Official Report 343KB pdf
Party Leaders
14:00
Michael Marra has seven minutes for questions and answers.
NHS Grampian (Healthcare Improvement Scotland Report)
Parents of sick children will be horrified by the inspection report on NHS Grampian that was published today. All parents will be shocked. At Dr Gray’s hospital, operations for sick children continued despite the fact that they were known to be unsafe. How many of those operations on children were carried out?
The contents of the report from Healthcare Improvement Scotland that was commissioned by NHS Grampian are appalling reading, and I echo the concerns that Mr Marra has expressed about how the report will leave parents feeling.
It is crystal clear that the requirement to end the surgery in question for children at Dr Gray’s was not followed by NHS Grampian, which is reprehensible. I understand from my reading, assessment and interrogation of the report that there have been no negative consequences of that process, but, regardless of that, it is unacceptable that arrangements that should have been stopped for proper patient safety reasons were not stopped—hence the findings of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s report and the dramatic changes that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care and I expect to take place at NHS Grampian to address the legitimate concerns that Mr Marra puts to me about patient safety, which will be of acute concern to parents in the Grampian area today.
The First Minister is right to condemn what has happened in the strongest possible terms. Children were put at risk. The board also failed to investigate properly why a patient died on the operating table. I see absolutely no reason why the board of NHS Grampian should remain in place. The First Minister should call for it to go now.
The Government might be taking limited action today, but, crucially, issues at NHS Grampian have been known about for years. Repeated reports in 2014, 2016 and 2023 all raised the alarm, and the health board has lurched from crisis to crisis. None of it should be news to the Government. When John Swinney was Deputy First Minister in 2014, the Scottish National Party said that it was
“confident that NHS Grampian can turn the situation round”.—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; c 22.]
Well, that did not happen.
I will say this again. The First Minister has acknowledged that operations were carried out on children in unsafe conditions, despite the fact that the Government has known about issues at NHS Grampian for well over a decade. How on earth has the Government let things get to this point?
There have been various stages at which the Government has intervened to require improvements to be made at NHS Grampian. There has been a long history, and improvements have been made over time at different stages.
The most recent issues are of a much greater and escalated level of severity. The Government started its most recent engagement of concern about NHS Grampian in May 2025, when we escalated the board to level 4 for finance, leadership and governance concerns. An external assurance board was put in to support the NHS Grampian board. It was clear that some of the requirements that the assurance board asked to be taken forward were not being implemented, which is why Healthcare Improvement Scotland—the independent inspectorate—has undertaken the work that it has carried out.
The health secretary will set out to the Parliament, in a statement that the Government will make on Tuesday, the full range of actions that require to be taken in this case. However, I note that there have already been changes to the leadership of NHS Grampian. There is a new chair of the board, John Connaghan, who is an experienced healthcare professional who held a very senior role in the Scottish Government on healthcare issues. There is a new chief executive in place, who initiated the Healthcare Improvement Scotland report. A large proportion of the board has been replaced and, today, changes have been made to the senior leadership of NHS Grampian that, in my view, are necessary as a consequence of the report.
I hope that that assures Mr Marra that the Government is taking incredibly seriously the contents of the Healthcare Improvement Scotland report. Changes have been made immediately in relation to the leadership of the board, and we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that services and the safety of patients in NHS Grampian are at the centre of the steps that the Government takes to strengthen the position in the Grampian area.
The First Minister recognises that there have been problems in recent years, but he does not recognise the fact that the reports go back as far as 2014 and 2016. There has been a long-term challenge over the governance and operation of NHS Grampian that the Government has failed to get on top of, despite repeated challenges from outside bodies and from parliamentarians in that period of time.
There is a broader culture problem at the top of our health service that is not confined to one region of Scotland. It should not take an independent, judge-led inquiry to get justice for the families of those who were made sick and who died because of failings at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow. It should not take an independent, judge-led inquiry to get justice for the hundreds of victims of Eljamel in Tayside. Labour members have been saying for years that those cultural issues have been widespread.
At the top of too many of our health boards are managers who are not accountable to citizens, who act with impunity and who are too often concerned about headlines rather than delivering care. Does the First Minister agree?
I begin by reiterating a point that I made in my earlier answer. Mr Marra is correct to say that there have been a number of examples of issues in NHS Grampian, but the Government has intervened at different stages and the position has improved. However, we now have a report that raises the most serious issues, which I am certain will have a detrimental effect on staff and patient morale and on confidence in NHS Grampian.
As First Minister, I must be careful to ensure that there continues to be public confidence in the services provided by NHS Grampian. I believe that there is that confidence, and I want the public to hear loud and clear from their First Minister that dramatic action has been taken to provide an assurance on that.
