with the likelihood of increased response times for those of us who live and work in the city centre. My constituents do not consider that to be a minor adjustment; they think that it is a dangerous backward step.

The proposal comes at a time when east Edinburgh’s population is growing at an unprecedented rate, increasing demand on services. Local fire services also cover major venues such as Meadowbank stadium, which holds 1,300 people, and Easter Road stadium, which has capacity for 20,000 people. Local people feel that the risks in our area are increasing, not decreasing. They worry that removing such critical resource from the heart of Edinburgh will stretch already limited resources, increase response times and put public safety at risk. Fires can go from manageable to fully developed in a matter of minutes, and closing the station could place significant pressure on the surrounding stations, two of which are already among the busiest in Scotland.

With climate change bringing more severe wildfires and other emergencies, the demands on our fire service are only going to rise. We are all too aware of the danger and damage caused by fast-spreading wildfires, and we witnessed such scenes on Arthur’s Seat last summer. Dry vegetation acted like kindling, and shifting winds drove flames towards paths, wildlife habitats and homes. We need to ensure that crews are based where they can respond quickly to such incidents, as delays in response times can dramatically increase risk to people, property and the firefighters themselves.

I share the concerns about increases in response times, the withdrawal of appliances and the loss of jobs. Any reassessment of resources must be done collaboratively with the firefighters themselves, the Fire Brigades Union and the communities affected. The Scottish Greens will continue to push for fair work principles and decontamination systems, ensuring that those who protect us are well supported, well compensated and safe in their work. Every station should have the staffing, training and equipment that it needs to keep our communities safe.

The Scottish Greens stand with our firefighters. Those courageous people put their lives on the line for the safety of our homes and the wellbeing of our communities. They do an extraordinary job and they need the resources to match the challenges that they face, such as long and exhausting shifts, contamination from fires, road accidents and, of course, more wildfires. This is not just about the bricks and mortar of the Marionville fire station building; it is about lives. It is about ensuring that when the worst happens, help arrives quickly and effectively. Let us work together to protect our fire service and the people who depend on it.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

I begin by reiterating my support for the motion and my gratitude to the thousands of firefighters and support staff who keep my constituents, and all of us, safe.

Securing meaningful and sustained funding for the fire service is a crucial issue for the North East Scotland region that I represent, particularly in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry, which—as Maggie Chapman mentioned—are served by Balmossie fire and ambulance station. Like many communities across Scotland, Monifieth and Broughty Ferry have been impacted by an increasing centralisation of powers and services of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and by almost two decades of continued austerity and underfunding from the SNP Government.

In 2023, stretched budget funding resulted in one appliance at Kingsway east station in Dundee being removed. That was played down at the time as a short-term measure by both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but, three years later, we still have no resolution to the downgrading of the service at Kingsway east. Now, with the current proposals on the table, we face the same dangerous situation at Balmossie. That will result in slower response times and a greater risk to life and to the community. The community in Monifieth and Broughty Ferry feels—rightly—that the battle has already been fought and won once before, when previous attempts to close Balmossie were overturned as a result of sustained public pressure led by the Fire Brigades Union. Yet, once again, the service is under threat.

I therefore ask the minister today how she can defend these brutal cuts. Does she seriously believe that they will leave anyone in North East Scotland safer? My constituents need and deserve a fire and rescue service that can meet the challenge that we face from increased wild fires, flooding and extreme weather. Instead, under the SNP, we have had two decades of managed decline of our public services; reductions in the number of front-line firefighters; exposure to occupational hazards; and inadequate training equipment. Under the SNP, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has seen a real-terms resource budget cut of tens of millions of pounds. Those cuts mean that much of the estate and the equipment are now unfit for the service.

Further cuts will, therefore, surely risk lives, because neglect and lack of investment leave the SFRS unable to implement best practice in reducing cancer and other disease risks that disproportionately affect firefighters.

At every opportunity, the SNP Government has chosen quick cuts to balance a broken budget over the lives of workers. That has happened against our interest, against the public’s interest and against the will of us all, because the public do not support these cuts. The public do not support the changes that the SFRS has put forward; they do not want to see any reduction in services; and, most of all, they do not want their local fire stations, such as Balmossie, shut down.

My constituents want a Scottish Fire and Rescue Service that is properly funded and well resourced to face the risks that climate and environment breakdown are causing. However, if the past two decades are any indication, it is clear that they will not get that from this minister or this SNP Government.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, thank my colleague Maggie Chapman for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I also recognise the dedication, professionalism and courage of firefighters and support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service across Scotland and especially in the Highlands and Islands. They protect lives, communities and nature, often across vast distances and in very challenging conditions.

However, appreciation alone will not sustain the service. As we have heard, the SFRS resource budget has been reduced by £58 million per year in real terms since 2013, with the loss of more than 1,000 firefighter posts. Those figures translate directly into stretched cover, pressure on crews and difficult decisions about stations and appliances. Those pressures are now being highlighted by the service delivery review.

