Official Report 260KB pdf
Party Leaders
14:04
The next item of business is First Minister’s questions from party leaders. The first questions will be from Michael Marra, who has seven minutes for questions and answers.
Alexander Dennis Ltd (Furlough)
This morning, I read in the Daily Record that the decision not to pay furlough to workers at the Scottish bus manufacturer Alexander Dennis Ltd was signed off by the First Minister the day before the election. At that exact point, the leaflet that I am holding was being pushed through letterboxes in Falkirk East and Linlithgow, with the SNP pledging to protect local jobs at the bus manufacturer. Why were voters in Falkirk told that furlough at Alexander Dennis was possible before an election when ministers had already decided that it was not?
The rationale for the circumstances that Mr Marra narrated was that, in a pre-election period, the Government is restricted in what announcements it can make about particular policy questions. That is the explanation for the decision making and the timescales on the Alexander Dennis decision.
I am afraid that that is of little comfort to the workers, and it might be the excuse that applies in relation to Monklands hospital as well.
I am afraid that, in the rationale that he is going to set out today and in the press from his Government, the First Minister is tying himself in knots. The simple reality is that the SNP did not buy enough Scottish buses. We have been here before. As mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham did more to support Scottish bus manufacturing than the Scottish Government did.
Today, Scottish Labour will publish details released under freedom of information laws showing that the Scottish National Party rushed through its bus order scheme in order to announce it before the election campaign, realised that it had made a mess of it and then decided to cancel the furlough offer to workers the day before Scotland went to the polls. The First Minister must understand how that looks. He surely understands how breathtakingly cynical it makes people feel—especially the 115 workers who have lost their jobs and the further 164 who look set to possibly do so, too. There is a representative of the Alexander Dennis workforce in the public gallery today. What does the First Minister have to say to them?
The first thing that I will say is that the Scottish Government engaged constructively with Alexander Dennis to try to protect the employment at Alexander Dennis for a sustained period of time. We offered Alexander Dennis a furlough scheme that the Scottish Government has never offered to any other employer before, which was designed to ensure that there was support for Alexander Dennis, to enable it to overcome the difficulties and challenges that the company faced. The final decision on the furlough scheme came down to the fact that the company decided to opt for a model that it was not possible to support under the furlough scheme. The very clear explanation that has been given by the Government is that we cannot change the basis of a scheme once it has been offered.
In relation to support for Alexander Dennis, I say to Mr Marra that, since 2020, through the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—ScotZEB—that the Government has in place, and through its predecessor schemes, Alexander Dennis Ltd has received around 483 vehicle orders, or more than 40 per cent of its orders. That includes orders proposed in the successful bids to the most recent ScotZEB funding round.
I am afraid that the point that Mr Marra advanced—that the Government is not enabling the procurement of buses from Alexander Dennis—does not stand up to scrutiny, given the detail that I have put on the parliamentary record.
The furlough scheme was dependent on the purchase of buses, and it was not enough. There were not enough buses bought by the Government to ensure that the scheme went ahead. That is where the Scottish Government always ends up. We have an industrial policy that exports Scottish jobs—buses built in China, wind turbines built in Denmark and ferries built in Turkey. The Government cannot even give Scottish kids an overpriced school bag without handing the contract to Chinese manufacturing.
Last week, the First Minister was asked seven times whether he supported Rosebank, which supports Scottish jobs, and he could not once bring himself to support it. If he does not support the projects that protect and deliver Scottish jobs, how on earth is he going to grow our economy?
To take one example of the schemes that Mr Marra is talking about, let us look at the ScotZEB scheme—a scheme for procuring buses. As part of that, the Government makes the funding available to organisations, because the Government does not buy buses and because we do not operate our bus network in that fashion. However, as Mr Marra will know, the Government is introducing legislation to change the way in which the bus network is controlled, and it will be interesting to see whether the Labour Party can find it within itself to support what the Government wants to do.
The ScotZEB scheme is governed by the Subsidy Control Act 2022, and that is the United Kingdom legislation under which the Government must operate. One helpful thing that I can say to Mr Marra is that, in my various constructive meetings with the Prime Minister on Friday, I encouraged the Prime Minister to revisit that legislation, because it is restrictive. It does not give us enough scope to invest in industries within our own country, and I wish the UK Government would change the legislation to enable us to do so.
The core of the First Minister’s argument is that he thinks he is not allowed to do any of that or to buy Scottish buses. I think that the First Minister is wrong about this Parliament’s ability to protect and enhance Scottish jobs through procurement and public money.