Mr Marra raises a wider point about culture in our public services. He and I are in agreement on that, because I believe in what he has put to me—the importance of members of the public having confidence in our public services, those leading our public services being accountable for them, and our being transparent about the weaknesses that are there.
Today, I am being absolutely transparent about the weaknesses in NHS Grampian. I am not trying to defend a thing. A lot must change at NHS Grampian in order to address the legitimate issues that have been raised. Public attitudes and public confidence are at the heart of all of this. I assure Mr Marra of the Government’s determination to lead a culture whereby that is the case.
Malcolm Offord has seven minutes for questions and answers.
United Kingdom-India Trade Deal
Last week, I, together with a number of members of this Parliament, attended the Scottish Chambers of Commerce annual dinner in Glasgow. The central theme of that dinner was trade with India. The First Minister was a guest speaker and was feted for his recent trip to Delhi.
Speaking as a former exports minister at the Department for Business and Trade who was part of the team that negotiated 95 per cent of the United Kingdom’s trade deal with India, I am delighted that we got that trade deal signed, and I am delighted that tariffs on Scotch whisky have gone down from 150 per cent to 75 per cent, and that they will fall to 40 per cent.
However, I remind members that the free trade agreement with India happened only because of Brexit. The European Union has been trying to get a trade deal with India for 20 years. The United Kingdom got one done within five years of Brexit.
John Swinney told the Scottish National Party conference that the UK had boxed itself into a corner on Brexit, but, four days later, in Delhi, he said that the trade deal with India had created for Scotland
“an opportunity of an entirely different scale”.
Will the First Minister now acknowledge that, without Brexit, he would not have had last month’s trade mission to India?
I have to hand it to Malcolm Offord: he is at the courageous end of the spectrum today—my goodness. Honestly, it is actually quite difficult to keep a straight face about all this kind of stuff.
I am glad that I was in India. We might be making a bit of progress here in that perhaps one of the Opposition parties sees that there was some value in my going to India and trying to boost trade and economic opportunity for Scotland, which is one of the roles I perform as First Minister.
When I met the Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry, he told me that advanced dialogue was going on with the European Union and that there was expectation of a trade deal being secured in relatively short order. It is important to recognise that countries will be making trade agreements and that we have to focus on our trade. One thing that I am certain we can all agree on is that trade for Scotland has been made much more difficult because of the consequences of Brexit.
I remind the First Minister that Brexit was, in fact, a trade deal with Europe. Today, we have tariff-free trade with the EU, and 45 per cent of UK exports still go to the EU. In fact, right now, most of the UK is trading very strongly with the EU. For example, in the past 12 months, exports to the EU from England went up by 5 per cent, exports from Wales went up by 11 per cent and exports from Northern Ireland went up by 7 per cent. It is only in Scotland that exports to the EU have gone down—by 13 per cent—because we have stopped trading our most valuable asset: North Sea oil and gas.
Does the First Minister agree that getting our energy prices down by using Scotland’s oil should be a bigger priority for this Government than replaying Brexit?
What might have had an effect on export trade from Scotland to the European Union is the export of Scotland’s fish stocks being made significantly more difficult because of the barriers put in place by Brexit.
The argument that Malcolm Offord and his associates put together, which was that there would be an open bonanza for the fishing industry as a consequence of Brexit, has turned into an unmitigated disaster for the agreements that were negotiated by the Conservative Party, which Malcolm Offord used to support.
If Mr Offord wants my advice about energy, it would be that we should create opportunities to ensure that we have sustainable, clean, green energy in Scotland through the involvement and expansion of the renewable energy sector. It is the decisions of the United Kingdom that hold Scotland back.
Staying with the Indian theme, those exciting post-Brexit international trade deals will continue to strengthen our economic position with the Commonwealth, but that does not mean that Commonwealth citizens with limited right to remain should be permitted to stand for elected office in Scotland.
The Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 was waved through in Holyrood by the cosy consensus of the Scottish National Party, the Greens, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. [Interruption.]
Excuse me—let us hear the question. [Interruption.] Let us hear the question.
Mr Offord, please continue.
The First Minister will be aware that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has urged the Scottish Government to reconsider allowing foreign nationals with limited right to remain to stand for election. That reflects that 77 per cent of the public who responded to the consultation are opposed to extending candidacy rights to foreign nationals. The First Minister might choose to ignore a parliamentary committee, but does he intend to ignore the strong opposition of the people?
It would stretch most people’s credulity to think that I would be involved in a cosy consensus with the Conservatives. That feels completely and utterly unlikely.
