Contents
- General Question Time
- First Minister’s Question Time
- Young Carers Action Day 2024
- Portfolio Question Time
- Addressing Child Poverty Through Parental Employment
- Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill
- Decision Time
General Question Time
Good morning. Our first item of business is general question time. In order to get in as many members as possible, I would appreciate short and succinct questions and responses.
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government, other than the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, what mechanisms exist to support the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to improve its practices, processes and decision making. (S6O-03206)
There is a strong culture of review and improvement within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner investigates police incidents and does not have a role in relation to the work of COPFS. The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman may consider how complaints have been handled but cannot review prosecutorial decisions. HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland provides an essential function in scrutinising practice and identifying potential for improvement through independent evidence-based inspection.
COPFS has a dedicated team that investigates complaints and enables victims to exercise their statutory right of review of certain prosecutorial decisions.
In 2016, my constituent’s daughter, Ms Webster, was charged with an offence by Police Scotland. It took six months for the prosecutor to identify that Ms Webster has informed the police, at the time of the charge, that exculpatory evidence was available. In the further investigation that followed, neither she nor her lawyer was contacted—indeed, I was told by the Lord Advocate that that would have been inappropriate. Two years after that, the case was dropped, within days of the exculpatory evidence being passed to the Crown Office.
Can the Solicitor General not see that an independent review of that case could help to identify errors and improve practices, processes and decision making? Given that the Lord Advocate has, so far, declined that, is there any other mechanism by which such a review could be secured?
I am aware of the case to which Bob Doris has referred. Although it would be inappropriate to discuss details in the Parliament today, that case has been the subject of extensive review and consideration by the law officers.
COPFS keeps all decisions under review. Ultimately, in this case, when the exculpatory material was received, the original decision to proceed was reviewed. Following that, a decision was made to end the prosecution.
The Lord Advocate has already made an offer to meet Mr Doris and his constituent, and I gladly renew that offer today.
In a letter to me about the Horizon scandal, the Lord Advocate said that
“prosecutors could not and would not have raised proceedings on the basis of the Horizon evidence alone”,
and I am aware that the Crown Office used an independent report that was prepared by the forensic accountancy firm Second Sight Investigations, which was presented to it by the Post Office as corroboration. The director of Second Sight has said that its interim report “revealed system flaws” and problems with the prosecution process. I am therefore keen to understand why the Crown Office was content to use the report as corroboration. If the Solicitor General is not able to say today why the Crown Office still proceeded to use that report as corroboration, will she at least commit to writing to me on that point?
In a statement to the Parliament in January, the Lord Advocate explained the position of COPFS as to its awareness of flaws in the Horizon system and its approach to prosecutions that were consequent on that.
On our openness to the scrutiny of all decisions, practices and processes, matters are progressing with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and the appeal court. A public inquiry is also under way. The Crown has publicly committed to supporting all those processes. I will gladly write to Pauline McNeill to take up in greater detail the points that she has raised.
North Lanarkshire Council School Estate
To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with North Lanarkshire Council to improve the school estate. (S6O-03207)
In Scotland, the school estate is owned and managed by local authorities. However, we have supported North Lanarkshire Council, through the previous Scotland’s schools for the future programme, by awarding it significant funding of £55 million towards three new schools. We will further support North Lanarkshire Council’s Chryston high school extension through phase 3 of the £2 billion learning estate investment programme.
The £2 billion learning estate investment programme is a joint programme with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and follows on from the successful £1.8 billion investment in Scotland’s schools for the future programme, which delivered 117 new or refurbished learning facilities across Scotland from 2009 to 2021.
The Scottish Government has cut capital funding for projects such as schools in North Lanarkshire by 31 per cent this year—which is far higher than the cut that was received by the Government.
The last new school project to receive money from the Scottish Government was back in 2014. Over the three phases of the funding programme that the cabinet secretary talked about, North Lanarkshire received funding for only one existing secondary extension, despite presenting a number of excellent bids for much-needed new schools.
When can pupils in North Lanarkshire expect to receive Government funding for new-build schools that are fit for modern education?
As I alluded to in my initial response, North Lanarkshire Council has been awarded significant funding through the schools for the future programme and the learning estate investment programme. That has been a result of the direct request from North Lanarkshire Council to prioritise that school in North Lanarkshire.
However, the capital challenges that the Government faces at the current time are well known to Mark Griffin. He alluded to the cut that is coming from the UK Government, which is undoubtedly impacting on the funding from this Government. We are protecting local government funding within that context. I look forward to continuing to work with the Scottish Futures Trust on improving the remainder of Scotland’s school estate.
It is worth my while to point out that, since 2007, the quality of Scotland’s school estate has improved from around 60 per cent of Scotland’s schools being in good or satisfactory condition to more than 90 per cent, thanks to investment from this Scottish National Party Government.
The SNP’s record of investment in our school estate speaks for itself, but how much is Labour’s legacy from the private finance initiative costing in North Lanarkshire?
