The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the programme for government for 2025-26. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:22
Tomorrow will mark one year since I was honoured to be elected as the First Minister of this country, which I love. I spoke then of my ambition to create a vibrant economy in every part of our country, my determination to tackle the challenges that are faced by our beloved national health service, and my hope that we—as a Parliament and a country—could come together to focus on solutions rather than allowing our disagreements to dominate.
Over the past year, amid real challenges and deep uncertainty on the global stage, progress has been made. In ways big and small, a corner is being turned. The Government is working hard and is determined to get Scotland on track for success.
That progress has been evident in the way that we do our business here, in our Parliament. The fact that four parties were able to come together to negotiate in good faith and pass a budget that delivers record funding for our national health service is testament to what is possible.
Today’s programme for government is presented in that same spirit. It contains many of the fruits of our budget process, elements of which are there only because of the co-operation of other parties. However, it is also a programme by a Scottish National Party Government that cares deeply about Scotland and has total confidence in Scotland’s ability to rise to any challenge and weather any storm.
Before I turn to the elements that are in the programme for government, I will talk about some measures that are not included. With a year to go until the end of this session of Parliament, there are, clearly, limits on the amount of legislation that we can present. The Government remains—as do I, personally—entirely committed to tackling misogynistic abuse against women. Regrettably, I do not believe that there is sufficient parliamentary time to make progress through a stand-alone bill, although I will plan to introduce such a bill at the start of the next session of Parliament. We will, however, take the action that we can take during this session, by adding “sex” as a protected characteristic to existing hate crime legislation to protect women and girls, and by taking further steps through our policy to tackle unacceptable abuse of women and girls in our society.
Conversion practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are harmful and abusive. Over the coming year, we will seek to work with the United Kingdom Government to deliver a legislative ban across England, Wales and Scotland. However, if agreement is not possible, we will publish legislation in the first year of the next parliamentary session. Members of the LGBTQI+ community should have no doubt that we will work with them to protect and defend their rights.
Times are tough, and times are changing in ways that I know bring real anxiety to our citizens and real fear to many in our business community. But my promise to the people of Scotland is that, amidst the uncertainty, there is one thing that they can be sure of: this Government will always seek to do what is best for Scotland. As First Minister, I will always put the needs and interests and the hopes and dreams of the people of Scotland first.
When I became First Minister, a year ago, I heard loud and clear people’s concerns about the health of Scotland’s NHS. They would tell me about their many positive experiences of high-quality care from the dedicated staff in the NHS—experiences of treatment and care that are invariably world class. However, they also spoke of difficulties in accessing that care—of waiting times that were unacceptable, adding to their anxiety—and of systems that they felt did not put patients first.
There are many issues that compete on a daily basis for the attention of a First Minister, but what could be more important than our national health service? I am proud that the £30 million that we committed has delivered not only the 64,000 additional NHS appointments and procedures between April last year and the end of January this year that we promised, but over 40,000 more than planned. Those extra 105,000 vital additional appointments and procedures are helping to reduce waiting lists and waiting times.
We have met the children and adolescent mental health waiting time standards, with more than 90 per cent of those waiting now seen within 18 weeks of their referral. More cancer patients are now treated faster. Compared with a decade ago, 16 per cent more patients receive care within the 31-day standard and 11 per cent more within the 62-day standard. Those are statistics, but behind each one is a person who has received the reliable and effective care from the national health service that they deserve.
Yes, there is progress, but there is also a very clear understanding that there is more—much more—to do. That is why a renewed and stronger NHS is at the very heart of this programme for government. Getting our NHS on track is about reform that is fundamentally patient centred, it is about investment, and it is about increasing productivity and capacity. That approach will make it possible for us to deliver more than 150,000 extra appointments and procedures in 2025-26. The additional investment secured through the Scottish budget will enable us to expand specialist regional centres, and technology will mean more efficient use of operating theatres. As a result, there will be a 50 per cent increase in the number of surgical procedures that we can deliver compared with this year. There will also be a renewed focus on cancer diagnosis and treatment, and targeted investment so that health boards can clear backlogs and substantially improve waiting times.
I could spend the whole statement talking just about the steps that we are taking to improve access to the national health service. However, before moving on to other issues, I will highlight one other area that I know is of particular concern to many people. Although many people’s experience of their general practitioner service is excellent, for many others, there is deep frustration over the difficulty in making appointments and what has been described as the 8 am lottery. That is of central importance to me, which is why we are acting to reduce pressure and increase capacity in the system so that it is easier for people to get the care that they need when they need it. That includes, in the year ahead, a further expansion of pharmacy first services, with pharmacies being the right first port of call for many ailments. It also means the delivery of an extra 100,000 appointments in GP surgeries that are focused on key risk factors such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity and smoking.
This year, primary care, which includes GPs, is receiving a bigger share of new NHS funding, and we are committed not only to increasing GP numbers but to protecting Scotland’s advantage, which means having substantially more GPs per head in Scotland compared with elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Members across the chamber will know that, alongside the NHS, our constituents are also deeply exercised about the on-going cost of living crisis. We have experienced a decade and more of financial insecurity, higher prices and squeezed real incomes. Life feels substantially tougher for many of those whom we serve.
