Official Report 396KB pdf
Party Leaders
14:01
Drug Deaths
In the past month, we have had quite a lot of bad news from the Scottish Government. In education, our programme for international student assessment scores have plummeted. One in five children remain in poverty. On homelessness, rough sleeping is up 20 per cent, and asylum seeker applications are up 40 per cent. Meanwhile, empty promises have been made to workers at Ferguson Marine and Alexander Dennis.
Most distressing of all, last year, we lost 1,133 fellow Scots to cruel, needless drug deaths. Can the First Minister explain why so much time in the chamber is taken up with meaningless debates on independence, Europe, Gaza and net zero, instead of focusing on these daily tragedies in Scotland? Is it any wonder that 2 million Scots did not vote in the Holyrood election in May?
Those are all important issues. They are the subject of discussion and debate in the Parliament and in committees, and they are the issues on which I am questioned. The parliamentary programme of debate and discussion is agreed by all parties in the chamber. It is proposed by the Parliamentary Bureau and agreed to by members of the Parliament.
On that matter, we tried yesterday to replace one of next week’s meaningless debates on Europe with a more pressing debate on Scotland’s drug emergency—[Interruption.] That was in order to give the Parliament an opportunity to explore alternative solutions, such as access to rehabilitation, the right to recovery or harm-reduction methods, but no—the Government marches forward on a flawed strategy of rolling out consumption rooms in Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee.
The Thistle in Glasgow is funded with £7 million over three years, yet Glasgow’s drug deaths increased by 6 per cent in the year it was opened. A man died outside the Thistle last year, and we have all seen the horrific photos of the needle tree just outside it. In fact, the Thistle administered 7,827 needles last year, but it cannot state how many people it got clean. Why does the First Minister think that the answer to Scotland’s drug epidemic is more consumption rooms and decriminalisation?
The first point to make is that issues in relation to Europe are very important to people in Scotland. We are suffering direct economic harm because we left the European Union against our wishes—it was forced on us by people such as Malcolm Offord. That is the reality of Malcolm Offord’s stance.
The Government’s strategy on tackling drugs is informed by our extensive engagement with a whole range of partners and stakeholders around the country. It is factually incorrect for Malcolm Offord to say that it would be a change in strategy to provide access to rehabilitation. That is just complete rubbish—total and utter factual inaccuracy. This Government has increased rehabilitation capacity as part of the drug strategy, so Malcolm Offord, not for the first time, peddles disinformation in the Parliament.
Malcolm Offord challenges me directly about the Thistle consumption room. If we did not have the Thistle consumption room, more people would have died.
I will explore the steps necessary to tackle the drug deaths position in Scotland, and I am open to exploring ideas in that regard. We will engage constructively to enable that to happen.
That diversion on Europe takes us to a factual inaccuracy. The reality is that, even though our growth is low, it has been faster and better than the growth in Germany, France and Italy, so that does not get us anywhere.
Back in 2020, Nicola Sturgeon admitted that she had taken her eye off the ball on drugs and she replaced her minister. This year in the spring, both Maree Todd and John Swinney were warned by Police Scotland and Public Health Scotland that the use of synthetic opioids was rampant and that drug deaths were trending up again. In the summer, they both went to the world cup and, in the autumn, they announced that there had been record drug deaths. How many more deaths will it take for the minister to take any responsibility? Will the First Minister now explain to Parliament why Maree Todd deserves to keep her job?
I reiterate a point that I have made to Parliament before. I take absolute responsibility for all the issues that are handled by my Government and in my name, so I take complete responsibility for the issues that the member raises.
On the question about drug strategy, as I told Mr Marra in exchanges last week, I was warned in February about the upsurge in the devastating effect of synthetic opioids. As a consequence of that February briefing, I asked for there to be reconsideration of the Government’s approaches and interventions, and they were discussed at an all-stakeholder summit with our partners—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Police Scotland, the Scottish Drugs Forum and a variety of other organisations—to test and assess the approaches that we were taking. I will always and constantly be prepared to challenge interventions if that will save lives in Scotland. It is important that I push back on the misinformation from Malcolm Offord about rehabilitation, because we have actively increased rehabilitation capacity as part of our drug strategy.
On the question of the Minister for Mental Wellbeing, Public Health, Sport, Alcohol and Drugs Policy, Maree Todd is a totally committed and dedicated minister who is determined to confront the challenges that are faced in Scottish society. That will always be the case for ministers in my Government.
Health Service Reform
This morning, the chair of the British Medical Association Scotland made an intervention on the Government’s reform programme that should concern us all. She said that the Government’s plan is
“the wrong set of reforms, and it will set Scotland on a path of a costly, time consuming, resource-sapping reorganisation, with no serious engagement with those of us holding the service together and no clear evidence put forward on how it will benefit patients.”
