Official Report 827KB pdf
Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Moray FLOW-Park Project (Community Engagement)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is engaging with communities based near the Moray Firth regarding the proposed Moray FLOW-Park project. (S6O-05243)
The Scottish Government manages our seas in line with the national marine plan and promotes sustainable development that accounts for existing sea users and protection of our marine environment.
I am aware of the strong public concerns about the proposed Moray FLOW-Park, and I recognise the importance of engagement with local communities and the fishing industry. As we have previously explained, the project remains at an early stage, with exploratory activities being undertaken by the developer. I understand that that involves the developer engaging with the local community and other interested stakeholders.
Although no marine licence applications have been submitted by the developer or any other party, any future application would be subject to the relevant rigorous regulatory processes, which include pre-application consultation and formal public consultation. That will ensure that, should an application be submitted, local communities and stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide their views, which will be taken into consideration as part of the application process.
Local people are furious about the proposed project and its proposed location, and freedom of information documents that have come out recently make it clear why that is the case. They show that the Scottish Government was behind the proposal from the start, with Scottish Enterprise bankrolling Offshore Solutions Group with a £1.83 million grant. More than £800,000 of that has already been spent, despite the fact that no consent has been given, no environmental assessments or procurement processes have been undertaken, and there has been no meaningful community engagement.
Scottish Enterprise even said that the project had to be pushed forward at pace, because any delay in delivery would be a critical risk to the Scottish National Party’s renewables plans. Imagine how that sounds to local residents and fishermen, who were never asked about the project.
Given the seriousness of the issue, I will request a ministerial statement later today. Can the cabinet secretary explain to my constituents why their livelihoods and public money were put at risk before communities were even consulted?
I make it clear that, when Scottish Enterprise gives funding or advice to any developers, that has absolutely no implications for the planning process. Scottish Enterprise does not need planning permission to be in place before it can engage with developers or, indeed, any companies; it makes its own decisions about when to give funding and for what reasons, and it does that in relation to a range of developments.
I suggest that, if a marine licence application is submitted, that will be the point at which local communities and stakeholders will have an opportunity to air their views. Regardless of specific examples, any developers that want to submit an application should engage with the community thoroughly before doing so.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Assessments (Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is tackling the increase in demand for ADHD assessments in Glasgow. (S6O-05244)
The Scottish Government recognises that demand for ADHD assessment and support has increased significantly in recent years. We also understand that a diagnosis can be helpful for people who are seeking support with ADHD. However, that should not be a substitute for providing support to people based on their specific needs.
We are working closely with national health service health boards and local authorities to improve services and support for neurodivergent people. Although the responsibility for ensuring that funding is used to provide the highest quality of care and support sits with NHS boards and health and social care partnerships, the Government is playing an active role in supporting that work nationally. For example, we fund the national autism implementation team to support health boards and HSCPs to redesign neurodevelopmental services and develop stepped-care pathways for ADHD and autism.
A 23-year-old constituent of mine was on the ADHD waiting list in January 2023, and was told that she would have a wait of around 18 months. Since then, there has not been much contact with her. Last week, she called to find out when she would be seen, and she was told that she would certainly not be seen before 2027. We are talking about a period of at least three years of her life.
Will the minister help me understand why the waiting time has expanded so much? He can correct me on this, but I think that patients are taken in order—no priority is given and there is no triaging—so I am wondering why it has expanded so much. Is the minister concerned that my constituent is not getting a straight answer and can he assure me that there will at least be transparency so that NHS patients can understand when they will be seen?
Long waits are not acceptable, and if Pauline McNeill wants to write to me with the details of her constituent, I will be more than happy to look into the matter, come back to her in writing and follow up with a meeting, if that would be useful.
More generally, we are seeing significant demand for neurodevelopmental assessment support. The issue is, of course, not unique to Scotland. Members might be aware of the announcements that have been made south of the border that reflect the significant pressures being experienced in England, and the picture is similar in Wales.
The Government is doing a lot of work at the moment. Parliament has also been engaged, with the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee undertaking an inquiry, and I look forward to reading the report that it will produce. Invitations to a cross-party summit have also been sent out to respective party spokespersons, and I look forward to that summit taking place.
The issue is complex and challenging. It has been characterised as a wicked problem, and we will have to work constructively to identify long-term solutions, but it has to be based on need. I must stress how important it is that a diagnosis should not be required to access support, and I am committed to working constructively with our partners to make sure that that is a reality.
Again, if Pauline McNeill writes to me with the details of the specific case, I will be happy to get back to her.
Metro Mayor (Greater Glasgow Region)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Centre for Cities’ recent report, which recommended having a directly elected metro mayor for the greater Glasgow region. (S6O-05245)
Growing the economy is a top Government priority and we agree with the Centre for Cities that further empowering regions is key to delivering that. As the First Minister announced last week, we will introduce legislation in the next parliamentary session to enable regional partnerships to establish legal status and unlock new powers. Our approach will be dynamic and we will work with regions to design structures that suit them.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Indeed, new research from the University of Glasgow centre for public policy recommends moving away from the assumption that appointing mayors is the best approach.
