Official Report 414KB pdf
Active Travel (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of comments made by the First Minister in the Parliament on 2 June that the Scottish Government prioritises active and safe travel routes and the encouragement of cycling, walking and wheeling, for what reason Transport Scotland reportedly reduced the revenue funding for regional transport partnerships’ people and place programmes by 60 per cent, during the election purdah period. (S7O-00021)
I thank Patrick Harvie for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to restate what the First Minister said. We support cycling, walking and wheeling, which is why £226 million-worth of investment is going into sustainable and active travel. I am very proud of that—I am sure that he is, too—as the Government ensures that it balances its budget this year.
I am sorry that the cabinet secretary did not choose to answer that question by explaining why the cut took place and why it took place during the election purdah period. I have returned to my job to meet local community organisations that are doing the work that the Scottish Government says it wants to see happen, and which are seeing that their entire funding has been pulled from under them. Unless that decision is reversed, community groups around the country that are delivering the work that the Government says it wants to see happen will lose their staff, their skills, their expertise and all trust in the Scottish Government prioritising the issue. Will the cabinet secretary reverse that decision urgently?
Mr Harvie will be pleased to know that £3.2 million is still going to regional transport partnerships—£1.6 million will be available for local direct awards and £1.4 million is going to bikeability schemes, which all our weans can benefit from. Of course, that forms part of a wider £226 million-worth of investment from the Scottish Government in sustainable and active travel. That is a good thing for his constituents and a good thing for mine.
Julie MacDougall has a supplementary.
I recently met the chief executive of Forth Valley College. It was incredibly harrowing to hear about how apprenticeship courses are being cut—
That is not relevant to this question. We are on supplementaries to the question that Patrick Harvie asked.
I apologise.
Lloyd Melville has a supplementary.
My apologies, Presiding Officer. I pressed my button in error, thinking that I would have to do that for my general question later on.
I realise that everyone is finding their feet, including me. I remind members that they should only press their button if they want to ask a supplementary to the general question that has been asked.
Alex Cole-Hamilton has a supplementary.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree that one of the safest ways to get students from Kirkliston in my constituency to their catchment high school in South Queensferry is via the council-funded coach service that has been operating well there for several years. A decision by the City of Edinburgh Council to remove that service for up to 200 pupils was halted today. Given that public transport timetables do not marry up with the start of the school day, that decision could have led to hundreds of extra car journeys every day.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that families in Kirkliston who pay Edinburgh council taxes should enjoy the same level of council-funded transport services as those in every other community in the city?
That was not quite on the nose for the general question, but do you want to respond, cabinet secretary?
I am happy to answer.
If Mr Cole-Hamilton wishes to write to me, I will write back to him as swiftly as I possibly can.
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Service Delivery Review)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service board regarding the outcome of the service delivery review that is due to be considered on 22 June. (S7O-00022)
I met the SFRS board chair on 4 June, when we discussed the overall objectives of the service delivery review and the consultation and outreach process that the SFRS has undertaken. Recent large fires in Glasgow and Fife have been dealt with commendably by our front-line firefighters, which illustrates the importance of having a properly resourced fire service. However, the fire risks have changed and the SFRS must adapt its services to meet those changes.
To protect the integrity of the governance process, the Scottish Government has not yet had sight of the final review recommendations, which will go to the board for consideration on 22 June. The SFRS has committed to publishing the rationale for the proposed changes, along with a detailed analysis of the public consultation ahead of that.
There is profound concern about the potential outcomes of the service delivery review, not least from the firefighters and their union. Given the gravity of the decisions that are about to be made, does the Government agree that there should be full parliamentary scrutiny and that Parliament should have a say on what happens next, before the review is implemented? To that end, would it consider committing Government time to a debate on the next steps?
These are independent decisions for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to make, but it is open to Parliament to take a view on those matters—in the way that a view is normally taken, for example, on investigations undertaken through the committee structure—or otherwise. Obviously, it is for other parties to determine what they use their Opposition time for. I know that the SFRS’s local senior officers will be engaging directly with MSPs on the review. My understanding is that the review is not about making reductions in the number of firefighters or appliances that have been in place since September 2023, but is about ensuring the correct spread across the country to respond to increasing wildfires, grass fires and flooding as a result of climate change.