North Lanarkshire Council’s PFI schools contract was signed back in 2005. The associated estimated payments total about £764 million, with £430 million of that still to be paid out. That means that, 17 years after it was last in Government in Scotland, Labour’s PFI legacy is still holding Scotland back, as we have less money to spend on front-line services for Scotland’s children. That is a shameful record, and Labour members in the chamber should be embarrassed.
Parents of additional support needs pupils protested outside North Lanarkshire Council last year. They said that teachers and pupils are being failed by an education system that does not recognise the specialised skills that are needed for children with additional support needs. Many school-age children end up, due to the lack of ASN schools available, being placed in mainstream education schools, despite meeting the criteria for an ASN school.
What is the cabinet secretary’s response to the many families in North Lanarkshire who are being failed by the education system due to the lack of specialised schools and facilities for ASN pupils?
It is worth my while to put on the record that we are seeing record levels of investment in additional support needs pupils through pupil support assistance, which is because of ring-fenced funding coming directly from the Scottish Government. The Government also ring fences £15 million-worth of funding to protect ASN support in our schools.
However, as I alluded to in response to the original question, the school estate in general is the responsibility of local authorities. We work with local authorities where we are able to do so, including to prioritise the needs of additional support needs pupils.
It is worth my while to say that some of the funding that we announced at the end of last year is going towards improving the school estate for additional support needs pupils.
Question 3 was not lodged.
Rail Development Projects
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for any major rail development projects beyond the end of 2024. (S6O-03209)
Scottish ministers remain firmly committed to infrastructure investment as a key factor in securing economic growth and high-quality public infrastructure across Scotland. That has been made much harder due to cuts in our capital budget imposed by the United Kingdom Government.
The Scottish Government’s investment in Network Rail’s operations, maintenance and renewals for Scotland’s railway will increase by £0.45 billion, from £3.75 billion in the 2019 to 2024 period to £4.2 billion throughout 2024 to 2029.
We continue to progress a pipeline of enhancement projects. Sue Webber may particularly note the planned electrification of the line from Glasgow to East Kilbride, which is targeted to be delivered by December 2025.
I thank the cabinet secretary for outlining the developments that are in the pipeline. However, she will be aware that residents of Winchburgh are weary of the Scottish National Party-Green Government’s continued shirking of responsibility for building a train station in their town. On 8 March, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, wrote to me, outlining his understanding that West Lothian Council is responsible for organising and issuing invitations to the multistakeholder meeting. West Lothian Council first wrote to the Scottish Government in June 2023, but only yesterday received a response committing to a date for the meeting. Given that the Winchburgh train station project is not developer led, the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland must take charge and lead on it. Now that the minister has agreed to the meeting, can the cabinet secretary assure members that building the station will be a priority for the Government?
As the member well knows, I am the constituency MSP for Winchburgh. In that constituency capacity, I have long campaigned for a station that was always to be developer led. To avoid a conflict of interest, I am recused from having any involvement in Government interests on the matter, but I can—and will—still act on such issues as the constituency MSP. As such, I will ask the lead minister to write to the member to address her concerns, as is appropriate. I am glad to hear that the member has received a reply about the meeting and about that progress.
Does the cabinet secretary believe that the London to Birmingham high speed 2 rail project, which is now expected to cost an eye-watering £583 million per mile, benefits Scotland in any way whatsoever? If so, how?
Since 2009, the Scottish Government has reconnected 16 communities to the rail network, with new stations and two more stations planned to open this year. However, the eye-watering curtailed HS2 project will have limited, if any, benefit to Scotland. The collapse in capital spend elsewhere by the Westminster Government harms the economy and harms Scotland.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that East Lothian is one of the fastest-growing areas in Scotland and that Haddington is one of the fastest-growing towns locally. The Rail Action Group, East of Scotland—RAGES—is campaigning for the reopening of Haddington’s branch line. Will she agree to look carefully at the campaign and its calls, and seek to get Haddington back on track and back on to our rail network?
I am aware of the campaign in Haddington. I know that both Mr Hoy and the constituency MSP, Paul McLennan, have pursued the issue. It is important to address the interests of communities. As we are all aware, it can take some time to develop such plans, but I will ask my officials, along with colleagues at Network Rail and ScotRail, to be aware of the Haddington developments.
On 2 November 2023, the cabinet secretary told me that we would get a response to the proposal for a train station at Newburgh, made in line with the Scottish transport appraisal guidance
“in the next few weeks.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2023; c 51.]
It is now months later. When will the people in Newburgh hear whether they have been successful?
On 16 January, my officials at Transport Scotland met the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership—SEStran—along with representatives of its consultants and the Newburgh train station group to discuss the detailed options appraisal report for Newburgh. The appraisal is considering a range of multimodal transport options, including a station at Newburgh. The appraisal group has requested from SEStran further information that underpins the detail presented in the report. Once that additional information that has been requested from the promoter of the appraisal has been received and considered, Transport Scotland officials will provide feedback on the appraisal report.