At last Friday’s state of the city economy conference in Glasgow, the First Minister promised that the Government would introduce enabling legislation in the next parliamentary session to allow regional partnerships to seek legal status, unlock new powers and design delivery models tailored to local priorities. With further details yet to be provided, that seems to be one of the biggest changes to government in Scotland since the creation of the Parliament, finally filling the strategic gap that has been present in Scotland since the abolition of the regional councils in 1996.
Does the Scottish Government plan to facilitate a greater level of democratic mandate for this new city-region tier of governance, or are we going to end up with a feeble version of England’s combined authority system, with some executive powers but none of the democratic accountability?
I welcome Paul Sweeney’s recognition of the steps that the First Minister has laid out. In my first answer, I said that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and there does need to be a more dynamic approach. It is interesting to see what lessons we can learn from some of the greater authorities—Manchester is often referred to in that respect—but it is quite clear that their approach to development and planning is dynamic. That is the approach that we want to adopt, too, instead of being drawn to taking a single democratic or constitutional approach to those areas.
We will therefore lay out more steps, but the approach needs to be flexible; after all, the approach taken in Glasgow might not be the same as that taken in, say, Aberdeen. We are keen to see that dynamic approach adopted.
My question is in a similar vein to Paul Sweeney’s. In implementing the Scottish Government’s legislative plans, might the Deputy First Minister consider enabling the city region to look at the establishment of a directly elected council or assembly to ensure better democratic oversight and governance for the region?
We will work with regional partnerships to establish governance structures that work for them. I know that this is outside Jamie Hepburn’s area, but I would point out as an illustration that some regional partnerships are already aligned with a single local authority, which makes it easier to match the governance structure with the regional partnership. That might look different in areas such as Glasgow, and, as I said in my original answer, it does not necessarily mean appointing mayors.
The views of local government will inform any future changes to local government structure or governance arrangements, in line with our commitment to respecting the democratic mandate of local government as part of the Verity house agreement.
United Kingdom Government Budget
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the UK Government budget announced on 26 November. (S6O-05246)
The UK budget process has been chaotic and failed to deliver for Scotland. We needed the UK Government to prioritise investment in public services, support for jobs and industry in Scotland and serious action on energy bills. Instead, Scotland was again treated as an afterthought, with families left to pay the price.
Abolition of the two-child limit is, of course, welcome, but it is long overdue. This Government has already taken forward plans to mitigate it in Scotland.
We are looking carefully at what the UK budget means for Scotland and our budget, which will be published on 13 January.
Given the warning from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the budget—the Labour budget—bakes in austerity for the years ahead, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the pressure that that will place on Scotland’s public services, especially when the so-called funding uplift does not cover even half of the cost of the national insurance rise that was forced on employers this year?
A real-terms increase of only 0.8 per cent was granted
“because Anas Sarwar asked us to”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 26 November 2025; Vol 776, c 388.]
Does the cabinet secretary agree that that demonstrates not influence but ineffectiveness and a complete lack of ambition on the part of Anas Sarwar, that he asked for far too little and that Scotland has once again been treated, as the cabinet secretary said, as an afterthought by the UK Government?
Please answer on devolved responsibilities, cabinet secretary.
I absolutely agree with Keith Brown. The UK Government has made much of the very limited additional funding that has been provided, but that stretches across five years and, as Keith Brown pointed out, it is less than half the shortfall in funding as a result of the increased cost of employer national insurance contributions that is being faced by our public services, which is estimated to be about £2 billion across the five-year period.
I called for significant investment in public services and infrastructure, but the UK budget failed to deliver the scale of funding that we need. That means that we continue to face a very challenging outlook as we head into the Scottish budget.
Visitor Levy (Impact on Hospitality and Tourism Businesses)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent assessment it has made of the impact of the visitor levy on businesses operating in the hospitality and tourism sectors. (S6O-05247)
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of supporting Scotland’s visitor economy while enabling councils to invest in local services. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 requires local consultation with businesses before any scheme is introduced.
Responding to feedback from industry and others, earlier this week, we lodged a Government-initiated question signalling our intention to introduce a bill early in the new year to provide additional flexibility, such as allowing flat-rate models as an alternative to the current percentage-based approach. If passed, the bill will further enable councils to design fair and practical schemes that protect the competitiveness of our hospitality and tourism sectors and generate revenue to support local tourism economies.
I welcome the dramatic U-turn from the Scottish Government to allow councils extra flexibility in future, following sustained pressure from the Scottish Conservatives and the tourism industry. In the meantime, however, councils are continuing to progress plans for a visitor levy. In Perth and Kinross, in the region that I represent, a public consultation disclosed 68 per cent opposition to a visitor levy, with just 29 per cent in favour. Given that overwhelming rejection of the notion of a visitor levy in Perth and Kinross, will the minister join me in calling on Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrat councillors on Perth and Kinross Council to ditch those plans and join Conservative councillors in calling for them to be put in the bin, where they deserve to be?
