Official Report 745KB pdf
Freedom of Information
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the greater use of private bodies to deliver public services, what its position is on whether freedom of information law should be reformed to close loopholes, strengthen the powers of the Scottish Information Commissioner and enable the speedier extension of the coverage of freedom of information to relevant bodies. (S6O-05499)
Scotland has the most robust FOI laws in the United Kingdom, and we will ensure that they continue to work effectively to enable access to information about Government and public services. As the member is aware, the Scottish Government is consulting on a substantial extension of FOI to private care providers. That will be the biggest extension since the legislation came into force.
The Scottish Information Commissioner is fully independent of Government and has considerable authority. The commissioner is also funded directly from the Scottish budget via the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Last year, the approved budget was £2.7 million.
Private companies have increasingly become major providers of public services across sectors such as justice and transport. Multinationals such as Serco, G4S and Mitie receive substantial amounts of public money to deliver public services, but they do not need to comply with freedom of information laws. If the same service was provided by the Government, we would have the right to information. Does the minister agree that the public should know how their public services are being delivered and how public money is being spent?
I am broadly sympathetic to Katy Clark’s general point. The Government will provide its response to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s stage 1 report on her bill imminently. It is a thoughtful and considered report, and I commend Katy Clark for the work that she has done on her bill, which has brought FOI into focus. I look forward to exploring such matters in detail in the stage 1 debate on Tuesday.
Can the minister provide figures for how many freedom of information requests have been made to the Scottish Government and the annual cost? Is he aware of whether that shows an increasing trend?
There has been a consistent rise in the number of FOI requests that the Government receives. The figures were roughly 4,200 in 2021 and 5,100 in 2023, and the number rose to 6,700 in 2025. That is an increase of about 60 per cent in four years.
Work is on-going to review the indicative processing costs to the Scottish Government that are associated with FOI. It is too early to share those results, but the early sampling shows that there is a significant range of processing costs, which go from approximately £100 up to £3,000, depending on the complexity of the question.
Exams (Assistive Technologies)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent changes to Scottish Qualifications Authority policy permitting internet-enabled devices, such as Chromebooks, in exams, what action it is taking to ensure that pupils who rely on speech-to-text as their normal way of working are not, in practice, prevented from using this technology during exams. (S6O-05500)
As an executive non-departmental public body, Qualifications Scotland has now replaced the Scottish Qualifications Authority. It operates at arm’s length from ministers and is responsible for its own operational decisions.
Ahead of the 2025 exams, the body updated its policy to allow the use of internet-enabled devices in exams. That removes barriers for assistive technology users and ensures that students can use their normal way of working from the classroom in assessments. Qualifications Scotland is working with councils and CALL Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Government, to provide support.
Chromebooks are used by the majority of local authorities. Parents and support for learning staff have reported that, despite the SQA’s policy change, pupils are unable to use speech-to-text on Chromebooks in exams, because the required software is not being funded. Pupils who use speech-to-text as their normal way of working are therefore forced to use a scribe in exams.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that that places those pupils, who already face barriers to learning, at a clear disadvantage? Will she commit to finding a practical solution, whether through funding or technical guidance, such as paying for individual invigilators to ensure that pupils do not access the internet, as a potential way forward?
Mr Golden raises a hugely important point. We want to ensure that no pupils are disadvantaged by examination requirements or the support that is provided. I give Mr Golden an undertaking that I will take the matter to Qualifications Scotland, in relation to both his ask for funding and the guidance that might be provided. I hope that that gives him some assurance, and I am happy to get back to him in writing once I have received a further update from Qualifications Scotland.
Question 3 was not lodged.
Ardrossan Harbour
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when the purchase of Ardrossan harbour from Peel Ports Group will be successfully concluded. (S6O-05502)
As was stated to Parliament on 8 January, we are progressing the required review of legal, commercial and subsidy considerations based on the non-binding draft heads of terms. The matter remains complex and commercially sensitive, and our focus is on achieving purchase with a clean title and final sale and asset transfer.
As was indicated to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee last week, we expect the purchase deal to be concluded in advance of the dissolution of Parliament for the election. However, the final decision remains subject to the consideration of any associated risks, as well as to legal and subsidy control requirements. I will continue to keep Parliament updated on progress at the appropriate stages.
I greatly appreciate the cabinet secretary’s commitment to securing the purchase and I understand the many complexities involved. Nevertheless, next Thursday, it will be a year to the day since she announced the intention to buy Ardrossan harbour, and the matter has still not been settled, although a price and heads of terms were agreed some time ago.
The cabinet secretary will appreciate that my Ardrossan and Arran constituents remain deeply frustrated. Will she advise what specific hurdles remain and how soon they will be overcome, so that she can achieve her ambition of ensuring that the purchase is concluded prior to the dissolution of Parliament?
