Official Report 343KB pdf
Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business is general question time. In order to get in as many questions as possible, I ask for concise questions and answers.
Education (Use of Artificial Intelligence)
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to ensure that artificial intelligence is used responsibly within education at all levels, both as a teaching resource and as a tool to support learning. (S7O-00495)
AI is a challenge to us all, as well as an opportunity. In March, the Scottish Government published guidelines and guardrails to support the fair, safe and ethical use of AI in Scotland’s schools, which include practical examples for learning and teaching. The guidance supports a consistent national approach while recognising that local authorities are responsible for the delivery of education and that they retain flexibility to respond to local needs and circumstances.
We continue to work with education stakeholders to build understanding of the opportunities and challenges presented by AI, supported by research resources and professional learning through the centre for teaching excellence’s digital education and AI resource hub.
The minister will be aware that Mearns Castle high school, in East Renfrewshire, recently appointed a principal teacher on AI literacy, who, when speaking to the BBC, said that his mission is to ensure that pupils can question, challenge and use AI responsibly.
When does the Scottish Government expect every young person in Scotland to have the opportunity to develop a basic understanding of AI as part of their educational journey, regardless of the subjects that they study?
I commend Mearns Castle high school on that initiative. We are watching it closely and it is something for us to build on. There are some good online resources in this space. The Data Lab hosts a programme called “Living with AI”, which we are looking to boost and augment.
We need to up our game on the AI discussion in Scotland, and that is about providing information to the general public about the opportunities and threats. Anything that we can do in that space will be taken forward, and I look forward to making some announcements on that really quite soon.
Scottish Emergency Heating Oil Scheme
To ask the Scottish Government how many households have received support from the Scottish emergency heating oil scheme to date. (S7O-00496)
The member will recognise that, although energy pricing and regulation are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Government established the Scottish emergency heating oil scheme to provide additional support for households that are experiencing financial hardship. The scheme supports households that rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas, particularly in rural communities, including parts of Angus. I am aware of how important that will be to many of Lloyd Melville’s constituents.
As at 10 November, 5,235 households had received support through the Scottish emergency heating oil scheme, and a total of 8,443 payments had been made, including 438 payments in Angus.
Those figures really matter. Last week, I met an elderly constituent who is living with a serious illness and who has just paid £1,000 for heating oil. To make it last, they are heating their home for just one hour a day, and winter has not even properly started yet. They are already self-rationing, but they tell me that they are not eligible for the scheme because they are not in debt. Will the minister urgently ask officials to review how hardship is assessed, so that people who make those difficult choices to stay out of debt are not excluded from support?
I thank Lloyd Melville for raising that issue. I know how strongly he feels about the fact that people are struggling with their fuel costs in Angus. If he writes to me, I will be very happy to ask officials to look at that case.
We keep the issue under consistent review. In September, the Scottish Government extended the scheme into winter, to maximise the support that is available to eligible households. However, I would be grateful if Lloyd Melville would write to me about that case.
As the minister will know, many of my constituents’ homes in Argyll and Bute are oil heated, and they face unique challenges in relation to decarbonisation. Will the upcoming heat in buildings legislation retain the core elements of the draft bill that was published during the previous parliamentary session and give off-grid consumers a choice in how they decarbonise, including through the use of biofuels?
Jenni Minto is quite right about her constituents in Argyll and Bute. The heat in buildings delivery plan and the heat in buildings bill will be published in due course, and, during that process, I look forward to engaging with Jenni Minto on how they will benefit her constituents.
I thank Lloyd Melville for lodging the original question. For many in the Highlands, heating oil is not a choice but the only practical way to heat homes, so I welcome the Scottish Government’s emergency heating oil scheme. Of the 1,916 applications across the Highlands, only 899 had received support by early August, so will the minister look again at the eligibility criteria, to ensure that the vulnerabilities of rural households are properly reflected? Does the minister recognise that the minimum order requirement of 500 litres creates a significant barrier for people who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis?
This is a really important issue for David Green’s constituents. More than 1,300 payments worth more than £400,000 have been made in the Highland Council area, but I understand the challenges that people face, including the amounts that people have to pay as a one-off payment. I look forward to continuing to engage with the member, but I am also engaging with the companies involved on those issues.
