Scottish Parliament, 12 March 2026

785 contributions from 87 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. Question 1 has not been lodged.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Government what targeted support it is providing to households in the Glasgow Anniesland constituency regarding the on-going cost of living crisis, to ensure that they are aware of, and able to access, the financial support, benefits and energy assistance schemes available to them. (S6O-05628)

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

We recognise the pressure on household budgets, which is why we are working with key partners, including Glasgow City Council, to tackle child poverty through transforming the way in which public services are delivered. Our benefit take-up strategy, along with investment of more than £16 million in welfare, debt and income maximisation advice services, helps us to ensure that people throughout Scotland can access all the financial support to which they are entitled.

Targeted local support in Glasgow includes £400,000 for the fairer futures partnership and a range of local advice projects, supported by our advice in accessible settings fund.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

The support and dedicated services that are available to help people with their struggles with the cost of living are a lifeline to many in my constituency and across Scotland, given the continuing pressures on households and in the light of rising petrol, energy and food prices, which are linked to global instability. Does the minister share my concern that families are approaching a new cost of living crisis point, and will she call on the United Kingdom Government to deliver an emergency package of support, particularly to prevent further increases in energy bills and fuel costs, which would place an even greater strain on households?

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I agree. Scotland faces an on-going cost of living crisis, with global events likely to exacerbate already stretched household budgets. We have consistently called on the UK Government to do more. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing has pressed UK ministers urgently to provide public reassurance to all bill payers that ministers will provide financial support to consumers if prices do not stabilise in the coming days. She has also asked that the alternative fuel payment infrastructure be ready to be stood up, so that payments can be delivered as quickly as possible.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the current fiscal framework is biased against Scotland. (S6O-05629)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The fiscal framework will always be suboptimal compared with having the full powers of independence.

In the meantime, discussions with the United Kingdom Government on the scope of the next review of the framework are under way. That is an opportunity to examine thoroughly the framework’s current arrangements and secure further improvements that benefit Scotland. I am seeking a more ambitious and broadly scoped review. However, agreement on that must be reached with the UK Government.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for the fact that we are looking for an ambitious review. The fiscal framework was based on our competing with or matching the rest of the UK. We can do that with most regions in Northern Ireland and Wales, but we struggle to do that—and always have—with London and the south-east. On top of that, the Barnett formula squeezes our spending and ignores needs such as rurality.

At the start of the fiscal framework, we thought that we were getting a good deal, although the Conservatives wanted us to accept something poorer. However, in retrospect, we can see that the fiscal framework is not working. The Government must demand a serious review. I know that the cabinet secretary will not be here, but can she commit the Government to that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with John Mason that some of the comparators are very challenging. Given the advantages and fiscal position of London and the south-east, it is very difficult for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or, indeed, English regions to compete with them. Given that the fiscal framework is based around some of the very difficult comparators of growth or otherwise, particularly in relation to the population and tax base, it is very challenging.

To answer John Mason directly, it is important that there is a thorough review of the fiscal framework that goes back to some of the fundamentals. We absolutely require fiscal flexibilities. We need only look at the global factors that are impacting on public finances at the moment to see why Governments—whether it is the Scottish Government or other Governments—face headwinds, and we have very limited levers to respond to that. A fundamental review is required at this stage.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government when it was first informed of water and mould ingress at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. (S6O-05630)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Regarding media interest in potential mould and water ingress, antimicrobial resistance and healthcare associated infection Scotland—ARHAI Scotland—notified the Scottish Government of an incident of water ingress in ward 4B in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital on 26 February 2026. Ministers were made aware of that late in the afternoon on the same day. At the time, the alert was assessed as amber. On 5 March, ministers were made aware that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde had reassessed the alert as red following significant public anxiety and media interest.

Meghan Gallacher will know that the First Minister made the Parliament aware of that on 5 March during First Minister’s question time. That healthcare infection incident assessment tool red alert has now been reassessed and reduced to amber.

In the interests of full transparency, I am making the Parliament aware that, this morning, it was confirmed that a swab taken from room 85, which was closed on 19 February, has shown mould growth. As colleagues would expect, I have made it clear to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that I expect its continued focus to see those issues resolved as soon as possible.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary is right to say that there is media interest, but the public will be concerned at the developments that the cabinet secretary has just outlined.

Bone marrow transplant patients are among the most vulnerable in the national health service, and common airborne mould can cause life-threatening infections. What further action is the Government taking to ensure that wards other than the ones that the cabinet secretary has mentioned have also been inspected for mould and water ingress? When will the bone marrow ward be safe for use? Who will ultimately be held accountable for this latest incident at Queen Elizabeth university hospital?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I had the pleasure of visiting ward staff last Wednesday and hearing directly from them about the mitigations that are being taken by clinical staff to ensure that the ward continues to be safe, because it continues to be used. There are rooms that are closed in order to manage safety, to ensure a risk-averse approach and to ensure—as Meghan Gallacher rightly says—that the risks are being managed, given that there are immunosuppressed patients, with clinically driven mitigations in place.

An oversight board that is co-chaired by Sir Lewis Ritchie is looking at the issue. The incident management team has also been set up, and it is receiving independent clinical assurance from a colleague in Newcastle. The HIIAT is in place to ensure there is on-going transparency and the action that is required. As I said in my initial answer to Meghan Gallacher, this morning, I have also impressed on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde the importance that ministers place on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde getting the issue resolved as soon as possible.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

It is vital that staff and patients alike feel safe in our NHS estate. Can the cabinet secretary say how the recently announced oversight group will ensure that the board of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde takes immediate steps to strengthen trust and patient confidence in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Clare Haughey is absolutely right. That is why the new safety and public confidence oversight group will play a vital role in strengthening public and political confidence in the safety of the facilities and the environment in which services are delivered across the Queen Elizabeth university hospital and the Royal hospital for children.

Drawing on the external expertise of national agencies and industry experts, the group will provide assurance that the Queen Elizabeth university hospital offers a safe environment for patients and staff. It is important to stress that staff groups and patient groups are also represented on that oversight group, which met for the first time yesterday. The safety and public confidence oversight group will report to the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde board and to the chief operating officer of NHS Scotland, who will provide regular scrutiny and support and will ensure that ministers are regularly updated.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the reliability and accountability of bus services in rural and coastal constituencies. (S6O-05631)

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

I very much welcome that question from Karen Adam, because the Scottish Government is absolutely committed, in partnership with operators and local authorities, to looking at ways of ensuring that everyone has accessible public transport, regardless of where they live.

On the substantive point, in 2026-27, we will continue to provide financial support for bus services with £46.5 million for the network support grant, and we will launch a further round of the very successful plugged-in communities grant funding. We have also commenced a £10 million regional pilot for a £2 bus fare cap, which will be rolled out in the Highlands and Moray from 23 March 2026. That will allow us to assess the potential to improve connectivity in rural areas.

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

A survey that I recently carried out in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast showed extremely low satisfaction with the local Stagecoach bus services, because of repeated cancellations, poor communication and concerns about accessibility. Many people told me that the service was simply not reliable enough for work, education or healthcare appointments. What further action can the Government take to ensure that operators that are delivering services in rural areas meet acceptable standards of reliability and that communities such as mine are not left behind?

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

I appreciate the point that Karen Adam makes. I, too, am from a rural constituency, and I genuinely appreciate the vital role that local bus services play in rural communities and the importance of reliable services for commuters in Banffshire, Buchan and all the rural communities in Scotland.

The traffic commissioner for Scotland is responsible for enforcing service reliability in line with the operator’s registration. Through legislation, we have given local transport authorities powers to take action to improve the services in their area, whether through partnership working, franchising or running their own services. We want all local transport authorities, including rural and coastal authorities, to explore the powers that are available to them and make the necessary improvements that they see fit.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Bus services in North East Fife are constantly being chopped and changed, leaving people stranded who are desperate to get to work and secure their employment. Why has it taken since 2019 to utilise the regulatory powers that the minister has just set out? When are we going to get a move on and implement those powers?

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

The powers are there for local authorities to use as they see fit. All the powers have been delivered. Whether through franchising or local partnership, the powers are there for local authorities, and it is up to them to decide the best system to use in their area.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether it is appropriate for the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to use terms such as “far right” in the context of objections to energy projects. (S6O-05632)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I welcome the opportunity once again to correct the inappropriate and wilfully misleading claims by Conservative MSPs about my interview in a national newspaper, in which I was referring to the anti-net zero rhetoric that has been weaponised by Reform UK, which said that it would dismantle the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero at United Kingdom Government level. That rhetoric uses the legitimate concerns of communities, which I fully understand, to put at risk our energy security; to divide and dilute our fight against climate change; and to damage the economic opportunities for Scotland that come with investment in climate action. It is essential that communities feel able to engage with us on the planning and consenting of energy projects.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is clear what is going on here. The cabinet secretary is trying to silence community groups that are against the monster pylons, battery storage and subsidies—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Lumsden.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

—that are ruining much of rural Scotland. The Government has stopped email submissions to the energy consents unit because there are too many objections—something that the cabinet secretary did not seem to understand. It has also stopped people seeing the objections before the submission deadline has closed and has resorted to mudslinging to try to silence communities.

Those communities’ voices will never be silenced. The community groups concerned have lost all confidence in Gillian Martin, so will she apologise and reverse the changes to the ECU that are making it harder for communities to be involved in the process? [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I ask those who are joining us to do so quietly.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Mr Lumsden is demonstrating once again that his preferred method of political engagement is personal attacks that have scant regard to fact instead of what the vast majority of people would like to hear from a spokesperson on energy and climate action, which is ideas on how we can improve the energy security of our nation, create jobs and opportunities for our citizens and play our part in reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions. That is what I do day in, day out.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the importance of local decision making and local accountability in the national health service. (S6O-05633)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government remains fully committed to involving people and communities in the decision making that affects them and their NHS. Boards have used our “Planning with People: Community engagement and participation guidance” to involve local communities in planning local services from community hubs to out-of-hours services and models of care. The guidance sets out boards’ responsibilities for community engagement when services are being planned or changes are being considered and ensures that local people and communities are meaningfully involved.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will be aware of Scottish Labour’s proposals to axe local health boards such as NHS Orkney, NHS Shetland, NHS Western Isles and NHS Grampian in favour of three health boards for the whole of Scotland. In my Highlands and Islands region, our local boards, particularly the island boards, remain a valuable means of local accountability in response to local needs, while a north-of-Scotland approach would significantly reduce decision making by people who live and work in the communities that they are supposed to serve.

Although the Scottish National Party, too, has a track record of centralising health services away from local communities, does the health secretary at least agree with me that Labour’s plans to axe health boards across the Highlands and Islands would be a backwards step? Does he accept that, as well as more local delivery of services, communities want local decision making and accountability to be protected in our NHS?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As someone who was born and brought up in Orkney, I recognise the importance of local services, and decisions being taken about them, being as local as possible.

Mr Halcro Johnston will be aware of the work that we are doing to reform the way in which our boards co-operate and work together. That subnational planning includes rural and island workstreams to ensure leadership for rural and island service planning and to give a clear voice to rural and island communities in the planning processes. I hope that that gives Mr Halcro Johnston the assurance that he and his constituents are looking for.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the financial sustainability of NHS Ayrshire and Arran. (S6O-05634)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As Ms Mochan and colleagues will remember from my comments on 17 February, given concerns over its financial sustainability, NHS Ayrshire and Arran has been moved to stage 4 of the NHS Scotland support and intervention framework for finance. That will involve senior external support and monitoring from Scottish Government, including establishing an assurance board.

I have confidence in the interim chief executive, Gordon James, and the refreshed leadership team. My officials will continue to work with them to return NHS Ayrshire and Arran to a sustainable financial footing while maintaining services for the people of Ayrshire and Arran.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Last month, NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s interim chief executive stated to a committee of the Parliament that

“the board is not in a financially sustainable position.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 25 February 2026; c 2.]

The health board has been in deficit since 2017-18 and now owes the highest level of outstanding loans of any health board. It is not financially sustainable and, given that it was first escalated to stage 3 more than seven years ago, we have to seriously question why it has been allowed to sit on such a high level of escalation for so long. Is the cabinet secretary confident that the support and intervention framework is working as effectively as it should?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, I am. I agree with Gordon James’s assessment, which is why NHS Ayrshire and Arran is at level 4 of the escalation framework and is getting additional assistance from the Scottish Government. The board has received support from the Government commensurate with its challenges but its financial position is not recovering, so the decision has been made to move it up to level 4.

We continue to invest in NHS Ayrshire and Arran to improve services and return it to a sustainable financial position, and we will continue to work with the board to do just that.

Dunblane Shootings (30th Anniversary)

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite the First Minister to make some remarks on the 30th anniversary of the Dunblane shootings.

12:00

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Thirty years ago tomorrow, primary school teacher Gwen Mayor took her pupils into the gym hall at Dunblane primary school. Shortly afterwards, a gunman entered. What followed was the deadliest and most horrific mass shooting in the United Kingdom’s history. Along with Gwen Mayor, who died valiantly trying to protect her pupils, 16 children lost their lives and 15 others were injured.

I, like everyone who lived through that moment, will never forget that day. On the same day that parents faced the unbearable loss of their children, my eldest son was born. I remember the preciousness of my son’s birth and could not begin to imagine—that day, or any day since—the sense of loss faced by those families.

In the months that followed, grief-stricken parents and residents of Dunblane decided that they would not let such tragedies happen again. They collected 750,000 signatures in their campaign to change UK gun laws. In November 1997, handguns became illegal in the United Kingdom. Scotland has not seen a mass shooting since.

My thoughts, prayers and deepest condolences go out to everyone who was impacted by that terrible tragedy. My most heartfelt thanks go to all who took action to ensure that such a tragedy might never happen again.

In the intervening years, the community of Dunblane has demonstrated such strength and resilience, and the power of community, solidarity and love in Scotland. It has the respect and admiration of us all.

12:02

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

There is a photo of the primary 1 class at Dunblane primary school in 1996, and it is a picture of pure childhood innocence. It features teacher Gwen Mayor beaming with pride and cheeky wee smiles on the faces of her young pupils.

