Official Report 1177KB pdf
Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (Bus Franchising)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the decision by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport to progress with proposals for bus franchising. (S6O-05042)
We very much welcome the work that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport has undertaken to update its regional bus strategy, given the importance of the bus sector to its region. It is right that local transport authorities explore how best to use the measures in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, as our approach is to enable them to determine what is best to improve their services. Transport Scotland will continue to engage with all stakeholders, including SPT.
Work on the franchising guidance is on-going. We will be sharing it with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, along with the affected parties, prior to its finalisation and formal publication.
Since 2006, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of bus routes across Scotland, and 190 routes have been cut in the past year alone. More than 83 per cent of passengers support the idea of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport implementing bus franchising across the region, which would allow for better oversight of fares, routes and timetables. What work is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that SPT has the necessary financial support to enable it to proceed with franchising?
The Scottish Government continues to work with SPT, as I said in my original answer. We have to go through a number of phases. Once the guidance is cleared, we will present it to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. After that, it will be up to SPT to come back to us to talk about what it needs to do next.
Many constituents are contacting me about the decline in services that are offered by the main commercial bus operators in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, which can mean that people need to travel for more than two hours to ensure that they are at their work in Glasgow by 9 am. What opportunities are presented by the new powers for local authorities that SPT can utilise to return to a more comprehensive bus network and promote public transport use?
The bus powers under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 enable local transport authorities to determine the provision of services, the routes and frequency of services and the fare structures for services, as well as the types of vehicles that should be used on local roads. We want all local transport authorities to be able to improve their bus services, but it is for them to decide which powers, if any, are best to use to address the transport challenges in their areas.
Highland Main Line (Dualling and Electrification)
To ask the Scottish Government what scoping work it has undertaken regarding dualling and electrifying the Highland main line. (S6O-05043)
Network Rail, instructed by Transport Scotland, has investigated options to electrify the Highland main line. That work contributed to developing our plans to replace ScotRail’s intercity fleet, which I announced to Parliament in December 2024.
As I said in the debate that the member led last week, we are firmly committed to electrifying our railways. Projects that are already delivered or under way, such as those for Edinburgh to Glasgow, Barrhead and East Kilbride, and our recently announced plans for the phased electrification of the Fife and Borders routes, are evidence of that commitment.
A refreshed rail decarbonisation action plan will be published during this parliamentary session, which will specify how we are going to achieve phased decarbonisation of our rail network by 2045.
I appreciate that there are potential improvements to be secured by dualling the Highland main line, but no active projects for that are under way.
My interest is in the Highland main line in particular. As long as 17 years ago, the Scottish Government promised rail passengers that it would cut journey times between Inverness and Perth by half an hour. In the intervening 17 years, just four minutes have been saved on that route, because the Government has not prioritised rail in its spending. What will the cabinet secretary do to fulfil the promise that has been broken and provide speedy, reliable rail for people in the Highlands?
I think that the member is incorrect. Rail constitutes the vast bulk of my budget, compared with other modes of transport. Rail is funded with more than £1.5 billion a year, and trunk roads and their issues receive about £1 billion, so it is incorrect to characterise the Scottish Government’s funding in that way. The extensive announcements that I have made on procurement and electrification have been welcomed, particularly in the Borders and Fife, and they are testament to our commitment to rail.
New House Building and Affordable Housing Supply
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the “Housing Statistics for Scotland Quarterly Update: New Housebuilding and Affordable Housing Supply to end June 2025”. (S6O-05044)
The Scottish Government recognises the challenges that are set out in the latest housing statistics. That is why we have increased the 2025-26 housing budget to £808 million. We did that in September, when we doubled our funding for acquisitions to £80 million under the housing emergency action plan. That will help family homes to be acquired now to relieve evident pressure. We are also committing up to £4.9 billion over the coming four years, which is a major increase. An uptick in delivery will follow.
In 2018, Scotland saw 23,337 housing starts. This year, it is just 15,104, which is a 35 per cent collapse. Social sector starts are at their lowest level since 1997, when we started publishing the statistics. Since 2018, 3,435 more children have ended up in temporary accommodation and, tragically, 1,188 more people have died homeless.
How will the cabinet secretary and the Government reverse that devastating trend? Does the Government have a target date for ending the use of hotels and bed and breakfasts as temporary accommodation for children?
The availability of temporary accommodation is a vital safety net under Scotland’s housing and homelessness legislation, but it ought to be just that—it ought to be temporary.