The Government has been prepared—even willing—to go against legal advice time and again when it comes to policy and legislation, repeatedly ending up in court and racking up millions of pounds in legal fees in the process because the Scottish National Party judges that to be in its political interests. It has just never done it in the interests of Scottish workers. Why is that?
I have, quite simply, no idea what Mr Marra is talking about. The Government acts within the law. I point out to Parliament—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the answer.
I point out to Parliament that the courts have just found in favour of the Government in a legal case that Jackie Baillie told me I should not pursue, and they have recognised that the Government was acting lawfully and in accordance with its obligations. I simply place that on the record to refute the accusation that has been made here.
I have set out to Parliament the priority that this Government attaches to economic growth. It is about investing in our economy, investing in our infrastructure and investing in the skills of our country. That is the economic strategy of the Government and that is what will deliver growth for the Scottish economy. We could, of course, do a great deal more if we had more financial powers and a greater ability to invest, but we are held back in that respect by the United Kingdom.
Malcolm Offord now has seven minutes for questions and answers.
Scotland’s Oil Sector
“It’s Scotland’s oil” was arguably the most successful political slogan before “Make America great again”, and it was coined by Gordon Wilson. [Interruption.]
Excuse me. Can we hear the question, please?
I thought that that would get a reaction, Presiding Officer.
“It’s Scotland’s oil” was coined by Gordon Wilson, who used it in 1974 to power the Scottish National Party to 30 per cent of the Scottish vote, and it was turbocharged by Alex Salmond, who used it in 2014 to power the SNP to 45 per cent of the Scottish vote. Why has John Swinney’s SNP given up on Scotland’s oil?
Malcolm Offord demonstrates spectacularly every week how to put one’s foot in it. His comments are allegedly designed to be funny, but, if he is ruling out being a comedian in his next life, he will have to think of somewhere else to go once the man to his right takes over from him, very soon.
The Government has set out our view of the oil and gas sector, which is that, because we will be using oil and gas for years to come, there is a rational basis for considering oil and gas developments within our own jurisdiction if those will deliver lower carbon emissions than imported oil and gas from other jurisdictions. That is the Government’s position on oil and gas.
The SNP Government’s position on that changes almost daily. In the meantime, we had some pretty important news yesterday from Westminster, where the Labour Government has introduced an energy independence bill that would bring a statutory end to any new North Sea oil and gas licences.
This is a seismic moment for the United Kingdom economy. It sounds a death knell for Aberdeen and means that Scotland cannot re-industrialise and create wealth for all Scots. Why has John Swinney’s SNP given up on Aberdeen and Scotland?
The Energy Independence Bill, which the United Kingdom Government has introduced, brings together a number of measures that the Scottish Government supports, but we do not support the bill’s provisions in relation to the position on the granting of new licences for the exploration of new oil and gas fields, for the simple reason that I have given to Malcolm Offord—which I gave to Michael Marra in my answers last week—that any applications need to be considered in relation to their impact on our carbon reduction targets, given that we will be using oil and gas for some years to come.
When it comes to the question of the north-east of Scotland’s economy and the reindustrialisation of that area, I have a number of points to make. First, I would like renewable energy developments in the North Sea sector to be delivered at greater pace. Those developments are there to be undertaken, because we have given the consents, but they are being slowed up by the United Kingdom authorities’ lack of progress on grid connections.
Secondly, when it comes to the development of carbon capture and storage, project Acorn was plunged into uncertainty by the contents of the UK Government’s budget last week. As a result of decisions by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, £200 million of grant funding has been made very uncertain.
We will take an approach that is designed to lead to investment in the Scottish economy, to ensure that the renewable energy wealth of our country can be capitalised and, crucially, used to the maximum advantage of the people of Scotland by lowering the sky-high energy bills that are delivered in an energy-rich Scotland by the UK Government.
I am delighted to hear the First Minister do yet another U-turn on his position—so much for the presumption against new oil and gas licences. I am delighted to hear that.
Let me comment on renewables. Renewables involve the biggest transfer of money from poor people to rich people since Robin Hood. Two thirds of people’s energy bills are the result of net stupid zero subsidies and tariffs. Meanwhile, the country is covered in wind turbines, not a single blade of which is made in Scotland. Renewables will never give us secure, reliable and affordable energy like North Sea gas.