The economy means jobs, growth and investment, and I will talk about all of those elements. Above all, however, the economy is about people’s quality of life, their household budget and their ability to pay the bills.
The Scottish Government will always do what it can to deliver the best deal for the people of Scotland. In concrete terms, that means a commitment to keep council tax bills, which are already 30 per cent lower on average in Scotland than in England, substantially lower than elsewhere in the UK. Water bills, which are already 20 per cent lower than those in England, will remain lower, as will income tax for the majority of workers in Scotland. Prescriptions will continue to be free in Scotland, as will eye appointments and bus travel for young, disabled and older people. Students will continue to pay no tuition fees. Parents will continue to benefit from a package of early learning and childcare that is worth more than £6,000 for every eligible child. Free school meals, which save the average family £400 per child per year, will be expanded and more breakfast clubs will be introduced.
Together, that is my cost of living guarantee. It is a package that, year on year, delivers savings for the people of Scotland. It is a package that exists nowhere else in the United Kingdom.
We are always looking to enhance that package of cost of living support where we can. That is why we took the decision in the budget to restore a winter fuel payment for Scottish pensioners, with the poorest receiving the most. Those payments will be made this year.
It is also why we are committed to doing even more. Last year, in the face of severe budget pressures, we took the difficult decision to end the peak fares pilot on our railways. However, now, given the work that we have done to get Scotland’s finances in a stronger position, and hearing the calls from commuters, climate activists and the business community, I can confirm that, from 1 September, peak rail fares in Scotland will be scrapped for good.
That decision will put more money in people’s pockets and means that less CO2 is pumped into our skies. Once again, tens of thousands of Scots are saving money. Once again, it is a better deal for people because they live in Scotland. It is better for Scots because there is a Government that always strives for what is best for Scotland.
Alongside the cost of living pressures, the consequence of a series of body blows from austerity and Brexit, to the spike in inflation and energy costs that followed Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, new threats are emerging that have the potential to cause extensive damage to the Scottish economy. Tariffs will impact directly on many Scottish exporters to the United States, while a US recession and a global trade war will have direct and indirect effects on almost every sector of our economy.
The programme for government has been published earlier than usual, partly because it allows a clear year of delivery on the NHS and other public services—that is, delivery in those areas that matter in the day-to-day lives of our citizens. It has also been published now because of the scale of the looming economic challenge that we face. For the sake of Scottish jobs and for the sake of protecting people’s quality of life, we are taking new steps and accelerating action to ensure that Scotland’s economy is better placed to ride the economic storms.
Members will see the detailed and extensive section on the economy in the “Programme for Government 2025-26” document, with action on planning reform, skills, housing investment, support for our rural economy—including our vital food and drink sector—promotion of Scotland the brand and more. However, I will highlight three particular initiatives that are designed to respond directly and specifically to the challenges that we now face.
First, working with Scottish Development International across its 34 international offices, we will deliver a new six-point export plan to enable Scottish exporters to diversify and to grow markets. The plan includes more support to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in trade missions in established and emerging markets; additional grant funding to help companies to unlock specific, targeted international growth; and bespoke support in the key sectors of technology, life sciences, renewables and hydrogen to maximise international opportunities.
Secondly, to enable emerging Scottish companies to grow, we will create a new proof of concept fund, with a focus on supporting the commercialisation of research projects that have significant economic potential. We will deliver an improved ecosystem fund to further enhance Scotland’s already effective start-up environment, including action to transform the number of women who start and scale up businesses.
We must not forget, even among the gathering clouds, that Scotland is an innovative nation and that opportunities exist that can deliver real and significant benefits now and in the future. This Government will prepare for the challenges, but we will also seek to position Scotland to make the most of the many and significant economic opportunities that still exist.
Thirdly, we will deepen our commitment to a just transition and an industrial future for Scotland. As members will be aware, the Deputy First Minister is actively engaging with potential investors to ensure a green industrial future for the Grangemouth site. A key element in the success of that work is the development of carbon capture in Scotland, which is why it is now vital that the UK Government provides support not only to carbon capture projects in England, but to the Acorn project in Scotland’s north-east.
The Scottish Government has previously committed up to £80 million to make that happen if the UK Government, in turn, makes the commitments that are necessary for the project to progress. Given the importance of this project to the Scottish economy—given its place at the very heart of the green reindustrialisation that is my ambition and, I trust, the ambition of all parties in this chamber—my Government is now willing, as part of a wider package of investment in industrial transformation, to remove that cap and increase the amount of Scottish funding that is available to make Acorn a reality, should the project be given the go-ahead by the UK Government.
I know that many in this chamber share my concern that Scotland is little more than an afterthought to a UK Government that is willing to invest in a supercomputer in the south-east of England weeks after cancelling the supercomputer for Edinburgh—a UK Government that moved heaven and earth to save Scunthorpe but will not do the same for Grangemouth. Perhaps, with swift action from the UK Government to support Acorn, which in turn will help us deliver the future that Grangemouth deserves, the Prime Minister will do the right thing by Grangemouth. [Applause.]