The actions that we have taken to date—not least the delivery of 140,000 affordable homes since we came into government, more than 100,000 of which have been for social rent—have meant that, in Scotland, we have access to 47 per cent more affordable homes per head than in England and 73 per cent more than in Wales. Despite that, Mark Griffin is right that there is considerable strain in the system. I do not want any children to spend longer in temporary accommodation than they need to. That is why, on 2 September, our housing emergency action plan committed to a number of actions to turn around that trend, including setting out multi-annual funding for affordable homes, record investment in affordable homes over the coming years and other changes, including changes to the planning system so that it facilitates the change that we are determined to see.
Mark Griffin has some nerve to stand in the chamber and criticise the Scottish Government’s action on tackling Scotland’s housing emergency when the Labour Administration of 2003 to 2007 completed only a dismal six council homes and was lacking in crucial innovation and collaboration with local authorities. Will the cabinet secretary advise me how the Scottish Government’s ambitious investment in voids and acquisitions will empower local authorities to replenish existing housing stock to create permanent homes for hundreds of families throughout Scotland?
I very much welcome the question and the context. The new affordable homes that we have delivered since coming into government set us apart in the United Kingdom, but it is also important to put the stock that we have to better use.
Rona Mackay asks about voids and acquisitions. Since declaring a national housing emergency, we have brought almost 1,000 homes into affordable use through £40 million of targeted investments in acquisitions and through bringing social voids back into use. On 2 September, in the emergency plan that I mentioned, we doubled the fund for acquisitions to £80 million. We have asked councils to go out now to use that money to acquire homes that are on the market—family homes, which are needed to get children out of temporary accommodation—and relieve the pressure, and we will invest in home building at the same time.
Investment in Sport
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of it being Scottish women and girls in sport week, what financial progress has been made against its 2021-22 programme for government commitment to double its investment in sport to £100 million by the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O-05045)
The Scottish Government’s women and girls in sport week campaign aims to increase the visibility of women and girls in sport, highlight opportunities to get involved and discuss barriers and drivers to participation. The 2025-26 budget underlines our on-going commitment to sport and active living by protecting that investment, despite a challenging economic background. We recognise the significant impact that spending on sport and physical activity has on delivering health outcomes, and doubling the investment in sport and active living during this parliamentary session remains the Scottish Government’s ambition.
The minister will understand that the Scottish National Party’s 2021 programme for government commitment to double the investment to £100 million substantially raised the hopes of sporting bodies, which have been struggling with resource issues for years. It is little wonder that they are aghast at seeing the figure of around £40 million in the revised autumn budget. Taking away the sportscotland spending of £35 million leaves just under £5 million for the active healthy lives programme. It is worse still when those bodies see that the £40 million figure is lower than the 2021-22 revised autumn budget figure of £44.5 million. Will SNP ministers honour their 2021 programme for government commitment?
I assure Liz Smith and the Parliament as a whole that we meet sports governing bodies regularly and we recognise the challenging situation that they are facing, which is, frankly, worsened by some of the decisions that have been made at Westminster, such as those on employer national insurance contributions, which have added strain to a sector that, as Liz Smith acknowledges, was already in difficulty.
It remains our ambition to double that budget. We have one more Scottish Government budget to go before the end of this parliamentary session. I am very hopeful that, unlike last year, the Scottish Conservatives—who did not previously find it possible to vote for the investment in sport of nearly £50 million—will find it in their hearts not just to support the budget and maintain that investment but to negotiate to increase it. That would be great.
Patient Rights (Unfit-for-purpose Medical Centres)
To ask the Scottish Government what rights patients have when their local medical centre has been deemed unfit for purpose by their national health service board. (S6O-05046)
NHS boards are responsible for ensuring the provision of primary medical services in their area. My officials are working with all health boards to develop a whole-system NHS infrastructure investment plan. A key part of that plan will be the development of an investment strategy for primary care, which will consider both priorities and delivery models.
Spending on primary medical services by the Scottish Government has increased over the past decade, both in cash and in real terms. In cash terms, spending has gone from £763 million in 2013-14 to almost £1.1 billion in 2023-24.
According to NHS Fife,
“The Initial Agreement Document (IAD) was approved by Scottish Government in January 2020”.
In 2021, the then health secretary, in answer to a question from Annabelle Ewing about Lochgelly, told the Parliament:
“I give the member an absolute confirmation that, when we have that outline business case, the funding will be found.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2021; c 9.]
In early 2023, NHS Fife stated that the current Lochgelly and Kincardine health centres
“are older facilities which no longer meet the needs of the local populations.”
Does the cabinet secretary understand the level of anger and despair in communities in Lochgelly and Kincardine, which have been promised time and again that they would have replacements for unfit-for-purpose health centres?