Around half of my constituents rely on heating oil or liquid petroleum gas to heat their homes. Unlike customers on the gas grid and those who rely on electricity to heat their homes, they have to pay up front for their fuel, with minimum orders costing hundreds of pounds. Given the figures that we have heard today and the apparent underspend, based on the Government’s commitment to make £10 million of support available, why is the cabinet secretary not taking the opportunity to review the assessment criteria, widen eligibility and get the allocated money out the door?
I know that the issue is important to our island communities, not least in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Almost 400 payments have been made, and, as I mentioned earlier, we have extended the scheme and will keep it under review. If the member wants to raise issues with me, as other members have done, I will be very happy to respond to those and to look at individual cases.
Further to members’ questions on the impact of the scheme, can the minister give an assurance that adequate support will be provided to the research and development sector in the north-east, to ensure that any developments maximise the opportunity to support the wider supply chain and energy jobs?
That is obviously a big issue in areas such as Aberdeenshire, which is an important part of the supply chain because it has supplied so much of the product historically. I am happy to engage on the impact that the scheme has had in Aberdeenshire, where we have made almost 1,600 payments. I know how hard people in the member’s constituency work to provide us all with a secure energy supply.
I call Morven-May MacCallum.
I wish to declare that I have done voluntary work for various charities. I would like to ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to improve the earlier diagnosis of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses.
I do not think that that is really related to the original question that was asked, so it is not within the minister’s remit to respond, although he can if he wishes.
The matter is not within my gift to address, but I am sure that one of my colleagues will be happy to write to the member on the issue.
Victoria Quay
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its current utilisation of, and plans for, its Victoria Quay building and car parking facilities in Leith. (S7O-00497)
Published data from the Scottish Government for Victoria Quay indicates occupancy levels of around 25 per cent for the previous nine months. Since the mandatory hybrid working policy has been in place, that has reached 40 per cent this week. We continue to keep the matter under review in order to make efficient and appropriate use of the building. I welcome Mr Macpherson’s previous work on the matter and his questions today.
It is great to hear about more civil servants coming back to work in Leith. They always make such a positive impact when they are in the community, and they are obviously providing a public service. If the Scottish Government comes to the position that parts of the building are surplus to its requirements, there are so many opportunities, working with the people of Leith, to provide extra facilities from Victoria Quay for the benefit of the local area. For example, it could provide affordable creative work spaces and spaces for technology start-ups, including by, potentially, housing those currently in St Margaret’s house who are now being displaced. We also need a new police station in Leith, to allow police to move out of the old building they are currently using, and there is strong demand for more car parking facilities, especially to support local hospitality.
I would be really grateful if, together with relevant officials, the minister would commit to having a meeting in Leith to hear about those suggestions and how, if we work together, Victoria Quay can offer even more to the people of Leith.
I thank Mr Macpherson for his creative thoughts. Looking at our estates across the board is exactly what we should be doing with public assets, in relation both to the people working there and to the public funds that are going into those assets.
There is a review going on right now on the opportunities to use Victoria Quay more efficiently, and I am interested in hearing about Mr Macpherson’s range of suggestions involving the police, the tech industry and start-ups. We will continue to progress the work, and I would be happy to engage with Mr Macpherson on the matter, which I know is a long-standing issue for him—as, indeed, it was for my predecessor. I would very much welcome receiving more information from Mr Macpherson and would take a meeting.
The member asking question 4 is not in the chamber, so we will move to question 5, from Morven-May MacCallum.
Thank you, Presiding Officer, and apologies to members for my enthusiasm earlier. I pressed my button at the wrong time.
We have all done it.
I am sure that it will not be the last time that I do that—so, apologies in advance for that, too.
Tick-borne Illnesses
I note that I have done voluntary work on Lyme disease for various different charities.
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve the early diagnosis of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. (S7O-00499)
The Scottish Government is taking forward a range of measures to support the early diagnosis of Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses and to raise awareness among the public and healthcare professionals. That includes promoting educational resources for healthcare professionals, such as the “Introduction to Ticks and the Diseases they Carry” eLearning resource, which is aimed at all health and social care professionals including general practitioners and is intended to help to improve awareness, recognition and diagnosis of those conditions.
We continue to raise public awareness of tick bite prevention through campaigns and public health messaging carried out during the summer months, especially during Lyme disease awareness month in May. In addition, we work very closely with Public Health Scotland and expert partners through the Scottish health protection network to strengthen preparedness for vector-borne diseases.