Ministers previously told Parliament that almost £1 million of specialist wildfire pumping units would be deployed within weeks. A Scottish Conservative freedom of information request later revealed that they were still not operational, during Scotland’s worst wildfire season on record. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that was a failure of operational preparedness? Can he confirm whether all eight units are now fully operational?
I am more than happy to explore that with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in order to ensure that we are in a position to respond to the changing nature of fire and flood risk across Scotland. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s very successful prevention activities, as well as local authority building standards and planning, mean that house fires have decreased—fortunately—whereas, due to climate change, we see a massive rise in grass fires and flooding, and the review is about ensuring that the resources are in the right place to meet that demand, as Mr Kerr has outlined.
I appreciate that these are independent decisions to be made by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, but I am interested to know whether the Scottish Government is looking at the cumulative impact of those changes on, for example, other rescue services such as the coastguard, for which I understand there were proposals to move to a purely voluntary service. Given the significant impact that that could have on constituencies that have so many coastal communities, such as Argyll and Bute, is the cabinet secretary willing to meet me to discuss the matter further?
The short answer is yes. I am happy to meet Ms Minto or any other member to discuss the matter further. The challenge of multiple organisations drawing on small rural populations is not new. The SFRS works collaboratively with a range of partners, including the coastguard service, on response and resilience in rural areas. Many fire stations share facilities with organisations such as the coastguard, and Scotland’s safety and resilience rely on people carrying out roles such as that of an on-call firefighter. I am grateful to the men and women who carry out those roles for doing so. The SFRS is flexible when setting on-call periods so that, wherever possible, multiple volunteer roles can be accommodated. I am very familiar with that, given my island upbringing—as Ms Minto will be, given her experience as a constituency MSP.
GP Walk-in Centres (North Ayrshire)
To ask the Scottish Government when it expects a general practitioner walk-in centre to open in North Ayrshire. (S7O-00023)
I have committed to expanding the walk-in service programme and will set out how I will do so in the first 100 days of this Government. Health boards were previously asked to generate proposals that considered their populations’ needs, taking into account local issues and circumstances. Our experience so far will inform how we commission the next 14 services.
North Ayrshire’s people have Scotland’s lowest healthy life expectancy. The average adult remains in full health until just 53 years old. More than 28 per cent of people live with a long-term health condition, which is 6 per cent higher than the Scottish average. In view of those facts, does the cabinet secretary agree that there is an urgent and compelling case for a GP walk-in centre in Cunninghame South to allow my constituents greater access to healthcare and advice?
Ms Gibson has made an important point about reducing health inequality by improving access to healthcare. The Government is committed to providing a North Ayrshire walk-in service, which was one of the 14 additional services that were announced. That brings the total number of walk-in services that we are focused on delivering to 30. As I said, over the next 100 days I will set out how I will do that. Health boards were previously asked to generate proposals to meet their population’s needs, and our experience thus far will inform how we commission the next 14 services. I would welcome Ms Gibson sharing any proposals that she has with NHS Ayrshire and Arran.
Work is well under way in preparation for Glasgow’s first walk-in clinic opening. Can the Scottish Government offer an update on when that wonderful resource for the good people of Cardonald will be open?
I expect the Glasgow site to open later this month. I very much appreciate the health board’s hard work to get the services up and running. I am sure that Michelle Campbell will join me in welcoming the opening of the sites and thanking our hard-working national health service staff for delivering them.
It is 77 miles from Sanquhar to Stranraer, which is a journey that takes a minimum of two hours by car or at least four hours by bus. Given that my constituents will be expected to make that journey to access the GP walk-in centre in Stranraer, does that not expose the policy as being a pre-election ploy that was designed to distract attention away from a primary care system in crisis?
It is disappointing that Mr Hoy does not welcome the prospect of a GP walk-in service for Stranraer. The important point is that the purpose of GP walk-in services is to free up capacity in the primary care system, so that people across our constituencies and regions can be seen quickly. That will support GP surgeries to provide continuity of care for patients who have on-going conditions. It is, of course, a pilot programme, and there will be valuable learning from it. The programme will be subject to a full evaluation.
Laurencekirk Junction Improvement Scheme
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress of the business plan for the A90/A937 Laurencekirk junction improvement scheme, including when it expects the scheme to move from the development pipeline to the delivery pipeline. (S7O-00024)
I thank Dawn Black for her doughty campaigning on the matter. I reassure her that the Scottish Government is committed to delivering a new grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk as part of a package of additional investment alongside the Aberdeen city region deal.