In the Highlands and Islands, the context is stark. Inverness is the only permanently staffed full-time fire station in the entire Highlands. Alongside it are 51 retained duty system stations and nine community response units covering huge geographic areas and often operating in severe weather and on difficult terrain. Retained and community firefighters are essential for keeping people safe, but they must be properly supported to do so.

In my conversations with firefighters across the region, I have heard repeatedly about the reality on the ground. Some rural stations, I am told, do not have basic facilities—no toilets, no showers, no proper changing areas and patchy internet access. After incidents involving smoke contaminants or floodwater, that is simply not acceptable. Dignity and health at work must apply equally, regardless of the location.

The nature of the job is changing. Firefighters are increasingly being called out to flooding, extreme weather and climate-driven emergencies. Wildfires, in particular, are becoming more frequent and more severe, yet firefighters have told me that the training is inconsistent. Although some crews have received specialist wildfire training, others have not, yet they are still being mobilised to attend wildfire incidents. One firefighter described to me how they had attended multiple wildfires where they and their colleagues were unable to fully engage because they had not been trained in techniques such as back burning. They told me that that is frustrating for someone whose vocation is service.

I have also heard concerns about all-terrain equipment not being fit for purpose, which limits firefighters’ ability to operate safely and effectively in remote landscapes. At the most basic level, firefighters have raised issues about the quality of standard kit, including socks that wear out quickly and need to be replaced very frequently. Those details may sound small, but they speak to morale, comfort and a wide pattern of underinvestment. That is why the work of the Fire Brigades Union is so important.

I recently visited the decontamination unit in Inverness fire station. It is important to note that the unit was largely funded by the efforts of the FBU, which demonstrates both what is needed and what can be achieved through determination and partnership. That matters, because firefighters face a cancer mortality rate 1.6 times higher than that of the general population. The FBU’s decon campaign includes calls for annual health monitoring and proper recording of exposure, and it deserves our full support.

I agree with the need for role expansion, which enables firefighters to act fully as emergency responders in this climate-altered world. However, role expansion without resources is not reform; it is risk transfer. If we want a properly funded Fire and Rescue Service, we must be serious about how we raise revenue. Measures such as taxing private jet use and introducing a mansion tax are a fair way to strengthen the public purse. With independence, Scotland would have the full powers that are needed to tax wealth and properly fund the SFRS and other vital public services.

Firefighters are ready to serve. Our responsibility is to ensure that they are properly funded, properly trained, properly equipped and properly valued.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Before I call the next speaker, in order to allow other members to participate, I am prepared to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.

Motion moved,

That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Maggie Chapman]

Motion agreed to.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for securing today’s debate, because it could not be more important. As colleagues from across the country have highlighted, we need a fire service that is fit for purpose, now and for the future. With the growing impact of the climate emergency and extreme weather, the need to have an effective fire service for my constituents has never been more vital, especially after the fire last summer on Arthur’s Seat and other fires that have happened across the city.

As Lorna Slater highlighted, the proposal to close Marionville fire station has been met with widespread opposition from the community and from our firefighters. We know that the building has RAAC, but closing Marionville without a replacement facility in the area will leave our brave firefighters overstretched and underresourced.

The proposed closure makes even less sense when we consider that it is not even the option that the SFRS had recommended. In the 2020 options appraisal report for Marionville station, which I acquired through a freedom of information request, neither of the options that were evaluated even considered not replacing the station. The report recommended exploring the idea of maintaining the operation of the current station while building a replacement station on another site. Last year, it emerged that there are two potential council-owned sites in the area. Therefore, we need to know whether the SFRS has discussed those options with the council.

Five years after the options report, why has no station been built? Why do we now face the prospect of Marionville being closed with no plan to replace it? Those questions are especially important because there is a growing number of homes in the area and developments at the port of Leith.

Since the creation of the SFRS, Scotland has lost almost a sixth of our firefighters, and Scottish Government budget cuts have left the SFRS with one hand tied behind its back. As the FBU’s excellent briefing notes show, that has created huge pressures on firefighters, and response times have increased. That is not acceptable. My constituents are now facing the consequences of those cuts, potentially losing a fire station without getting a replacement in their area. The closure of Marionville is opposed by a staggering ratio of 10:1 in the local community, which has been consulted and was clear that we need the station to be replaced.

The SFRS needs to support our local communities. If the Scottish Government wants to ensure that our fire service is fit for purpose, it must invest in services, not cut them. It must give the SFRS the tools that it needs to grow our fire safety infrastructure. We should not be in the situation of losing key stations after a summer when there were major fires.

The problem is not just wildfires; our communities will also face more flooding incidents in which people will need to be protected. Last month, a Scottish Environment Protection Agency report estimated that 400,000 homes and buildings are now at medium risk of flooding. This week, we learned that the Scottish Government’s budget will cut funding for the flood resilience strategy from £14 million to under £1 million. Worryingly, there is no clear budget line for flood defence scheme funding in the local government budget. Although the budget will increase funding for the SFRS, there is still an £800 million capital backlog, as Richard Leonard highlighted. That is utterly unacceptable.