I acknowledge the on-going frustrations that are felt by local communities, but negotiations take time. The member will be aware that non-binding heads of terms were agreed in principle between the two parties only a few weeks ago.
When I met the chief executive officer of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd this morning, he confirmed that the engagement with Peel Ports is on-going and remains positive. A range and suite of documents will be required for the potential purchase agreement, which is now close to being finalised. There is work for Transport Scotland and Scottish Government teams to do, and I have expressed to them my need to have their advice as promptly as possible. Rather than using the word “hurdles”, I would say that there are some necessary steps to go through, including those covering legal subsidy and the financial aspects of the overall deal, in order to allow transactions to conclude.
Public Transport (Partnerships and Franchising)
To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to local authorities to enable them to explore partnership or franchise approaches to public transport. (S6O-05503)
In December, the Scottish Government sent a draft version of the franchising guidance to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, and that draft was also shared with various stakeholders, including Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, for consideration and comment. We intend to formally publish the document in the spring, and work on the partnership guidance is on-going.
I am pleased that the draft budget included £4 million to support local transport authorities to build business cases for local bus improvement through franchising. We will develop appropriate governance arrangements and details of the administration of the fund in consultation with stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I have spoken before in the chamber about some of the experiences that people in my Rutherglen constituency have faced because of service reductions and about the proposed cancellation of the 65 service, which was, thankfully, followed by a U-turn. All that has been compounded by South Lanarkshire Council’s removal of the free school buses used by hundreds of young people. Does the minister agree that it is crucial for decisions about bus provision to be made with people, rather than done to them, and that moves towards partnership or franchise approaches will, ultimately, allow that to happen in an open and transparent way?
Clare Haughey raises the really crucial point—I am not sure whether people fully understand it—that buses are vital to local communities and to our connectivity matrix.
As for school transport, under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, local authorities are responsible for making the arrangements that they consider necessary to provide free transport to schools in the local area. In doing so, they need to consider a number of things.
Regarding public transport, the Scottish Government is committed to looking, in partnership with operators and local authorities, at ways to ensure that everyone has accessible public transport, regardless of where they live. The partnership and franchising powers that are available to local transport authorities provide opportunities for people to engage with proposals to improve their local bus networks, and I encourage people to do so.
Glaswegians are paying the highest bus fares in any British city, at £6.30 for a day ticket and £3.25 for a single. We desperately need bus franchising to be sped up so that it can be implemented in greater Glasgow.
Will the minister commit to providing the full £4 million allocation to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, which is the only regional transport partnership that is pursuing franchising? Will he also commit to urgent publication of the guidance? The reference to publishing that in the spring is too vague—can the process be sped up even more?
As the member knows, the franchising system is on-going. The £4 million has been allocated to it, and I am sure that there will be other bodies that would say that the £4 million should not all go to SPT. That is still under discussion.
The guidance will be issued once people have had a chance to look at it properly and comment on it. As I just stated, it will be published in the spring.
Aberdeen and North-east Scotland (Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to boost the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland. (S6O-05504)
The Scottish Government is ensuring that the transition to net zero delivers benefits for businesses and communities across the north-east. The £500 million just transition fund is already working to boost the economy in Aberdeen.
We are working in partnership to deliver the £160 million investment zone, which will be key to the economy’s diversification through embracing entrepreneurship and innovation. We are also investing £125 million over 10 years in the Aberdeen city region deal, to grow the region’s economy by building on its strengths across the energy, life sciences and food and drink sectors.
This week, research by Aberdeen-based consultancy Aspect found that energy sector leaders described business confidence as “spectacularly low” and
“back in 2015 crash territory”.
Aspect’s report cites Labour’s tax on Scotland’s energy as having done
“real damage to the UK’s reputation as a place to invest”.
The Labour Party is distracted as it tears itself apart in a brutal civil war after Anas Sarwar’s botched coup attempt on his London Labour boss failed miserably. Meanwhile, Scotland’s energy sector is paying the price for Labour mismanagement. Will the Deputy First Minister pledge to continue to highlight the stupidity of Labour’s energy profits levy, to battle for change and to do all she can to protect jobs in Aberdeen and the north-east?
Please answer on matters of devolved responsibility.
The short answer is yes. The energy profits levy, which was introduced by the Conservatives—although they seem to forget that fact—and which was extended and increased by Labour, is having a detrimental impact—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
—on the workforce in the north-east. The Aspect report, which cites how low business confidence is and the damaging effect of the energy profits levy, is aligned with what we hear from employers, who are regretfully having to let people go because of the energy profits levy.
We have called on the United Kingdom Government to support the energy workforce. On that point, we are totally aligned with the unions, which are making the same call. [Interruption.]
I would ask those who are shouting from their seats to cease.