Lyme disease blood tests are widely acknowledged to be unreliable, and the true number of those suffering with Lyme disease is therefore unknown. However, UK research indicates that it could be at least three times the recorded figure, meaning that thousands of people are being misdiagnosed and refused treatment.
How can the Scottish Government improve research so as to improve the accuracy of the blood tests? Will the minister commit to carrying out the action that is needed to save those people’s lives?
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of research in improving the understanding of Lyme disease and other vector-borne diseases. Any proposals for additional funding for that type of research would need to be considered alongside wider budget priorities.
I know that the member is in the smallest party in the Parliament, but the Lib Dems do have some power to ask for things in the budget and to see whether we can shift Government spending to the issue.
Public Finances (United Kingdom Budget)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the recently announced UK Government Budget on public finances in Scotland. (S7O-00500)
The Scottish Government’s budget next year will be cut in real terms by around £650 million. That means that our funding for public services and infrastructure will not keep pace with inflation, at a time when costs are increasing. That fact should concern every member of the Parliament, and it means that we face a very challenging Scottish budget for next year.
The UK budget did not go far enough in helping people with the cost of living. At a time when revenues from Scotland’s energy are going to be billions of pounds higher, we have a UK budget that cuts our funding and leaves the people we all represent paying energy bills that are hundreds of pounds higher than the Labour party promised they would be when it came to office. That is the consequence of decisions taken in Westminster. It shows us exactly why we need to take decisions here in Scotland and make our energy wealth work for us.
I share the Deputy First Minister’s concern that, at a time when construction inflation has risen faster here than in the UK economy as a whole, the UK’s capital allocation to Scotland will be lower in 2029-30 in real terms than it was under the Tories in 2022-23. Can the Deputy First Minister say a little more about what she thinks that will mean for construction employment and for investment in roads, schools, hospitals, housing and harbours in Scotland?
I very much share the concerns that Patricia Gibson has raised. It is absolutely right to point out that the cut to Scotland’s capital budget for 2027-28, for example, is now £100 million lower than we expected at the time of the Scottish spending review; the capital block grant from the UK Government is not sufficient to build and maintain the infrastructure that Scotland needs; and our capital block grant funding is projected to fall by 6.1 per cent in real terms between 2026-27 and 2029-30.
That is going to impact on infrastructure investment with regard to securing economic growth, tackling the climate crisis and—as Patricia Gibson rightly pointed out—investing in our schools and hospitals. The real-terms reduction in funding from the UK Government means that really difficult choices will need to be made as part of the 2027-28 budget to ensure that limited funding is targeted towards our highest priorities.
Is it not the case that the UK Labour Government is now making precisely the same mistakes as the Scottish National Party Government? By freezing tax thresholds over the longer term, it is pushing more and more working households into paying ever-higher rates of tax in order to pay a ballooning benefits bill. Does the Scottish Government intend to follow suit, or will it finally see sense, cut tax and cut the benefits bill in Scotland?
I have already enjoyed some engagement with Mr Hoy ahead of the budget, and I look forward to more meetings with him to talk about some of those issues.
On taxation, however, I am afraid that we shall have to agree to disagree. The Scottish Government takes a progressive approach to taxation that allows us to raise on average an extra £1.8 billion in Scotland, which we reinvest back in our vitally important public services. If Mr Hoy wants to make the case for tax cuts, he will have to come and engage with me on the areas in which he would like to see cuts in the Scottish Government budget, because that is the reality of tax cuts and what they would deliver in terms of spending in Scotland.
During a cost of living crisis that we all know is affecting our constituents, we should be thinking more about how we can reinvest in our public services, rather than taking money away from the vital front-line services on which our people rely.
The Deputy First Minister will know that, outside times of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the global financial crisis, public spending as a share of UK national income is at its highest level in decades. That is in no small part because of the new fiscal rules that have been adopted by the Labour Government and its tax-and-spend decisions—many of which, I have to say, our SNP colleagues lined up with the Tories to oppose.
The challenge is to maximise the value from public spending and to address the drivers of demand on public services. With the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing proposals for a budget line for preventative departmental expenditure limits, and debates on preventative spending taking place in Parliament next week, is the Government prepared to seize the moment and secure a decisive shift towards prevention that is both financially sound and socially progressive?
