Official Report 1094KB pdf
Scottish Budget
The cost of living is hitting hard for people across Scotland, and John Swinney promised to help—so, what is he doing? He is cutting income tax—but only for some, and by a maximum of £31.75 a year. That works out at 61p a week. That would not even buy you a bag of peanuts.
Peanuts!
John Swinney’s budget might even—[Laughter.]
Let us carry on with our business.
Rachael Hamilton is entirely right—it would not even buy you a bag of peanuts.
John Swinney’s budget might even have broken a world record, because a Scottish Government tax adviser says that it
“may be the smallest tax cut in history”.
Does John Swinney really think that his insulting tax cut will actually help Scotland’s struggling households?
I am pleased to see that auditions for pantomime dame are being entered early by Rachel Hamilton in Parliament today. Frankly, that was pantomime stuff from the Conservatives.
The Conservative Party has come forward with a proposition for tax cuts that would involve £1 billion-worth of cuts to public expenditure, but with not a scrap of detail about how those would be delivered. That is a false proposition.
My Government has brought forward a range of measures that build on existing cost of living support, such as free prescriptions, free eye tests and the free bus travel that is available in Scotland—[Interruption.]
Can I just ensure that we can all hear one another? That would be helpful—and it is, of course, necessary.
—with an expansion of support for breakfast clubs and additional investment in after-school activities, with measures that have been taken through the extra time programme, with an increase in the Scottish child payment and with an expansion of the Scottish child payment for babies under one year. That is a demonstration of a Government that is on the side of the people of Scotland, and I am proud of the measures that we set out in the budget on Tuesday.
John Swinney gave those taxpayers a miserly cut—not to help anyone, but to get a cheap and easy headline. For many others, income taxes will rise even further.
One of the reasons for John Swinney’s tax raid is so that he can spend even more on benefits. We value the safety net for those who are in genuine need—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Findlay.
—but the Scottish National Party’s benefits bill is out of control, and it will now go up by another £650 million. [Interruption.] I will keep saying it, no matter how noisy SNP members are: Scotland cannot afford this. The Scottish Conservatives believe that taxes cannot keep rising in order to fund higher spending on benefits. Why does John Swinney not understand that his reckless approach is unfair and unsustainable?
Nobody in Scotland takes seriously Russell Findlay’s claim that the Conservative Party values the safety net of social security, because, every week, its members come to the Parliament and attack the very social security expenditure that is keeping children out of poverty.
As a matter of fact, the updated Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts show a substantial reduction in the Scottish Government’s benefits investment over and above the block grant adjustments received from the United Kingdom Government. That demonstrates that the action that the Scottish Government is taking is sustainable. As is demonstrated by our budget—and as we have always done since we formed the Government—we propose costed financial programmes that deliver real benefits for the people of Scotland. The Conservatives are unable to match the Scottish Government’s record on financial stewardship and support for vulnerable people in our country.
We value social security, but we will always tell the truth about the SNP’s out-of-control, unaffordable benefits bill. John Swinney’s economic approach is ruinous, but there is another way. The only responsible, credible and sustainable way to raise more revenue for public services is by growing Scotland’s economy, which can be achieved by supporting those who create jobs and generate wealth.
However, Scottish businesses face tax rises of almost £300 million in the coming weeks, and their verdict on John Swinney’s budget is damning. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland is calling it a “missed opportunity”; UK Hospitality Scotland says that it “missed the mark spectacularly” on business support; and the Federation of Small Businesses says that ministers must “urgently reconsider their approach” to economic growth. When will John Swinney learn that he has to back business and not attack it?
I recognise the challenges that are always felt in the business community. Of all the things that I could be accused of as a member of the Government, that is not one. I have always had very close and active dialogue with the business community in Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s budget for the forthcoming financial year will ensure the lowest basic property rate since 2018-19 and will support business and communities with a package of reliefs that will be worth an estimated £864 million in 2026-27.