I will continue to work with our local community, MSPs across Parliament and councillors to ensure that our vital emergency services in Edinburgh and the Lothians are not hollowed out. The Scottish Government and the SFRS must urgently listen to the communities and—as is being asked for across the country—give us the investment that Edinburgh and the Lothians urgently need. I hope that the minister will take up the issue with the SFRS and talk with her Cabinet and ministerial colleagues. We need to make progress, not to go into reverse.

Foysol Choudhury (Independent, Lothian)

I thank Maggie Chapman for securing this much-needed debate. The estate of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not fit for the future. According to the Fire Brigade Union’s “Firestorm” report, as of 2023, 75 per cent of buildings in Scotland’s fire estate were rated as having “bad” or “poor” suitability. Having visited Crewe Toll fire station in Edinburgh and spoken with firefighters, I am aware of the poor condition of our fire estate.

However, the SFRS does not have the capital budget that is required to rebuild or upgrade the stations. The SFRS recently told the Criminal Justice Committee that, if its capital budget does not grow significantly by 2031, it will be short of £119 million.

The SFRS’s solution is to consider closing stations, including Marionville in Edinburgh, after RAAC issues were identified. The service explains that rebuilding the facilities would be too costly. However, many members of the community, while recognising the financial pressure that the SFRS faces, strongly oppose those decisions, arguing that the cost of addressing RAAC is being used as a justification for closure, which exposes the community to significant safety risks.

In the recent consultation on proposals to close the Marionville station, opponents outnumbered supporters by a ratio of 10:1. I am one of those opponents and remain convinced that Marionville must remain open.

In the “Firestorm” report, the FBU estimated that the SFRS had a capital investment backlog of around £800 million, and, since then, the SFRS has reiterated those figures to the Criminal Justice Committee. However, the SFRS’s capital budget is only £47 million for 2026-27. Beyond that specific figure, the Scottish Government has ignored the requests of both the SFRS and the FBU for the budget to be allocated on a long-term basis rather than annually as is the case currently. We welcomed long-term funding for the culture budget, so why can we not have that for our life-saving fire services?

The SFRS told the Criminal Justice Committee last September that its ability to manage change, including making strategic investments to enable longer-term savings, is made more challenging because it is limited to working within an annualised budget. The SFRS cannot make long-term strategic plans for its capital investment and is forced into short-term savings while the backlog of capital investment continues to mount.

Last September, the FBU told the Criminal Justice Committee that, without the required real-terms investment, the SFRS will continue to close stations in its attempts to reduce its capital backlog. That is the cost of the Scottish Government’s mistake. If it refuses to increase the capital budget to the SFRS and continues to set that budget annually, more stations will be threatened with closure, like Marionville.

The existence of a station in a community makes a vital difference. The shorter the journey between the station and the incident, the better the chance that lives are saved, traumatic burns are prevented and buildings are saved from being reduced to dust. I thank our dedicated firefighters and service staff across our nation for carrying out their dangerous work and ensuring that our communities are safe. However, I urge the Scottish Government to allocate sufficient funding for our fire services to be fit for the future.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Maggie Chapman for securing this important debate on whether the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is fit for the future.

I welcome the focus on response times in several of the speeches. As we know, there has been a significant increase in response times under the Scottish National Party, which, of course, increases risks.

Maggie Chapman’s motion rightly highlights the challenges that the SFRS faces due to the climate emergency, including increased frequency and severity of flooding and wildfires. As a number of members have said, last year, we saw the risks posed by the climate emergency right on Parliament’s doorstep, with yet another wildfire engulfing Arthur’s Seat. This week alone, we have seen the impact of flooding on many communities across Scotland, but the Scottish Government has chosen not to support our firefighters so that they are properly equipped to respond to those challenges in future.

Since 2013, the SFRS resource budget has decreased by £58 million a year in real terms, and around 1,250 firefighter jobs have been lost. The resource increase that is offered in the Scottish Government’s budget, therefore, goes nowhere near far enough to reverse the damage that has been caused by more than a decade of cuts and job losses in the fire service. The proposed resource increase also falls short by more than £11 million of what the SFRS has set out as being required in order to recruit the new firefighters who will be needed over the next three years.

As Richard Leonard and a number of other members have said, the capital budget increase of less than £1.5 million is also completely inadequate, given the £818 million capital backlog that the SFRS faces.

A number of members have spoken about the conditions in some fire stations, including the lack of showering facilities. I recently highlighted to the Scottish Government that many fire stations in my West Scotland region are still in a state of disrepair. In the past six years, Greenock, Gourock and Port Glasgow stations have had to conduct essential repairs and maintenance amounting to more than £1 million due to the condition that they were in. Dreghorn fire station, which is the main fire station service in Irvine, was also found to be in poor condition. This is a Scotland-wide challenge and, given the Scottish Government’s failure to properly invest in tackling the capital backlog in this budget, I fear that those fire stations will continue not to be fit for purpose.