On 13 March, 1996, they were visited by evil. After three minutes of gunfire, Gwen and 16 of her pupils lay dead. I remember—we all remember—where we were on that spring day. News bulletins stopped us in our tracks. How could any parent bear the endless agony of such loss?

Dunblane became synonymous with tragedy, but the town’s tears of sorrow turned to anger and then to action. Parents, politicians and ordinary folk from across Britain demanded that there never be another Dunblane, and they meant it. Handguns were banned; lives were saved; and they continue to be saved.

12:03

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Tomorrow marks 30 years since the Dunblane tragedy—a day that will be forever etched in our memories. Sixteen children and a teacher went to school that day but did not make it home, because of the actions of an evil man. However, it is not that evil man we should remember, but the beautiful faces of those innocent children, their brave teacher, the families left grieving for ever and all the incredible individuals who helped to pull that community together at the hardest of times.

It was right to take action to ban handguns, but we must ensure that our laws are robust for the challenges and technological advancements of today. Of course, we carry the profound sorrow of the Dunblane families in our hearts, but we should also think of the children who, although they survived that day, have lived with the grief and trauma ever since. We pay tribute to the inspiring resilience of the community that raised and loved them. We will remember them for ever.

12:05

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

Thirty years ago tomorrow, 16 primary 1s and their teacher went to school and did not come home. Fifteen more were injured. Those children would have been the same age as me.

When the news came over the radio, my mum was in hospital, having just given birth to my brother. The panic across central Scotland was real. She always told us how her relief at me being safe was immediately dashed by the realisation that others did not have the same fate. Their hopes and dreams were never realised.

No words can do real justice to the pain and grief of the families who never got to see their babies grow up. My thoughts, and those of the Scottish Greens, go to all those who are affected.

We were proud to take action on a cross-party basis to tackle the ownership of handguns. As parliamentarians, we have to strive to make sure that what happened that day can never happen again.

12:05

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

This week, our hearts are with the people of Dunblane and, in particular, the families of the 16 children and their teacher who were lost to us that day. Thirty years on, many of those children might have been parents themselves by now, but the gunshots of a madman cut short the promise of those young lives. They brought a nation to grief and a Parliament to action, causing it to ban for ever the domestic ownership of handguns and, by so doing, prevent the likelihood of the repetition of such a tragedy.

This year, and every year, we remember the trauma of Dunblane and the shadow that it still casts across our national story.

First Minister’s Question Time

A member

12:06

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The inferno that ripped through my home city of Glasgow was devastating. Only the bravery and professionalism of 250 firefighters stopped the flames from engulfing Central station. There are many serious questions about the dodgy vape shop where the fire started, but the immediate focus must be on local businesses, which already face severe pressures.

On Tuesday, John Swinney said that the Scottish National Party Government was in discussions with the SNP-run city council. Can he therefore tell those struggling business owners exactly what support will be provided and when?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I associate myself very closely with Russell Findlay’s remarks about the bravery and effectiveness of the firefighting operation. That response has enabled Glasgow Central station, the Central hotel and most of the infrastructure around the site of the fire to be protected, although there is significant disruption to individuals as a consequence.

The Government is in active discussion with Glasgow City Council, which is gathering information from the affected businesses about their circumstances. I am not in a position today to say definitively what financial support will be available, but I expect to be able to do so very shortly.

Glasgow City Council and the Government will discuss exactly what support can be made available to the affected businesses. I include in that the businesses that have been directly displaced by the fire and those that have been affected by issues with access to the central Glasgow area, which is severely restricted because of the safety considerations at the site.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am not sure whether that answer will inspire huge confidence. There seems to be a lack of urgency around the matter, because many businesses that have been impacted by the Glasgow fire already face massive, imminent rises to their rates bills. Across Scotland, those bills will force some to cease trading and lay off workers.

Two prominent businessmen have issued particularly stark warnings. Lord Haughey said that there could be “civil disobedience” and a mass campaign of non-payment. Sir Tom Hunter said:

“Mr Swinney, First Minister, you understand what is going on here, and you understand the punishment. I am going to say it today: can’t pay, won’t pay.”

My party is campaigning to pause the new rates bills before they come into effect on 1 April. Will John Swinney heed those warnings before it is too late?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I recognise the challenges that, in general, the business community in Glasgow, and across the country, is facing, and I recognise the significance of the issues relating to non-domestic rates, which have been central to the Government’s budget provisions for many years. We have protected the business community from some of the increases that it has faced.

Some properties will see significant increases in rateable values in the 2026 revaluation, but the transitional relief that the Government has put in place means that the gross bills of about 60,000 properties will be lower in 2026-27 than they would otherwise have been. That is part of the wider non-domestic rates support that the Government has put into place, which is more than £870 million in 2026-27.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney mentions the budget response, but that is a sticking plaster. Businesses are bleeding out and Scottish hospitality is being hit hard, with pubs already closing at a rate of one a week. However, John Swinney does not want to know. Last month, I invited him to discuss Scotland’s pub crisis over a pint. He refused. The Scottish Hospitality Group invited Mr Swinney to its recent hustings. He refused. Instead, he sent a local councillor. The same group also wrote to Mr Swinney on 30 January asking him for a meeting. He has not even replied. Does John Swinney think that his high-handed treatment of a critical sector of the Scottish economy is appropriate?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is extensive engagement between my ministers and the different sectors that are involved in the discussions on business rates, and a wide range of meetings have taken place between ministers and representatives of the hospitality industry as part of that work. That engagement led to the budget propositions that have put in place significant transitional reliefs, which will reduce the net bill for eligible properties to 25 per cent of what it would otherwise have been in 2026-27. That is a significant contribution. As I said in an earlier answer, it is part of a package of reliefs that is estimated to be worth more than £870 million in the next financial year to companies in Scotland.

I understand the concerns in the business community. I engage regularly with a range of different business organisations—my ministers do exactly the same—to ensure that we can take action within the financial resources that are available to us to support the business community and to encourage its growth and development in Scotland. That is at the heart of the Government’s budget proposals.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister could not even be bothered going to the hustings. He did not even bother sending a minister or an MSP.

Let me tell members about another shocking example of John Swinney’s disgraceful, high-handed approach to business. I contacted him directly about Katie Long. Katie took on a derelict pub in Mr Swinney’s constituency and worked tirelessly to transform it into a thriving community local. Her rates bill is about to double, and she is on the brink of calling last orders for the last time. A community would lose its local and 26 people would lose their jobs.

More than a fortnight ago, I asked John Swinney to visit Katie’s pub. He has not even replied. Mr Swinney will not go to Katie’s pub, so she has come to the Parliament today. I will be going with Katie to a nearby pub at half past 1 this afternoon. Will John Swinney join us to discuss Katie’s plight and Scotland’s pub crisis over a pint?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very familiar with the case that Mr Findlay puts to me. Of course, in that case, there will be benefits as a result of the transitional relief system that the Government will put in place.

I am afraid that, because of my commitments, I cannot join Mr Findlay at 1.30. I ask the Parliament to understand that there are a range of different issues that I am wrestling with and must take forward.

Every year that it has been in office, this Government has consistently demonstrated a determination to put in place support for business. We were the first Government to introduce the small business bonus scheme, which the pub that Mr Findlay referred to has benefited from. We are a Government that has put in place a series of different reliefs across hospitality, retail and leisure premises, as well as delivering a reduction in rate levels in Scotland. That is all part of the £870 million of financial support that this Government is providing. I point out to Mr Findlay that he did not vote for a single penny of that when the budget came before Parliament. What we have had from Mr Findlay is just posturing.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

On Sunday night, like so many other Glaswegians, I watched in horror as yet another fire ripped through the heart of our city. I want to place on record my thanks to the members of the emergency services who ran towards danger to protect others. Thanks to them, no one was seriously injured or lost their life.

On Monday morning, when I spoke to workers there, I saw the best of Glasgow: businesses handing out coffee to workers who were dealing with the fallout and volunteers who were helping to manage commuters. People really do make Glasgow.

The fire has raised a number of issues, including the regulation and licensing of vape shops, the availability of support packages for those who have lost their livelihoods, how soon we can restore normality for workers and commuters, and, of course, the resourcing of our Fire and Rescue Service. What urgent lessons will the Government learn from the incident?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I also associate myself with the remarks of Mr Sarwar. When I visited the site on Monday, I was briefed by the various organisations that were involved in dealing with the incident, led by the firefighting commanders, from whom I gained a first-hand understanding of the severity of the incident.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to them, for two reasons. First, as a result of their prompt and comprehensive intervention, there were no injuries, which I consider to be a minor miracle with an incident of that scale. Secondly, Glasgow Central station and the Central hotel were saved from fire spread from an intense fire because of the strategic direction of the operation and the strategic judgments that were made by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I associate myself very much with Mr Sarwar’s remarks in that regard.

There was also the whole recovery operation, which involved our transport networks, the emergency services and the volunteers who turned out—very quickly—to provide support to individuals.

Mr Sarwar is correct to say that a number of lessons must be learned from the incident. An investigation into the site will be carried out, but it looks pretty obvious that it started in a vape shop in Union Street. There is regulation in place, and the United Kingdom Government is actively pursuing more regulation, which will affect Scotland; we are party to that. We will also look to identify what further steps are required to ensure that there is proper and effective regulation of such premises.

To follow up on the point that I made to Mr Findlay, the Government will put in place financial support, which will be channelled through Glasgow City Council, to support affected businesses, but we need to take some time to establish exactly what type of support will make a difference. It will be financial support, because that is required by the businesses that have been affected.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome those comments. Fires such as the one that we saw on Sunday are difficult to fight, and we saw the dedication of our firefighters.

However, the truth is that, too often, our firefighters have to fight fires with reduced capacity. In 2023, John Swinney and the Scottish National Party cut the number of specially designed high-reach appliances, or HRAs, from 26 to just 16 for the whole of Scotland. In Glasgow, the number of those appliances was cut from six to two. It is believed that both of Glasgow’s HRAs were not available on Sunday, due to annual inspection, and that one had to be called from Edinburgh. Why was that ever allowed to happen?

Since 2013, one in six firefighter jobs has been lost—that is more than 1,200 jobs. Sunday is a reminder of what those men and women put at stake every time they go to work.

Right now, we do not know what difference the reduction in fire service capacity would have made on Sunday, but will John Swinney commit to an immediate investigation into any potential impact it might have had on the response, so that lessons can be urgently learned?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the significance and importance of the points that Mr Sarwar puts to me, but I come back to the point of agreement in our exchange, which is that the fire and rescue response on Sunday was exemplary, that the resources that were required were there to ensure that the fire could be extinguished and, crucially, that the high-rise equipment that was available provided the strategic intervention that stopped the fire from spreading into Glasgow Central station or the Central hotel. All that equipment and resource was there to enable that incident to be tackled.

When it comes to considering the deployment or allocation of resources in Scotland for fire and rescue services, the Government is mindful of our obligations in that respect, which is why, in the recent budget, we provided an additional £23.8 million to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, bringing its budget to £435.96 million. That is an increase in the budget for the Fire and Rescue Service.

The Fire and Rescue Service is going through a service delivery review, but central to that review—I have made this point to individual members who have raised issues about firefighting capacity around the country—are questions of fire safety, resilience and proper deployment of resources that will underpin any consideration of the issues in that review. That is the point that I stress to Parliament today. The essential requirement of any review is to make sure that we have a fire and rescue service that can meet the needs of Scotland as we face them and that is the commitment that I give to Parliament today.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

John Swinney and I agree about the exemplary nature of the decision making of those individual firefighters, but he needs to commit to an urgent investigation of the impact of the capacity that was available to those firefighters. I do not think that he can logically say that reducing Glasgow’s high-rise appliances from six to two and the fact that those two appliances were both off stream at the same time due to inspection would not have made a material difference. We do not know, but he cannot say categorically that that did not make a material difference to the response to the fire. That is why an urgent investigation must happen to establish the facts.

It was right that John Swinney went to Union Street on Monday to see those who fought to put out the blaze, but government must be about more than gestures. At the very same time as John Swinney was on Union Street thanking the front line, Scottish Government officials were meeting Fire Brigades Union officials to inform them of plans for more job cuts in Scotland’s fire service. How can that possibly be right?

We know that there are now fewer firefighters, less firefighting equipment, longer response times and station closures. Our Fire and Rescue Service has already faced years of cuts, so surely the tragedy on Sunday must be a wake-up call and a reason to pause.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I would have hoped that my answer to Mr Sarwar’s second question would have reassured him on many of those questions. The service delivery review that is going on within the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which is the type of exercise that has to be undertaken on a regular basis, must have public safety and effective dealing with fire and rescue incidents uppermost in its consideration.

Since 2009-10, there has been a 33 per cent reduction in—sorry. Since 2013, there has been a more than 20 per cent reduction in dwelling fires in Scotland. At the same time, there has been an increase in demand for fire and rescue services to deal with issues such as flooding or wildfires. I say that to show that the demand and the incidents that have to be addressed have to be constantly reviewed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, and it needs to identify the proper resources that are available to address those incidents. That will be considered as part of the exercise.

In relation to the incident on Sunday in Glasgow, I am confident that effective resources were in place to do all that needed to be done. Looking at the incident and its severity, we can see that the impact was bad enough but could have been even greater. That demonstrates to me that the resources are in place to tackle such incidents. However, that must be kept under constant review, and that is what we expect the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board to do.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

There is good news. A year after she was ready to leave hospital, and months after I first raised her case, Margaret MacGill finally got home yesterday—not because of anything that the Government did but because her family took control of the budget and hired carers themselves, because they were told that the alternative was for her to spend another year in hospital.

Just down the road from Margaret, The Herald newspaper spoke to Elizabeth Jones, a mum in Caithness. Her first two kids were born in the local hospital but then, on the Scottish National Party’s watch, her local maternity services were downgraded. So, when her third child needed to be born by caesarean section, she had to travel 100 miles, alone, to Inverness on a bus.