Members—thank you.
Working to deliver a stronger NHS, giving the people of Scotland the best cost of living support of any part of the UK, and taking action to protect Scotland’s economy and maximise our economic potential in the face of global challenges, this is a Government that has at its heart what is best for Scotland.
Since becoming First Minister last year, I have sought to focus Government efforts on four central priorities. We seek a wealthier Scotland, with higher standards of living for the people of Scotland and action to grow Scotland’s economy; a fairer Scotland, with Scotland’s growing wealth shared more fairly so that we can remove the scourge of child poverty from our land; and a greener Scotland, with action to maximise the benefits felt by the people of Scotland from our renewable energy wealth, benefits in terms of lower bills and well-paid jobs, and action to reduce emissions and protect and restore our stunning natural environment. We also seek public services that meet and, indeed, exceed the expectations of the people of Scotland. Have no doubt that many of our public services already meet those expectations, but, where action is needed to reform and renew, this Government will take it.
Progress for Scotland underpins each of our priorities and is at the heart of everything that we will do. I want a Scotland that we can be proud of—a Scotland that is the best that it can possibly be. That ambition is what gets me up every morning, and at the very heart of that is the eradication of child poverty.
Last year, when I presented my programme for government, I referred to the eradication of child poverty as
“the moral compass of my Government”.
It remains so, and it will until there is not one child left in poverty in Scotland.
I also said:
“it is the greatest investment in our country’s future that we can possibly make.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; c 24.]
In these times of cost of living pressures, that investment becomes ever more important, because these things disproportionately hurt our society’s poorest. That is why, over the current session of Parliament, we have increased the Scottish child payment from the original proposal that was put to us of a £5 payment to £27.15, and created a broader package of family payments that can be worth roughly £25,000 by age 16.
Our policies are making a difference. It is estimated that, on average, the lowest-income households with children will be £2,600 better off this year as a result of Scottish Government policies. By 2029-30, that is expected to grow to an average of £3,700.
The proportion of children who are living in relative poverty has reached its lowest level since 2014-15, and Scotland is making deeper and quicker progress than the rest of the United Kingdom. While the Joseph Rowntree Foundation predicts that child poverty will rise in other parts of the United Kingdom by 2029, it states that policies such as our Scottish child payment, and our commitment to end the cruel two-child limit,
“are behind Scotland bucking the trend”.
However, if we want to truly eradicate child poverty in Scotland, we must go further, and I recognise that. We are taking steps to lift the two-child limit, and we remain on track to deliver that measure to lift more children out of poverty next April. We must also ensure that public services are more joined up in their response, and more family centred and person centred, so that vulnerable families receive the focused help that they need rather than simply the help that is available.
In the coming year, we will consult on, develop and publish a tackling child poverty delivery plan for 2026 to 2031, which will outline the actions that we will take with our partners for low-income families across Scotland to keep us on the journey to meet our poverty reduction targets for 2030. I can assure members that that will focus on reducing household costs, boosting incomes through social security and helping more people into fair and sustainable jobs, all of which play a central part in tackling not only the symptoms but the root causes of poverty in our society.
There is always much more that we are doing than can be mentioned in a short parliamentary statement. I therefore encourage members, and their constituents, to read the programme for government carefully. They will see our on-going commitment to achieving net zero by 2045; action to maximise the environmental and economic benefits from our vast renewable energy wealth; and steps to decarbonise heating and further decarbonise our transport network.
To give just one example, I am proud that we have achieved our target of installing 6,000 public charge points for electric vehicles, two years ahead of schedule. However, more is needed, which is why, in the year ahead, we will introduce a new rural and island EV infrastructure grant, supporting our commitment to establish approximately 24,000 additional public electric vehicle charge points by 2030.
The public will notice, in our programme for government, the priority that we are giving to the ABC of education—attendance and attainment, behaviour and relationships, and the curriculum. We are taking action in partnership with local government, parents, carers, pupils and schools to raise attainment and address problems of attendance; tackle behavioural challenges in our classrooms head-on; and reform the curriculum so that young Scots are fully equipped to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of this new age.
There is action to help to regenerate our town centres; investment in thousands of new homes; record funding for the culture sector; new protections for renters; expansion of dental provision; a focus on additional support needs in our schools, and much, much more.
It is a programme for government, but it is also a programme for a better Scotland. It is a programme for a stronger NHS, for a more resilient Scotland and for a wealthier Scotland. Centred on delivery and providing hope, it is a programme that seeks what is best for Scotland—a programme for government that gets our nation on track for success.
The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
Today’s flimsy programme for government is just more of the same from the SNP, and it will do little to restore public trust. It is no wonder that around one in three of the party’s MSPs could not be bothered to turn up to listen to it.
That is because John Swinney is the politician who has failed to deliver for the past 18 years, has wasted more public money than anyone else and is now desperately trying to clear up his own mess. John Swinney cannot possibly be the solution, because John Swinney has caused the problems.