Further Education (Green Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that Scotland’s further education sector is aligned with the needs of businesses within the renewables sector and other industries associated with the green economy. (S6O-03210)
Our education and skills system is already adapting to the transition to net zero, and institutions such as colleges are key anchors. With funding from the Scottish Funding Council, the Energy Skills Partnership acts as the college sector lead for the transition to net zero and directly supports institutions in developing their capability, capacity and curriculum pathways for the transition. The ESP also engages with employers on behalf of the sector, establishing partnerships across the further education sector and industry to enable the green economy.
For apprenticeship week last week I visited a firm of electrical engineers in Kilmarnock, Aird Walker & Ralston. Its representatives said that sluggish growth or a lack of growth is a problem, because the company struggles to recruit the appropriate apprentices. They say that the biggest problem is that school pupils are unaware of potential careers through apprenticeships in areas such as electrical engineering. Colleges have the capacity to deliver the engineers that we need for the green economy, but there seems to be a missing link between schools, businesses and colleges. What can the Scottish Government do to ensure that career guidance includes the opportunities that apprenticeships can bring in the growing green economy?
Brian Whittle raises a relevant point. The promotion of green skills in relation to career options for young people is incredibly important. I was at North East Scotland College in Aberdeen on Monday, where we were discussing just that issue: ensuring that young people are encouraged to consider careers in energy and other such sectors as long-term career opportunities. The careers service absolutely has a role to play in that, but alongside and working in conjunction with employers, who can perhaps offer work experience opportunities, as well as working with colleges to shape their curriculums.
I am happy to engage further with Brian Whittle on the matter.
Question 6 has been withdrawn.
Train Station Accessibility (Dumfries and Galloway)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the accessibility for disabled people of train stations in Dumfries and Galloway. (S6O-03212)
Dumfries station is currently being upgraded with a new footbridge and lifts to make access to the platforms easier. Although the accessibility of stations is a matter that is reserved to the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government is fully supportive of and engaged with the project.
My officials are independently progressing recommendation 19 of strategic transport projects review 2, on reviewing station accessibility across Scotland, including in Dumfries and Galloway. The review is expected to complete in spring 2024 and, although it is too early to comment on any outcome to the review, recommendation 19 reinforces the Scottish Government’s commitment to improve access for all to Scotland’s rail network.
Even after the work at Dumfries station, almost half the stations in the region will still not be fully accessible. In particular, Kirkconnel station has no disabled access whatever to the southbound platform, which means that one of my constituents, who is in a wheelchair, had to stay on the train from Glasgow to Sanquhar, change there and take a northbound train back from Sanquhar to Kirkconnel, because they could not initially get off the train at Kirkconnel. There have been feasibility studies on what is needed to end that discrimination against disabled people, but my constituent wants to know when there will be action to make Kirkconnel station fully accessible.
As I set out in my original answer, the matter is reserved to the UK Government, and the Department for Transport is undertaking the detailed accessibility audit. I appreciate the member’s frustration, and he has set out the concerns of his constituent very well. I will do what I can within my powers to ensure that, once the audit has been completed, identification of the work and the priorities is progressed.
Music Education (Online Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the creation of a national online support platform to expand music learning for children and young people in Scotland. (S6O-03213)
The Government has transformed instrumental music tuition in Scotland’s schools by funding councils to eradicate unfair music tuition charges. This financial year, we are providing £12 million to continue that commitment. The most recent instrumental music survey, which was published in December last year, shows that the number of pupils participating in instrumental music tuition is at a record high since the survey began 11 years ago.
Since 2007, we have invested more than £150 million in the youth music initiative, helping young people across Scotland to access music and develop their wider skills and learning. Schools across Scotland already have access to the national e-learning offer—NeLO—which is supported by £1.5 million of investment from the Scottish Government. It includes a range of online learning materials, recorded lessons and live lessons on music.
Music and the arts should be for everyone, and it is clear that we need to do far more to create opportunities for working-class children. In Wales, the National Music Service, working with Charanga, has developed a national bespoke online support platform, not to replace existing instrumental tuition but to help non-music-specialist teachers to expand music learning in schools. For a relatively small cost, we could make that transformative change here in Scotland, too. Would the minister agree to meet me to discuss and explore that proposal?
I am happy to meet the member to listen to any contributions that he may have in this space. However, as Education Scotland has already advised, what is being proposed by Welsh Labour is very similar, as I understand it, to the offer that we currently have nationally through the online NeLO platform and the resources on Glow, which is available in all local authority areas in Scotland. I am more than happy to meet the member to discuss the matter.
It is, of course, worth putting on the record that it was the Scottish National Party Government that removed fees for instrumental music tuition to make it free to all pupils. I remind Neil Bibby that the reason why we had to do so was that some councils, including Labour-run councils, decided to introduce charges, which saw parents being billed up to £300 per year.