In November, the Parliament backed a Scottish Liberal Democrat amendment that called for an independent review of maternity services in Caithness, giving hope to families in the area. Why is the SNP defying the wishes of this Parliament?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I am delighted that Mrs MacGill is home, which is where she should be, and I am delighted that support is in place to enable her to be at home.

The way in which individuals are financially supported to be at home varies around the country. I, personally, am a great supporter of self-directed support because I think that it gives families much more control, and I am delighted that that arrangement, which has been put in place and is supported by the Government, enables that to happen.

The issues in connection with maternity services in Caithness are being taken forward as part of the work of the maternity and neonatal task force, which is under way. There is independent engagement in the work of the task force, which is designed to look at the vexed issue of the safe delivery of maternity services in particular parts of the country where there is not a high incidence of deliveries, to ensure that those services can be as safe as possible for any mothers who are having babies.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am sorry, but there is nothing independent about a review if an SNP minister is in overall charge of it. It is no wonder that mums in the far north feel really let down and unsafe. They are not alone. New Scottish Liberal Democrat research shows that 300 times last year, maternity wards across Scotland recorded safety concerns about being short-staffed. Those were red flags on the national health service’s official incident reporting system. That number is almost treble what it was at the start of this session of Parliament. The compensation that the NHS has paid out to affected families has skyrocketed. The Royal College of Midwives has warned that staff

“are being stretched beyond breaking point”

and that women and babies are being denied the care that they deserve.

All of that is happening on the SNP’s watch, so I ask the First Minister: do Scotland’s mums not deserve better than that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

What Scotland’s mums deserve is the safe delivery of maternity care as close to home as they can sustainably get that service. That is exactly what mums in Scotland deserve and that is what this Government delivers.

The overwhelming majority of women and babies experience a safe birth and positive outcomes but, when things go wrong, we expect health boards to engage openly and transparently with individual mothers and families to understand what has gone wrong. We are also requiring Healthcare Improvement Scotland to scrutinise maternity services around the country. We have seen various reports coming forward as that exercise is undertaken and, where improvement is required, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care brings in the leadership of the relevant health board to insist that that is undertaken.

I say to Mr Cole-Hamilton, to Parliament and to mums around the country that the Government is determined to deliver safe maternity services. I reiterate that the majority of women and babies experience a safe birth and positive outcomes and that, where that goes wrong, we expected there to be transparency and accountability, and that is what the Government delivers.

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

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government can take, in discussion with the United Kingdom Government, to assist households in very rural areas that are wholly dependent on oil or liquefied natural gas for heating, and are not connected to the gas mains, to assist with increased costs. (S6F-04748)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We have engaged with the industry to understand the implications of the serious issue that Christine Grahame raises with me. We also seek to engage with the United Kingdom Government on the issue. I know that there has been some dialogue between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and members of Parliament, but there has not yet been dialogue with the devolved Governments. We will pursue that. We want to make sure that we are part of those discussions to understand the potential impacts on individuals, public services and social security arrangements in Scotland.

Our hope is that de-escalation in Iran can reverse the increase in costs, because that is what is fuelling it. However, energy prices are fully reserved to the United Kingdom Government, and we have pressed it to publicly commit to financial support if prices continue to rise.

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

I note that Rachel Reeves has referred the hike to the Competition and Markets Authority, but my constituents and, I suspect, constituents of many members throughout the chamber need something done in the here and now. They are simply overwhelmed by the soaring costs of their heating oil, which have more than doubled in days and are still on the rise. For example, in my constituency, the cost was 60p a litre in January, and yesterday it was £1.27 a litre. The increased costs affect about 130,000 homes in Scotland and 1.7 million homes UK-wide. Those homes already get very limited benefit from the energy price cap. That applies to combined electricity and gas supplies, so it applies only to their electricity bills.

Previously, with the spike in the price of heating oil due to the invasion of Ukraine, the UK Government introduced an alternative fuel payment of £200, which was better than nothing. Does the First Minister agree that an alternative fuel payment should be made now, but in tandem with the exposure of the cowboys who are profiteering and, at long last, proper regulation of the industry?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Cabinet Secretary for Housing has already written to the UK Government confirming our support for the Competition and Markets Authority enforcement action, which would address some of the issues that Christine Grahame has raised. We have also asked the UK Government to stand up the alternative fuel payment infrastructure and called for a public commitment that financial support will be made available if costs continue to rise. The Prime Minister has committed to stepping in should that situation arise, and I would encourage him to do so.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Borders residents have also written to me about the rise in fuel prices, and particularly those who live in fuel poverty. Will the First Minister consider making a Scottish Government resilience or crisis fund available to support those people, who are really living in challenging times with the rise in prices?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The issues in relation to energy prices are a reserved matter for the United Kingdom Government. As I set out, the mechanism is the alternative fuel payment infrastructure, which is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. That is the means of intervening where these circumstances arise. I invite Rachael Hamilton to join us in demanding that the UK Government acts to protect rural residents. That is where the responsibility lies and where the action should come from.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be aware that the UK Government is issuing guidance to its local authorities to use crisis and resilience funds to protect those who are dependent on oil and gas heating. Will he look at making crisis grant funds available to people in islands and rural areas who are dependent on gas and oil for heating? Will he also look at how Consumer Scotland can support the Competition and Markets Authority to engage with people who are suffering because of the soaring costs?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Consumer Scotland will certainly engage very actively with the Competition and Markets Authority. Consumer Scotland is a very good organisation that serves us well. In relation to the crisis grants situation, we will be pressing the UK Government to take action, and I invite Rhoda Grant to join us in making sure that the Labour UK Government acts in that fashion.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has made of any impact on the national health service arising from reports that the number of consultants working in the private healthcare system is the highest on record. (S6F-04747)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The very modest increase of 20 private consultants over the past year has to be seen in the context of a record high number of NHS Scotland consultants. Since 2006, the number of consultants has increased by 75 per cent, including a 150 whole-time equivalent increase over the past year, using the latest data to December 2025.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for that answer. However, much as I accept that people have a choice, I am concerned that more people are accessing private healthcare not out of choice but out of necessity, in the face of prolonged and painful waits for NHS care.

The situation can only be exacerbated if more of our experienced medics are spending less time in the NHS and more time in private practice. For years, we have heard from clinicians that working in the NHS is becoming more difficult as demand for care rises and waiting time backlogs remain stubbornly high. Is it any wonder that, under the SNP, more staff are leaving the NHS for the private sector?

What will the First Minister do to ensure that experienced medical professionals—many of whom have received their education and experience in Scotland—are encouraged to continue working for the NHS throughout their careers, not only with a fair salary but with investment in technology and prevention in order to improve the working environment for our NHS staff?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I need to correct Mr Whittle on the point about more staff leaving the NHS. There are more staff working in the NHS under this Government than there have been in the past. As I said in my earlier answer, there has been a 75 per cent increase in the number of consultants in the NHS since the Government came into office. Therefore, that point is not substantiated.

Private heath admissions are lower in Scotland than in England and Wales. England’s private health admissions are 48 per cent higher, and Wales’s are 5 per cent higher, than they are in Scotland. We are in a comparatively stronger position.

On the performance of the national health service, I appreciate that there are challenges in the NHS, but long waits are down eight months in a row, and long waits for new out-patients have halved since July. The number of general practitioners, nurses, midwives and consultants is up, and there will be 16 new walk-in GP clinics. The SNP is delivering for the NHS, and I am very pleased with the progress that we are making.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. As the First Minister referenced, it is worth Brian Whittle noting that Scotland continues to have a substantially lower private healthcare take-up rate than England.

Unlike Labour and the Tories, the SNP is not accepting donations from private healthcare firms or listening to the likes of Tony Blair about how to carve out our NHS for privatisation. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Can the First Minister therefore outline how, under the SNP and his leadership, Scotland has seen the number of doctors, consultants and nurses increase, and what that means for bringing down waits?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I set out to Clare Haughey that—as I have just said to Brian Whittle, but I need to say it again so that members hear—under this Government, long wait times are down eight months in a row and long waits for new out-patients have halved since July, just as I promised would be the case. The number of GPs, nurses, midwives and consultants is up, and there are 16 new walk-in GP clinics.

Let me reassure Clare Haughey that my Government intends to take no lectures from Tony Blair.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to promote vaccinations to combat measles, in light of reports of recent diagnoses in the NHS Grampian area. (S6F-04746)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Vaccination remains the most effective protection against measles, and I urge everyone who is eligible to ensure that they are fully vaccinated.

Childhood immunisation uptake in Scotland remains high. Uptake of the first dose of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in children by age five continues to exceed 95 per cent. In NHS Grampian, MMR vaccine uptake in children is slightly above the national average, at 96.5 per cent. The Government is working closely with Public Health Scotland and NHS boards, including NHS Grampian, to monitor measles cases and to take any necessary rapid action to protect public safety.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I thank the First Minister for that answer. Measles is a very serious illness, but it can be easily prevented. Vaccination is safe, effective and for everyone, at any age. It is part of the routine childhood immunisation programme, and we should all be encouraging parents and carers to ensure that their child receives all their vaccinations.

It is galling that Reform gave a platform to an anti-vax proponent at its latest conference. I call on all political parties and politicians in the chamber to promote preventative vaccinations. Will the First Minister’s Government consider boosting its positive vaccination messaging so that we can keep people throughout Scotland safe?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me associate myself with Kevin Stewart’s comments. Vaccination is the most effective way to ensure that public health is maintained. It is important that we all combat harmful disinformation about vaccines. Vaccinations save lives, so it is essential that families can access clear and accurate health information. Public Health Scotland recently launched its “One less thing to worry about” campaign, which further encourages the uptake of childhood vaccinations. The NHS Inform website provides accessible and trustworthy guidance from medical professionals on vaccinations.

That is all important, and it is important that we get the public messaging correct, so I will consider Mr Stewart’s suggestion of whether we have enough resource going into vaccination campaigns. If there is a requirement for that to be increased, I give him the assurance that that will be considered by the Government.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The First Minister will be aware of a memo that was leaked this week, which revealed the Prime Minister’s true attitude towards devolution. Is the First Minister as disappointed as I am that the Labour Party in Scotland has chosen to side with the Prime Minister and not with the principles of devolution? Unlike their colleagues in the Welsh Senedd, who called out Starmer’s actions as a constitutional outrage and a betrayal of devolution, Scottish Labour members made no such outcry. What assessment has the First Minister made of the leaked memo? Does he agree that it is only with a fresh start through independence that the integrity and future of Scotland’s Parliament can be protected and enhanced?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Prime Minister’s memo that came to light this week indicates that the Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has as much contempt for devolution as his Conservative predecessors did. It displays an attitude that is disrespectful of the policy direction and actions of the Scottish Government.

The people of Scotland voted nearly 30 years ago to establish this Parliament. Its members are elected to be accountable to the public in Scotland for the public expenditure matters for which it is responsible. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That is being undermined by the UK Labour Government. The lesson is pretty clear to people in Scotland: Labour is a threat to devolution, and the only way that self-government can be protected is through the fresh start that independence would bring.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I would be grateful if we could all hear one another. Members should please remember those gathered in the public gallery, who would like to hear, too.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the First Minister as appalled as I am that the former patients of Sam Eljamel, who were allowed to attend, in person, the first and second sessions of the public inquiry, to hear what was being said in evidence, were told yesterday that that would no longer be the case for session 3 and that they would have to listen to the inquiry’s proceedings online? Does he agree that that decision is completely unacceptable? It is contrary to the principles of a patient-centred and trauma-informed approach. When were Scottish Government ministers first made aware of that decision?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I understand the significance of the point that Liz Smith raises, but, as I understand it, the decision is one that has been taken by Lord Weir, who is the chair of the inquiry.

Liz Smith will know the obligations that I am under, in terms of the Inquiries Act 2005. The chair of the inquiry must be free to take the decisions that they decide to be appropriate for the running of the inquiry. They should certainly not be subjected to interference by ministers, and they certainly will not be subjected to interference by me. Whatever my personal sympathies are on the issue—as Liz Smith knows, just last week, I met those who were affected by Eljamel and had a constructive discussion with them—I have to respect the independence of Lord Weir’s inquiry. It would be thoroughly inappropriate for me to intervene on any matter of that nature.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Police Scotland has been fined £66,000 for a deeply serious data protection failure after the full contents of a female officer’s device—including medical records, intimate images and sensitive personal information—were extracted and shared with a colleague whom she had accused of rape, along with his lawyer and his Scottish Police Federation representative.

Today, it has been reported that the Scottish Information Commissioner found that the force failed to minimise data collection, lacked adequate technical and organisational safeguards and did not report the breach within the legally required 72 hours. Police Scotland has apologised for the incident and said that it has learned lessons from it, but does the First Minister agree that that is an absolute scandal?

If it is a necessary practice to download the full contents of anyone’s phone or device, that should be all the more reason to ensure that cast-iron protections are in place. What steps could the Scottish Government take to reassure complainers, and anyone else, that there is proper oversight to prevent such a situation from ever happening again?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree completely with Pauline McNeill—it is appalling. I know that Police Scotland has apologised. Let me apologise to the individual affected, because I cannot begin to imagine how horrendous an experience that has been.

The protection of people’s data and information, at any time, is very important and, in cases of this sensitivity, it is even more important. Police Scotland must properly, fully, openly and transparently learn the lessons of this incident.

As I understand it, Police Scotland has been fined by the Information Commissioner, which is a mark of the seriousness of the issue. The issue has to be addressed in that fashion. I reiterate to Pauline McNeill the importance that I attach to issues of that nature being taken seriously and being addressed by Police Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will raise the matter with the chief constable when they next meet.

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

Presiding Officer,

“Labour are doing to Aberdeen what Margaret Thatcher did to Middlesbrough, and it’s utterly shameful.”

Those are the words and assessment of GMB general secretary Gary Smith on the impact of the Labour United Kingdom Government’s policies on the north-east and areas such as my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency. Does the First Minister share his concern, and does the First Minister agree that we do not address the cost of living crisis by making more people redundant?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I agree with Karen Adam. In Scotland, we are in the position of having much lower unemployment than the rest of the United Kingdom, but the challenges that our oil and gas sector faces are caused by the more rapid decline of the sector, accelerated by the energy profits levy and the slower growth in renewables than we had expected.