My party has long campaigned for greater spending on GPs, who are on the front line of the NHS. Today, John Swinney has promised to increase GP numbers, but the SNP made that same promise eight years ago and it has not been kept. Does John Swinney think that anyone out there will actually believe him this time?
My party has also been the lone voice of opposition to repeated SNP income tax rises. Hard-working Scots pay £1.7 billion more than they would under tax bands for the rest of the UK. Today, John Swinney says that he will stop turning the screw on Scottish taxpayers, but he has previously broken a similar promise not to raise taxes. Why did John Swinney not take the opportunity to reduce the painful tax burden that he has inflicted? People desperately want politicians to focus on the key issues that impact their lives, yet John Swinney says that he is going to use even more taxpayers’ money to find an economic case for independence. Well, he is not going to find one, because there is no such case.
This is more of the same from the same old John Swinney—a politician who is completely obsessed by a lifelong pursuit of breaking up the United Kingdom. When so many other issues need our urgent attention, does John Swinney really think that it is right to waste time, energy and public money on that divisive nonsense?
I see that my appeal for the Parliament to find common ground has not made much headway with Russell Findlay this afternoon, but that will not stop me continuing to find some common ground in order to make progress.
On GP services, as I indicated in my statement, the Government will allocate a greater proportion of new NHS funding to the primary care sector, which will benefit GPs and result in the delivery of an extra 100,000 GP appointments for key conditions.
On the question of income tax, I remind Parliament of the comment that I made in my statement that the majority of workers in Scotland pay comparatively less income tax than would be the case south of the border. They also pay lower council tax and water bills than is the case south of the border. Of course, if they send their children to university in Scotland, they do not pay tuition fees, which is a formidable saving for families the length and breadth of the country. In addition, if they have young children, they will get access to early learning and childcare, the expansion of which I presided over as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, which benefits families the length and breadth of the country.
All those issues are relevant to the question about income tax. The other crucial point is that, although Mr Findlay persists in coming to Parliament and telling us that he wants to reduce income tax, he will not tell us about the cuts in public spending and public services that he would make in order to pay for that. That is just one of the big flaws in the arguments that Mr Findlay puts forward, and it is a £1 billion flaw in his argument.
Mr Findlay raised my support for Scottish independence. I have, of course, given a lifetime commitment to the question of independence. One of the reasons why I want Scotland to be independent is that I want Scotland to be a country that can enjoy a higher standard of living than is currently the case in the United Kingdom. Why is that more relevant today? It is more relevant because of Brexit, which was championed by the Conservative Party. [Interruption.] Well, all the evidence demonstrates my case that Brexit has resulted in a decline in the standard of living for people in this country. The way for Scotland to overcome the damage of Brexit is to rejoin the European Union, and it can do that by being an independent country.
Is that it? After 18 years in power and what could be John Swinney’s last year in Government, is that the best that he can do? [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
It is embarrassing. Nicola Sturgeon is probably messaging right now to say that it is awful—although it was interesting to see that she turned up to do a press huddle outside the chamber but did not bother to come in for John Swinney’s programme for government.
Do not get me wrong. There are some things in the statement that I agree with, especially the bits that he nicked from Scottish Labour. Those are not exactly the borrowing powers that I thought the SNP had in mind. However, the statement fails to meet the challenges and ambitions of the people of Scotland.
The statement contains no recognition of the scale of the crisis in the NHS that has been delivered by the SNP, with one in six Scots on a waiting list. Where is the plan to fix that? There is no recognition of the fact that our schools are falling down the league tables, which has been delivered by the SNP. There is no plan to fix that. There is no recognition of the fact that 10,000 children in Scotland are homeless, which has been delivered by the SNP. Where is the plan to fix that? There is no recognition of the billions of pounds of public money that have been wasted, which has been delivered by the SNP. Where is the plan to fix that?
The truth is that the SNP has no plan. That is because, after nearly two decades in government, if the SNP had had a good idea, it would have delivered it by now. Instead, all that we are left with is sticking plasters to cover and distract from the damage that the SNP has caused. The SNP Government is running down the clock.
Next year, Scots will face a choice: a third decade with the SNP or a new direction and new leadership for Scotland. [Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
SNP members do not want to hear it, but John Swinney has been at the heart of Government for nearly two decades. How can the man who broke it now pretend that he is the one who can fix it?
I will respond to the various issues that Mr Sarwar raised. On the health service, there were increases in in-patient and day-case activity over the 12 months up to December 2024. In my statement, I cited the various improvements that have been made in the performance of the national health service, which have been based on the new funding that the Government has made available. That funding will be more significant in the coming financial year. We are helping the national health service to recover from the impact of the Covid pandemic and delays in treatment. Mr Sarwar managed to breeze his way through that whole question without mentioning the impact of the global pandemic and the disruption that it caused to our healthcare services.
On schools, much higher levels of literacy and numeracy have been recorded in our schools, and the attainment gap is at its narrowest in a number of the key aspects of literacy and numeracy assessments that are made.