In response to a key ask from the business community about increased support for the college sector, the Government has increased the colleges budget by £70 million. Another call from the business community was for support for infrastructure investment. We have set out our plans on infrastructure. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport told the Parliament about the delivery of plans to dual the A9, which is one of the central economic pledges of the Scottish Government.
At a time when unemployment is lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, and gross domestic product per capita has increased at a faster rate in Scotland than it has in the rest of the UK, the Scottish Government is delivering for the Scottish economy, and we will carry on doing so.
The First Minister says that he recognises the challenges facing businesses, but then he decides to make them worse.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Scottish Conservatives will not and cannot back a budget that does nothing to help Scotland’s workers and businesses. Having been delivered by a finance secretary who is running for the hills, this budget hammers people with higher taxes to fund a bloated benefits system. It is absolutely mind blowing that Labour and the other so-called Opposition parties will let this SNP boorach of a budget pass. It is a desperate budget that kills aspiration, a damaging budget that harms business and a dishonest budget that will need to be fixed within months.
It is the same old John Swinney. Do the people of Scotland not deserve lower taxes, fairer benefits and a Government that is focused on economic growth?
Our budget delivers on the priorities of the people of Scotland, strengthening our national health service and supporting people and businesses on cost of living challenges. In the budget, the Scottish Government is expanding the best package of cost of living support anywhere—
Rubbish!
I am sorry to interrupt, First Minister. I know, Mr Kerr, that you share my view that we should always carry ourselves in a very parliamentary manner. I would be grateful if you might demonstrate that.
As I said, this budget delivers on the priorities of the people of Scotland about strengthening our national health service and about supporting people and businesses with the cost of living. Thanks to our decisions, 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers are now expected to pay less income tax than they would do if they lived in England. The people of Scotland have a Government that is on their side, and all the current indications show that the people of Scotland want to have this Government here for the long term, to stay on their side.
Budget 2026-27
John Swinney’s 19th budget lacks ambition for Scotland, and it fails to deal with the structural issues that are created by this tired Scottish National Party Government, which can be resolved only by changing the Scottish Government in May. While he brags about his £6-a-year tax cut for the lowest paid, a million Scots—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
While he brags about his £6-a-year tax cut for the lowest paid, a million Scots, including nurses, teachers and police officers, face being forced to pay more, all while his Government wastes billions of pounds. That is a tax cut worth 11p a week for the lowest earners, while thousands of nurses pay £400 more and thousands of teachers pay £600 more than they would in the rest of the United Kingdom—even his own tax adviser says that this is a political stunt. Why does John Swinney believe that someone earning £33,500 has the broadest shoulders and, therefore, should pay more tax in Scotland?
I will explain to Mr Sarwar that a band 6 nurse who is at the bottom of the scale will take home an additional £1,994 after tax, compared with someone in the same band in England. A qualified teacher at the bottom of the band will take home £6,365 more after tax in Scotland than the equivalent teacher in England. Those are the facts for Mr Sarwar. A band 6 nurse living in Scotland will take home—[Interruption.] Mr Sarwar asked me about nurses, and I am giving him an answer about nurses. A band 6 nurse at the bottom of the scale will take home an additional £1,994 because they live in Scotland and not England, and a teacher in Scotland will take home £6,365 more than they would in England. That is because this Government delivers fair pay for public service workers.
John Swinney deliberately focuses on the lowest band and ignores the thousands of nurses and teachers who are paying more tax in Scotland.
Although a million Scots face paying more, the 19th John Swinney budget does not even try to deal with the issues that are leading to billions of pounds being wasted and opportunities being squandered. There is no plan to deal with delayed discharge, meaning that taxpayers pick up a bill of half a billion pounds; there is no plan to deal with Scotland’s prison system, while people pay £1 billion and rising for the new Barlinnie prison in Glasgow; and there is no plan to grow Scotland’s economy, costing us £800 million. All those plans can only come about with a change of Government in May. John Swinney cannot solve the big issues that he has created—
Let us hear one another.