I have made this point at this podium before, and I will make it again: the United Kingdom Government should remove the energy profits levy so that we can safeguard employment and manage the just transition in the oil and gas sector. That is the responsible way to tackle the issue. I reiterate my call to the UK Government to scrap the energy profits levy, and to scrap it now.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

The First Minister was in the chamber last night and heard my request for a statement on the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR centre. I hope that his business manager will reconsider that request, because a whistleblower’s report has now upheld concerns over major flaws in the infection control and water systems, echoing the tragic situation at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. We all want those units to be the very best that they can be. We want them to be places of health, where people of all ages go to get better. Will the First Minister assure us that the healthcare associated infection system for controlling risk in the built environment—HAI-SCRIBE—guidance has been followed, that the buildings will open without further delay and that patient safety and staff wellbeing will not be negatively impacted?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

First, I recognise the importance of the point that Mr Burnett puts to me. I heard his speech last night, and I understand exactly all the points that he is making. It is a matter of regret to me that the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR centre are as delayed as they are, but they are delayed because of the level of scrutiny and intervention that is under way to guarantee safety. That is the process that is under way, and NHS Scotland Assure, which was set up to do exactly that type of scrutiny, is exercising that responsibility.

In relation to the building process at the Baird and ANCHOR, my officials spoke to NHS Grampian this morning, which confirmed that the water safety group at the Baird and ANCHOR met on Friday 6 March. The group talked through the concerns that have been raised, and everyone present agreed on the response and the action being taken to ensure the highest level of water safety when the facilities open.

As a result of the intervention of NHS Scotland Assure, buildings are not opened unless it is safe for them to open and they comply with all relevant requirements. I assure Mr Burnett that that will be the case for the Baird and ANCHOR.

Mr Burnett asked for the hospitals to open without delay. I cannot give him that assurance, because we have to ensure that they are safe to open. I assure him that no one wants the hospitals to open more than me, but I have to learn the lessons from previous issues, which is exactly what is going on now.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

The announcement that school strikes in six areas, arising from the Scottish Government’s failure to address workload issues, may be avoided, is to be welcomed. Local authorities have fixed their budgets for this financial year and the next. Will the First Minister confirm the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills that additional funding will be available and that that funding will fully cover local authorities implementing the solution that has been given?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am grateful to Mr Whitfield for raising that issue, because we are at a pivotal moment in the discussions. I want to avoid industrial action, which, once again, is proposed for the communities that I represent, because I am the First Minister. It is not fair on my constituents if their children are unable to access schooling as a result of industrial action. I declare a personal interest, because industrial action would affect my son at a crucial moment in his education, so let us be crystal clear about its implications.

The education secretary has worked incredibly hard and has focused on trying to bring the relevant parties together, but the issue is not entirely under the control of the Government. It involves a discussion and negotiation between the Government, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the trade unions. I am confident that there is a proposal on the table, properly and fully funded by the Scottish Government, that will allow industrial action not to happen, but it requires COSLA’s agreement tomorrow. I encourage Mr Whitfield to join the team effort to ensure that COSLA gets agreement over the line, so that we can avoid industrial action, the children of Scotland can get on with their education and we can all be happy that we have a nice tripartite agreement. Two parties are there—

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

How much money?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Marra is shouting at me, asking about the money. I just told Mr Whitfield that the proposal is fully funded. We need local authority leaders to do the right thing tomorrow, and I look forward to them doing so.

Point of Order

A member

12:53

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Independent, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Thank you for taking the point of order and forgive me for not giving you early sight of it.

Yesterday evening, we debated in the chamber a motion to consider the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill tomorrow, in an additional meeting of Parliament. I put on the record that, for many of us, tomorrow is absolutely a working day.

For the purposes of such decisions, I want to share briefly with the chamber some of the considerations that had to be made in order that I could make a change at such notice. In the 12 hours—or a bit longer—since Parliament met, two personal assistants, a family member and my husband have had to change all their working arrangements for tomorrow in order for me to attend Parliament. I understand and appreciate the ability to attend Parliament in hybrid form, which is an important step that Parliament has taken to encourage participation. However, given the nature of the debate, members will understand why I wanted to be here in person.

I am not sharing this information so that people feel sorry for me or for the people in my life who have had to make sacrifices and changes at such short notice. I share it merely because I want people to understand that such decisions impact not just members but our families, too. I speak of experiences that every one of us will have and of the impacts that this job has on our lives.

I put on record my thanks to the family members, my husband and the personal assistants who have changed their working patterns in the past 12 hours in order to accommodate my participation in an important debate and to ensure that Parliament can do its business. I also put on record a request that, when the Parliamentary Bureau considers such situations in the future, the impact on individual members and their families be deeply considered so that we can all participate in proceedings in the chamber on an equal basis.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Duncan-Glancy. Your comments are noted and the bureau will have heard them.

We will now have a short suspension to allow those leaving the gallery and chamber to do so.

12:55

Meeting suspended.

12:56

On resuming—

Edinburgh Medical School 300

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20683, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on Edinburgh medical school 300. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament recognises that, in 2026, medicine will have been formally taught at the University of Edinburgh for 300 years; notes that, while there remain challenges for the NHS and higher education, reflecting on 300 years of history provides an opportunity to provide honesty on the past, and consider opportunities for the future of medical education and research; congratulates the organisers, who have curated a rich and diverse programme of events to explore the 300 years, including lectures, alumni reunions and public events; understands the value that the Edinburgh Medical School has contributed to the economy and health of Scotland, and the world, including what it sees as its crucial place in life sciences research, health innovation and policy, and wishes all staff and students the best for 2026.

12:56

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I start by thanking the colleagues who supported this motion and the colleagues who are in the chamber this afternoon. I am glad to contribute to the debate.

I also take the opportunity to welcome representatives from Edinburgh medical school and the University of Edinburgh who join us today, and to thank them for and congratulate them on their sterling work, because Edinburgh medical school 300—EMS 300—has been a massive success.

When we mark this 300th anniversary of formal medical teaching at the University of Edinburgh, we do more than just celebrate a date in a calendar; we recognise that, over three centuries, Scotland has shaped global medicine, informed scientific thought and trained generations of clinicians whose work has touched lives far beyond the borders of Scotland.

This milestone invites pride, absolutely, but it also invites honesty, reflection and a renewed sense of responsibility for the future. In 1726, when the faculty of medicine was formally established, the University of Edinburgh set in motion a model of medical education that blended rigorous scientific inquiry with clinical observation—a real first, although medical schools had existed in the Netherlands earlier. It brought the scientific principle to medicine. That approach helped to make our capital one of the leading centres during the enlightenment. It drew students from around the world—from Europe, North America and Asia—and influenced the creation of medical schools around the world.

The history that we commemorate in this year is not just a procession of success. As the organisers of the EMS 300 programme have emphasised, the anniversary compels us to recognise the struggles, the exclusions and the inequalities that sit alongside all of those achievements. One of the most powerful elements of that is the role of women in the story of Edinburgh medicine. I think of Heen Shamaz, a final-year student who, on the day that she passed—although she did not know it at the time—her final examinations, gave a lecture in old college, which is a strange building from which, for more than 200 years, women were excluded. She stood alongside distinguished colleagues Professor Lorna Marson and Dr Lesley Dawson, and they reflected on the long fight for equality in medical education.

They reminded us of the Edinburgh seven—Sophia Jex-Blake and her peers—who, in the 1870s, were accepted into medical school only to face harassment, violent obstruction and, ultimately, the denial of the right to graduate. Yet they persisted: they studied abroad when the University of Edinburgh would not grant them degrees. They laid foundations that their own country’s university would fully acknowledge only many decades later.

When Edinburgh medical school celebrated its 250th anniversary, the official catalogue singled out a

“galaxy of talented and famous men”.

There was no mention of the women whose perseverance had opened wider the doors to the profession. How fitting it is that the 300-year celebration deliberately gives prominence to those who had been written out of the story, from the Edinburgh seven to pioneers such as Gertrude Herzfeld, whose leadership helped establish paediatrics as its own discipline; to the present generation, represented by Dr Dawson, who is the first female secretary of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; and, most importantly, to today’s students, who are the most diverse in the school’s history.

The speakers’ message was not only about the past injustice. At the lecture, they spoke about imposter syndrome, about the subtle but persistent barriers that remain, and about the importance of mentorship and of representation, because, as Ms Shamaz so cleverly and succinctly put it:

“You can’t be what you can’t see.”

They reminded us that commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion are not an administrative duty but a clinical one, because the future of medicine is not about treating disease but about understanding people.

As we congratulate the university and all those who are involved in curating the diverse, thoughtful programme of events—from lectures to alumni reunions and public outreach activities—we also need to recognise Edinburgh medical school’s immense contribution to Scotland’s health, economy and reputation, because its graduates have shaped global surgery. They have pioneered diagnostics. They have advanced public health. They have helped guide health policy at home and abroad. For 300 years, the institution has stood at the intersection of learning, discovery and service. The spirit of collaboration, diversity and ingenuity is alive and well, and that has been a key part of EMS 300 celebrations. School of art students have produced an EMS 300 tartan. There are poems about the school’s history. Events have been put on by the medical school throughout the year.

The next generations of Charles Darwins, Wong Fung Chus and Sophia Jex-Blakes are already being moulded. They are the difference makers who will go on to save lives, push boundaries and break those boundaries. I invite the Parliament to join me in recognising the truly extraordinary legacy of Edinburgh medical school and in wishing its staff, its students and its alumni every success as its goes into its next 300 years.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the open debate.

13:03

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the recognition of the 300th anniversary of formal medical teaching at the University of Edinburgh medical school.

Three centuries of medical education is an extraordinary milestone. Over that time, the school has built a reputation that stretches far beyond Scotland. Its graduates have helped to shape modern medicine, contributed to global research and improved the health of communities across the world. For Scotland, the impact has been profound. The medical school has played a central role in establishing Edinburgh as a global centre for medical research, innovation and education, which has helped to strengthen Scotland’s reputation as a leader in the life sciences sector.

The relationship between the university and NHS Lothian also demonstrates how important the partnership between education and front-line healthcare is. Many of the doctors, researchers and healthcare professionals who study in Edinburgh go on to serve communities across Lothian and beyond, including my constituency of East Lothian. That partnership helps to ensure that the knowledge and innovation that are developed in our universities translate directly into better care for patients.

Anniversaries such as this are an opportunity not only to celebrate the past but to reflect honestly on the journey that has brought us here and the responsibilities that we carry into the future. During women’s history month, it is particularly fitting to recognise the role of women in shaping the story of medical education in Edinburgh. As Martin Whitfield mentioned, in 1869, a group of pioneering women now known as the Edinburgh seven enrolled to study medicine at the university. Led by Sophia Jex-Blake, they were the first women in Britain to be admitted to a university medical programme. Their determination opened doors that had previously been closed but their journey was far from straightforward. They faced hostility and institutional resistance and were ultimately denied the degrees that they had worked hard to earn. It took almost 150 years before the University of Edinburgh formally recognised their achievements and awarded those degrees posthumously.

Their story reminds us that progress in medicine—and, indeed, in society—often comes because individuals challenge barriers and expand opportunity for those who follow. Today, women make up a majority of medical students across the United Kingdom and play leading roles in clinical practice, research and medical leadership. In that progress, they stand on the shoulders of those early pioneers.

As we mark this 300-year milestone, it is right that we celebrate the achievements of the University of Edinburgh’s medical school—its contribution to science, to innovation and to improving health in Scotland and around the world. The next chapter of medical education will be shaped by the challenges that we face today: supporting the workforce of NHS Scotland, responding to an ageing population and harnessing advances in technology and medical research. Institutions such as Edinburgh will continue to play a crucial role in training the next generation of clinicians, driving innovation and strengthening Scotland’s internationally recognised life sciences sector.

For those reasons, I am pleased to recognise this important anniversary and wish the staff, students and researchers of the University of Edinburgh every success as they shape the future of medical education and discovery in the centuries ahead.

13:06

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

As a University of Edinburgh alumna, I am pleased to speak in this debate to recognise 300 years of medicine being formally taught at the university and celebrate the profound legacy of its renowned medical school. I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing the topic to the chamber for debate.

Three centuries of medical scholarship is an extraordinary milestone. Established during the Scottish enlightenment in 1726, Edinburgh medical school quickly became one of the world’s leading centres of medical teaching and research, attracting students from across Europe and beyond. Its influence is global: graduates went on to found medical schools at Harvard University, Yale University, McGill University and the University of Sydney, among many others, which demonstrates the truly international reach of Edinburgh’s medical tradition.

For me, as a student between 1990 and 1995—I hate to give away my age—that sense of continuity was ever present. Walking into the category‑A‑listed Teviot Place medical school building—which was designed by Sir Robert Rowand Anderson and built between 1876 and 1886 in the Italian renaissance style—was a reminder that we were entering a place shaped by generations of discovery.

My studies included forensic medicine for lawyers, which was taught by Professor Busuttil, whose meticulous approach to medico‑legal evidence left a lasting impression. They also included medical microbiology, where the classes, lab work and tutorials made even the smallest organisms fascinating. However, members should still not ask me about Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.

All those courses were delivered in the iconic square tower, which made them even more memorable. I still remember the sense of vertigo in the lecture hall where I had my forensic medicine classes, which is where anatomy lectures used to take place many decades ago—perhaps I will make some remarks about Burke and Hare later on. Those courses exemplified Edinburgh’s unique ability to blend scientific rigour, clinical relevance and interdisciplinary thinking.

As we mark 300 years, this anniversary gives us not only a reason to celebrate but an opportunity to reflect honestly on the past. We have not only exceptional achievement in our history but some challenging periods, such as the infamous Burke and Hare murders of 1828, which were driven by the intense demand for cadavers during the city’s rise as a global centre of anatomical teaching. Confronting the whole of that history is vital to understanding the evolution of medical ethics and the responsibility that accompanies scientific advancement.