Some members have focused on the service delivery review, which could lead to the closure of 13 fire stations, the permanent withdrawal of 10 appliances and changes to fire cover, leading to increased response times as a result. I reiterate my call to the Scottish Government to commit to a debate in Government time so that Parliament can have its say on any proposals before they proceed.

With regard to the expansion of the firefighter role, I thank all members who have signed my recent motion calling on the Scottish Government to make progress on that issue, particularly in the light of the shared commitment of both the FBU and the SFRS. Members have highlighted the FBU’s DECON campaign, and I reiterate my calls for greater action from the Scottish Government to protect the health and safety of firefighters. I reiterate that there is a legal obligation on the Scottish Government and on the SFRS as an employer to provide a safe system of work to firefighters.

I conclude by placing on record my thanks to the firefighters and staff—there are around 7,600 of them—for the vital work that they do in keeping us safe.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I thank Maggie Chapman and all the members who have contributed to this important debate.

As the minister with responsibility for fire and rescue, I express my appreciation for the staff of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, who work tirelessly to keep our communities across Scotland safe. I welcome to the public gallery representatives of the FBU, along with representatives of the Fire and Rescue Services Association whom I met this morning when we had some very helpful conversations.

I want to get a few points across about the service delivery review first, because the debate is very broad. As we know, the nature of the emergencies to which the SFRS responds has changed significantly over the years. As an example, the number of dwelling fires has reduced by more than 20 per cent since 2013.

I heard what Richard Leonard said about his conversations. I do not know whether the figures that he mentioned are accurate, but that is not the information that I have been given. The statistics show that there has been a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties between 2009-10 and 2023-24, but there has been a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties over the same period. It is very important that we get that across.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I had a look this morning at a graph on page 18 of the incident statistics document. If the minister looks at the statistics, she will see that they show that there has been a drop between 1990 and 2014, but from 2014 to the present day the line is pretty much flat: the number of fatalities has not dropped in the same way.

I will also say this: this is not just about house fires. Colin Brown of the FBU told me:

“Overall casualties and fatal casualties from all incident types have risen sharply”.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Minister, I can give you the time back.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I am just going on the information that I have in front of me today. I will write to the member about that point.

I would also say that, although house fires and casualties have reduced, the number of incidents such as flooding and wildfires has increased, of which we are all acutely aware. That is why it is right that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service carefully considers how to adapt to changing risks in order to remain effective and efficient, to ensure that firefighters are in the right place and at the right time. I am sure that all of us in the chamber, regardless of our political colours, would agree with that.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I do not think that there is anybody in the chamber, including among the representatives of the SFRS and the FBU, who does not think that there needs to be some change. The fire service cannot go on as it is, because the risks certainly are changing. However, part of the problem is that, given how and where things are being targeted, the review is clearly being viewed as an austerity measure, not as a strategic piece of work in the round.

I think that we all agree that we need to have conversations about how we address the changing nature of the role of firefighters, including how they deal with floods, wildfires and the like, but that is not what the service delivery review is doing. The review looks like it is targeted, and it looks like it is an austerity measure.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We are going to need briefer interventions, if they are to be taken.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I totally appreciate and understand what the member says. I have regular meetings with the SFRS, which has made it very clear to me—I know that this has come up at committee, too—that it would be considering the proposed changes even if it had all the money. I get independent advice from His Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland, and the chief inspector has said to me that he would be very concerned if the SFRS was not considering reform.

I understand that people are concerned about austerity, but I have had those conversations about how the review can deliver over the next five years. I am told that it is not about austerity, although I understand that people think that it is.

I will try to make a bit of progress, if I can. The SFRS’s public consultation on its service delivery review concluded in September. However, the SFRS board has requested that further work be undertaken on the independent analysis of the consultation responses, along with a fresh and independent look at the equality impact of the possible options for change. That work is on-going, and that is why things have been delayed. The SFRS is not able to provide a precise timetable for when the work will be completed. I would like to clarify that the SDR is a change programme, which will be implemented over a five-year period.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The minister must be concerned about not only the continued increase in response times, but the prediction that they are going to increase if current policies are continued. She must surely be considering, as one of the aspects of the review, whether any changes will bring down response times.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Of course—I will come to response times further on in my speech, if I may.

Deputy Presiding Officer, can I get some time back?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give you the time back for the intervention.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I have made it clear that I view the decisions on where the resources should be placed as a matter for the chief officer and the SFRS board. It is not appropriate for me, or for any politician, to attempt to intervene in those operational issues.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service needs to be effective and efficient. The nature of risk is changing and, with that, there needs to be change in how the SFRS configures its response capability. In saying that, I state that I will, of course, have to be absolutely assured that public safety will not be unduly compromised as a result of any changes that the SFRS makes. However, I know that the SFRS will properly assess the impact of any change, and I will continue to seek assurance from it on that matter.