I advise Dawn Black that Transport Scotland continues to press forward with the necessary procedural and legislative steps to complete the statutory authorisation process. It is essential that those steps are completed correctly. Delivery of the improvements at Laurencekirk can commence only if the project is approved under the statutory procedures, at which point a timetable for its progress can be set, in line with the Scottish Government’s annual budget-setting exercises.
Given that the scheme was approved, in principle, for funding in 2018 and that the last objections to the project were resolved in early 2025, does the cabinet secretary appreciate the restrictions on life that the lack of a flyover at the notoriously dangerous junction over the A90 dual carriageway between Laurencekirk and the A937 Marykirk Road creates for local people and businesses? Will he meet me and local campaigners to further discuss firm funding and timelines?
Yes. Ms Black will know that I am very familiar with the junction, as I drive through it almost weekly. It is important that we allow the statutory process to be followed. Once that has been completed, I would be more than happy to meet Ms Black and the campaigners.
Adult Disability Payment (Support for Applicants)
To ask the Scottish Government what is being done to help eligible applicants for adult disability payment access the support that they need, in light of the reported fall in the proportion of applications approved from 57 per cent to 34 per cent. (S7O-00025)
Since adult disability payment was introduced, 45 per cent of applications have been awarded. More than 498,000 people receive ADP, with £6.1 billion being paid to eligible people. That is testament to a compassionate and person-centred Scottish social security system that enables disabled people to access the support to which they are entitled.
Our approach includes the United Kingdom’s first online application for disability benefits. Social Security Scotland can gather supporting information on clients’ behalf, and it offers online, paper and telephone applications. In addition, face-to-face help is available in every local authority, and we fund independent advocacy through Advice Direct Scotland.
I know that Social Security Scotland’s approach is definitely an improvement on the UK Department for Work and Pensions scheme, but that does not mean that it is perfect. There is disparity across local authorities, and there are issues when the lack of social security statements blocks people’s gateway to vital services—for example, in relation to national entitlement cards or access to work. Can the cabinet secretary assure me that any reviews or further work will ensure that all disabled people, including neurodivergent people, will be able to access the support that they need?
I welcome the challenge to the Government that Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill has made in relation to ensuring that the agency continues to be a learning organisation. I am very proud of what it has delivered, but we are always keen to improve. I hope that I can reassure her by saying that the agency is looking at the reasons why the approval rate has changed over time. One example of such a reason relates to the age profile regarding repeat applications.
We must also bear in mind that, for the first time ever, we have encouraged applications—we are encouraging people to apply. They then have to go through a robust system to ensure that they are entitled to and eligible for the benefit. If it would help the member, I would be more than happy to meet her, along with representatives of the agency, to discuss some of the wider issues that she raised in her supplementary question. There is a lot to go through that I cannot get through today.
Agricultural Businesses (Support)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support farmers, crofters and agricultural businesses in Angus South and throughout Scotland, in light of the reported rising input costs, pressure on farmgate prices, increased employer national insurance contributions and concerns regarding changes to agricultural property and business property relief. (S7O-00026)
The Government is committed to supporting active farming and sustainable food production through direct payments, regardless of choices made elsewhere. The 2026 payment strategy maintains the timings for direct payments and Scottish rural development programme funding, which, over the coming five years, will, per the rural support plan, provide certainty, preparation and investment, ensuring that our farmers and crofters have the confidence to invest and prepare for changes.
The Scottish Parliament voted in favour of calling for the United Kingdom Government to reverse the national insurance increase, acknowledging that that increase will likely result in higher costs, job losses and increased prices.
Having visited agricultural businesses in my constituency, such as Newton farm, I know how squeezed farmers and crofters across Scotland are feeling, often by issues outwith the scope of this Parliament. Can the cabinet secretary set out what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the UK Government on those reserved issues? Does she agree that, if we are serious about food security and sustaining rural communities, family farms need certainty, fairness and practical support?
Our engagement with the UK Government is ongoing. We have consistently called on the UK Government to reverse the damaging and ill-thought-out decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. Agriculture is not the only sector that is affected by that.
Our officials are working alongside their UK Government counterparts to ensure that Scottish tenant farmers remain exempt from inheritance tax. We remain committed to supporting our farmers and crofters by giving them certainty through our support for active farming and food production, with direct payments. We have brought forward payment dates to pay farmers and crofters at the earliest possible opportunity to assist with cash flow and to give them certainty, which is lacking in other areas.