The university’s medical story has always been intertwined with Scotland’s healthcare system. From the founding of the royal infirmary in 1729 as one of the earliest teaching hospitals in the UK to the post-war development of the national health service, Edinburgh’s clinicians and researchers played central roles in shaping public health and clinical practice. That legacy continues today through world-class research at sites including the royal infirmary and the Western general, which remain key teaching centres for the medical school, although the medical school has moved out of the city centre to Little France.

The programme marking Edinburgh medical school 300 embraces that heritage while looking ahead. It features a series of lectures, exhibitions, interactive digital timelines and historical explorations that uncover newly documented stories from the school’s past. At the same time, cutting-edge research is still going on across life sciences, digital health, innovation and clinical medicine, reflecting the institution’s on-going contributions to global scientific progress. Community engagement is also central to the anniversary programme. Public events and festival-related activities give residents and visitors an opportunity to explore Edinburgh’s medical heritage and understand the medical school’s continuing economic and societal contribution.

Edinburgh medical school’s impact over the past 300 years cannot be overstated. It has shaped modern medicine, contributed profoundly to global scientific knowledge and continues to train the clinicians, researchers and innovators on whom the future of healthcare will depend.

I congratulate the organisers of Edinburgh medical school 300 for curating such a rich and forward-looking programme, and I wish all the staff, students and alumni every success as they celebrate that significant milestone.

13:11

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I am pleased to speak in today’s debate, and I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing it to the chamber.

I am immensely proud of the achievements of the University of Edinburgh. Our city has long been at the heart of public health, and, over the past 300 years, the medical school has produced extraordinary scientific work and world-leading research. Students from across the world have come to Edinburgh to study medicine and have then gone on to make significant contributions in countries far beyond our own. The university’s commitment to ensuring that local communities also feel the tangible positive impact of the 300-year celebration of the faculty of medicine is hugely worth celebrating; the global partnerships that have been built by the medical school are inspiring; and the work that is being carried out right across the world by its alumni reflects the exceptional standards of education and the lasting relationship that is formed between students and their lecturers.

Edinburgh offers a wide range of sectors and opportunities for those who study medicine, extending far beyond clinical practice. Many alumni have gone on to create new innovations, launch businesses and shape entirely new fields in medicine. The discoveries and achievements of the medical school are remarkable. Its alumni have made a profound difference not just in Scotland but, as several of us have said, across the UK and the world.

As we celebrate that progress, we must also acknowledge that many people still struggle to access the care and support that they need. I also want to highlight the important economic benefits that are brought by the international community that chooses to study and work here, contributing to growth across Scotland. I also cannot speak about the University of Edinburgh without highlighting the massive financial challenges that the university and its staff are facing.

However, to go back to being positive, throughout the anniversary year, a wide range of events will showcase the school’s achievements, including the Edinburgh tartan parade, the Everywoman festival, an alumni weekend and many more. Those events will enable lots of different people to attend—we can all attend, and we should.

Like colleagues, I think that, as we celebrate 300 years of Edinburgh medical school, it is vital to recognise the women whose contributions have shaped medicine in Scotland and far beyond. As part of the anniversary celebrations, a special programme was brought together featuring Professor Lorna Marson, Dr Lesley Dawson and, as Martin Whitfield mentioned, final-year medical student Heen Shamaz to honour the women of Edinburgh medicine. Their discussion highlighted both the historical barriers that women faced and the extraordinary achievements that they went on to deliver. The university’s 300 faces of Edinburgh medical school project has also been instrumental in bringing forward lesser-known stories of women who contributed to that medical progress.

The Edinburgh seven have already been mentioned. They were the first women in Britain to matriculate at a university, and their struggle to gain access to medical education paved the way for generations of women who followed. It was a major achievement. The Herald has highlighted that women spent a century fighting to get into medicine, and that the Edinburgh seven—the first female medical students admitted to a university—were among the trailblazers. They were led by Sophia Jex-Blake. She applied to study and the medical faculty accepted her application, but the university court blocked it. That was challenged. She published that rejection in newspapers and got six more women to apply: Mary Anderson, Emily Bovell, Matilda Chaplin, Helen Evans, Edith Pechey and Isabel Thorne. They worked together as a group and were accepted. I wanted to put their names on the record.

Today, women continue to shape the future of Edinburgh medical school. As Martin Whitfield said, women such as Heen Shamaz represent the next generation of clinicians and researchers, and symbolise the continuity of progress and the growing leadership of women in the field. Progress in medicine is not just about science; it is about who we are and our society. The inclusion, recognition and advancement of women has strengthened the profession and enriched the university’s global impact. That is woven into the fabric of Edinburgh’s medical heritage and will continue to guide its future. That is truly inspiring, and it is an important history for us to celebrate today.

13:16

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

I, too, pay tribute to Martin Whitfield for bringing this excellent motion to the chamber, and I commend all colleagues for their excellent and thoughtful speeches.

As the Minister for Higher and Further Education, and as an Edinburgh constituency MSP, it is a real privilege and a pleasure for me to close this debate marking three centuries of formal medical teaching at the University of Edinburgh—an anniversary that invites us to celebrate and reflect.

In 1726, amidst the intellectual ferment of the Scottish enlightenment, Edinburgh established a faculty of medicine whose influence has radiated across Scotland and around the world through the years since. I declare an interest not just as a graduate of the University of Edinburgh, but because it was the pull of the medical school’s expertise that brought my mother to Edinburgh from England to study medicine and then contribute to our national health service as a doctor for more than 30 years.

It is that excellence that we celebrate today, as well as the history. From the outset, Edinburgh set a standard for vigorous, anatomically grounded education, embodied in the Monro dynasty of anatomy professors, whose 126-year stewardship helped to define the modern medical curriculum and placed our capital city at the forefront of clinical teaching.

Members have talked about the many people who have gone through the medical school, and the roll call of figures associated with it is extraordinary. Sir James Young Simpson pioneered the clinical use of chloroform, transforming obstetrics and surgery and, in time, everyday medical practice, changing the administration of pain management forever. Joseph Lister, the regius professor of clinical surgery, applied germ theory to the operating theatre and ushered in antisepsis, carbolic hand washing, sterilisation of instruments and cleaner air during surgery, dramatically cutting the number of post-operative deaths and laying the foundations for the safe surgery that we have today.

As has been rightly emphasised by others, Edinburgh’s story is also one of courage and inclusion, sometimes hard won. Sophia Jex-Blake and the Edinburgh seven have been spoken about already, and their influence was profound. In 1869, they became the first women to matriculate at a British university, facing hostility, a notorious riot and, wrongly, exclusion from qualification for degrees. Their struggle catalysed change and opened the path for women to equality and to the practice of medicine in Scotland, which had a catalytic effect elsewhere.

The school’s wider scholarly reach has shaped science far beyond the wards, from Charles Darwin’s formative student years to the generations of clinicians and scientists who went on to lead in public health, surgery, pharmacology and beyond. When I previously served as the Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development, I saw how the school is helping to make an impact way beyond Scotland’s borders and our shores.

Today, that tradition is alive in a modern, globally orientated medical school. Edinburgh’s six-year bachelor of medicine and surgery programme—the only programme of its kind in Scotland—integrates a full research year and graduates doctors with the degrees of bachelor of medical sciences and bachelor of medicine and surgery. It embeds clinical experience from the early years across Lothian and the south of Scotland.

Together, as we celebrate this remarkable anniversary, it is also a chance to reflect on the opportunities ahead. Edinburgh medical school is setting out an ambitious future. Through its emerging future medicine programme and plans for a new Scottish health and biomedical institute, the school aims to bring together world-leading research, clinical expertise and innovation to tackle chronic disease. It also aims to strengthen cancer research and attract global talent and investment.

That work sits within the college’s wider one health vision, which recognises that human, animal and planetary wellbeing are deeply connected and reflects the determination not just to honour 300 years of history but to shape the next century of medical discovery and education in Scotland and beyond.

Sarah Boyack understandably raised the issue of financial pressures in the higher education sector. The Government is aware of those pressures and is being proactive in trying to work with our universities in relation to that challenge. That is why we have set up the framework for sustainability and success with our university sector.

In that context, it is important to recognise that the Scottish Government has been proud to support the momentum of our medical colleges and resource them. There has been a 67 per cent increase in medical undergraduate intake places since 2016, and there is a commitment to widening access to study for a career in medicine.

In 2018, the first cohort of students began the HCP-Med programme at the University of Edinburgh. That is an innovative graduate entry course that provides the opportunity to existing healthcare professionals from Scotland to achieve a medical degree. That is the sort of upskilling that we will need to do more of as we move forward into this challenging century.

We have a world-leading higher education sector to be proud of, and the Scottish Government values greatly the contribution that medical schools make to our society. They deliver first-rate doctors to support the NHS and so much more, including the economic impact that other members have talked about. We continue to recognise and value the world-leading teaching, research, innovation and knowledge exchange that are delivered through our universities and the high esteem in which they are rightly held internationally because of their legacy and because of what they do now.

On behalf of the Scottish Government, I offer congratulations to everyone involved—to the staff, students, alumni and partners who have shaped three centuries of medicine in Edinburgh, to those whose names are celebrated and to the many more whose quiet work in clinics, labs, classrooms and hospitals saves and improves lives every day. I thank them for all that they have done to build the legacy of the University of Edinburgh medical school, for all that has gone into preparing and undertaking the celebrations this year and for everything that will be done in the future to ensure that the school keeps making a profound impact in Scotland and internationally.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

For the sake of transparency, I acknowledge my own status as an alumnus of Edinburgh university. With that said, I suspend the meeting until 2 o’clock.

13:24

Meeting suspended.

14:00

On resuming—

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolio is education and skills.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I apologise for having to leave immediately after question 1, and I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for accepting my request to do so.

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

The Scottish Government works closely with the sector and the Scottish Funding Council to create the conditions for the sector to deliver high-quality learning and training for people across Scotland. That includes exploring opportunities to support longer-term investment, whether that is through responsible borrowing or through generating surpluses. Crucially, we are considering it with the sector, and I ask the Parliament to note the Government-initiated question S6W-44232 on this issue, which was answered today.

In exploring the opportunities, we must be mindful of the borrowing constraints on Scotland set by the current constitutional arrangement and the fiscal framework, and the important rules within them on public-sector budgeting and accounting.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The college sector in Scotland urgently needs those greater flexibilities to upgrade the estate and secure long-term financial sustainability. Since the Office for National Statistics classification following the regionalisation process, Scotland’s colleges have been unable to borrow or retain surpluses, unlike their counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Colleges in England and Northern Ireland are afforded the ability by the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to borrow and to hold reserves, and Welsh colleges, too, can retain surpluses and borrow. Scotland’s colleges can do none of that.

We have entrepreneurial colleges, such as the City of Glasgow College, which I visited recently and which has advanced plans for and investment partners interested in an ambitious innovation centre at its Riverside campus. However, it needs those additional powers if it is to take those plans forward. At a recent Colleges Scotland hustings, the minister and all political parties agreed that that is something that should be considered. When, and how, will it be delivered?

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

I appreciate those points and, as the Parliament would expect, I have had constructive engagement on them since taking up the post of Minister for Higher and Further Education, as did my predecessor.

It is important that we consider the asks of the sector in a collegiate way, and in that respect, I have noted the request on page 12 of Colleges Scotland’s manifesto. I attended the event that Douglas Ross referred to, and I reiterate what I said at it: there is an open-mindedness, but we want to consider the matters with the sector. That is why the work that was announced in the GIQ today is important. We want to do these things collegiately with the sector, the Scottish Funding Council and the Government.

I also draw the Parliament’s attention to the fact that, alongside the work that was formally announced today, the Scottish Funding Council is working with the sector on the next phase of infrastructure investments. That work includes looking at innovative ways to fund major new investments, and the role of public and private finance in that.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

There is an opportunity here. With the £70 million upgrade agreed in the budget, plus the agreement to review the credit system, and the agreement that we have with the colleges on a review of the overall arrangements, we have a real opportunity to inject more optimism into the sector—optimism that it desperately needs.

I support Douglas Ross on this issue: we need to allow colleges to keep their surpluses and to borrow, and I urge the minister to consider that in the last few weeks of this parliamentary session. I also hope that, in the next parliamentary session—if more of us come back—we will be able to come forward with a positive plan for colleges, because we desperately need them to thrive.

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

I fully agree that there is a significant opportunity to pivot from a sense of challenge and pressure to a sense of optimism and collective determination. Indeed, there is real ambition across the chamber, the sector and the SFC to pivot to that collective, positive and proactive mindset. However, we do need to think the matter through carefully and consider the fiscal framework and the effects on the Scottish Government’s borrowing capacity. Of course, if we had more capacity to borrow, that would be beneficial, but I do not want to get into a constitutional debate.

We have an opportunity, which the Government is open-minded about exploring, along with the other considerations that we will undertake. These are important matters that we can work collectively on with the college sector and the SFC with a view to making a significant positive difference.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Colleges are invaluable to Scotland’s education system and to our society. What specific work is the Scottish Government doing to help the sector to have a sustainable future?

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

I reiterate that I was pleased to announce the beginning of the formal work on the college sector of the future workstream, which is an ambitious short-life workstream that will begin the work that we all need to do to design and deliver a sustainable college sector that is able to support the skills needs of Scotland. The process will be co-designed with Colleges Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council, and it will draw on the views and ideas of college leaders, staff and trade unions, as well as on previous research. It will consider the views of the learners of today and tomorrow, and, of course, the views of businesses, employers and independent experts. Further details will be made available in due course as the work progresses.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect and strengthen schools in rural areas. (S6O-05636)

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

The Scottish Government is committed to protecting and strengthening rural education. That is reflected in the enhanced statutory protections applying to rural schools that are contained in the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, which include, for example, the presumption against closure.