Let us talk about what is happening in day-to-day Scotland. Today, 900,000 Scots of working age are not working. That is a tragedy for them, their families and their communities. I walk up and down the high streets of towns across our country, and I see the same neglect and decline in Greenock, Kirkcaldy, Kilmarnock, Paisley and Ayr—once-proud towns that made world-class goods and exported them around the world.
It is time to reindustrialise our country, to re-energise our country, to get our people back to work and to make them loud and proud again. We cannot do that when we have the most expensive energy in the western world. We are floating on a sea of affordable and secure oil and gas. It is madness to shut down the North Sea.
I again ask the First Minister why he has not fought tooth and nail to keep the North Sea open. It’s Scotland’s oil. Why has John Swinney abandoned Scotland’s oil?
Next year, Scotland’s energy will generate more than £2 billion in extra tax revenues for the United Kingdom at the same time as the UK Government is cutting Scotland’s budget by £650 million. That is the reality of the United Kingdom that Mr Offord consistently argues for in this chamber. [Interruption.]
Excuse me. Let us hear the First Minister.
The United Kingdom is doing something that it has done consistently for the past 50 years, which is taking the energy wealth of Scotland and ensuring that it is not used for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
The choice that my party offers people in Scotland is the ability to take advantage of the investment and the opportunities of Scotland’s energy wealth. Our enormous renewable energy potential will, in the years to come, deliver us clean green energy, but that resource cannot just now be invested to lower the energy bills of people in Scotland. That can come only when Scotland’s energy is in Scotland’s hands—with independence.
Gillian Mackay has six minutes for questions and answers.
Data Centres
Today we learned that a senior civil servant has warned the Scottish Government about the risks of data centres, including rising energy bills for locals. We know that the Scottish Government has been lobbied by artificial intelligence firms and that it is refusing to carry out a public consultation on its new guidance.
The Minister for Innovation, Technology and Tertiary Education has dismissed people who are sceptical about big tech firms’ AI promises. He said that they would have called the light bulb a “dangerous anti-candle device” when it was invented. Is that how the First Minister views those campaigners who are worried about hyperscale data centres?
I believe that we should engage constructively with members of the public at all times and listen to their views. The Government has to take a considered view of all the views that it hears on a range of different topics and then set out the policy position that it will pursue, which is exactly what the Scottish Government will do on this occasion.
This week the First Minister’s Government has removed the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment from its upcoming Scottish human rights bill. That is despite more than 100 civil society organisations, including the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, Action on Smoking and Health Scotland and Asthma + Lung UK, urging it to support that right. It is not some abstract concept: it offers people protection from pollution and toxic chemicals, and it could help them to protect their communities from harmful developments, such as hyperscale data centres. It means people being legally guaranteed clean air and pure water. Why does the First Minister’s Government not think that Scots should have a legal right to clean air?
As Gillian Mackay will know from the various legislative instruments that have been put in place by the Government and its policy programme, we have a commitment to reach net zero and to improve the public health and the natural environment of our country.
The issue that we have wrestled with in relation to the human rights bill is that the proposed legislation that is put to Parliament must be clear, coherent and effective in practice. The issue in relation to the specific measures that Gillian Mackay raises is that the right to a healthy environment is not yet grounded in an international treaty or well-established body of interpretative guidance, unlike the other rights that are proposed for incorporation in the bill. The challenge is that we might jeopardise the strength of the legislation by legislating in a way that does not have a satisfactory basis of interpretation for our courts to judge on it. The Government is concerned that that would delay the implementation of the human rights bill.
This is an important issue, and I appreciate the strength of feeling about it. I have responded today to a letter from a number of organisations that have written to me about the issue. It is not that there is a lack of will on the Government’s part; we fear that, in the absence of such a body of interpretative guidance, there is a vulnerability that the legislation that we pass in this Parliament may not be able to be implemented effectively or to deliver the rights and protections that the Government wants to see in place.
If members are sceptical about what I am saying, I would simply cite my experience. I was the legislating minister on the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. I took a maximalist position on the implementation of that legislation, which was supported unanimously by the Parliament. The Government lost its case in the Supreme Court when we were challenged by the United Kingdom Government.
I do not say that any of those things to be difficult; I say them to set out the legislative realities that the Government must consider when we are proposing legislation to Parliament.
I appreciate that and the things that must be balanced by the First Minister, but he claims that his Government is a world leader in so many places. This is one of those places where we could be bold and a world leader and establish what it means to have that right.