The First Minister knows that Labour is a willing partner in the process of reforming public services to improve outcomes for our country, but I am really concerned about the start that the Government has made on the approach that it is taking. There appears to be no real process. What we have, so far, are rushed plans that raise far more questions than answers. Instead of empowering communities, the Government plans to centralise power even more, including through reforms to social care, where the Scottish National Party Government failed so catastrophically before. Will the First Minister reflect on how he does reform and tell us what lessons he has learned from the SNP’s failed National Care Service (Scotland) Bill?
I have seen this morning’s comments from the BMA, and this morning, I also engaged with clinicians in the Golden Jubilee hospital who fundamentally disagree with the points made by the BMA. There is an active debate about those questions, and there are going to be different opinions. We will engage and discuss those opinions. In Government time on Tuesday, there was a debate about public service reform, led by my ministers, to make sure that we engage Parliament on those questions, because engagement is fundamental.
When it comes to local government reform, the Government did not set out in tablets of stone an approach that has to be undertaken. We set out a rational argument to engage in a debate about what powers should be exercised at national, regional and community level in Scotland. We opened that discussion with our local authority partners, and they asked us to provide a more specific proposition, which we have done. That is now the subject of discussion. We have shared that with parliamentary committees as well.
The process that we are undertaking is exactly the one that I set out in the programme for government. There will be three months of engagement with our local authority partners on governance issues and on social care. Ministers will engage constructively in that process. I welcome the willingness of Mr Marra to participate in that discussion.
Although I appreciate the First Minister’s tone on the matter, there are widely held concerns and many questions to be answered. I also acknowledge that there are different opinions.
The reality is that the First Minister must build trust in the reform process. However, this morning, he has misrepresented the position of the United Kingdom Government on social care reform, and, as a result, he finds himself on the same side as the Tories and Reform. He knows that pensions will continue to increase every year. He knows that reforms will result in very significantly increased funding for Scotland. He knows that that money can be spent however the Scottish Government likes—whether that is on fixing our own social care crisis, education, or, if he wishes, creating new financial benefits for pensioners. All those reforms are huge issues for the country—and we have to change—but we need considered honesty in the debate. That is what people deserve and it is how we should proceed.
Therefore, let us get some clarity on the SNP’s plans for reform. Last week, the Deputy First Minister said that no powers would be devolved from the SNP Government to communities. Yesterday, she told Parliament that that was not the case. Which is it?
Let me try to use this opportunity to advance some of the issues. I go back to my first answer: the Government’s proposition—which we have set out and which I discussed with Mr Marra when we spoke after his election—is to establish the right balance of the powers that are exercised at national, regional and local levels. I take the view that our 32 local authorities are too fragmented and that we need a smaller number of regional authorities that can exercise more functions than are currently exercised at local authority level. That is not about centralisation; it is about devolving powers to a more local level—not the national level but down to regional level—so that they can be exercised in that way. However, that process comes with a significant increase in the powers and scope for action of individual communities, with a much larger range of community authorities, enabling communities to take much more control of their future. That is decentralisation in action, and that is what my Government proposes.
I am glad that the First Minister chose not to repeat in his answer the misrepresentation of the pensions policy that he has been making online in the past couple of days—that is a welcome development. However, there is no real clarity in the principles that he is setting out in relation to public service reform. Today, it is the doctors; at the start of the week, it was centralising education—taking it away from councils; last week, it was health boards, councils, schools, social care and social work. It appears that every thread that the First Minister grabs at leads to another unravelling, and the Deputy First Minister has been unable to answer straight questions about how many jobs the reforms will cost.
Trade unions are looking on aghast at the idea of moving from 32 employers to 160. Can the First Minister tell us how on earth that will work, how long it will take to negotiate, who people will pay their council tax to, whether there will be additional taxes, and, if so, at what rate and what will people get in return? I do not believe that those are mere details—the First Minister needs to produce a prospectus that people can engage with. On the current path, this is a gathering mess. Can the First Minister actually answer any of those questions?
I am trying to be as helpful as I possibly can be here, and I am trying to take the approach that will create as much agreement as possible. If I had come to Parliament and set out a definitive proposition, Mr Marra would have accused me of not engaging in dialogue and of disrespecting local authorities. Therefore, I set out an aspiration in our programme for government and committed to a detailed dialogue. In the detailed dialogue with local authority leaders, they asked for a specific proposition. I have now given them that specific proposition, and my ministers are actively engaging with local authority leaders and other partners on those points. The invitation is there for Mr Marra—he can decide whether or not he is actually going to engage in the process.
There is a parallel with the budget process because Mr Marra has a history of absenting himself when decisions are taken that could be influential in improving outcomes for people in Scotland—as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have recognised in the parliamentary process. The question is, will Mr Marra engage in the process or will he not?