I will move on to public sector reform and reduction in firefighter numbers. It is important to remember that, through the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, this Government introduced a major piece of legislation on public sector reform to create a single national fire and rescue service in Scotland. That was done to reduce duplication and to save money while protecting front-line service delivery, and the SFRS has achieved that. The previous model was simply not sustainable.

The reduction in the number of firefighters consists of 661 whole-time firefighters, 515 on-call firefighters and 63 in operational control. However, the majority of those on-call posts are actually vacancies, and the SFRS continues to work to fill those posts wherever possible.

As part of the measures to reduce duplication, the SFRS has moved from having eight control rooms to having three, which is why there has been a reduction of 63 control-room staff. On whole-time firefighters, the SFRS has also reduced duplication in the number of middle managers while ensuring that the vast majority of the 356 fire stations across Scotland remained operational.

On broadening the firefighter role, I meet Fire Brigades Union Scottish officials regularly, and I recognise that they have a sound working relationship with SFRS senior managers. In those meetings, they are effective in lobbying for additional funding, and I know that the firefighters will be disappointed that we have not been able to afford the significant additional cost of broadening their role. Although there are clear public sector reform advantages in firefighters doing more to keep our communities safe, the tough choices that the Government faces—

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

Will the minister give way?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Very briefly, please.

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

I express my disappointment at the recent Scottish Government budget announcement with regard to funding for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Notwithstanding the constraints on the Scottish Government’s budget, does the minister agree that there is a case to continue calling on the United Kingdom Government to consider how borrowing and the use of reserves can be offered to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Yes, I agree that that would be very helpful during these financially challenging times.

I will move on, as I know that we are short of time. On decontamination, I acknowledge the FBU’s work on its DECON campaign, along with Maggie Chapman’s efforts in raising that important issue in the Parliament. The safety and wellbeing of firefighters are a priority for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Scotland is leading the way in that area. The SFRS continues to work very closely with Professor Anna Stec in developing research on health screening for firefighters, supported by a £450,000 investment from the Scottish Government’s CivTech programme. To reduce the risk of contaminants, there has been significant change in a wide range of process and practice, and the SFRS is investing in additional personal protective equipment and facilities for firefighters, to reduce further risk. We will continue to work with the SFRS on that issue.

On climate change, we continue to work to support the full implementation of the wildfire strategy. In the number of wildfire warnings that were issued and the scale of summer wildfires across Scotland, 2025 was a record year. The potential increase in the risk of wildfires and flooding is one of the main drivers of the on-going service delivery review, which is looking to ensure that the SFRS has the right assets in the right places to deal with the current and future risks. In the prevention of and response to wildfires, the SFRS works in close partnership with all partners in the Scottish Wildfire Forum, including Forestry and Land Scotland and a wide range of landowners.

The issue of increased response times has been raised. As I have said previously when it has been raised with me, it is a complex issue. Many factors are involved. Those include geography; crews attending other incidents; extra time when a 999 call is taken, to ensure that the right resources are deployed; extra time for crews to enter an appliance, so that they can travel in safety; and extra time in travelling to incidents, due to traffic conditions and street furniture. Each of those elements can be relatively small but they can easily add up to the 90-second increase that has been quoted by the FBU.

Although the time that is taken to arrive at an emergency can be important, we should concentrate on the right resources being deployed to provide a successful outcome, and the SFRS continues to respond to every emergency incident with the appropriate level of resources. The latest statistics, which were published in October, are very encouraging. There was a 7.4 per cent reduction in the overall number of incidents that were attended by the SFRS last year, and I welcome the 4.9 per cent decrease in fire incidents.

A few weeks ago, I was at the Tollcross operational fire station and had an opportunity to see how things worked on the ground when 999 calls came in. I encourage any MSP to do likewise if they have the opportunity, to get a deeper understanding in how response times work.

I will end as I started, by commending the SFRS and its staff. I fully support its work to reduce fires, support local communities and promote safety.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, on climate action and energy, and transport.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the transport secretary has had with the justice secretary regarding action it is taking to tackle freight crime in Scotland. (S6O-05379)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Although the justice secretary and I speak regularly about matters of shared interest, we have not discussed freight crime in Scotland.

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

Increasing freight crime reporting is a significant challenge for hauliers. The true cost of freight crime is estimated by the national vehicle crime intelligence service to be around £700 million a year and, largely, it is carried out by organised criminal gangs. The second strategic transport projects review included a recommendation for a national audit of freight facilities—specifically, lorry parks and rest areas, which are crucial to drivers’ safety and secure parking.