In the upcoming budget the Scottish Government has a real chance to make up for some of the climate-damaging decisions that it has made recently. If it sets a high rate for the incoming private jet tax, it could raise tens of millions of pounds. Looking ahead, a frequent flyer levy could bring in £50 million. Measures such as those, which make wealthy polluters pay, could be used to make rail travel cheaper, perhaps through a millennial railcard, as proposed by the Scottish Greens. Will the First Minister commit to making wealthy polluters pay their fair share?
The Government is engaging with political parties and stakeholders on the contents of our budget, and the issues that Gillian Mackay raises will be considered as part of that process of dialogue. The Deputy First Minister is leading that work for the Government and she will set out the budget to Parliament in early December. We have taken a wide variety of actions to put into practical effect the measures to protect our natural environment. That is one of the central commitments of the Government, and we will consider the issues that Gillian Mackay raises as part of that process.
You can ask a final brief question, Ms Mackay.
We have seen from Hungary, Serbia, Brazil and, this week, the United States that, when politicians tackle big polluters, stand with communities rather than dodgy tycoons and give them hope for a fairer future, we can defeat the far right. The US has its first Muslim senator in Abdul El-Sayed from Michigan and its first black woman governor in Georgia’s Keisha Lance Bottoms, tapping into the power of the country’s diverse communities.
Will you ask a brief question, please?
Will the First Minister join the Scottish Greens in condemning those who would stir division and those who would deny the rights of Scotland’s diverse communities to live in the way that they want to, even trying to police what women wear?
I am absolutely happy to associate myself with Gillian Mackay’s comments. I have championed diversity in our society. One of the hallmarks of my Government’s programme is the determination to create cohesion in our communities and to stand up to the divisive forces of the far right. I will give every ounce of political leadership that I can to protect Scotland from the scourge of racism and division. We heard a whole barrel load of it in Parliament yesterday afternoon in the debate that was led by Reform. I am delighted that this Parliament has expressed with such strength and solidarity its revulsion at the invitation to support the hard right. I will always stand up to the far right in this Parliament and in this country.
Russell Findlay has five minutes for questions and answers.
Rosebank Oil and Gas Field
Last week, I gave John Swinney five chances to back the Rosebank oil field, but he refused to give a clear yes or no answer. One of his MSPs has since told me that the SNP does back Rosebank. Does John Swinney agree with his former adviser Jack Middleton?
I set out the Government’s position in my answer to Malcolm Offord. We accept that there is a necessity for us to continue to use oil and gas resources for some time to come. The decision making that has to be undertaken, which is required by law—this may be inconvenient for Mr Findlay—is that each individual application has to be assessed as to whether it would deliver a greater or lower impact on our journey to net zero compared with the importation of resources that we might use.
That is the Government’s position. Mr Findlay can characterise that as he wishes. I have long given up trying to see any way in which Mr Findlay can avoid characterising answers in that way. I will set out the detail of my answers to the public and to Parliament and allow them to judge the contents of those answers.
What the First Minister has long given up on is giving any sort of sensible answer.
The SNP MSP Jack Middleton was quite clear. Here is what he said:
“We agree that the Rosebank oil field should be given the green light.”
Will John Swinney take this chance to now put on the record his unequivocal support?
I have set out the Government’s position in relation to oil and gas developments. It might not be to the liking of the Conservative Party, but I simply make the point that a lot of the things that I say are not to the liking of the Conservative Party. However, when the public are invited to judge whether they want to take on board my views or the views of the Conservative Party, the public have for many, many years accepted my arguments in preference to the arguments of the Conservative Party. I am delighted with the choice of the public.
The public in Aberdeen South were asked and they gave a very clear answer. That is because I and my party—the Scottish Conservatives—support Rosebank. John Swinney still refuses to do so while thousands of Scottish jobs are being lost, and now Labour plans to outlaw all North Sea drilling. Will John Swinney tell his MPs to vote against Labour’s ban?
We now see a very interesting pattern emerging in Parliament: it is the merger of the Conservative Party and Reform. What Russell Findlay has just asked me is exactly what Malcolm Offord just asked me, and I have set out what the Government’s position is. There are measures in the Energy Independence Bill—[Interruption.]
Excuse me. Let us hear the answer that the First Minister is giving, please, Stephen Kerr.
There are measures in the Energy Independence Bill that the Government supports, because they will help us to ensure that individuals in Scotland are lifted out of fuel poverty and that we have further investment and support for this Government’s schemes to ensure that more renewable capacity is taken forward in this country. The Scottish Government does not support the measures in the bill in relation to oil and gas developments, for the reasons that I have already set out to Russell Findlay and Malcolm Offord.
Final question.