There is an urgent new issue that risks the future of thousands of businesses. Why has there been no pause to business rate revaluations? They have meant that many businesses face a 400 per cent increase—far greater than any rate relief—and risk their survival and the loss of thousands of jobs. Why has there been no pause to those revaluations?
I notice that Mr Sarwar has moved the subject on from the tax position of teachers and nurses, because I have completely demolished the arguments that he has put in front of me today.
On the subject of business rates, the business rates position is a product of two elements: the independent valuation that is undertaken and the policy decisions that are taken by the Scottish Government. The independent valuation, which was agreed to across the Parliament, has taken its course. In policy terms, this Government has put in place a 15 per cent relief to retail, hospitality and leisure premises in mainland Scotland that are liable for the basic or intermediate property rate; we have expanded the 100 per cent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on our islands; we have maintained the small business bonus scheme; and, crucially, we have put in place a package of business rates reliefs worth an estimated £864 million in the forthcoming financial year. That is the Government investing to support business and the economy, alongside a range of other measures in the budget that I hope that Mr Sarwar will support.
In the words of his old pal Alex Neil, the First Minister is talking “rubbish”. He has failed to deal with the serious question of—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Mr Sarwar.
—revaluations that will see some businesses being forced to pay 300 or 400 per cent higher amounts, which risks the survival of those businesses. He completely ignored that question.
The one bit of good news is that Scots do not have to put up with his failure for much longer: in May, they can choose a new Government. The Scottish National Party has spent the past 19 years—[Interruption.]
Sorry, Mr Sarwar—it is somewhat noisy. Let us hear one another.
It is okay—we will say cheerio to Shona Robison in four months’ time too.
The SNP has spent the past 19 years failing to deal with the real issues that are facing Scotland. It has nothing new to deal with the crisis created on its watch: nothing to deal with the hundreds of thousands of Scots who are stuck on national health service waiting lists; nothing to deal with the drug deaths emergency that is killing hundreds of people a year; nothing to address the homelessness crisis that is leaving 10,000 kids stuck in temporary accommodation; nothing to help businesses, wages or the economy to grow; and nothing for the thousands of our amazing young people who are missing out on the education that they deserve.
John Swinney has had 20 years. He has had his chance and he has failed, has he not?
I do not think that today is the day that Mr Sarwar is in a strong enough position to accuse me of talking rubbish. This morning, a health campaigner raised publicly the fact that she has requested a formal apology from Mr Sarwar after a campaign leaflet—which I have in front of me—was posted to thousands of homes around the country with a false quotation in support of his party in it. The campaigner who was falsely quoted asked a fair question:
“If they’ve written that out of nowhere, what else have they lied about?”
So, I do not think that Mr Sarwar is in a position to say to me anything about the budget. Not only has he misled the public in a campaign leaflet—a member of the public has called him out—but he is wrestling with Reform to try to get into second place in the opinion polls. Mr Sarwar knows that it is all over. It is finished. The dream is gone. He is in opposition and we are going to stay in government.
US Military (Use of Scottish Infrastructure)
The First Minister’s Government has long aspired to Scotland’s being an independent Nordic nation. However, right now, our Nordic neighbours need our help. Yesterday, in the White House, Donald Trump repeated his threat to—in his words—“conquer” Greenland. That is no empty threat and comes directly off the back of his immoral and illegal invasion of Venezuela.
Scotland must stand up to Trump and his contempt for international law, and reassure the people of Greenland that we will not be complicit in any part of an attempted annexation. Can the First Minister commit to ensuring that the United States military will be banned from using Scottish infrastructure and assets, including all our publicly owned airports, if the US launches operations against our Nordic allies?
I acknowledge the importance of the issues and the concern that Gillian Mackay raises. As I have made clear over the past couple of weeks, and over the entirety of my political life, I believe fundamentally in the international rules-based system for ensuring peace and security in the world.