The economy of Aberdeen and the north-east would be boosted if the Scottish National Party Government paid up the remaining 83 per cent of the just transition fund; removed the SNP’s presumption against oil and gas that has so damaged the industry, as Aspect found; reinstated the £80 million carbon capture fund that we were promised; gave us the rest of the £200 million city deal money that Aberdeen was promised in 2016; and reduced our eye-watering business rates. Are any of those things going to happen, Deputy First Minister?
Always speak through the chair.
I am just trying to remember how much funding the Conservatives provided to the just transition fund. Despite asking them for many years while they were in government, I do not recall a single penny being given through the just transition fund for the north-east. An independent evaluation of the funding that we have provided through the just transition fund shows that at least 230 jobs have been created and safeguarded, more than 750 training places have been opened up and more than £30 million of private investment has been attracted. That has all been delivered because we paid up and invested, unlike the Conservatives.
Scottish Prison Service Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody
To ask the Scottish Government whether the First Minister and the rest of the Cabinet are ashamed that the written case for Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate in the judicial review of the Scottish Prison Service policy for the management of transgender people in custody did not include a single mention of women’s rights. (S6O-05505)
The judgment of the Supreme Court is accepted by the Scottish Government. We are ensuring, as any responsible Government must, that our policies comply with all our legal obligations, including, of course, the Scotland Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights.
It is the Scottish Government’s long-held position that it does not regard it as appropriate to engage in public comment in respect of live court proceedings. That is different from saying that the position is that the Scottish Government cannot comment or is prevented from commenting generally on live litigation, although there will be cases in which the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is engaged to that effect, to ensure that there is no risk of impediment or prejudice to the proceedings.
In all cases, we have an obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary, and we do not want the Government to ever be seen as interfering in the work of our independent courts.
That may be an answer to one question; it is just not an answer to the question that I asked. I am going to repeat it, but first I have to take exception to the justice secretary saying that this Government agrees with the Supreme Court ruling. It does not. It is in court arguing against that very Supreme Court ruling.
A body language expert would have a field day at the moment, because of the uncomfortable look on the front bench. Not a single one of them is looking up at the moment. The First Minister cannot even look at me, so I will ask the justice secretary the question again. Are John Swinney and the rest of his Cabinet ashamed that, in this court case and their written argument, they did not mention women’s rights once? If they are not ashamed, why are they not?
In general terms, I am reminded of the words of Hillary Clinton at a United Nations conference on women’s rights. The quote is:
“human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights”.
I would hope—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
I would hope that, in this chamber, we would all have the humility to recognise that there is no monopoly on concern for women’s rights and women’s equality.
With regard to Mr Ross’s comments in which he disputes our acceptance of the rule of law and the Supreme Court judgment, I can point to action across Government and, indeed, justice where our compliance with that policy is demonstrated. We recently published for consultation the new guidance on stop and search. In the interests of open justice—
Briefly, cabinet secretary.
—the Government published its written case and the note of arguments. It is, of course, for the courts to determine and judge on those arguments, and—
Thank you, cabinet secretary.
—I am sure that that will be done in its entirety.
I have to go on to the next question.
Peak Rail Fares (Removal)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the removal of peak rail fares. (S6O-05506)
Transport Scotland undertook an evaluation of the pilot scheme for the removal of peak fares in August 2024. It surveyed passengers and found that 80 per cent of respondents were making more trips by rail, and around three quarters of those people suggested that the primary reason was the pilot. Work is under way to evaluate the long-term effects of removing peak fares for good, and we expect to be able to share initial findings once the policy has been in place for at least six months.
What is certain is that the removal of ScotRail peak fares for good is saving money for hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland who travel by rail. In Jamie Hepburn’s constituency, passengers travelling from Cumbernauld or Croy to Glasgow save around £4 each time they purchase a return ticket to travel during the busiest commuter times.
Since the removal of peak rail fares, there has been a very welcome increase in rail usage from Croy railway station, which is in my constituency. However, that has exacerbated car parking pressures on the site. Will the cabinet secretary set out what support there might be for exploring an expansion of car parking there and for encouraging more use of services on the Cumbernauld line, given that there is an underutilised car park at Greenfaulds railway station?
There is currently no investment to expand the car park facilities at Croy, and it does not feature in our plans. However, a route exists for the business case to be submitted by third-party promoters, such as regional transport partnerships or local authorities.
Greenfaulds station has seen a growth in patronage, and passengers there will be able to benefit from the cross-border service on the Stirling to London Euston route.
Passengers travelling from Croy enjoy a frequent, fast and reliable service, which is supported by the Scottish Government’s investment in removing peak fares for good and by our announcement that we are freezing ScotRail fares for a year from April.
That concludes general question time.
Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery the Hon Todd Goudy MLA, who is the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. [Applause.]