On housing, we have delivered more affordable housing per head of population in Scotland by a significant margin compared with developments in England, and by a very significant margin compared with the situation in Wales. I was interested to see that, today, my counterpart in Wales, Eluned Morgan, the First Minister of Wales, has set out her vigorous disagreement with the direction of the United Kingdom Labour Government that was elected the last time that people were faced with a choice of Government.
Of course, we have heard none of that from Mr Sarwar, who has been right behind the UK Government on making welfare cuts that affect the poorest people in our country, right behind it on taking no action for the women against state pension inequality and right behind it on cutting winter fuel payments for pensioners in our country. I think that the people of Scotland will be able to see the contrast between an SNP Scottish Government that is delivering for them and a Labour United Kingdom Government that is selling out the poor and disadvantaged in our country and penalising pensioners. I think that they will choose the SNP.
Before we move to Lorna Slater’s question, I point out that we are now 10 minutes into taking questions but have, so far, heard from only two members. Although brief questions would be appreciated, I ask for more concise responses, too.
I am delighted that the Government has finally committed to the Scottish Greens’ policy of ending peak rail fares for good. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government said that it would not do that—it even voted against the Greens’ calls to do so—but we have finally got there. More brave decisions will be needed if we are to make all public transport cheaper. The Scottish Government agreed to the Greens’ proposal for a £2 bus fare cap to be run as a local pilot from January 2026. However, people all across Scotland need cheaper buses now. Will the First Minister avoid the hesitation that he showed over peak rail fares and get on with delivering another great idea from the Scottish Greens—capping bus fares all over Scotland for good?
I welcome Lorna Slater’s encouragement on peak rail fares. The Government faced difficult financial choices at the time of addressing that issue. We have got public finances into a stronger position, so we are now able to afford that policy, which we will be delighted to introduce. Of course, it will make a big difference for travellers around the country.
On the question of cheaper buses, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has progressed the pilot work that we agreed in the budget process, and we will examine its results with interest. Financial support through concessionary travel for people aged under 22 or over 60 and for disabled people is making a significant contribution to supporting bus travel in Scotland.
The First Minister had barely drawn breath before referencing his ambition to create a vibrant economy. In this world of war and tariffs, heightened urgency and challenges surround that ambition. The First Minister rightly referenced the key levers that are critical to fostering growth, which are: planning reform, skills development, housing, and rural development. He is not wrong, but his record on those issues should give us all pause.
Does he accept that, for nearly 20 years, his Government has presided over a planning system that takes years to approve projects that, in other parts of Europe, would receive the green light within weeks? Does he accept, too, that we are not building enough affordable houses, which in turn makes it harder for us to recruit key workers, particularly in remote and rural areas? Does he accept that, thanks to his Government’s erosion of further education, we are in no position to generate the skills base that we will need if we are to compete in the industries of the future, such as defence, renewables and artificial intelligence?
On the first of those questions, on economic performance, I point out that gross domestic product per capita in Scotland has grown by 10.3 per cent since 2007, when this Government came to office, compared with an increase of 6.1 per cent in the United Kingdom. That demonstrates that the Government’s policies have supported and encouraged growth in the economy. We want to do more on planning. Ivan McKee, who is the minister with the relevant responsibility, has overseen a programme of planning reform to ensure that we are able to support developments where it is appropriate to do so. I counsel Mr Cole-Hamilton on asking us to make faster progress because, in the same breath, he will press us to ensure that we apply stringent environmental standards to protect the natural environment. On many of the aspects that he has raised, we cannot have it both ways.
On Mr Cole-Hamilton’s final point, on housing, as I indicated to Mr Sarwar, the Scottish Government has a record of building more affordable houses per head of population than the Administrations in any other part of the United Kingdom, while also dealing with the consequences of the 14 years of austerity that started under the Conservative and Liberal Government in 2010. The fact that we prioritised housing in order to achieve that record is an indication of our commitment. I am delighted that Mr Cole-Hamilton and his colleagues were able to support us in the £768 million investment in affordable housing that we made in our budget.
I welcome the commitment to an industrial future for Grangemouth in my constituency and the £25 million that has been pledged thus far. Carbon capture and storage is an important part of the industrial strategy, so I am also pleased that the Scottish Government is willing to increase the current commitment of £80 million for Acorn if that means that the UK Government will approve the project. Will the First Minister join me in continuing to call for that essential project to be given the green light at pace and, ideally, in the forthcoming UK Government spending review?
It would be enormously beneficial—actually, the word is not “beneficial”; it is essential that we get the green light for the Acorn project. I must use the word “essential”. It is a superb opportunity for Scotland. The UK Government has supported two carbon capture projects in England, and there is an undeniable case for the Acorn project. The Scottish Government is willing to be a more significant funder of that project if it gets the go-ahead, and I encourage the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government to give it.
SNP MSPs have been nodding slavishly behind the First Minister, but beyond the Holyrood bubble, people and businesses will be scratching their heads in disbelief at today’s programme for government. The Government has failed to deliver growth, has imposed the highest taxes in the UK and has run down public services while failing against its own child poverty and net zero targets. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the SNP’s previous attempts to get the NHS off its knees were “awful”, but her scathing criticism surely applies to today’s blueprint as well.