Lastly, in case Mr Marra missed what I said this morning, the consequence of the changes that the Prime Minister announced on Tuesday will be that pensioners in Scotland will lose out on £2,000 a year; they will get no enhancement in the provisions that the Prime Minister proposed, because all that money will be used to pay for social care in England. The Scottish Government will act, as we always have done, to protect social care in Scotland, and we need better engagement from the Labour Party about how to take that forward. That is the direction that we will pursue in the Scottish Parliament.
Bus Fare Cap
Diesel prices hit an all-time high in the United Kingdom on Monday, and petrol prices will not be far behind. The cost of living crisis is crushing people across this country. That is why the Scottish Greens have fought so hard to make bus and train travel cheaper and why we secured free bus travel for young people and scrapped peak rail fares. I worked with the First Minister on both those efforts, which have saved families thousands of pounds.
The Greens pushed for and secured the £2 bus fare cap across the Highlands and Islands, which has now been extended to the west of Scotland. However, the Government has said that it could take up to five years for the cap to reach the rest of Scotland. That surely cannot be right, because people need help right now. Will the First Minister extend the cap to the rest of Scotland by the end of this year and help more people save money on their commute?
The Government wants to extend the £2 bus fare cap to all other areas of Scotland as quickly as we possibly can, and we will take the necessary steps to address that aspiration as part of the normal budgeting processes of the Scottish Parliament.
I appreciate the First Minister’s ambition, but no timescale has been laid out. The only timescale is in the programme for government that he published last month, which indicated that the process could take until the end of this parliamentary session, in 2031. By comparison, bus fares in England have been capped for almost four years. Although Keir Starmer increased that cap to £3, that increase is being reversed and the cap will go back to being a £2 cap from this coming January.
Commuters in Scotland are struggling with their costs just as much as commuters in England are. That is why the Greens secured free bus travel for young people and started the £2 fare cap. However, on top of surging energy and food prices, bus passengers across most of Scotland are still paying a small fortune for their commute. Workers who commute between Dunfermline and Glasgow pay £64 a week right now. That would go down to £20 with a £2 cap on single tickets. Is the First Minister really saying that it is impossible to bring in the £2 bus fare cap across all of Scotland by January, in line with England?
I am simply saying to Mr Greer that the Government is keen to make progress on delivering the £2 bus fare cap as quickly as possible. He makes a comparison with England, but England does not have the abolition of peak rail fares or a universal under-22s bus offering.
We must take these decisions in an orderly fashion as quickly as we possibly can, and I am signalling my willingness to do that. As we said we would do, very quickly after the election we delivered on our promise to roll out the £2 bus fare cap to the west of Scotland. I hope that Mr Greer can look at the progress that the Government has made and take confidence in the fact that the Government is determined to deliver the fare cap, in addition to the many other areas in which we support people with the cost of living. Other things happen in Scotland that support people with that, such as free prescriptions—people pay about £10 for prescriptions in England, but nobody pays for them in Scotland—and free personal care for the elderly, as I set out to Mr Marra. A lot is already happening under the Scottish social contract delivered by the Scottish National Party, and that is good news for the people of Scotland.
It would be good news for the people of Scotland if the First Minister could confirm that everyone in Scotland will be able to travel on the bus for £2 from the start of next year. I do not think that that is too much to ask for. I agree with the First Minister that we have made significant progress already on making public transport cheaper—I was proud to work with him on the Green proposals for free bus travel for young people and the scrapping of peak rail fares—but everyone in Scotland deserves to benefit from that.
Cheaper bus fares, though, make it more urgent that we bring our bus services back under public ownership. The 40-year experiment of privatisation that was started by Thatcher has clearly been a disaster. Private bus companies have put their own profits ahead of the needs of our communities, and some communities have no local bus service at all. We cannot let the good work that we have done to make buses cheaper for passengers result in more money landing in the pockets of self-proclaimed billionaires such as the Easdale brothers. McGill’s, which is owned by the Easdales, reported yesterday that it made almost £5 million in post-tax profits last year.
The Scottish Government has announced a better buses bill, but the transport secretary could not tell MSPs what it will do or when it will be published. Can the First Minister confirm whether that bill will make it easier and quicker for councils to bring bus services back under public control?
The Government will set out the detail of the better buses legislation at the appropriate time, but Mr Greer raises legitimate issues about the control of buses and the flow of revenue into the support for bus services. Some of the concessionary travel support that we have put in place goes into publicly owned bus services such as Lothian Buses, and other support goes into services that are owned by private companies. All those issues will be considered as part of the Government’s work to make sure that there are credible and effective bus services in every part of the country, and that will be at the heart of the Government’s legislation.