As I expressed in relation to the situation in Venezuela—I put this on the record last week in response to Mercedes Villalba—I do not believe that the intervention in Venezuela could be justified within the international rules-based system.
Gillian Mackay raises issues concerning the use of infrastructure in Scotland that is under the control of the Scottish Government. I want to make it clear that I believe that it is important that all that infrastructure, if it were ever to be used, could be used only in a way that was consistent with the international rules-based system for the arrangements between countries. As First Minister, I will ensure that that is the case.
It is not good enough for us to be vague on this. We are talking about a US Government that is pulling its own citizens out of their communities, that has shot a mother in broad daylight and that is actively advertising that it wants to invade other countries. People across the world are terrified, and we have—[Interruption.]
Let us hear Ms Mackay. Mr Kerr, I am chairing the Parliament at the moment, thank you.
People across the world are terrified, and we have the ability to take action, so I again ask the First Minister whether he will stop the US military using all publicly owned Scottish airports if it launches operations against Greenland and whether he will stand with the international community.
I absolutely stand with the international community on the resolute views that have been expressed on the situation in Greenland and on protecting the status of Greenland and the right of the people of Greenland to determine their own future. I state that unreservedly to Parliament.
I also say again, in the hope that I express this clearly to the public and to Parliament, that I will insist that the infrastructure that is under the control of the Scottish Government can and should be used only to support the international rules-based system, because that is the foundation for the peace that I have enjoyed throughout my life, and I want to make sure that that is the case for my children and my grandchildren.
Local Growth Fund (Allocations)
To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update regarding the Scottish Government’s latest engagement with the United Kingdom Government in relation to the distribution of local growth fund allocations in Scotland. (S6F-04587)
Despite repeated requests over the past year, we have had no meaningful discussion with the UK Government on the local growth fund. The Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to us on the day of the announcement, stating that UK Government officials would be in contact, but we have no more detail on the programme. The announcement has come far too late.
The Scottish Government and local authorities repeatedly warned the UK Government that any reduction in funding would have a devastating impact, and we can now see that in the reports of some organisations issuing redundancy notices. The programme does not come close to matching the shared prosperity fund that it will replace, and it leaves nine Scottish local authorities with no allocation whatsoever.
The First Minister will be aware that, in Wales, the Welsh Labour Government will decide how to spend £547 million of local growth funding, whereas, in Scotland, it appears that the UK Government intends to spend Scotland’s £140 million for us.
At the same time, analysis shows that Forth Valley, which includes my constituency, faces a cut of around a third compared with current funding levels, which threatens employability, skills and business support programmes that sustain local jobs. In my constituency, local groups will lose jobs.
Does the First Minister agree that that represents blatant political bias, with Scotland’s communities being not only short-changed—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Tories do not like that being raised. Does he agree that Scotland’s communities are being not only short-changed but denied the right to decide their own priorities? While Labour politicians in Wales have defended devolution, they called Starmer’s approach a constitutional outrage. Is it not time for Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament to do the same or to accept that Scotland would be far better served by a Scottish Parliament that had the full powers of independence?
There are two issues that I want to address in response to the matter that Mr Brown has raised with me. The first is the fact that, when it comes to the quantum of support that is available, the resources that are available in Scotland are dwarfed by those that are available in Wales, so there is no equity in the arrangements that have been put in place.
The second point is that, in Wales, where there is a Labour Administration, the UK Labour Government has decided to allocate that money to the Welsh Government to enable distribution to take place in a way that is complementary to the priorities of the Welsh Government. That is a rational and logical position to adopt. In Scotland, the UK Labour Government has engaged in no dialogue with us whatsoever about the delivery of this funding, and it is being deployed in a way that was chosen by the UK Government with no regard paid to the priorities that are democratically agreed by this Parliament.
Worse than all of that, people in Scotland are now losing jobs because of the decisions of a Labour Government. When we add that to the decisions about employer national insurance contributions, it shows that the Labour Government is costing Scotland jobs. We cannot afford to have any more control from Labour in Scotland.