In addition, we are encouraging probationary teachers to take up placements in rural schools through the preference waiver payment, which offers £6,000 for primary, and £8,000 for secondary, probationary teachers in exchange for flexibility in placement location. Teachers in rural areas can also be eligible for the remote schools allowance and the distant islands allowance.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Given that Scottish Government-funded population research shows that the loss of even a single essential service, such as a school or a nursery, can trigger a domino effect on housing demand, transport viability and wider community cohesion, and given that six nurseries in my constituency, including those in Drummore, Creetown and Kirkcowan, face temporary closure by Dumfries and Galloway Council, without any consultation, what action will the Scottish Government take to ensure that local authorities cannot make isolated decisions on school or nursery closures—whether temporary or permanent—without assessing their cumulative impact on rural population sustainability? Furthermore, what assurances can the minister provide that the specific decisions to which I referred will not accelerate rural depopulation? Will the Government consider requiring councils to publish full depopulation impact assessments before progressing any statutory consultation or closure proposals?

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

The member raises important points, and what he has said is very concerning. The Scottish Government committed to reviewing the guidance on temporary closures for schools and council-run early learning and childcare settings—a practice that was previously referred to as mothballing. That review has now taken place, and the updated guidance provides clear advice for local authorities on when temporary closure is appropriate and how decisions should be made. It strengthens expectations around transparency, early engagement with parents and communities, and consideration of educational benefit and community impact. It is very concerning to hear that that has not taken place, and I ask the member to write to ministers with further detail on the situation so that we can explore it further.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

I, too, have rural schools in my area. Over the past decade, the Scottish Government has increased spending on Scotland’s schools by more than £1 billion in real terms to support our pupils and teachers. Will the minister outline how the Scottish budget—which, of course, Finlay Carson did not vote for—supports the attainment of children and young people across Scotland, including in rural schools?

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

The 2026-27 budget, which provides more than £3.5 billion to support education and skills, includes up to £200 million of investment, through the Scottish attainment challenge programme, for closing the poverty-related attainment gap. In December, the latest data showed that attainment levels in literacy and numeracy across primary and secondary schools were at a record high.

In addition, the budget will further expand the provision of free breakfast clubs and free school meals to reduce the poverty-related attainment gap, will continue the provision of extra funding for pupils with additional support needs and will provide £186.5 million of investment to protect teacher numbers in our schools.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to colleges and universities to address skills shortages in the defence, aerospace and space sectors. (S6O-05637)

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

The Scottish Government is delivering a programme to reform the post-school education and skills system, in which the 2026-27 Scottish budget will invest more than £2.4 billion. There are more than 14,000 full-time-equivalent college students on engineering courses, and we are working with regional partners and industry to support that.

Engineering and energy-related apprenticeships are already a priority for Skills Development Scotland, and they comprise 8 per cent of new apprenticeship starts and 15 per cent of all modern apprenticeships in training in the year 2024-25. Those skills support many sectors, including the defence, aerospace and space sectors.

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

The strategic importance of the aerospace, defence and space industries to Scotland cannot be overstated, as they add £3.7 billion to the economy and currently employ just under 37,000 people. I welcome the fact that many Scottish colleges and universities are developing active partnerships with the sectors, a great example of which is the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland, which is hosted by the University of Strathclyde. I also note today’s announcement of the Scottish defence growth deal and the skills aspect within that.

However, a significant roadblock that is impeding future growth and prospects is the chronic skills shortage, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Does the minister agree that, in order to address that challenge, we must see in the next parliamentary session an expansion in the scale of engineering skills provision, stronger industry collaboration and the expansion of models such as the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland to secure our future skills needs in such vital sectors?

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

The member raises important points. I should note to the Parliament that I met the sector this year to discuss many of these issues. I am aware of the contribution that the sectors make, not just through my role as a Scottish Government minister but in my capacity as a constituency member.

The Scottish Government is developing a new skills planning model and is working with key partners to identify sectors of focus and skills priorities and to set out expectations for the post-school system with regard to meeting Scotland’s future skills needs. I draw members’ attention to the letter that I sent to the Education, Children and Young People Committee on 27 February that sets out, in general terms, how that work will progress. More will be said on that in the near future.

Engineering is one of the key areas emerging as a focus in the initial work on skills planning. My officials are engaging with stakeholders on that to ensure that we work together to deliver the skills that those sectors and the wider economy will need.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The First Minister will have seen on his recent visit to SaxaVord spaceport the impressive progress that is being made at the most northernly space project in Scotland. Given that space is the future, what more can the Scottish Government do to ensure that the education and training skills that are needed in the defence, aerospace and space sectors can be accessed in the rural and island areas that are close to innovative developments such as the SaxaVord spaceport on Unst?

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

The member is right to highlight the importance of the sector and its future potential growth, the necessity of making sure that we are skilling workers in our rural and island communities across the country and ensuring that the workers in those communities have appropriate educational opportunities, particularly in relation to growth sectors in their areas.

I ask the member to read the letter that I sent the ECYP committee on 27 February. The skills planning work that I referred to will consider the regional aspects of how we do skills planning on a cyclical basis in order to meet the needs of the legislation that Parliament recently passed on 20 January.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Government how much has been invested in schools in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency through the schools for the future programme and the learning estate investment programme. (S6O-05638)

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

Through the Scotland’s schools for the future programme, we awarded North Lanarkshire Council significant funding of £42 million towards the Cumbernauld academy and Greenfaulds high school projects in the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency. In North Lanarkshire more widely, through the learning estate and investment programme, we will provide the council with substantial funding of £9.9 million to support the extension of Chryston high school.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The significant investment that the Scottish Government made in Cumbernauld academy and Greenfaulds high school has transformed the learning environment for pupils there. North Lanarkshire Council has plans and ambitions to replace all schools that were built before 1996. Clearly, it is for the council to take forward that programme, but can the cabinet secretary confirm that it will have the opportunity to draw down support from the Scottish Government?

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

I very much agree with what Jamie Hepburn said about the difference that this Government’s investment has made in his constituency at Cumbernauld academy and Greenfaulds high school, and about the importance of having high-quality, well-ventilated learning environments across North Lanarkshire and Scotland.

Through the £2 billion learning estate investment programme, 18 new school projects have already opened nationwide, benefiting around 15,000 pupils. The latest school estate statistics, which were published in September last year, show that a record 92 per cent of Scotland’s schools are now in a good or satisfactory condition, which is up from 62.7 per cent in 2007.

We will continue working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with local authorities, including North Lanarkshire Council, and with the Scottish Futures Trust, to explore how we can deliver further improvements to Scotland’s school estate.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Paul Sweeney is joining us remotely.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will meet with stakeholders to discuss school provision and safe travel routes in Robroyston. (S6O-05639)

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

The Scottish Government recognises the strength of community concern about the provision of school places and the safety of walking routes in Robroyston. Responsibility for managing the school estate and for assessing the safety of walking routes rests with Glasgow City Council. Scottish Government officials continue to engage with the council, which has advised that schools in the area currently have adequate capacity.

The Scottish Government updated the school transport guidance last December, strengthening the advice for councils on their responsibilities regarding pupil safety and the assessment of walking routes to schools.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

There is real concern that the methodology and modelling being used in community growth areas such as Robroyston does not accurately reflect real need.

The situation has been going on for years. I recently carried out a local survey that heard from 167 respondents, 74 per cent of whom said that they had experienced issues with placing their child in a nursery, primary or secondary school while living in Robroyston. The survey asked how likely it was, on a scale of least likely to most likely, that respondents would stay in Robroyston if current circumstances remained the same. Shockingly, 73 respondents said that they were least likely to stay in Robroyston if things did not change.

There is a real risk that, without urgent action and intervention, what should be a proud new suburb of Glasgow will quickly falter and fail, so can the cabinet secretary confirm that she will meet stakeholders and Scottish Government officials to look at the modelling that Glasgow City Council is using, to address the issue before behavioural effects take root and people leave the area altogether?

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

It seems that there is an issue that is localised to Robroyston. I can ask officials to engage with Glasgow City Council. I place on record that the statutory responsibility rests with the local authority and that ministers are extremely limited in the actions that we can take to intervene, because the power to take action to address the issues that Mr Sweeney has raised rests with the local authority. I am more than happy to take away the member’s ask that officials engage directly with Glasgow City Council.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 6 has not been lodged.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the Scottish Government how its budget 2026-27 will support apprenticeships. (S6O-05641)

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

We are providing around £198 million in 2026-27 to support 25,500 new modern apprenticeships, 5,000 new foundation apprenticeships and more than 1,200 new graduate apprenticeships and will continue providing support for more than 39,000 apprentices who are already in training.

Our priority is to maximise high-quality apprenticeships to meet business needs and to develop our future workforce. Funding will be closely aligned with skills priorities to support economic growth and help to tackle youth unemployment. We will continue working closely with the Scottish Funding Council and with Skills Development Scotland to assess demand and to ensure that funding is targeted appropriately.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

It is vital that Scotland’s young people have support and opportunities to access the pathways that best fit their interests and skill sets. Following Scottish apprenticeship week, how is the Scottish National Party Government continuing to ensure that an array of positive destinations is available to our young folk, supporting Scotland’s existing and growing industries?

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

It is important to acknowledge that the latest school leaver statistics show that 95.7 per cent of young people entered a positive destination in 2025, which is the second-highest level on record.

We are committed to ensuring that every young person can access the route that best suits their ambitions, including apprenticeships, training or further study, and that they can access whatever is their preference and whatever will help them to achieve their full potential.

The Scottish Government funds a wide range of provision, including Developing the Young Workforce, the employer network and third sector partners offering mentoring and work experience. We also continue to engage industry and employers as we reform the skills system.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

When I attended the launch of the future roofing programme at Prestwick academy on 27 February, I spoke to the school, industry and young people about the roofing pathway that has been developed over the years, which includes a national 5 creative industries qualification in roof slating. How will the budget support young people from Prestwick academy who have made an informed decision to pursue a career in roofing when they will have to travel for more than four hours per day to undertake the college-based training?

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

Further detail would be required to answer that question properly, including what engagement there has been with the college and with Skills Development Scotland, and how those opportunities are being offered and facilitated. I am happy for the member to follow that up with me, but I also suggest and encourage engagement with Skills Development Scotland and Ayrshire College.

There are remarkable opportunities in Ayrshire. I went to Ayrshire College and saw that it does phenomenal work, including its collaboration with the private sector and the consideration that it is giving to making sure that there are appropriate public sector priorities and opportunities. We need to ensure that we celebrate and recognise the creative industries, which were mentioned, because they are a massive contributor to not only our economic success but our cultural enrichment, which we and others around the world enjoy.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to reduce the number of violent and disruptive incidents in schools. (S6O-05642)

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

There is no place for violence and abuse in Scotland’s schools. We continue to implement our relationships and behaviour in schools action plan, working with partners including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the teaching trade unions, and I will shortly publish the annual progress report detailing activity in the past 12 months. That includes new guidance on consequences and on risk assessments for violent, aggressive and dangerous behaviour. We have also started work to review our national exclusions guidance.

The 2026-27 budget will invest more than £3.5 billion to deliver our continued commitment to strengthening the sustainability and resilience of our education system, including the protection of teacher numbers and investment in additional support needs.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Shockingly, Scotland now has the highest recorded rate of violence against teachers anywhere in the United Kingdom. In the past decade, serious violent injuries to school staff have tripled, yet the data still varies widely between councils. Teachers and parents have been warning about the issue for years, but little has changed.

With only weeks left in office, will the cabinet secretary now—finally—act by introducing clear-cut national guidance on tackling violence in schools, a consistent national reporting system and reform of exclusions, which has been worked on for a while, so that schools can be the safe workplaces and places to learn that they should be?

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

I thank Mr Kerr for his question and for his general interest in the topic during the current parliamentary session, which led to some of the work that I detailed in my original answer.

The member raises an important point in relation to the use of data in Scottish education. We see variance across the piece. This morning, I was at Murrayfield stadium at the additional support for learning cross-party conference. A key part of the ASL review is looking at inconsistency across the country in terms of additional support needs and how they are recorded. One of the key recommendations to come from that cross-party review is that we look at having a national staged intervention model. There is clearly an ask from Parliament for more national direction from the Government. However, as cabinet secretary, I also need to be mindful that, at the current time, the statutory responsibility for the delivery of education rests with local authorities. What I can do as cabinet secretary is to issue guidance.

The member asked a question in relation to violent and aggressive incidents. I gave an update on the guidance that we published to that end last June, and I referred to the forthcoming work in relation to consequences.

Foysol Choudhury (Independent, Lothian)

Given the recent report that hundreds of school support workers in Edinburgh have quit within months of starting due to a surge in pupils’ violence, and given the survey by the Educational Institute of Scotland and Unison that shows that there have been 5,200 violent incidents against teachers in Scotland over the past five years, what action will the Scottish Government take with local authorities to protect school staff and reduce violence in schools?

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

When we talk about behaviour in schools, we need to be careful, as we are not seeking to demonise the next generation. The majority of children and young people in Scotland’s schools are well behaved; the behaviour in Scottish schools research documented that. However, it also suggested that there have been changes in behaviour in our schools post-pandemic, which the Scottish Government recognises.

In answer to Foysol Choudhury’s point, that is exactly why we have worked with local government on a national action plan, as I said to Stephen Kerr, sharing responsibility in relation to developing guidance on consequences, risk assessment, supporting attendance and racism and racist incidents, as well as guidance on responding to substance abuse in schools, which we will publish in the coming weeks.

Later, we will publish further guidance on the recording and monitoring of incidents in schools and updated national guidance on exclusion. Partnership working with local government is well under way.

Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on the tackling child poverty delivery plan. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, and therefore there should be no interventions or interruptions. You have up to 10 minutes, cabinet secretary.

14:26

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Eradicating child poverty is the Government’s top priority and a national mission that belongs to all of us. Today, I am pleased to publish the Scottish Government’s third and final tackling child poverty delivery plan. “Bringing Hope, Building Futures” is much more than a statutory milestone; it reaffirms our commitment to eradicating child poverty and transforming the lives of children, families and communities across Scotland. That commitment is shared collectively by all my ministerial colleagues, who have been critical to the plan’s development.