Given the key role played by our road haulage industry in supporting our economy—not least in the building of new homes, constructing wind farms and improving our national infrastructure, to name but a few—can the cabinet secretary say more about the progress that is being made following the audit in order to improve safety for hauliers and reduce freight crime across the country?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am aware of the valuable work of the national vehicle crime intelligence service, which is a United Kingdom national police unit that is funded by commercial companies. I recognise the importance of secure rest and welfare facilities for hauliers across Scotland.

The need for an initial audit of existing facilities was identified as part of the work of the second strategic transport projects review. That work is in its early stages and, rest assured, we shall work with the haulage industry, Police Scotland and other stakeholders on that important matter.

In the near future, I will be meeting the Road Haulage Association, which is one of the largest trade associations for hauliers, regarding the provision of heavy goods vehicle drivers’ welfare, secure facilities and aspects of freight crime.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Logistics UK has highlighted the fact that we are facing a shortage of safe and high-quality truck stops, which are needed for driver dignity as well as for safety. In relation to the cabinet secretary’s discussions with the justice secretary, another big ask is to have a specific crime code for the recording of retail crime.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Issues to do with the recording of crime codes and all the rest are a matter for the justice secretary and for Police Scotland. The member might want to contact them on that specific issue.

On the member’s point about dignity and respect—and in relation to planning for the future energy needs of HGVs—it is important that we look at the framework for those stops. I know that the UK Government is doing likewise.

The crime figures show that more crime tends to happen around distribution centres and on dense motorway networks such as those in the midlands—not necessarily here. However, we need to be vigilant, and it is important that the members have raised the issue.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the development of a new statutory code of practice for household waste and recycling. (S6O-05380)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

A new statutory household recycling code of practice is being co-designed with local authorities, businesses and other waste sector stakeholders to promote greater consistency in services, increase recycling rates and cut emissions.

The first co-design workshop was in June last year. A second workshop is taking place on 27 January and a third workshop is scheduled for summer 2026. The findings of recent consultations on textile collections and rural food waste will support those workshops. The draft code of practice will be published for consultation by the end of 2026.

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

I am deeply concerned about the association between bulk uplift charges for domestic waste and the proliferation and environmental impact of fly-tipping. A Scotland-wide approach to providing minimum standards and affordable prices for bulk uplift services at low cost or, indeed, no cost would support our communities and reduce the blight of fly-tipping.

I introduced amendments to the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 that provided the Scottish Government with powers to include the operation of household bulk uplift and garden waste in any new statutory codes. Will the Scottish Government, in partnership with other stakeholders, consider such measures?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am very appreciative of Bob Doris’s effort in working with the Government during the passage of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, and I know that the issue that he raises is one that he feels strongly about, as do many people.

The circular economy and waste route map sets out that a review of local authority charges for waste collection services, including the collection of bulky items and garden waste, will form part of the co-design of the household recycling code of practice. We have surveyed local authorities and are now considering the findings. A financial analysis and assessment of the behavioural impacts on recycling of such charges has also been undertaken prior to consideration of the issue at the co-design workshop in summer 2026. The review will ensure that the right incentives are in place to reduce waste and to maximise the use of recycling and reuse services, which we expect to reduce the scourge of fly-tipping.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

What extra resources is the Scottish Government allocating to local councils to enable them to invest in new infrastructure so that they can separate household waste and maximise recycling, given their key role as waste producers, waste collectors and waste managers, and given the duty that they will have to take all reasonable steps to separate collections for metals, glass, plastics, paper and card? Will food be included?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As well as providing record funding of more than £15.1 billion to local authorities in 2025-26 through the block grant, in 2021, the Scottish Government launched the £70 million recycling improvement fund, which provides capital funding grants to help local authorities to improve infrastructure and related services. Through 47 projects, we have supported 27 councils to reduce waste and increase recycling rates.

Of course, the United Kingdom-wide extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme has also come into force. Those reforms are anticipated to increase recycling rates for packaging materials to at least 76 per cent by 2030. That scheme will augment the funding that the Scottish Government has provided.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure transport links remain open during incidents of severe weather. (S6O-05381)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Transport Scotland has contracts in place with its operating companies to ensure that the trunk road network is safe, efficient and well managed during periods of severe weather.

Transport Scotland works in close partnership with other transport operators, including ScotRail, and with key agencies such as the Met Office and Police Scotland, through established multi-agency response team—MART—arrangements, which can be activated during severe weather events to support a co-ordinated and effective response to large-scale network disruption. Such arrangements, which form part of the Scottish Government’s wider resilience response, were active during the weather warning periods at the end of December and the beginning of January. I thank all partners for their important work over a prolonged period.

Maintaining strong collaboration with contractors and partners across the Scottish Government is central to planning and preparing for, and responding to, both planned and unplanned events, and it helps to keep Scotland’s transport links operating wherever it is safe to do so.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a partner in a farming business.

The recent severe weather left communities across the Highlands and Islands cut off. The cabinet secretary will know what impact that can have on our rural communities. Patients who had to travel down the A9 and other roads faced issues, folk were cut off from care support in the Highlands and in Orkney, where I was, and people struggled to get to work in the public and private sectors, which has a massive knock-on effect on local businesses.