I thank Alex Rowley for setting that out. Yes, I understand it, because I have met local residents in Lochgelly and Kincardine at the request of Ms Ewing and Ms Somerville, the constituency representatives, and the residents highlighted those concerns. We have a capital funding pause, except in the areas that have been set out in the budget, because of the pressure on our capital budget due to decisions that have been taken that are outwith our control and because of inflation in the construction sector. We are in touch with NHS Fife and all other health boards in order to get their capital priorities. We hope that the United Kingdom budget will provide greater capital investment to allow us to do more in the primary care system.
NHS Fife has just said that a new medical centre for Lochgelly will be in its top 3 priority projects for capital funding from the Scottish Government. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it must surely be Lochgelly’s turn now?
I very much appreciate the work that Annabelle Ewing has done to advance the case for the Lochgelly medical centre. I hear what she has said about NHS Fife’s prioritisation. She will understand that the capital allocation will be determined based on the allocation that we receive from the UK Government in the budget and the work that is being carried out regarding the spending review and the infrastructure investment plan. My wish is for much greater investment to go into the primary care services capital estate and for Lochgelly, Kincardine and other communities to see development happen.
Congestion Charging and Clyde Tunnel Toll (Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with Glasgow City Council regarding its proposals for an “at-city-boundary congestion charge” and a toll on the Clyde tunnel. (S6O-05047)
The Scottish Government has not held specific discussions with Glasgow City Council regarding any potential at-city-boundary charge or regarding any toll charge to use the Clyde tunnel.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary might urgently do so, because my Eastwood constituents would be unfairly charged by the Scottish National Party-run council every time they crossed the local authority boundary by car for work, university, college, family or social reasons. For example, every time they went to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital for essential medical care, they would be charged for crossing the city boundary.
Moreover, if every other local authority followed suit, we would have, in effect, a series of custom posts all over Scotland, with people being charged every time they crossed a city or council boundary anywhere in Scotland. That would be a disaster for the economy and a completely unrealistic and unfair burden on motorists.
It was my understanding that the Conservatives wanted to have more decentralisation and more powers for councils—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the cabinet secretary.
However, Jackson Carlaw now wants me to step in on an issue that should best be resolved by East Renfrewshire Council and Glasgow City Council. I remind him that there is existing legislation—the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was introduced by the then Labour and Lib Dem Executive—on road user charging powers. It is up to local authorities to make decisions, and they want to manage their own road space, maintenance and congestion. If he does not believe that local authorities should be in charge of their own authorities, perhaps there are even more divisions in the Conservative Party than we realised.
Rosyth to Dunkirk Proposed Ferry Route
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. (S6O-05048)
The Scottish Government continues to support the development of our ports and the potential for a new direct freight and passenger ferry service linking Scotland to Europe. Ministers and officials have met the sponsors on a number of occasions regarding their proposal to introduce a new ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk, and the Scottish Government continues to engage with the sponsors on a variety of issues.
As Mark Ruskell is aware, one obstacle is the border control post requirements, which were introduced due to the United Kingdom exiting the European Union. Although the Scottish Government welcomes the recent announcement of an outline sanitary and phytosanitary agreement between the UK and the EU, until the agreement is finalised, it is impossible for the Scottish Government to provide certainty about future border control post requirements. Officials continue to discuss those matters and others with the sponsors.
The minister will be aware that, before the summer recess, the First Minister gave assurances that his Government would “welcome the ferry route” and do
“everything that we can to remove any obstacles that are in the way.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2025; c 20.]
Four months on, the biggest barrier remains the border control post designation. I believe that that is resolvable. The ferry route is a significant opportunity for the local community, the Scottish economy and our connection to Europe. How will the Government support the delivery of the ferry route in the coming months? Time is ticking away; we will lose the ferry route and the direct connection to Europe. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity, and I think that the First Minister knows that, too.
Mark Ruskell makes light of the issue of border control posts, but he should not do so, because of the job that they do in preserving Scotland’s public health and animal health. The Scottish Government remains absolutely convinced that Scotland’s future is best served by being in the EU, and we remain committed to seeking to achieve that. Improving our transport and trade links with the European mainland is even more important and has even more resonance after the UK’s damaging exit from the EU.
As I said, although the Scottish Government welcomes the recent announcement about an SPS agreement between the UK and the EU, until an agreement is finalised, it is not possible to confirm what future border control post requirements will be. Scottish Government officials continue to liaise with the sponsors, and I have asked for a meeting directly with the sponsors.