That is a desperate deflection from John Swinney. We should vote against Labour’s drilling ban. The Scottish Conservatives back new drilling. We would extract every valuable drop of North Sea oil and gas, for Scottish jobs, lower bills and energy security. Why is John Swinney content to stand by as that critical Scottish industry is destroyed?
The issues that are uppermost in my mind in relation to the energy situation are the need to ensure that members of the public have lower energy bills, that we have sustained employment in energy industries in Scotland and that Scotland benefits from the energy wealth of our country. For 50 years—a lot of years among which we were led by Conservative United Kingdom Governments—Scotland has not benefited from the energy wealth that has come from its own waters. I want it to be crystal clear to the public, in every respect, that I want to see the energy wealth of Scotland used to benefit the people of Scotland, and that that will come about only when Scotland is an independent country.
Firefighters (Vacancies)
On this bonfire night, will the First Minister tell us how many vacancies are there for retained on-call firefighters in Scotland?
I do not have that information to hand, but I can assure Mr Cole-Hamilton that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland are actively positioned to address any issues that emerge as a consequence of bonfire night, as they have been for several weeks. Ministers have been advised and supported, with information from both services, about the steps that have been taken to ensure public safety.
That is not happening in every part of the country, but, like the First Minister, I wish our fire service well tonight. Let me furnish him with the answer: there are 1,000 vacancies for on-call firefighters. They are the lifeblood of Scotland’s rural fire stations. The Fire Brigades Union told Parliament that that is leaving
“huge swathes of Scotland’s landmass … without fire cover.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 28 October 2026; c. 10]
Does the First Minister really grasp just how serious those shortages are?
I am aware of those issues. I represent a large rural area in Scotland, and I understand the challenges that exist. Almost all of the scenarios that Mr Cole-Hamilton will put to me will involve the retained fire crew services. There are challenges in the recruitment of individuals because of changes to the way in which people are living their lives. In the past, the retained fire crew service was significantly anchored by people who lived and worked in individual localities and were able to commit to that service.
I would point out to Mr Cole-Hamilton that, when I met representatives of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service at the wildfire site at Loch Morlich, I met a range of retained fire crews who had an extraordinary commitment to tackling what was a very serious situation.
Although I acknowledge the challenges in recruitment, I would make the point that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service attaches the most significant importance to ensuring that our fire crews are well served in all parts of the country, so that they can offer public protection to members of the public.
I do not disagree for a minute that our retained firefighters are doing a valiant job but there are simply far too few of them, and the lack of staff means that more than half of our on-call fire engines can be unavailable at any point in the day. Larger fire stations should have at least two engines ready to go at all times but, today, we are publishing new research that shows how often, in places such as Kilmarnock, Stirling, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh, that second fire engine cannot be operated because there is nobody there to do so. Can the First Minister see the basic arithmetical problem that could arise—two fires, one truck?
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service goes through extensive work to ensure that it has effective resources in place in retained and full-time stations around the country through a carefully considered assessment that looks at the incidence of fires and the pattern of fire activity, so that the public are able to experience that protection from the service and are kept safe.
We have previously wrestled with different issues that members raised in Parliament, and service reviews have been carried out. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service considers all the evidence and comes to a conclusion about the appropriate steps to take. In all that work, public safety will be the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s principal consideration.
Our firefighters run towards danger, but I do not think that the Government has their backs. When they return to their station, too many lack the basics—toilets, showers, running water and proper decontamination. That means that our firefighters are potentially treading hazardous materials into their own homes—indeed, into their children’s bedrooms. The unions call that “a mark of shame” and they are right to do so. When will every single Scottish firefighter be able to properly shower before they go home to their families after a shift?
It is important for appropriate facilities to be in place for all public service workers, particularly our emergency service workers, and that commitment lies at the heart of the Government’s funding for the Fire and Rescue Service. The budget for 2026-27 provided an additional £23.8 million to the SFRS, bringing the total budget to more than £435 million. The capital budget was increased, too, to enable some of the issues that Mr Cole-Hamilton raised to be addressed.
Of course, Mr Cole-Hamilton voted for the budget—he voted for exactly the provision that is in place for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I invite him to engage in discussions with the Deputy First Minister, who I know met representatives of the Liberal Democrats this week to discuss the contents of the budget. That is the opportunity for us to resolve many of the financial commitments that the Government makes to key services in our country.
That concludes First Minister’s question time. We will have a couple of minutes for a changeover of personnel on the front benches.
Previous
Remembrance Day 2026