I ask John Swinney this: has it not come to something when the principal call from business is for him to do no more harm? Despite John Swinney saying that his plans will boost exports and attract investment, will business not see through his flimsy rhetoric of an “innovation nation” and see instead a high-tax, low-growth Scotland, burdened by years of SNP overregulation and narrow-minded nationalist dogma?
Let us take some of that apart.
On our growth record, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.3 per cent since this Government came to office, compared with 6.1 per cent in the United Kingdom. That demonstrates that we have been able to preside over a stronger economic performance in Scotland.
If that is not enough for Mr Hoy, we could bring things closer to home. In 2024, Scotland’s economy grew by 1.2 per cent. Mr Hoy might not think that that is enough, but that is more than it grew in the United Kingdom. I remind Mr Hoy that, when 2024 started, we had the completely useless and incompetent Conservative Government in office, and it was delivering lower growth than we are delivering in Scotland.
Mr Hoy will have to change his script, because this Government is delivering for the people of Scotland on the economy, on jobs, on investment and on securing new economic opportunities, and we are going to build on that record in the years to come.
I welcome the expansion of specialist regional centres in order to deliver 150,000 additional appointments and procedures, which will reduce waiting times and waiting lists. I also welcome the 100,000 extra appointments in GP surgeries, which are focused on addressing the root causes of ill health.
How will the programme for government build on the recent progress that we have seen and ensure that more people can see their GP and get the care that they need in their community?
Two specific measures will help in that respect. One is the expansion of pharmacy first services, which will provide ever more access to healthcare interventions for members of the public. Secondly, the additional capacity that is being created in GP services will ensure that a range of appointments is available to deal with core health conditions. Together, those two measures will help to address many of the challenges that we face in accessing local healthcare services, which I recognise to be of vital importance to everyone in Scotland.
We will have to wait to see whether anything actually happens, but it is welcome that, after just 18 years in charge of our NHS, John Swinney turned up in Dundee yesterday to say that the SNP has now agreed with Labour policy that the 8 am GP rush has to end.
Who caused the problem in the first place? Could it be the SNP Government that cut the number of GP surgeries by 25 per cent? Could it be the SNP Government that increased GP patient lists by 37 per cent? If the SNP had a plan to save Scotland’s NHS from the SNP’s incompetence, we would have seen it by now. Why should anyone believe that the people who broke our NHS can be the people to fix it?
The answer as to why is for the very simple reason that Scottish Government ministers are addressing the issues of concern to the public, strengthening the NHS in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic and ensuring that we have the capacity to meet the needs of the public in Scotland. That is exactly what we have done in addressing the concerns of the public in Scotland and ensuring that there is more capacity and more opportunity for people to access healthcare services in Scotland. That is what the SNP Government has delivered.
The past few weeks have been extremely challenging for the LGBTQ+ community, and the tally of bad news continued with the lack of a bill to end conversion practices. Will the First Minister set out plans in the programme for government to advance the rights of LGBTQ+ people and to reassure the community that his Government will do everything in its power to protect our rights?
I happily give that commitment to Emma Roddick. I know that the past few weeks have been particularly challenging for members of the LGBTQ+ community. I recognise that, and I want to assure Emma Roddick of the Government’s commitment to address the concerns that have been expressed. I have set out in my statement the rationale for the steps that we are taking on ending conversion practices by collaborating with the UK Government, which has indicated that it intends to take forward the agenda, and by ensuring that we provide funding support to organisations that will work to promote equality in Scotland in the forthcoming financial year. I give Emma Roddick the assurance that those commitments will lie at the heart of the programme for government.
The First Minister has recommitted the Government to a just transition and an industrial future for Scotland. What impact will last year’s £23.4 million cut to the net zero and energy budget have on achieving that?
Mr Kerr will be familiar with the fact that the Government has to live within the resources that are available to it. We have had to deal with the significant pressure in the past two financial years of hyperinflation arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has fuelled public sector pay deals to levels that were not conceived of when we were setting the Government’s budget. Therefore, we have had to make changes. What the Government has done is put forward a budget that has now been supported by the Parliament—although not by Mr Kerr or the Conservatives, so I do not quite know why he is complaining about anything financial to me. He was not willing to press the button to vote for the Government’s budget; he was just prepared to sit over there, complain, not suggest any alternatives and fail to support the delivery of finances to support our public services. That is a capitulation with regard to the responsibilities of a member of Parliament.
Removing peak rail fares from September will greatly benefit my constituents in Paisley, considering that we have one of the busiest train stations in Scotland. However, given that cost is a major barrier to shifting from the car to public transport, what steps has the First Minister outlined in his programme for government to help more people to travel sustainably by bus or train?
The steps that we are putting in place on peak rail fares, the support to the bus sector and the active travel work that is under way in the Government are three examples that I would cite to Mr Adam as measures that support the modal shift that is required to support our climate ambitions.
I thank the First Minister for advance sight of the statement.