I put on record my significant thanks to all the children, young people, parents and stakeholders who have shared their views and experiences throughout our wide-ranging consultation. I also thank parliamentary committees for their responses and Scotland’s Poverty and Inequality Commission for the advice and challenge that it has given. Those views have helped to inform our approach and the actions that I will set out today.

The actions in the plan build on eight years of progress. That progress has been made despite years of austerity from successive United Kingdom Governments, and despite external shocks that include Brexit, the Covid pandemic, Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the on-going cost of living crisis.

We are making a real difference. In 2023-24, rates of relative child poverty fell to the lowest level in almost a decade—standing 9 percentage points below the UK average—with rates rising in England and Wales. That progress matters, but we must continue to go further. With the Scottish parliamentary elections due to take place in May, the plan that has been published today sets out a robust and enduring framework that will enable the next Government to meet the statutory child poverty targets.

Focusing on action during the first year, the plan is backed by considerable investment, including every penny of funding that was previously committed to our two-child limit payment, and it provides foundations on which any incoming Administration can build and reflect its own policy priorities and plans for accelerating progress.

“Bringing Hope, Building Futures” retains our focus on the drivers of poverty reduction and outlines four key themes: increasing earned incomes; reducing the cost of living; maximising incomes from social security and benefits in kind; and supporting children and families to thrive. It also retains our focus on the families who are at greatest risk of poverty and recognises that women’s poverty is children’s poverty. Underpinning that is our commitment to enabling whole family support and realising a transformative shift towards support that is more joined-up, easier to navigate and shaped around what families really need.

I turn to how we will drive progress on those priorities during the coming year. Through the Scottish budget and spending review, we set out plans that will help more parents to increase their earned incomes. Those plans include investing £90 million a year in our devolved employability services; delivering a national breakfast club offer for all primary school children, which is backed by more than £100 million across the next three years; and providing up to £9 million through a new raising income through skills and education—RISE—initiative for colleges, to help parents access the skills and education that they need.

Today, I confirm our plans to go further still to strengthen in-work support for parents and remove barriers relating to skills, childcare and transport. First, in partnership with Scotland’s colleges, we will invest £2 million in a new training access fund to provide training opportunities for parents in low-paid work. Secondly, we will invest up to £4.2 million to deliver 200 paid work placements in our national health service for parents at risk of poverty—helping more parents into good-quality NHS jobs. Thirdly, we will invest an additional £15 million to support low-income families to access the childcare that they need to enter and stay in employment. Fourthly, we will invest up to £19 million to develop a new transport to employment offer for low-income parents—helping parents with travel costs and increasing the travel options available. Finally, we will invest £10 million in a new flexible workforce development fund to help incentivise employers to support upskilling and progression opportunities for parents and implement fair work policies—investing in support that is good for families and for economic growth.

We also set out plans in the budget to help tackle the cost of living for families. They include investing a record £4.1 billion over the next four years to support the delivery of 36,000 affordable homes; providing a further £1 million in our islands cost crisis emergency fund; and continued investment in our energy efficiency programmes, including warmer homes Scotland.

Building on our record commitment to invest £106 million in discretionary housing payments next year, we will go even further. The UK Government’s decision to freeze local housing allowance rates is wrong and is making it harder for families to make ends meet. That is why I am confirming our intention to invest up to a further £9 million in discretionary housing payments to support those impacted. That investment is homelessness prevention in action and will support up to an estimated 18,000 families to meet rent costs and maintain their tenancies.

As a result, we have committed a total of £159 million next year to the mitigation of UK Government policies, including the bedroom tax and the cruel benefit cap. Investment through social security remains the most direct way to increase family incomes and keep children out of poverty. From April, all Scottish benefits will increase in line with inflation. That means that our unique Scottish child payment will be worth £28.20 per child per week, keeping an estimated 50,000 children out of relative poverty next year. We have already committed to going further by introducing a targeted Scottish child payment premium for children under the age of one, increasing the total payment to £40 per week during 2027-28, benefiting an estimated 12,000 children and providing enhanced support in the first crucial year of a child’s life.

We have also committed to investing more than £27 million in welfare, income maximisation and debt advice services over the next two years, which is expected to support at least 80,000 households annually.

Although we encouraged more ambitious reform to the child maintenance system, the UK Government has failed to act. As a result, we will make further targeted investment, providing up to £275,000 to One Parent Families Scotland and Fife Gingerbread to help more separated families to secure regular and reliable child maintenance payments.

“Bringing Hope, Building Futures” reinforces our commitment to supporting children and families to thrive. That includes our continued investment in our Scottish attainment challenge and free school meals. Today, I confirm two further steps. First, we will expand the reach of the family nurse partnership programme, so that up to an additional 500 young parents can benefit from that trusted support next year. Secondly, we will invest a further £1 million to expand the successful MCR Pathways school-based mentoring programme, so that up to 5,500 care-experienced and disadvantaged young people can benefit across Scotland.

Providing support in a way that is joined up, easy to navigate and responsive to need is essential. I saw exactly that earlier this week, when the First Minister and I visited CentreStage, which brings to life what is possible when we work together across organisations and sectors.

Building on such approaches, as well as the £50 million of whole family wellbeing funding that has already been committed, the budget includes a £20 million whole family support third sector delivery fund. The fund, which was launched today, will help to scale up support that wraps around families and their communities, with funding available to partners who can work nationally or across multiple local authority areas to deliver an integrated, person-centred approach. That has the potential to be truly transformational, enabling our vital third sector to scale up what we know works and providing a helping hand for families that connects them to the wider services that they need to thrive.

I am pleased to announce two further steps to strengthen support for families. First, we will invest an additional £2.2 million to double the coverage of whole family support in general practice in Glasgow, delivering targeted preventative support for 500 families. Secondly, we will invest up to £5 million in activity that seeks to make the best use of data to enable all families to receive the services and support that they need to thrive.

Beyond that, Social Security Scotland will play a key role by continuing its important work to share data, by strengthening how it proactively signposts clients to relevant support and advice services, and by building referral pathways with partners in the longer term.

I said at the beginning of my statement that eradicating child poverty is a national mission that belongs to us all. Ending child poverty cannot be achieved by Government alone—it requires all of Scotland to play its part, and the plan acts as a catalyst to accelerate progress ahead of 2030.

If returned after the Scottish elections, this Government commits to working with partners across Scotland to drive forward the change that is needed—strengthening the role of our vital third sector, engaging business through our investment and working hand in hand with Scotland’s local authorities and our national health service. Only by eradicating child poverty can we unlock Scotland’s full potential.

Scottish Government policies are estimated to keep 100,000 children, or one in every 10, out of relative poverty next year. That is the scale of the difference that we have made together in Scotland and the impact that our action can have against the strongest of headwinds. By taking forward the plan, which was laid in Parliament today, we can bring hope to families across Scotland and build futures that are free from the scourge of poverty.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

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

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of the statement. The Scottish National Party talks a good game on child poverty, but it has failed to back up those words with actions; it has failed to close the attainment gap, one in five children lives in poverty, and it has failed to make work a viable route out of poverty. Instead, it has funnelled billions into an ever-growing benefit bill.

What Scotland needs is a system that helps people to move beyond reliance on state support. Instead, under the current plan, the SNP appears to be content to manage poverty through a growing benefits budget, rather than tackling the structural issues that keep families trapped.

Many of the measures that have been announced in the statement sound good on paper, but, as we know, the SNP is often strong on rhetoric but light on delivery. The cabinet secretary is committed to increasing all benefits with inflation, but how much will that add to the already blooming benefit bill? How can the cabinet secretary justify that level of spending on social security when child poverty remains so high, and will the cabinet secretary address the underlying cause of poverty, rather than just diverting more and more public money into benefits?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am not entirely sure that Alexander Stewart did not write that speech before he got my statement and this version of the plan. If he was remotely listening, particularly at the start of my statement, he would have heard that I talked about exactly how we were tackling the barriers that people face when they struggle to get into employment. I spoke about not just the £90 million—now with a multiyear commitment—for our employability service, but also the £19 million that is going into the transport to employment offer, and the £15 million for childcare for priority families that need that support to enter employment.

The speech, the statement and the plan are all about tackling the roots of poverty. I make no apology for lifting children out of poverty. That is the mission of this Government. [Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Stewart.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I admit that high-level modelling was done on the Tories’ plans when they said that they would put a two-child limit on the Scottish child payment that would mean an estimated 10,000 fewer children being lifted out of poverty.

The Tories are more interested in pushing children into poverty, but this Government will continue to lift children out of poverty. That is the ambition on delivery that the SNP Government has.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I remind members who wish to ask questions to press their request-to-speak button.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise for forgetting to put my card in.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement and for the accompanying documents. The Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017 put a legal requirement on the Scottish ministers to meet the 2030 target. The Scottish Government was committed to meeting the target, regardless of international events or decisions made at UK level. There were no conditions attached to that target.

Last year, it was confirmed that the interim target had been missed, after many warnings that that would happen. Although any reduction in child poverty is to be welcomed, the reality is that there will be a reduction of 1 per cent in 20 years in relative child poverty. Given the lack of progress in the past 10 years, does the cabinet secretary believe that meeting the 2030 target is still credible? The First Minister told people this week to judge him in 2031 if the target is missed, but we should recognise the impact of the failure to meet the interim target, which is resulting in Herculean efforts being required over the next four years.

The Poverty and Inequality Commission said that, to meet the 2030 target, we need three or four measures on the scale of the Scottish child payment. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the plan delivers that? The removal of the two-child cap by the UK Labour Government will have a positive effect. Significant funding earmarked for mitigation has also been released. What additional measures in the action plan has the money been used for? If the money had not been released, what resources were planned for the child poverty action plan?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I refer Claire Baker to annex 1 of the plan, which details how the two-child limit payment allocation has been invested. I mentioned some of that in my statement. There is £50 million for the whole family support package, the new £20 million whole family support for the third sector delivery fund, the flexible workforce development fund and the additional money for the child poverty fund, which will tackle additional childcare support. Annex 1 includes further detail on that.

The Government recognises that any child in poverty is one child too many, which is why there is no complacency on our part. We are very clear that there has been progress. Scottish Government policies are estimated to keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty in 2026-27. That is due to the Government delivering over a variety of projects and policies. It is important that we also take cognisance of the fact that Scottish Government policies are estimated to keep 70,000 children out of deep poverty next year.

I recognise the scale of the challenge that we face and that it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to meet those targets. I wish that we had a UK Labour Government that matched our scale of ambition; unfortunately, that is not what we saw when the UK Government’s much-delayed plan was eventually delivered. In saying that, though, we continue to commit to delivery and action, as I have set out in the plan today.

Paul McLennan (Scottish National Party, East Lothian)

Westminster’s cost of living crisis is hitting the most vulnerable the hardest. On top of ever-increasing energy costs, households across East Lothian continue to suffer from cruel policies such as the benefit cap and the bedroom tax. Will the cabinet secretary tell Parliament how actions in the plan will further mitigate UK Labour’s cruel austerity measures?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Paul McLennan is right to point out the UK Government’s choice to continue some of the policies of previous Conservative Governments that, to me, exemplify austerity. We look at the amount that we are spending on the benefit cap, the bedroom tax and, as announced today, the further £9 million through discretionary housing payments to support 18,000 families. We would not have had to fund that, and could have spent that money in other ways, if the UK Labour Government had not frozen the local housing allowance, but that was its choice. We would not have had to fund the work that we are doing to assist One Parent Families Scotland if the UK Government, in its child poverty strategy, had delivered reform of child maintenance services. Once again, when we consider how much we are spending on mitigation—a record £159 million next year—that is investment that we are making to pick up the pieces of a Government that has failed to deliver at a UK level.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the focus on parental employment. As the cabinet secretary will know, I have been asking for that focus for the past four years, so I am happy to see that the cabinet secretary has finally taken my advice.

The statement highlights that today’s announcements build on approaches that include the whole family wellbeing fund and whole family support. The cabinet secretary will be aware that there is fragmented funding across Scotland when it comes to the whole family wellbeing fund, so what steps is the Government taking to ensure that money that is already allocated is making a difference for families across the whole of Scotland and not just those in certain pockets and in the central belt?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

To be clear, the money does not just go to the central belt. A number of local authorities, both urban and rural, wish to take part in the fairer futures partnerships, for example. In Edinburgh today, the First Minister and I saw yet another example of a local authority using Scottish Government funding and its own innovation to deliver whole family support. We will continue to make sure, through the oversight that comes with my responsibility for tackling child poverty, that whole family support is delivered.

I will be generous and acknowledge the fact that Roz McCall thinks that I listened to her advice. However, the minor detail is that she did not follow that up and vote for the funding in the budget. Here we go once again—Roz McCall is claiming some success because, at some point, I have listened to her wise words, but she actually forgot to vote for the budget to deliver it. That is a key responsibility of parliamentarians, which she failed to deliver on.

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

There is much to welcome in the statement. I will focus on the Scottish child payment, which, from April, will be £28.20 per child per week in qualifying households and, in particular, on the targeted child payment premium of £40 a week for a child under the age of one.

I will give the cabinet secretary the facts of real life. As at 31 December 2025, in Midlothian, 6,245 children were benefiting from the Scottish child payment; in the Borders, the figure is 5,775. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is an investment for each child—12,020 children—in their wellbeing and their future prospects and, indeed, in the future prospects of Scotland itself?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Can I make a plea at this stage, as I am conscious of the time and the number of members who still wish to ask a question, for more succinct questions and answers?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Christine Grahame points to the delivery by the Scottish Government and the real impact that it makes across Scotland. All members can reflect on the number of families who are benefiting from the Scottish child payment. The payment impacts on their wellbeing and, of course, there are implications for the future of Scotland as well.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

The SNP went into the 2021 election promising universal free school meals for all primary pupils. When in government, the roll-out to all primary 1 to primary 7 children was promised by August 2022, but thousands of children are still waiting, years later. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the education secretary, who admitted this week that school meal debt is still an issue and a burden that no child or family should face? Does the cabinet secretary accept that the support from the school meal debt fund is a sticking plaster, and can she advise the Parliament when—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That is enough questions.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

—the SNP will fulfil its promise to Scotland’s children?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It is not three, four or five questions: it is one question.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am very proud of what the Scottish Government has delivered with the universal provision up to P6, our work to deliver based on Scottish child payment eligibility in P6 and P7, and the work of the pilots in our secondary schools.