Tax and Benefits
Keir Starmer cut the winter fuel payment for Scottish pensioners, and now Andy Burnham wants to cut their pensions. John Swinney agrees with me that that is wrong, but our party knows where savings can and should be made, and that is in state benefits, which are out of control across the United Kingdom, but especially here in Scotland. Hard-working Scots face massive tax rises to fill a multibillion-pound black hole in the Scottish National Party’s finances. Will John Swinney cut benefits or will he raise taxes?
The Government will, of course, set out its position on tax and benefits in the budget process, and we will engage with political parties across the Parliament on those issues as part of the normal budget process.
It is really important that we have a social security system that is based on the values of dignity, fairness and respect—that is really important for people who face vulnerabilities in our society. Of course, it never takes Russell Findlay very long to start getting stuck into vulnerable people in our society in the political attacks that he makes.
Russell Findlay raises the issue of the triple lock and pensions. Let me be the first to point out in Parliament today that the changes that the Labour Government in Westminster has proposed follow on from solemn commitments that were given to the people of Scotland in 2014 that their pensions were safe with the United Kingdom. Now, in 2026, we know that pensions are under attack from a Westminster Labour Government. That demonstrates that what the people of Scotland were told in 2014 was a lot of absolute rubbish. We have been taken out of the European Union and we are now going to lose our pensions. Scotland needs to have independence. [Interruption.]
Well, that woke everyone up.
It certainly woke the First Minister up.
If John Swinney will not cut benefits, he will have to raise taxes. It really is that simple.
For the second time today, I find myself agreeing with an SNP politician. John Swinney’s social justice secretary recently said that addressing poverty is
“best done not through increases to social security spending”—[Official Report, Social Justice, Housing and Local Government Committee, 16 September 2026; c 11.]
but through skills and employment. John Swinney talks about a system of dignity, fairness and respect, but the SNP Government’s light-touch approach traps people on benefits.
A whistleblower who spent two decades advising people on benefits has told me about rampant abuse within the system. She was ordered to act for those who admitted that their claims were a lie, and she saw colleagues coaching applicants to cheat the system. We have taxpayers funding advice on how to steal money from taxpayers. Why does John Swinney think that his light-touch approach is acceptable in any way?
Russell Findlay reads out some comments. I do not know their source or substance, but he sets them out here today. He misrepresents the Government’s child poverty delivery plan. The plan that my Government has put to the Parliament recognises the importance of supporting family income through social security where it is required to do so. It also significantly invests in employability and skills schemes to enable families to access employment. It invests in a strong childcare offering to help families to be able to get into employment. It supports families with some of their housing and transportation costs to help them into employment.
The Government will take a balanced approach to the eradication of child poverty that is about stimulating economic opportunities and providing support to families in this country. That will be the mainstay of the Government’s approach to eradicating child poverty.
The Promise
In 2020, the Government made a promise to Scotland’s care-experienced children and young people that they would grow up loved, safe and respected, because, without love, what hope does a child have? However, this week, the Oversight Board told us:
“Too much of the promise remains on paper”
and not in people’s lives. It found that resources do not match the needs of children, that nobody can say who is responsible for what and by when, and that the window to deliver the Promise is closing fast. The board was clear that the evidence does not yet give it confidence that the Promise to Scotland’s care-experienced children will be kept by 2030. Does the First Minister agree?
I certainly agree on the point that the Promise must be kept by 2030—I agree on that. There is work that has to be undertaken, and that must be addressed in the years to come. However, significant progress has been made by the Government and other public authorities. We are dependent on the input of other public authorities to achieve the fulfilment of the Promise. We have taken a number of steps in relation to legislative change, service arrangements and the development of whole family support, which are all measures that are designed to support the delivery of the Promise. As Mr Cole-Hamilton knows, they will be at the heart of the Government’s programme in the coming parliamentary session.
No one who has care experience should ever be left alone to come to terms with their childhood. These are the children of the state and, as First Minister, they are his children. In the past 10 days, two more care-experienced people have died before their time, but the First Minister will have had no means of knowing that, because we do not know how many of them have been failed by the system, ended up in prison or on the streets, or died early. We have asked the Government three times if it will track and publish that information, because what parent does not even know if their children are alive?
That is the whole focus and purpose of whole family support, which is the absolute cornerstone of the programme for government that we have set out to the Parliament. It recognises the importance of providing support to individuals at all times, on their terms, to enable them to navigate their way through life when they face challenges.
I acknowledge that care-experienced young people start off with very significant challenges in their lives, which is what our service provision is designed to help with. Our whole public service reform agenda of moving to person-centred solutions is entirely directed to support the needs of care-experienced young people, to enable them to achieve better outcomes. I deeply regret the premature loss of any life in our society; that applies to care-experienced young people as much as it applies to anybody else. The measures that the Government is taking are designed to support those young people as effectively as we possibly can and to provide them with the assistance that they require. That will be at the heart of the Government’s programme.