The First Minister talks of the ABCs of education, so let me test his Government’s record on them. On attainment, more pupils than ever are leaving school with no qualifications and the attainment gap in relation to a variety of measures is growing. On absence, rates are up and the Government has announced that it will monitor the data—so, when families needed action, they got simply observation.
On behaviour, violence is up and misogynistic abuse is growing, but, instead of addressing staff workload or pupil needs, the Government talked about a new action plan that has not even defined the problem yet.
On the curriculum, after years of reviews, consultations and rebrands, subject choice is narrowing, vocational routes are underresourced and reform has been delayed and diluted again.
Can the First Minister tell us this: after 17 years of broken promises and the squandering of a generation of young people’s opportunities in the process, will he now admit that his Government has failed on education?
No, I will not. Subject choice is very extensive in Scottish education, and Pam Duncan-Glancy does a disservice to the education system to suggest otherwise.
On attainment—[Interruption.]
Members, let us hear one another.
It is factually accurate, Mr Marra, believe you me.
On primary pupils’ attainment, the literacy gap among pupils in primaries 1, 4 and 7 combined is at its lowest level ever, at 20.2 percentage points. That debunks what Pam Duncan-Glancy is saying to me.
When it comes to behaviour interventions, the Government is taking steps, which have been consulted on in Parliament, to support the teaching profession in tackling unacceptable behaviour in our schools. Further steps are being taken to address the issue of absence from schools, which I recognise, and the Government accepts, is unacceptable at its current levels, because it deprives young people of their engagement in learning. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is bringing forward measures to ensure that the attendance issue is addressed by our communication and engagement with school communities in that respect.
I can assure Pam Duncan-Glancy that the Government is taking every step that we can to strengthen attendance and participation in education.
The recent blackouts in Spain and Portugal caused havoc to the vast majority of people in those countries, with the cost of putting it right having an initial estimate of around €4 billion.
Those countries rely heavily, as we do, on renewables. The First Minister has ruled out nuclear, and there is no coal. That just leaves gas. Does the First Minister accept that, to provide stability for the national grid, it is necessary to provide base-load or back-up? The only option remaining on the table is gas. Will you support new gas stations, which are tremendously cleaner and more efficient than the old ones, and which can help to protect us against the risk of blackout in Scotland and the UK?
Always speak through the chair, please.
Mr Ewing raises an important point about the need for energy security and for base-load capacity. I do not doubt the premise of the question that he puts to me.
The issues can be addressed in different ways, however. As part of the renewable energy mix, we can take steps on long-duration energy storage technologies; we can take forward work on pumped hydro storage; and we can take steps on battery storage.
Mr Ewing asked me specifically about gas power stations. He will know that there is a live planning application with ministers, so I will avoid commenting on that question, but there is a wider solution to the important issue that Mr Ewing puts to me, which has to be addressed to deliver security and safety for the population of Scotland.
I am pleased that the SNP Government is continuing to focus on supporting folk with everyday costs, through the cost of living package, during what continues to be a cost of living crisis for so many people. Has the Government carried out any assessment of how much the average household benefits from policies such as council tax and water bills that are lower than those in England and Wales and other supports such as free tuition fees, childcare and bus travel, to name just a few?
I will address some of the specific points that Jackie Dunbar raises with me. Average council tax charges for band E properties are £600 lower in Scotland compared with England and £400 lower than in Wales. Our provisions on early learning and childcare essentially represent a benefit of about £6,000 per child per year. In relation to tuition fees, students in England pay £28,605, while Scotland-domiciled students have continued to have free university tuition. I think that those are some of the answers that Jackie Dunbar was looking for.
The programme for government outlines no timeline or plan to dual the A96; offers supposed milestones on dualling the A9, which was supposed to be finished this year; and contains no mention at all of other vital roads, such as the A75 and the A77. Does the First Minister accept that communities have been left in the dark over long-promised SNP upgrades to those vital roads? Can he guarantee that the upgrades will finally be delivered or even that they will be delivered at all?
On the A9, the programme for government reaffirms the timetable that has already been shared with the Parliament. There is no deviation from that timetable. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport was up at the Moy to Tomatin stretch of the A9 to see the start of the works there. In line with the timetable that she has shared with the Parliament, further steps will be taken for new sections to be put out to tender. Indeed, there is already a tendering exercise out for one of the other sections of the A9.
In relation to the A96, we remain absolutely committed to dualling the Inverness to Nairn section, including the Nairn bypass. Made orders were published on 12 March 2024 to deliver that particular road. Progress is under way, and we will continue to keep the Parliament informed of developments.
Will the First Minister expand on the six-point export plan? Which specific international markets will be targeted and through which export sectors, and how will the package of measures support Scottish companies to reach global markets at a time of particular economic uncertainty due to US tariffs?
Audrey Nicoll highlights an important issue around economic volatility. Part of what the Government is trying to do in the programme for government is to make clear where we can take steps to support companies in navigating those examples of global volatility. We have a number of key markets, which are represented by the areas in which we have an international presence through Scottish Development International. We also have the benefit of the GlobalScot network, which helps us to establish connections. Technology, life sciences, renewables and green hydrogen, premium food and drink, and advanced manufacturing are some of the key sectors that the Government will pursue.