Let us talk in the real world. The bill that is coming before the Parliament this afternoon, which I hope members will support, is to correct an omission in a bill that was agreed on unanimously by the Parliament in 2024—when it is possible that Mr Offord was a member of the Conservative Party that voted for it. If I am wrong about that, I will correct the record, but I think that he was probably still in the Conservative Party at the time.
The Conservatives voted for the original legislation; there was an error in that legislation and, this afternoon, the Government is seeking to revise it. In our response to the parliamentary committee’s report, we said that, if the Parliament wishes to reconsider those issues, it is free to do so. We are correcting an anomaly in a piece of legislation that was approved by the Parliament, so I am not ignoring anybody; I am respecting the views and decisions of the Parliament.
Let us be candid about what this is about. This is another of Malcolm Offord’s weekly attempts to spread division in this Parliament and in this country and to pitch citizen against citizen. My Government will have nothing to do with it.
Ross Greer has six minutes for questions and answers.
Oil and Gas
Presiding Officer,
“fossil fuel interests keep making a killing while killing our planet.”
Those were the words of the United Nations secretary general at the 31st UN climate change conference of the parties—COP31—yesterday. He also called for a windfall tax on oil companies, saying that, “Polluters must pay.”
The First Minister disagrees with that. He thinks that the energy companies that are cranking up our fuel bills and killing our planet should not pay windfall taxes. He has backed drilling of the Jackdaw gas field and is pushing for the Rosebank oilfield to be opened up. Last week, he announced that the Scottish National Party backs more oil and gas extraction. To top it all off, his Government has approved a new gas-fired power station at Peterhead. The leader of Reform said that he was delighted with all that, but many SNP members are not. Some have resigned and others are speaking out. Councillors in Glasgow Southside, who will be up for re-election next year in a constituency that the Greens won this year, immediately distanced themselves.
When it comes to the climate, the First Minister is now out of step with the United Nations, out of step with the climate science and out of step with many in his own party. Is he sure that this sudden lurch to a pro-oil-and-gas position has the support of all his MSPs?
Let me set out the position that my party conference took a few weeks ago. It recommitted itself to the journey to net zero, which is one of the key pillars of the Government’s programme—I reiterated that when I spoke to the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland event in the Parliament on Tuesday evening. It recommitted to our country’s renewable energy journey, which, as I have just explained to Malcolm Offord, has been thwarted by decisions that have been taken by the United Kingdom Government.
If we are going to be using oil and gas for years to come—I know that Mr Greer wants to stop oil and gas use now; I have to look at the reality that we still have to use oil and gas and will be doing so for some time—I take the view that we should legitimately assess whether extracting the oil and gas in our own jurisdiction can deliver lower emissions than the oil and gas that we would import from other jurisdictions. That is the position of the Government.
Mr Greer characterised that very differently. He is entitled to set out what he thinks about my views. I am also entitled to set out the reality of the position of my party and my Government.
That was not my characterisation of the SNP’s position—that was elected representatives of the SNP who were distancing themselves from the First Minister’s position. The difference between the Greens and the SNP on the issue is that we want a transition away from oil and gas as quickly as possible, because that is what the climate science demands, while the Scottish Government seems to be doubling down on dependence on that oil and gas.
The First Minister mentioned his remarks to the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. He talked up this Government’s achievements—in fact, on the eve of COP31, he published a video that listed the Scottish Government’s climate achievements. I found that video quite entertaining, because every measure listed in it was brought forward by the Scottish Greens. I was proud to work with the SNP and the First Minister to deliver those, but he and I both know where the ideas came from in the first place.
We both remember when Scotland was genuinely a world leader on the climate. In fact, four years ago, the SNP condemned the UK Government for approving a new coal mine the week after hosting COP27, saying that it was
“climate vandalism …on a scale difficult to believe”.
Now, a Scottish Government minister is flying off to COP31 a week after approving a gas-fired power station. Can the First Minister explain how the Scottish Government has now found itself engaging in the same kind of climate vandalism that it condemned the Tories for just four years ago?
Part of the decision that has been taken on the Peterhead power station involves enabling the development and delivery of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. I know that the Greens do not value that project, but it is part of the climate change plans that the Government has put to Parliament, the delivery of which we believe to be important. We want those plans to be delivered, and therefore, as a responsible Government, we are trying to enable that so that we can continue our work to reduce our emissions.
Mr Greer has talked about the approach that has been taken on energy. My record as a minister for nearly 20 years will testify to my complete commitment in that regard. Indeed, under an SNP Government, electricity in Scotland has been largely decarbonised because we have given priority to renewable energy, which we continue to support. As Mr Gethins has just told Parliament, we are concerned that some of the steps in the strategic spatial energy plan will thwart our journey towards renewables, but those decisions are not in our hands; they are for the United Kingdom Government to make.