Clackmannanshire has just received £9.8 million of investment through the local growth fund. That money came from the UK Government, as already has been discussed. It came openly, transparently and in partnership with local leaders. In contrast, the 2026-27 Scottish budget has been called “misleading” and “not good enough” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Who is to blame for the flattering figures that have been identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Fraser of Allander Institute? Is it the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, or is it the First Minister?
I think that we are going to have to have some consistency on the Conservative benches. Alexander Stewart has turned up and spoken to Parliament as an advocate and a cheerleader for the Labour Government in London, when his party leader is denouncing the Labour Government in London. The Conservatives have got to get their act together—or, should I say, those who are left, because many of them are getting chucked out because they are dabbling with Reform. It is all over for the Tory party.
Supreme Court Ruling
To ask the First Minister for what reason the Scottish Government is going to court to continue to allow it to house male prisoners in the female prison estate, in light of any projections it has made of the cost to taxpayers in Scotland of challenging the Supreme Court ruling in this way. (S6F-04578)
The judgment of the Supreme Court is accepted by the Scottish Government. What we are doing—as any responsible Government must—is ensuring that our policies comply with all our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. Every key area of Government that is or might be affected by the Supreme Court judgment is carrying out assessments across legislation, guidance and policies, and changes have already been made in some areas.
The prisons guidance has not been changed, and it can be taken from that that the Scottish Government has concluded that it does not need to be changed in light of the Supreme Court judgment. For Women Scotland has brought proceedings challenging that conclusion, as it is entitled to do. The matter is now before the court.
The Scottish Government has to make difficult decisions that balance the interests and rights of individuals, often in complex situations, and this is one such situation.
I am not allowed to call the First Minister a liar, but that answer was not truthful. I have just said that I am not allowed to do it, but he is not giving a truthful answer. It is desperate stuff from the First Minister. How on earth can he stand up here and say that the Government is respecting the Supreme Court ruling when it is in court arguing the very opposite?
Those actions threaten women’s safety. Right now, at this very moment, three biological males are housed in Scotland’s female prison estate. Alex Stewart was jailed for 19 years for murder after stabbing his victim 16 times in the chest. Melissa Young was jailed for 20 years for murder, having left his victim with 29 injuries from multiple stab wounds. Paris Green was jailed for 18 years for torture and murder. He recently assaulted a female member of staff, but has still not been moved to a male prison.
Let me ask the First Minister this question. Those evil killers are all housed with women prisoners. Are they male or female?
As I indicated in my earlier answer, the Scottish Government must ensure that, on all occasions, our policies comply with our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
—and the European convention on human rights.
In such situations, the Government must wrestle with complex issues and make difficult decisions that balance and reflect—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
—the interests and rights of individuals.
The matter is actively in front of the courts at this time. Scottish ministers appreciate the public interest in the particular circumstances of this case, so, in the interests of open justice, the Government will publish our written case—that being our answers to the judicial review and our note of argument—ahead of the hearing that is due to begin on 3 February. Making the materials that have been lodged with the court publicly available will allow anyone with an interest to follow, in a well-informed way, what is said in court.
I stress that the matter is actively in front of the court and that the Government is trying to make information available to ensure that members of the public—[Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
—can follow the case in a well-informed way.
The need for the protection of space on public boards for women has been accepted and the law corrected, but a policy that means that female prisoners, a majority of whom have experienced male violence, might have to share close quarters with male-bodied inmates while they are in the care of the state is being defended.
Knowing everything that we know about trauma, and given the countless testimonies from women on this matter—including testimony given both privately and publicly by a number of his own party colleagues—does the First Minister understand just how appalling the Government’s actions feel to many of us and how difficult it is to reconcile the Scottish Government’s words about the protection of single-sex spaces for females with its actions on the matter? [Interruption.]
Let us hear the First Minister.