Of course we want to take an approach to the budget that reflects our preventative approach to spend, and we will work with the UK Government on some of those issues.
More broadly, however, the UK budget was an opportunity for the new chancellor, on coming into post, to reverse some of the austerity policies, such as the bedroom tax, the benefits cap and the local housing allowance freeze, that are harming our constituents in Scotland. We are spending millions of pounds from our taxpayers in Scotland to mitigate their impact, which means that we have reduced spending power here. However, I very much look forward to engaging with Mr Fagan ahead of the budget on all of those substantive issues.
Yesterday, the Finance and Public Administration Committee heard from the Office for Budget Responsibility that an accounting change to how hedge-fund executives pay their tax, from capital gains tax to income tax, will create a £250 million-a-year block grant adjustment to the Scottish budget.
What discussions has the Minister for Public Finance had with the UK Government about the impact of a further £1 billion burden on Scottish taxpayers if that change goes ahead?
Mr Brown will appreciate that we are currently engaging with the Scottish Fiscal Commission on a range of issues ahead of the budget, so I will be happy to come back to Parliament in the coming weeks and set out the detail of the budget to answer the member’s substantive point at that time.
Question 7 has not been lodged.
Public Service Reform (Trade Union Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with public sector unions to discuss its proposed public service reform programme, and what was discussed. (S7O-00502)
Strong and constructive relationships with trade unions are essential to successfully delivering reform and we want to ensure that trade unions and the workforce have a meaningful voice in shaping change.
To that end, Scottish ministers and officials engage regularly with public sector trade unions, including in order to discuss public service reform. That happened most recently at the biannual meeting between the First Minister and the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 2 November of this year, where public service reform was part of a broader discussion about Scotland’s priorities. The Deputy First Minister and I have had regular dialogue with the trade unions, including a further follow-up meeting today, and I expect that to continue as we move forward with the reform agenda.
Is it not clear to everyone that the public sector unions are running rings around the Government? We can take as an example the ghost workers—those on the so-called “priority movers” list. In an answer to me yesterday, Mr McKee confirmed that
“The Scottish Government has not calculated the total salary and pension costs of staff engaged in redeployment across the public sector.”—[Written Answers, 11 November 2026; S7W-04534.]
What we do know is that the number of core civil servants in ghost worker roles has more than doubled since 2024 and is costing millions of pounds. If the Government does not know the full scale of the costs and consequences of its policy of having no compulsory redundancies, does that not simply reinforce the point that this Scottish National Party Government is not serious about cutting waste in the public sector?
I reassure Mr Hoy that we are very serious about making public services more efficient, more integrated and joined up, and more focused on prevention. His remarks today will be news to the trade unions, with whom we have had constructive but robust conversations about how to work together to best deliver public service reform that will improve our public services within fiscal constraints. He, and all members, can rest assured that this Government is very much focused on delivering the task in hand.
We move to supplementary questions.
I begin by thanking the cabinet secretary for the importance that he places on working with the trade unions and those who work in our public services.
The three-month engagement period on public service reform will end before Christmas, so will the cabinet secretary provide further detail about how exactly the Government’s discussions with trade union staff and local government are being used to meaningfully inform the reform agenda? When will the Government publish details of those discussions?
There is a lot in that question. As I indicated already, there is extensive engagement with trade unions, which are taking part both collectively and bilaterally as part of the process.
The member rightly articulates that the initial three-month period comes to an end at the end of this month, but the Government will continue to engage and there will be opportunities for organisations and individuals to contribute. Indeed, we will launch an online portal for that very purpose in the next few days. The Government intends to take on board all the feedback and contributions that come from that process and from the other engagement that we have had and to return early in the new year with an update on how we anticipate taking the agenda forward.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that many public sector workers are extremely worried about what the public sector reform agenda might mean for them? They are worried about the possibility of job cuts and of cuts to services. Many members of the public are also extremely worried about what is to come.
Can the cabinet secretary give any reassurance that we will not be looking at wide-scale public sector job cuts and that the emphasis will be on improving the service that the public receives?
The emphasis is very much on improving the service that the public receives. It is about making sure that services are more integrated and joined up and are more focused on prevention and it is about reshaping the workforce so that we have the right people in the right roles to provide those improved services.
As I indicated, we are working closely with organisations representing the workforce to ensure that they are fully informed as we take the proposals forward.