Farmers were affected, too, some of whom struggled to get to different parts of their farms or some of their more remote landholdings to check on livestock. Many of those same farmers were also busy helping to keep local roads free and helping out in their communities more generally. Is the Scottish Government considering my Scottish Conservative Highlands and Islands colleague Tim Eagle’s call for the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, to look at how it might reward farmers for their community spirit and their efforts?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I put on record—as the First Minister did at the time—our thanks to everyone involved, including members of the farming community, who are obviously part of their local communities, for their efforts in helping to support their neighbours and colleagues. As the member might be aware, some of that activity is undertaken on a contracted basis. In Aberdeenshire, the amount of such activity that is undertaken by farmers on a contracted basis has increased. However, the voluntary effort, too, was significant.

The patience of so many people over such a prolonged time was a credit to the communities affected. Mutual aid was delivered to neighbouring councils by various local authorities. Transport Scotland provided and co-ordinated mutual aid to Aberdeenshire Council, and it helped Network Rail to make sure that the lines were open by helping signallers to get to where they needed to be.

With the exchange of assets, it is important that everybody pulls together. The public recognition and thanks have been given. There are more established arrangements that already exist in different parts of the country that are more directly led by local delivery partners through their strategic response, and they were working solidly right from the end of December.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with SWestrans to discuss bus provision in Dumfries and Galloway. (S6O-05382)

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

My officials have been in regular contact with Dumfries and Galloway Council and SWestrans. The most recent meeting took place on 9 July to obtain updates on the changes to bus services in the area.

As the member knows, local authorities have a duty to identify where there is a social need for particular bus services, and they can subsidise those at their discretion. The Scottish Government has no powers to intervene on that decision making.

In November, I also agreed to meet Dumfries and Galloway Council to discuss bus services, and my office is awaiting feedback from it to make those arrangements happen.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, but I am somewhat shocked that he has not met SWestrans or Dumfries and Galloway Council since 9 July last year. In the meantime, I have held several meetings with SWestrans since the near collapse of bus services following the withdrawal of Stagecoach services right across the region last summer.

Since then, some at-risk services, such as the morning 74 service from Moffat to Dumfries, have been restored, thanks in part to Annandale Community Transport Service and the work of SWestrans. However, serious concerns remain on key routes, including in Annandale and Nithsdale.

The Government is allocating a further £56 million to concessionary travel in the budget, but the problem for many of the communities that I represent is that there is simply no bus for them to travel on, discounted, free or otherwise. Will the Government now commit to properly funding rural bus services to end the social injustice that affects too many of our rural communities, including in Dumfriesshire?

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

As I said in my initial answer, I have written to Dumfries and Galloway Council to set up discussions about what is needed in its area, and I am still awaiting a response. We will continue to look at that.

The member is right to say that the Scottish Government has put £50 million-plus into concessionary travel, but we have also invested £4 million to support local authorities to build business cases for local bus improvements. That is on-going. Our bus fare cap pilot, which will be delivered across the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership and Shetland Transport Partnership areas, is a commitment that we are giving to bus operators and local authorities to ensure that we can deliver those services. There will be a further round of the plugged-in communities grant fund, which will directly help rural communities.

We are taking a range of measures right across the piece to ensure that we have the engagement and the services that local people want in rural communities. I am determined to ensure that we continue to do more.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had regarding transport solutions to support the current and future development of Blindwells, East Lothian. (S6O-05383)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

For the current development at Blindwells, Government officials are engaging with East Lothian Council and the developer to implement improvements to the A1 trunk road. Those improvements were agreed as part of existing planning permission for up to 1,600 homes.

For future development, officials are supporting the council as it prepares a new local development plan. Officials are also working with the council and other partners on a strategic outline business case for up to 10,000 homes that has been submitted to the Scottish Government under the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

As the cabinet secretary knows, housing colleagues in the Scottish Government are engaging with East Lothian Council and the United Kingdom Government on the Blindwells business case, which she referred to, which would see a potential new town for East Lothian. What actions can Transport Scotland and the cabinet secretary take to ensure that transport solutions are progressed in tandem with housing proposals?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Government is committed to ensuring that infrastructure is considered and understood early, as stated in national planning framework 4. Transport Scotland staff are engaging with the council on the business case for Blindwells, using the normal appraisal and business case process, which will identify what transport infrastructure Blindwells might need and set out a clear plan for how it will be funded and delivered.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage all cyclists to ensure that they are visible, particularly during the winter period, and that they comply with the requirements of the highway code. (S6O-05384)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

We expect all road users to respect the rules of the road and follow the highway code, and advise cyclists to wear light or fluorescent clothing in poor light and reflective items in the dark.

In 2025-26, the Scottish Government invested a record £48 million in road safety, and a further £2 million was awarded to the bikeability Scotland cycle training programme, which promotes safe and responsible cycling to schoolchildren.