I am particularly proud that the education secretary has announced this week that school meal debt has been scrapped. That shows that, once again, the Scottish Government is delivering for families across Scotland. We know that times are difficult for them, and we have delivered to help them with that.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

It is hugely encouraging to hear about the ambitious action that the SNP Government is taking through its delivery plan, and I welcome the breadth of the measures that have been detailed by the cabinet secretary. The First Minister has made it clear that ending child poverty is the Government’s number 1 mission. Will the cabinet secretary set out the Government’s progress and how the framework will drive further improvements?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Because of the Scottish Government’s actions, the proportion of children in Scotland who are living in relative poverty has reduced, with the 2023-24 rate being the lowest it has been in a decade. Rates of both relative and absolute child poverty were 9 percentage points lower than the UK average in 2023-24.

Our new plan takes on further work and delivers new policies that will assist us to meet our final targets. It is backed by considerable investment, including the more than £111 million that is in the tackling child poverty fund and whole family support funding. In their totality, the actions in the plan will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty next year.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

The Poverty and Inequality Commission has told us that we will not meet the 2030 targets without additional social security support. Scottish Parliament information centre analysis shows that, on its own, the Scottish child payment does not really tackle the increasing deep poverty that children and families face.

The minimum income guarantee was a big idea for tackling poverty, and the minimum income guarantee expert group provided proposals last year showing how we could provide a top-up benefit to guarantee everyone a minimum dignified income. However, the minimum income guarantee appears nowhere in either the statement or the plan. Has the Scottish Government given up on its minimum income guarantee idea?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I was very grateful for the work that the expert group undertook to look at a minimum income guarantee. Although it raised some challenges and recommendations for the Scottish Government—and, indeed, the next Scottish Government—in relation to first steps on that, it also highlighted the fact that, in the current devolutionary set-up, we do not have the powers to have a minimum income guarantee in Scotland.

However, in this plan we have looked not only at social security and income through social security—for example, through the premium for under-ones—but at the root causes of poverty, which is why there has been such a focus on additional investment in employability and on the barriers that might prevent someone from getting into, or staying in, employment.

On the issue of deep poverty, I point to the fact that Scottish Government policies are estimated to keep 70,000 children out of deep poverty in 2026-27.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The cabinet secretary should have admitted that the Government has failed to meet its target on the poverty-related attainment gap and has also failed to meet the interim target on child poverty. However, I welcome the Wise Group’s relational mentoring service, work on the ready for industry, success and excellence—RISE—programme in colleges and the new flexible workforce development fund. Are those developments an indication of a new direction of travel for Government policy on tackling child poverty, with a focus on work and employment?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

That focus has always been there, as is demonstrated by the fact that previous plans have also looked at the root causes of poverty and how to tackle them. The drivers in this plan are very similar to those in the previous plan, and that is because stakeholders have told us that those are the right areas to focus on.

I welcome Mr Rennie’s comments on the Wise Group funding and on RISE, which is a very good example of the college sector coming forward with a proactive suggestion that is to do not only with skills but with childcare and transport. That is the way in which the plan has been developed, and that is the way in which the Government and ministers have worked together with others to tackle barriers in order to make the most of employability efforts and the most of our college sector. I hope that, when Mr Rennie has more time to go through and reflect on the plan, he will see more examples of that.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I welcome the delivery plan and the impact that these measures will have on households in my constituency. Will the cabinet secretary set out more detail of the employability support and how parents in Clydebank and Milngavie will be supported to increase their income through work, as well as through access to expanded training opportunities?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I mentioned some of those measures in the answer that I just gave to Willie Rennie, but I will point again to the £9 million going to colleges through the RISE initiative, which will support up to 2,400 parents to access skills and education, as well as the new training access fund and the flexible workforce development fund. That support will benefit people not only in the member’s constituency but across Scotland. Along with our investment in transport and childcare, it will help more parents to enter and progress through the workforce and to increase their earned incomes. That is an important part of the plan.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Conservative members want to tackle the root causes of child poverty, and I was pleased to hear the emphasis that the cabinet secretary gave to programmes that support employment and upskilling, as we recognise that the most effective route out of poverty is through sustained employment and upskilling.

The statement is long and detailed. How much of the spending that the cabinet secretary announced is genuinely new funding? How much of it is simply a repackaging? Will she commit to publishing outcomes for the initiatives that she included in her statement? Not all of them were accompanied by specific outcomes.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is pleasing that Mr Kerr reflected on the fact that the statement is long and detailed—as, indeed, is the action plan that goes with it—because there are a great deal of new announcements in it. For the sake of time, I will not go through them all, but there are particular announcements on the different packages that have been sustained and developed and then the new initiatives through our tackling child poverty fund and the whole family investment. As I said, there is also an annex on the two-child limit mitigation that breaks down exactly how that funding will be spent.

I am sure that Mr Kerr has just forgotten that there is an annual statement on the child poverty work, in which we set out the outcomes delivered by that work. I look forward to the Government delivering that statement when we return in June.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in Mr Kidd if his question is brief and the answer is succinct.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Last week, I had the pleasure of hosting young people from the Child Poverty Action Group’s cost of the school day voice network in Parliament to discuss their manifesto. I must say that they made a lot more sense than many adults—which members have heard before—by stressing the need to ensure that children and young people are involved in shaping policy.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Can we have a question please, Mr Kidd?

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the cabinet secretary say how we can ensure that children’s and young people’s voices are properly heard and how the new third sector fund will act as a new door?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The new third sector fund will be a national front door to public services throughout Scotland. That is one example—but only one—of how the voices of children and young people have shaped the approach. I thank Young Scot, the Child Poverty Action Group and Aberlour Children’s Charity. We engaged with children and young people directly at official and ministerial levels to hear from them about what they wanted to see in their plan. I hope that, as well as its being a Scottish Government publication, they feel that it is their plan, because it is the Government delivering for them and for the future of Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the statement. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

A member

14:58

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 46A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 proceedings today. The voting period for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 12—Signing by proxy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 9 is on signing by proxy. Amendment 94, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 190 to 192, 65 and 68.

15:00

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

My amendments 94, 65 and 68 relate to the issue of signing by proxy. The bill would allow a proxy to sign a first or second declaration form on behalf of a patient who is unable to do so. I put on record my thanks to the Law Society of Scotland for its advice and engagement on those matters.

Amendment 94 would change section 12(4)(a) to the effect that a proxy would not be able to sign a declaration unless the proxy

“has read the declaration to the person making it”.

The amendment seeks to address concerns from the Law Society that the provision as it stands, which requires the proxy to be

“satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration”,

could imply more extensive assessment and be open to legal challenge. My intention was always for the signing proxy merely to stand in place of the terminally ill adult who is unable to sign for themselves.

In response to concerns raised, amendment 94 would have the effect of requiring the proxy to read out the declaration and then sign it in the presence of the adult. That would change the proxy’s position to a facilitative one for an adult who is unable to sign their own name. I am satisfied that that would address the concerns that have been raised while allowing the provision to work as intended.

Amendments 65 and 68 respond to a Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommendation that the affirmative procedure should apply to regulations under section 12(5)(e).

The other amendments in the group—amendments 190 and 191, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and amendment 192, in the name of Fergus Ewing—stem from a misunderstanding of the purpose and role of the proxy in the bill. Amendment 191 seeks to add various criminal offences into the proxy provisions. However, I again make it clear that the purpose behind those provisions is simply to allow a person who cannot sign a first or second declaration for themselves to ask a proxy to do it for them, and that the bill provides clear rules on who can and cannot be a proxy.

I also note the Government’s concerns about competence in relation to amendment 191 and the reservation of employment rights. There are no risks here of behaviour to criminalise. It is still the requesting person who makes the declaration, with a proxy standing in for the signing. The declarations must also be signed and witnessed by others, as is set out in the bill. A person must be assessed as eligible by two doctors acting independently. Then, after a second declaration is signed and witnessed, the terminally ill adult must request provision of the substance and decide whether to use it.

Mr Ewing’s amendment 192 would reinsert a required role for a solicitor, which is the issue that the Law Society of Scotland first sought to have me address. I therefore cannot support amendment 192, although I understand and sympathise entirely with Mr Ewing, who finds himself in the same position that I found myself in when I was drafting my bill.

I move amendment 94.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Amendment 190 relates to section 12 and concerns the responsibilities and potential criminal liability of proxies who are involved in the assisted dying process. My amendment addresses a matter that goes to the integrity and safety of the system that would be established under the bill’s framework.

I wonder whether, in winding up, Liam McArthur will tell me what happens if someone falsely signs by proxy. From reading the bill, I see no punishment or anything that would happen if such a situation happened, so I would be interested to know his reflections on that at the end of the debate on this group.

The bill allows, in very specific circumstances, for a proxy to act on behalf of an individual who is making a decision. The measure is designed to assist a terminally ill adult who might be physically unable to sign or communicate, while ensuring that the decision reflects their true voluntary intent. However, as with any process that allows a person to act on behalf of another, there is a risk of abuse, coercion or falsification. A declaration that is made falsely or under pressure would completely undermine the safeguards that we all want in the bill, and the amendment seeks to put such safeguards in place. Such a declaration would strike at the very principle that assisted dying is a choice that is made freely and by the person themselves.

Amendment 190 would establish clear and enforceable criminal offences for any proxy who knowingly contravenes section 12(4). That is because, as I said a moment ago—again, I would be happy if Liam McArthur could clarify this point when summing up—there seems to be no punishment for someone who falsely signs by proxy. That includes signing a declaration in contravention of the law or making a false statement about their capacity, disqualification status or understanding of the person who is making the decision. We are not talking about technical or minor offences—they involve serious risk to life, so the amendment would put in place appropriate penalties to reflect that gravity.

Importantly, the amendment would also clarify that, even if the person who is seeking an assisted death does not proceed to the point of death, such a falsification will have placed the adult at serious risk and should be treated as such. That is crucial, because it would prevent a potential loophole whereby a proxy could force a declaration but avoid accountability simply because the process was interrupted by a third party.

The amendment is about more than just rules on paper; it is about protecting vulnerable individuals at the moment of profound vulnerability. It would ensure that proxies cannot act without accountability, that the integrity of the declaration process is preserved and that the safeguards that Parliament has sought to put in place can never be bypassed.

In a debate such as this, it is right that much attention has been paid to the role of doctors and to assessment and eligibility criteria, but the responsibility of proxies is just as crucial. A single forced declaration could fundamentally undermine the system, place a terminally ill adult at risk and erode public confidence in the legislation.

Amendment 191 would complement amendment 190 by ensuring that the professional integrity and conscience of solicitors and legal professionals is fully respected. Although the law should require oversight in such a delicate matter, no professional should ever be forced to act as a proxy against their conscience or professional judgment. Amendment 191 would remove any ambiguity about that from the bill by ensuring that legal professionals would not have to do that. I have seen what the Scottish Government says about risks around employment law, and Mr McArthur has picked that up as well, but I would be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary—in his speech on the group or in an intervention—whether this issue will be part of the negotiations with the UK Government.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am genuinely open minded on the issue and understand the point that has been made, but I wonder whether amendment 191 is strictly necessary, as there is nothing in any area of law that requires a solicitor to act on behalf of a person if they do not want to. I presume that, at any stage, a solicitor could refuse to do so, as they are not required to do so. Therefore, I am not entirely clear about the necessity of amendment 191.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

That is a fair point, but I am seeking to introduce a safeguard. Several decades ago, when I was a trainee solicitor, I would be passed a file and told to go and do something by a partner or another senior member. I do not want there to be a situation in which a junior member of a legal team is asked to do something by a senior member of the firm that would go against his or her conscience and feels that they have to do it because refusing might affect their legal career—I appreciate that that would happen only infrequently.

I understand that the issue relates to employment, so I seek clarification from the cabinet secretary that it will be part of the negotiations with the UK Government, if the issue cannot be addressed in the bill.

For the reasons that I have set out, I strongly urge members to support amendment 190, if not amendment 191, to ensure that there are absolute safeguards in place to protect everyone.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 192, in the name of Fergus Ewing, and other amendments in the group.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am pleased to present amendment 192 on behalf of Fergus Ewing. The amendment would introduce a simple but crucial safeguard by requiring that any declaration that is signed by a proxy must be witnessed and certified by a practising solicitor.

At first glance, that might seem like a minor procedural adjustment but, in reality, it addresses a glaring inconsistency in the bill. Across Scots law, the involvement of a solicitor is standard whenever sensitive or legally binding documents are executed on behalf of another person. Whether it is for powers of attorney, wills or contracts with serious consequences, a solicitor’s oversight ensures that the document is valid, that a person who is acting on someone else’s behalf fully understands their responsibilities and that there is a clear professional record of the transaction. Yet the bill proposes that, for one of the most sensitive and irreversible acts that a person can take, no such oversight is required. That is astonishing.

By mandating a practising solicitor to witness a proxy declaration, certify that all statutory requirements have been followed and record their professional credentials on the document, amendment 192 would bring clarity, transparency and accountability. It would reduce the risk of error, misunderstanding or even potential abuse and it would assure everyone involved—the individual making the declaration, the proxy and the medical practitioners—that the legal formalities have been properly observed.

That is not a bureaucratic obstacle; it is a safeguard consistent with the standards that we already apply in other areas of law. The solicitor’s role would not be to question the person’s wishes; it would be to ensure that the process is carried out correctly and lawfully. In matters of such gravity, that oversight is not optional; it is essential. Supporting the amendment is not about creating unnecessary hurdles; it is about protecting individuals and upholding the integrity of the system. It is about ensuring that, when a proxy acts on someone else’s behalf, a professional legal check is in place to prevent mistakes or disputes and to give confidence to all parties that the declaration is fully compliant with the law.

For those reasons, I urge members to support the amendment and ensure that the bill meets the same standards of care, diligence and legal oversight that are expected throughout Scots law.