A year on from declaring a housing emergency, we still do not have enough homes, the rate of building has fallen and more than 10,000 children are homeless. The Government has failed to get us anywhere near the delivery target of 110,000 affordable homes, and the 8,000 homes that were reannounced in the programme for government will not be enough to get that target back on track. That is not a surprise, given that the huge housing budget cut was only partially restored this year. In line with pleas made by Shelter and Homes for Scotland, will the Government pledge to build the homes that we all need, or will the 110,000 affordable homes target become another broken promise?
I have to correct Mr Griffin, who is normally very accurate about this information. This year’s housing budget is higher than it was the year before the year in which we had to reduce the budget. That is what the Government is doing; we have remedied that particular issue. I encourage the Labour Party to accept the facts, move on and find something else to talk about or to moan about, given that we have addressed the issue about the budget that we have put in place. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
The second point that I would make to Mr Griffin—I made this point to him at First Minister’s question time last week, and I am surprised that he has not taken account of it—is that, in Scotland, in the face of austerity, we have delivered more affordable houses per head of population than have been delivered in England or Wales. The Government’s programme will build on exactly that.
Scotland’s prosperity depends on having a highly skilled workforce, enabling a globally competitive economy in sectors such as aerospace and the life sciences. Providing more science, technology, engineering and maths skills is an issue that was raised by Colleges Scotland at the Finance and Public Administration Committee only this morning. What steps is the First Minister’s Government taking to deliver the unfilled demand for 15,000 apprenticeship places that the Open University says that Scottish employers currently require?
We are investing about £185 million each year, enabling 25,000 people to undertake modern apprenticeships each year. We will continue to support around 38,500 apprentices who are already in training as part of our wider programme.
The issue that Mr Gibson raises touches on the availability of an adequately sized working-age population, which is a strategic challenge for Scotland and is made worse because of the loss of the free movement of individuals as a consequence of Brexit. There are steps that could help us to strengthen Scotland’s employment base if we had a larger working-age population who would be able to benefit from the training opportunities that we can provide.
The education section of the programme for government states that SNP ministers will ensure
“the removal of written exams in more practical subjects”.
I have two questions for the First Minister. How do ministers plan to deliver that change this year? Does that move away from our traditional and rigorous Scottish exam system represent SNP exam policy and does the First Minister understand concerns that that could further weaken our education system and confuse employers?
If Mr Briggs is saying that the only way that the performance of a student can be assessed is by a written examination—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
That is what I take from Mr Briggs’s question. The emphasis in the programme for government is on alternative methods of assessment that are already very common in our college and university community and contribute significantly to Scotland’s international reputation.
There must be high standards in our examination system, but I do not think that those can be delivered only by high-stakes exams. In fact, some of the best assessment of performance can be made during an academic year. That is what happens in many of our universities and colleges and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is taking the sensible step of applying more of that in our school community.
I am pleased that the programme for government will include a bill on non-surgical cosmetic procedures, making the aesthetics sector safer for patients and practitioners. As the First Minister will be aware, one of my constituents has lobbied for that for quite some time. Can the First Minister indicate when he plans to introduce that bill in the Scottish Parliament?
We will introduce the bill during the remainder of the parliamentary session, with the objective of ensuring that that legislation is complete by the end of this session. I commend Mr McMillan for the way in which he has pursued the issue, and I am glad that we have found the legislative vehicle that will enable us to take it forward.
The First Minister spoke in his statement about
“a fairer Scotland, with Scotland’s growing wealth shared more fairly”.
Is he thinking of a more progressive council tax or property tax, or perhaps about a wealth tax?
The point in principle is being applied in the Government’s approach to taxation and has always underpinned that approach. I want to ensure that we continue with measures that support those who suffer from and live in poverty so that we can assist them out of poverty and can create opportunities for them to thrive. Of course, we need well-financed public services to be able to do so.
My constituents in Strathkelvin and Bearsden benefit every day from the SNP Government’s current cost of living guarantee, which gives them and their families support that is not available anywhere else in the UK. Which plans in the programme for government will provide further help for families and children in particular?
We took steps in the budget to make provision to expand a number of relevant areas. The bright start breakfast fund is one example of that and the expansion of free school meals to around 25,000 more pupils in low-income households will be another. The steps that we are taking to lift the two-child benefits limit will help to address some of the points that Rona Mackay has raised.
It is striking that this is the final signature Government statement before next year’s election and yet the public gallery is almost empty.
Although the share of health spending given to GPs is down, waits are up. Why did it take a threat of a formal dispute by doctors for the Government to finally act?
I assure Mr Rennie that it did not. If he casts his mind back, he will recall that the Government has been engaged in dialogue with the GP community on those questions for some time. Indeed, in my speech at the National Robotarium in January, I reflected on the issues that we were addressing to make sure that we could improve access to GP services—the Government has delivered that as part of the programme for government today.
That concludes questions on the First Minister’s statement. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to reorganise.
Previous
Topical Question Time