Police Scotland’s “Be Bright, Be Seen” campaign in Edinburgh is a great example of partnership working to promote cyclist safety during the winter months, with an emphasis on being visible.

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

To put down a marker, I am not demonising all cyclists, only a minority, although probably a growing one. There are far too many incidents of cyclists who do not have particularly effective rear lights—and some who have none at all—and they can be decked out from head to toe in black. On dark and often dreich evenings and mornings, some can hardly be seen until a motorist is almost on top of them and a collision just averted. I hear what the cabinet secretary says, but would she consider working with Police Scotland on a national campaign of “Be Seen, Be Safe” or “Be Safe, Be Seen” or “Be Bright, Be Seen” or “Do whatever you like, but, for goodness sake, be seen”?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The advice to “Be Bright, Be Seen” is absolutely essential for cyclists and for other road users who are concerned about cyclists who do not have lights or dress brightly, particularly in the winter months. The campaign in Edinburgh has been successful and I understand that it is being expanded to the EH6 area. I will ensure that that is brought to the attention of the strategic partnership group on road safety, which I chair, because it is essential.

I can also tell the member that Road Safety Scotland’s early years and primary learning resources introduce the topic early, because we must encourage good practice as early as possible.

We must look at all the contributory factors, because accidents are a problem but near misses distress people.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with Transport Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S6O-05385)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Transport Scotland civil servants provide the entirety of the official support to me on policy and all matters relating to my portfolio as Cabinet Secretary for Transport. They are responsible to me and deliver Scotland’s national transport needs. The most recent meeting, involving Transport Scotland officials and the Scottish road works commissioner, took place earlier today, and I have had 19 meetings with, or involving, Transport Scotland officials since 5 January, covering operational delivery and policy matters across a range of areas, including trunk roads, ferries and weather resilience.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Hamish Cullerton and Elizabeth Leslie own and run Highland Cuisine, which is the only food van that has been authorised by Highland Council to operate on the A9. In an article in The Press and Journal last year, they were described as

“a welcome sight, serving up a hot meal and a warm welcome to the A9’s weary travellers”.

They are providing a great service to local people—including me, as I often stop there on my way down to Edinburgh—and someone from Tasmania said that Hamish and Elizabeth had provided them with the best sandwich that they had ever eaten.

However, their problem is that they have not been given permission by Transport Scotland to put up signage to alert people to their food van, which means that drivers either pass by, missing the opportunity to take a break from driving and to get some hot food and coffee, or stop too quickly, which can cause an accident.

I have been in correspondence with the cabinet secretary about the issue and wonder whether, when she next meets Transport Scotland, she could ask for a more reasonable approach so that that food van, which is providing a great service to travellers on the A9, can get the signage that would make it safer for people to stop there.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member knows that I have some sympathy with the situation, which is yet to be resolved. The concern is that any proposal for signage within the trunk road boundary or on the verge of the road would be problematic, but that would not exclude the possibility of having signage somewhere nearby, with a landowner’s agreement.

In her reply to the member on 24 September, Alison Irvine, the chief executive of Transport Scotland, indicated that Transport Scotland would be happy to consider that being done via the appropriate planning process. She has not heard back from Mr Ross’s constituents, but Transport Scotland stands ready to hear their proposals, which might involve talking to neighbouring landowners as they look for a solution.

Brown signs are for visitor attractions, and we have some concerns about the issue of people wanting to turn right when they are heading north. There are concerns about how to safely allow signage. Understandably, there are rules, but we stand ready to engage on some sort of practical solution, which might involve the use of neighbouring land.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Transport Scotland knows that, under the new contract, on which CalMac is supposedly accountable to communities, CalMac proposes to impose completely unnecessary cuts on the Largs to Cumbrae ferry service over the busy summer period, allegedly to provide additional maintenance that has for decades been undertaken during the 10 hours in every 24 when the ferry does not sail.

The cabinet secretary previously stopped CalMac from reducing its services to Cumbrae by a quarter, which was very much welcomed. Working with Transport Scotland and CalMac, will she ensure that the latest proposed timetable changes, which could only be detrimental to the island’s economy and which islanders vehemently oppose, are ditched forthwith?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member has raised the issue previously. Reliability means regular maintenance, and regular maintenance is to be part of the new contract. However, I understand Mr Gibson’s concerns regarding the Cumbrae service. The regular maintenance outwith the annual overhaul schedule is intended to reduce unplanned disruption and overruns and improve overall service reliability over the piece.

CalMac is at the beginning of the process. I have been clear that it must work closely with local communities to ensure that any proposals are fully discussed. I will meet CalMac on 28 January to discuss a range of matters including its proposals to introduce scheduled maintenance windows. I reiterate that, at this time, no final decision has been taken in relation to its operations on Cumbrae. I will raise the issue at that meeting on 28 January.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to promote the development of municipally owned energy sources. (S6O-05386)