North Coast 500 (Economic Impacts)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the BiGGAR Economics report, “Building a Sustainable Future for the North Coast 500”. (S7O-00027)
The BiGGAR Economics report demonstrates that the north coast 500 makes a significant contribution to the Highland economy by generating almost £100 million annually and supporting more than 1,300 jobs. Indeed, every £1 invested has returned £36 to the local economy. However, the report also underlines pressure on infrastructure and residents, as well as poor visitor behaviour. We are committed to working with partners to build on the benefits of the route while addressing those obvious challenges.
I was very concerned to read that a significant percentage of residents—a majority—in the north coast 500 area are negatively impacted, although, as somebody who lives near the canal in Inverness, I am of course not surprised.
While some people clearly benefit significantly from the route, many more are struggling with negative impacts. The balance between the needs of tourists and residents in the Highlands has not yet been struck. What more can the Government do to encourage and support sustainable tourism and discourage the bad behaviour that we so frequently see on the north coast 500?
There is always that conflict between the desire to ensure that people can enjoy the wonderful scenery that Scotland has to offer and the challenge that that imposes on those who live in the communities concerned. That is why the Government has created the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which I know that some projects on the north coast 500 have benefited from. We will continue to work to ensure that the positive impacts of the north coast 500 are realised and that the negative impacts are mitigated in the best possible way.
The north coast 500 has been a success for the north Highland economy, but it has also exposed a road network that is struggling to keep pace. There is a £233 million gap across the Highlands between what the council is spending and what it needs to spend in order to repair our roads. We need long-term investment and not short-term patching.
Will the minister commit to providing the level of funding that is required for this nationally important route? Will he agree that the Highland Council visitor levy, if implemented, should result not only in investment in infrastructure but in support for local businesses and improvements in the competitiveness of our visitor economy?
As much as I am tempted to do so, it is not for me to tell any local authority what to do with its money or, indeed, the money that it might potentially raise through any levy. However, I am sure that David Green’s words will have been heard very loudly by the local authority councillors in his area.
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Economic Impacts)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any implications of the European Union’s carbon border adjustment mechanism for Scotland’s economy, including what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding the mitigation of any potential threats for Scotland’s exports. (S7O-00028)
The Scottish Government supports the aim of the carbon border adjustment mechanisms, or CBAMs, to reduce carbon leakage. However, we recognise that the mechanisms, whether in the UK or the EU, present challenges for businesses. We have therefore met businesses in affected sectors to understand their concerns, which include compliance costs and competitive disadvantages in exporting to the EU, despite efforts to cut emissions. We have written to UK ministers to share the concerns and have consistently urged the UK Government to link UK and EU emissions trading schemes, which should provide EU CBAM exemptions for Scottish businesses.
I thank the minister for his answer, but surely he shares my frustration that the UK finds itself between a rock and a hard place on CBAM and everything else, and that it has very little influence on how CBAM has come to be. Does he agree that Scotland’s best future is as an independent state within the European framework?
I agree absolutely with Alyn Smith and welcome him bringing his tremendous experience and expertise to this chamber, given his previous roles.
We are certainly committed to engaging constructively with the UK Government, and I will meet my UK ministerial counterpart in the coming weeks. However, he is absolutely right to highlight the catastrophic damage that Brexit has inflicted on not just the Scottish but the UK economy, and that, of course, the best future for Scotland is as an independent member of the European Union.
I note from the ongoing CBAM discussions that fertiliser is going to be caught up in some of the border adjustments. That is likely to massively increase the cost of fertiliser, which is a key input for our farmers. Has the minister reviewed that particular input, and what measures will the Scottish Government use to help to resolve the issue of those costs for farmers?
Duncan Massey raises an important point. The Scottish Government convened a round-table meeting with businesses and affected sectors earlier this year. My predecessor wrote to the UK Government prior to dissolution. He did not receive a reply so, this morning, I wrote to the minister of state, and I hope to meet him in the coming weeks. I give the undertaking to the Parliament that, when I do, I will raise not just the issues that have been brought to the chamber this afternoon but the many other representations that I have received on the matter. I am happy to keep Duncan Massey up to date in that regard.
Previous
Committee Conveners