I understand the policy priorities that Mr Greer has set out in relation to the work of the SNP and the Greens when we were both in government, but all the policy announcements and developments that have taken place could not and would not have happened without the leadership of the Scottish National Party. If a budget is to pass in the Parliament, it needs that SNP leadership. Our budget provides for concessionary travel, the abolition of peak fares and the expansion of renewable energy. All that has happened under an SNP Government.
Fossil fuel companies are desperately pushing the idea that carbon capture and storage is the solution to the climate crisis because it is one that conveniently allows them to continue raking in billions while burning oil and gas. As the First Minister has just confirmed, the Scottish Government’s entire climate plan depends on it. The problem is that no carbon capture and storage plan is operating at commercial scale in the UK. The technology is unproven and basically does not exist. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee described that way to tackle the climate crisis as “high risk”. Although the operators of the Peterhead gas-fired power station have said that they will capture 90 per cent of its emissions, no existing carbon capture project captures anything like that.
The First Minister must have looked into the matter. If he is confident in that technology, will he tell me how carbon capture and storage will work in Scotland at that scale when it has not done that anywhere else in the world?
First, our entire plan does not depend on carbon capture and storage but on a variety of interventions, such as the significant expansion of renewable energy capability, a large amount of which has already happened. To date, Scotland has reduced its emissions by about half, but we have managed to grow our economy by a greater amount.
Secondly, the key point that I want to make to Parliament and to Mr Greer is that we have a journey to make on renewable energy, for which Scotland has all the ingredients. All we need is a supportive approach from the United Kingdom Government, because it controls energy policy. That is what we are pressing to deliver, so that Scotland can have a clean, green energy future, delivered by an SNP Government.
Russell Findlay has six minutes for questions and answers.
Members of the Scottish Parliament (Eligibility)
I confirm that we are not part of any cosy consensus with the Scottish National Party—or with any of the rest of the parties, for that matter.
Migrants who do not have the right to stay in the United Kingdom should not be members of the Scottish Parliament. Does John Swinney agree?
I think that it is becoming more obvious daily that the only cosy consensus that Russell Findlay is part of is that which exists between the Tories and Reform. It absolutely disgusts me that that is what the Conservative Party has reached for.
What I would say to Mr Findlay in relation to his question is that I am perfectly satisfied with the approach to the rules that apply to the eligibility for individuals to stand for election. The Government is trying to correct an anomaly this afternoon.
I cannot win. Malcolm Offord says that I am in a cosy consensus with the SNP, and then the First Minister says that I am in a cosy consensus with that lot—Reform. Neither of those is true.
People in the real world can see that Holyrood—that is, all of us—made a mistake, and the Scottish Conservatives want to fix it with a right to stand bill. Only British citizens, such as me and Mr Swinney, and permanent residents should have the right to stand for elected office. Will John Swinney back our commonsense bill?
I understand that the Conservatives have announced a right to stand bill. Parliament will, of course, give due consideration to the issue and the Government will consider the bill’s terms when it is published.
The bill is needed because of the election of Q Manivannan, who played by the rules, but the rules are wrong. No one who comes to a foreign country on a temporary basis should make the laws of that country. The SNP convener—
The nasty party.
The nasty party? I am talking about the SNP convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, Jenni Minto, who said that the law must be reconsidered because it is out of touch with public opinion and risks eroding public trust. Why does John Swinney think that she is wrong?
I have simply said that the Government will consider any bill that is introduced. The issues of eligibility to stand for Parliament are determined in legislation and the rules that are put in place in that respect are not under the control of the Government.
I am not familiar with the comments that Russell Findlay allegedly quotes from Jenni Minto, but I suspect that he is putting more than a little bit of malicious interpretation on her comments.
I have reflected a lot on the Conservative Party over the many occasions on which I have defeated it in Perthshire over the entirety of my political career. I have thought a lot about the Conservative Party. I respect many people in that party. There are many Conservative voters in my constituency who are personal friends of mine and who I respect. However, I am absolutely disgusted by where Russell Findlay is now taking the Conservative Party, and I urge decent Conservatives in the country to teach him a lesson.
Mr Swinney should read Jenni Minto’s comments. It is quite clear that she is calling for a reconsideration of the legislation.
If John Swinney’s SNP will not back our bill, hostile foreign states could attempt to place their people in our Parliament. The security services routinely warn about espionage in our universities, businesses and politics. Even the SNP-led committee highlights the risks of foreign meddling in our democracy here in Scotland. [Interruption.]