It is important that we move quickly for the very reasons that the member has outlined, in order to ensure that there is clarity on the proposals and that that is communicated to the workforce as soon as possible.
The member who lodged question 9 was not here for the start of this item of business, so we move to question 10.
General Practice (Edinburgh and Lothians East)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to invest in general practice provision in the Edinburgh and Lothians East region, in light of projected population growth in the area. (S7O-00504)
Responsibility for planning and delivering local services rests with NHS Lothian, which monitors population growth and change in demand and works with practices and local partners to ensure that services continue to meet the needs of communities across Edinburgh and the Lothians.
To support functions held by NHS boards such as NHS Lothian, the Scottish Government is investing a record £531 million in core general practice over three years, in addition to its annual recurrent investment of more than £1 billion. That funding supports GP practices to deliver sustainable, high-quality care and helps to ensure that primary care remains at the very heart of our national health service.
Research that was commissioned for me by the Scottish Parliament information centre has shown that the registered patient population in Lothian has increased by 14 per cent over the past decade and that, because the number of GP practices has fallen, the average practice size has increased by 22 per cent.
Given the unsustainable pressure that we are seeing on GP practices, what population-based investment in GP practices will ministers make during this session of Parliament?
I have outlined our current and present investment in general practice, but it might be of interest to Miles Briggs that core GP funding is distributed through a national GP workload formula, which takes account of expected practice workload and the needs of registered patients. That helps to ensure that resources are directed towards practices that experience increased demand and serve growing populations.
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
Mr Briggs will be well aware that last year’s Scottish budget provided £531 million of landmark investment in core general practice—a budget that his party took no interest in whatsoever. Ahead of this year’s Scottish budget in a few weeks’ time, will the cabinet secretary join me in reminding the Tories that, if they want record investment in our NHS, they will have to vote for it?
Ms Haughey makes a fair point. As we are a Parliament of minorities, the Government of course has an open door. The Deputy First Minister stresses day in, day out that there is an opportunity for us all to work together to deliver a budget that delivers for the people of Scotland.
Strategic Spatial Energy Plan
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact of the strategic spatial energy plan on the onshore and offshore renewable energy industry and its supply chain in Scotland. (S7O-00505)
The SSEP will have a significant impact on Scotland’s renewable industry and supply chain, and we have been clear that the final plan must reflect Scotland’s full renewable energy potential to secure jobs, investment and supply chain opportunities. The United Kingdom Government must produce that plan as soon as possible, so that we can deliver our transition to net zero. Anything less risks jeopardising billions of pounds in investment, jobs across Scotland and energy security.
There is serious concern in the industry about the damage that many of the pathways that are proposed by the National Energy System Operator would do to Scotland’s renewable energy sector and the associated supply chain.
Westminster has squandered one of Scotland’s energy booms and looks set to consider doing so again. Given the seriousness of this issue for Scotland’s economy, I must ask the minister for clear and unambiguous reassurance on the matter. Will the Scottish Government refuse to sign up to an outcome from the SSEP that harms our energy industry and the businesses that rely on it?
Alex Kerr is right. Scotland has massive renewable energy potential. I was in Glasgow just yesterday announcing yet more jobs in that regard.
The Scottish Government’s position has not changed. I want to be clear: we will support only an SSEP that reflects Scotland’s full energy potential. I made that clear when I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and I made that clear again when I spoke to the minister of state, Michael Shanks, earlier on today. The UK Government must now hear us and act quickly to back our energy industry.
Can the minister assure residents of the north-east that there will be opportunities to support harbours and ports and so ensure that skilled workers are able to find opportunities in the long term?
The member is right: the reason why we have this massive energy potential and a competitive advantage is, in part, because of the skills and expertise that exist in the north-east, which is the area that she and I represent. We have this huge potential, but we need the UK Government to act now.
That ends general question time. I note that we had a minister who arrived late, a member whose question was not taken because they arrived late, and a member who did not appear at all. I urge all members who wish to participate in general question time and portfolio question time to be on time for the appropriate sessions.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. That minister was me. I apologise to you and to members.
Thank you.
The next item of business is First Minister’s question time for party leaders. Before we begin, I invite members to join me in welcoming to the gallery Karen Spilka, president of the Massachusetts State Senate, and her colleagues. [Applause.]