I acknowledge, understand and appreciate the strength of feeling expressed to me by Ruth Maguire. I understand her views and the points that she makes and expresses on behalf of those who have had traumatic experiences.
I stress what I said in my earlier answer. The judgment by the Supreme Court is accepted by the Scottish Government and what we are doing is ensuring that our policies comply with all our legal obligations, including the Scotland Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The Government is obliged to ensure that that is the case. We have considered the issue and the actions that we are taking are consistent with that consideration.
The Government claims that it accepts the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of women in the Equality Act 2010, but I am not certain that it does. To be honest, I am not sure that the First Minister fully understands the impact that that is having.
The Government has chosen to advance an argument in court that a blanket ban on housing trans women in the women’s prison estate may violate their human rights under the European convention on human rights. What consideration did the Government give to the human right of female prisoners to serve their sentences with dignity and to be kept safe from male-bodied prisoners?
In the likely event of the Government losing its court case, in light of the Supreme Court judgment, how soon after that will the Government comply with that judgment? Will it change its policy as a matter of urgency?
Pauline McNeill questioned the Government’s acceptance of the Supreme Court judgment, so I say once again that the Government unreservedly accepts the Supreme Court judgment. As a consequence, we have revised guidance that is in place in other areas of policy to ensure compatibility with that judgment.
In the case of the guidance on prisoners, the Government has made an assessment, and that is now being tested in the courts. The issue will be determined by the courts. Out of the respect that I have for the decision making of the courts, I want to make sure that the court is free to make its judgment on the application of the guidance that the Government has put in place.
Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill (Implementation)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to findings published by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow indicating that a majority of clinicians anticipate practical challenges in implementing the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. (S6F-04588)
I am somewhat disconcerted that we do not have a live audio and video feed for Ms Duncan-Glancy. I will let the question go ahead in this instance while we seek to resolve the issue.
The Scottish Government is aware of the findings of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, which detail its members’ views on assisted dying legislation. Similar to the college, the Scottish Government maintains a position of neutrality on the bill. Our stage 2 assessment of non-Government amendments to the bill, focusing on the technical, legal and delivery aspects, was informed in part by the evidence that stakeholders provided to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, and we continue to pay close attention to stakeholder views.
I hope that the technical issues with the audio and video feed have resolved themselves.
I thank the First Minister for that answer. It is important that we, as MSPs, listen to experts, including those who will be tasked with implementing any change in the law—in this case, those who will be helping people to die. Does the First Minister agree that, if those experts tell us that the legislation could be unsafe and inoperable, we should listen to them?
As I indicated in my earlier answer, the Government is neutral on the bill. It is a matter of conscience and personal decision making, I think, for all members of Parliament. My view, of opposition to the bill, has been expressed publicly and is well known. It will be up to individual members to assess the points that are expressed by a variety of stakeholders as Parliament considers this important bill.
As the First Minister will recall, Parliament voted to support the general principles of my bill at stage 1, since when both the Scottish and UK Governments have worked constructively to ensure that a comprehensive system of assisted dying can be implemented if that remains the will of MSPs. I put on the record my thanks to both of them for those efforts.
At this point, however, can the First Minister assure the Parliament that the Scottish Government will now engage on any amendments that it believes will be necessary at stage 3 to deliver a safe and compassionate choice for terminally ill adults in Scotland who wish it?
The Government is actively considering the issue. Obviously, the Government has to be mindful of the position, which will be sustained during consideration of the bill, that it has a neutral position on the bill.
I acknowledge that there will be technical, practical, operational and legislative questions that the Government will be called on to engage with, and that issue is under active consideration within Government at this time. I stress that a multiplicity of questions will have to be wrestled with, and the Government will give consideration to those in good faith.
We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
Avian Flu
The First Minister will be aware of the outbreaks of avian flu at Glenrath Farms in my constituency, which is the largest egg producer in Scotland, producing 1 million eggs a day. Thousands of birds have been culled and all the Glenrath eggs on the shelves have been recalled.