Excuse me. Let us hear the question.
Why is John Swinney willing to take that risk?
As I have said, the Government will consider any bill that is introduced on the question. However, the issue that Russell Findlay raises with me does not strike me as the most significant issue that the country is facing at this moment. I suspect that it just tells us a little bit more about the fact that the Conservative Party, week by week, has become less relevant to the political debate in Scotland and more of an irrelevance than it was at the elections in May.
I simply remind Russell Findlay that the tactics and the leadership that he delivered for the Conservative Party put it in fifth place in the Scottish Parliament elections. That tells us that the Conservative Party is a dying force in Scotland, and that is the work of Russell Findlay.
Alex Cole-Hamilton has five minutes for questions and answers.
Accident and Emergency Waiting Times
In 2008, not long after the Scottish National Party came to power, 62 people waited more than 12 hours in accident and emergency across Scotland. How many people waited more than 12 hours this summer?
I do not have that number to hand, but it will be more than it was in 2008, by a significant margin. The Government is concerned about A and E waiting times, which represent a focus of the dialogue that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care and I are having with health boards around the country to ensure that people have access to A and E treatment at the earliest opportunity.
I am happy to help the First Minister. In the summer of 2008, 62 people across the whole country waited more than 12 hours in accident and emergency. This summer, 19,000 people waited more than 12 hours. Let me say that again: 19,000. That is enough to fill Tynecastle.
Many of those people were waiting on trolleys in hospital corridors. This year is already worse than the whole of last year, and there are still two months left. The people who are watching this will want to know: if it was that bad this summer, what on earth will the winter look like?
Part of the work that the Government takes forward in relation to A and E is to ensure that a range of options are available for members of the public to access healthcare when they require it. Part of the foundation of that is the work of pharmacy first in our communities, part of it is the work of our general practitioner practices and part of it is the expansion of access to GP services that the Government has presided over through the walk-in GP centres.
We have also instituted reforms in our A and E departments to create frailty units to ensure that frail members of the public are supported with priority and do not have to experience lengthy waits in A and E. In addition, the Scottish Ambulance Service has increasingly been dealing with incidents in which they are called out but the individual does not require to be transported to hospital, and it is providing solutions in the community that meet the needs of the public.
I acknowledge that people are waiting too long in A and E, and the Government is focused on ensuring that we have a range of interventions in place to make sure that that is minimised.
The range of interventions that the First Minister has described are not working. He does not need to take my word for it—the numbers speak for themselves. Failure to tackle this crisis has consequences, and they are deadly. So far this year, there have been 600 deaths associated with long waits in A and E—600 avoidable deaths.
I began by asking the First Minister what A and E looked like when his party came to power. When his party came to power, virtually nobody died like this, so will the First Minister accept that people are now paying for those waits with their lives?
I understand Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point. I urge him to be cautious with the data that he is using, because those statistics are not verified to make the point that he makes to me. I understand his argument, but those statistics do not have the validity to prosecute the argument that he is making.
What I am saying to the Parliament is that the Government has recognised that there is increased demand on A and E services. We are trying to deliver the public service reform agenda of maximising interventions in the community and ensuring that that range of services—pharmacy first, GP walk-in clinics, GP services, the frailty units and the work of the Scottish Ambulance Service—are able to support individuals and minimise any delays to the discharge of members of the public. Ninety-seven per cent of individuals are discharged from hospital without delay, and the Government is trying to improve that performance to minimise the delays in the patient care that people experience.
Is the First Minister questioning the validity of the professionals who compiled the statistics that say that there have been 600 excess deaths because of avoidable waits in A and E? Is he questioning the validity of the grief of the families of the 600 people who have died?
The First Minister needs to listen to the professionals who are sounding the alarm. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine says that our A and E departments are
“in a worse state than this time last year”
and are at
“risk of collapse.”
Does the First Minister agree that those excess deaths are not just unacceptable but entirely avoidable?
I have set out the caution that I think has to be applied to those statistics. I do not question anyone’s professional credibility, and I do not question anybody’s grief; I simply explain that Mr Cole-Hamilton should be careful about using those statistics, because of the argument that he uses to reinforce them.
What the Government will do—I can assure Mr Cole-Hamilton of this, and the health secretary has explained all of it to Parliament—is take steps to ensure that our national health service is equipped for the winter pressures that we experience, and to ensure that we minimise the delays that people experience and that members of the public receive the quality of care to which they are entitled. We will do that across a range of areas of activity and in a fashion that meets the expectations and needs of patients and families around the country.
That concludes First Minister’s questions from party leaders.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Point of Order