Please answer on matters of devolved responsibility, minister.
I salute Murdo Fraser for being a trier, if nothing else.
The Government listens to and engages with the industry on an on-going, regular and thorough basis. As a responsible Government, we listen to concerns and make changes to legislation when that is in the best interests of all concerned, including those in business and local government.
It is up to local authorities, as it should be, to take forward proposals that they believe best suit their local economies and local tourism sector, following engagement with businesses and other interested parties. It is not the Government’s role to tell local authorities how best to run that process. We are making a range of options available to them, and they can decide on the best way to proceed based on local circumstances.
Corran Narrows Crossing
To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Transport last met with local communities over the future of the Corran Narrows crossing. (S6O-05248)
I last met local stakeholders and community members in August 2023 at Ardgour hall, in Ardgour, along with the local MSP, Kate Forbes, to discuss Corran ferry matters, including on-going issues and impacts at the time.
The Corran ferry is the responsibility of Highland Council, which runs the service. At the council’s request, the Scottish Government agreed to include funding for the ferry replacement vessel in a revision to the Inverness and Highlands city region deal. Transport Scotland and Scottish Government officials continue to engage regularly with Highland Council and other partners on the investments in vessel and port infrastructure.
The Scottish Government cannot just wash its hands of the issue. The ferry route is one of the busiest in Scotland, and local communities are losing faith in the Scottish Government and Highland Council, which is led by the Scottish National Party. The MV Corran has experienced serious reliability issues, and its back-up vessel, the MV Maid of Glencoul, is so old that she has just been added to the register of historic vessels.
I was in Fort William last week, and local people were clear that the impact on their communities is significant. They do not care whether the vessel is electric; they just want a reliable new vessel as soon as possible—even if it is a replacement diesel ferry—and a fixed link in the longer term. Why is the SNP not listening to them?
I am not sure that Jamie Halcro Johnston listened to my first answer. The Scottish Government has taken on board the request from Highland Council and has ensured that there is funding for a replacement Corran ferry. As part of that, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd is developing the concept design and has prepared for the new electric ferry with a tender specification that is ready for submission to a shipbuilder.
Far from not being involved, Highland Council and the Scottish Government have taken on their responsibilities. I look forward to the Corran ferry being one of the first vessels in phase 2 of the small vessel replacement programme.
United Kingdom Government Budget (Impact on North East Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the UK Government budget regarding how it affects the North East Scotland region. (S6O-05249)
The UK budget has failed to deliver for Scotland and will have detrimental effects for the North East Scotland region.
We are deeply disappointed and concerned that the UK Government has failed to reform the energy profits levy, ignoring our warnings and those from industry. That places jobs, investment and the energy transition at risk.
Distilleries in the north-east are crucial to the whisky industry, which contributes more than £5 billion in exports and supports more than 20,000 jobs. The disparity in alcohol duty has been ignored again, with the increase in rates resulting in an 18 per cent rise in just three years.
Days after the budget was published, Harbour Energy announced the loss of another 100 jobs in Aberdeen. The energy profits levy is taxing a windfall that no longer exists and is devastating Aberdeen’s economy. What is the Scottish Government doing to encourage the UK Government to rethink the EPL?
I share Jackie Dunbar’s concerns about the job losses that were announced at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen and about the approach that was taken to the reserved North Sea fiscal regime in the UK budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not heeded the clear warnings from across the energy industry on the necessity of making the transition from the energy profits levy to a fairer and more stable regime as soon as possible. The impacts are being felt acutely in the north-east. They include the further job losses that Jackie Dunbar highlighted. Those impacts extend across the energy sector, including in relation to renewables and supply chains. We will, of course, continue to relay those concerns to the UK Government in the strongest possible terms.
The UK budget was a hammer blow to the north-east of Scotland and the oil and gas industry. However, it is now nearly three years since the Scottish Government announced its presumption against oil and gas developments. In that time, it has refused to support Rosebank, Cambo and Jackdaw. The Scottish National Party Government is complicit in thousands of jobs being lost in the north-east, so will it commit to publishing its energy strategy and just transition plan before the end of the year and finally show some support to our oil and gas workers?
We did not support the extension, under the previous Tory UK Government, of the energy profits levy until 2029, nor—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the cabinet secretary.
I am not sure that members quite heard that, Presiding Officer. Let me say it again: we did not support either the extension of the levy to 2029 under the previous Tory UK Government or the further extension to 2030 and the increase in rate that were confirmed in last year’s UK autumn budget. That is having a devastating effect on the sector in North East Scotland and in the rest of Scotland. The levy needs to be scrapped, and it needs to be scrapped now.
That concludes general question time.