I ask the First Minister for an update on the contamination security measures at the site. At the risk of reprising the infamous Edwina Currie egg panic, I also ask for an assurance that, given the recall, the eggs that are on shelves now are safe.
We are aware of a cluster of outbreaks of the highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 in the Scottish Borders.
Food safety is a matter for the Food Standards Agency. On the point that Christine Grahame asked me about, Public Health Scotland advises that the risk to public health from the virus is very low, and Food Standards Scotland advises that avian influenza poses a very low food safety risk to consumers. On the advice of Public Health Scotland, properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat.
I also assure Christine Grahame that rigorous safety measures are in place to monitor the condition of different sites, and those are what highlighted the issues that are being faced in the Borders.
Energy Convention (Scottish Borders)
On Saturday, I will meet more than 40 community councils at an energy convention in the Borders. They feel voiceless because monster pylons and other infrastructure are industrialising the countryside in the Borders without a clear plan from the Scottish National Party Government.
An invitation to the convention was sent to your energy secretary, Gillian Martin, nearly a month ago, with no response having been received. Now we have learned that she has abdicated responsibility for consents to another SNP minister. Does that chaos not prove that your energy strategy is confused, incoherent and failing communities? First Minister, will you personally guarantee that those communities will receive a response from Gillian Martin by the end of the day?
Always speak through the chair, please.
Ministerial invitations will be considered and judgments will be arrived at as to whether it is appropriate for ministers to be undertaking engagements. A decision has been taken that Ivan McKee will determine applications, given his wider planning responsibilities and the importance of those approaches being taken.
I say to Rachael Hamilton that the Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Scotland’s enormous renewable energy wealth is utilised for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I look forward to making more progress on that when Scotland is able to exercise the powers of independence to lower fuel bills by putting Scotland’s energy wealth to work for the people of Scotland.
Seized Oil Tanker
It is understood that the tanker that was seized by US authorities last week is currently in Scottish waters. I understand from reports that the First Minister was not briefed on that by the United Kingdom Government. Can the First Minister provide an update on the Scottish Government’s understanding of the current situation with regard to the seized tanker?
As Audrey Nicoll has recounted, the Government was not advised that that vessel was coming into Scottish waters. It is pretty obvious that, when such an event happens—when a vessel of that type comes into Scottish waters—there could well be implications for the exercise of Scots law and Scots jurisprudence.
I have raised with the UK Government my complete dissatisfaction at the absence of prior notice that that was going to be undertaken, because of the potential interaction with our responsibilities. One example of that is that the Lord Advocate is seeking to establish that all aspects of the rule of law are being respected with the presence of the tanker in Scottish waters, which is her statutory responsibility, and that we can be assured that the health and welfare of those on board are preserved.
Given the total absence of proper formal communication from the UK Government to the Scottish Government about an issue that has implications for the delivery of our responsibilities, this is an example of shockingly poor conduct by the UK Government.
Dementia Support (Dumfries and Galloway)
My constituents are deeply alarmed that Dumfries and Galloway’s integration joint board plans to end Alzheimer Scotland-commissioned dementia support on 31 March. They fear that that change will seriously harm the care of the 373 people who are currently supported, including 235 who are in the year of guaranteed post-diagnostic support.
I am aware that you have recently been heavily engaged in looking at the future of dementia support through your advanced dementia round-table work, precisely to avoid changes being made without proper consultation. Will you instruct your officials to engage urgently with the health and social care partnership and the IJB in Dumfries and Galloway to secure and make public a dated continuity plan that includes single family contacts and named leads and a timetable for consultation under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, and will you commit the Government to give support, if required, including bridging arrangements, so that there will be no cliff edge in April?
I remind members of the requirement to speak through the chair.
Mr Carson makes a series of reasonable points. I have been very pleased to convene the round table on Alzheimer’s care suggested to me by one of Scotland’s leading and most distinguished industrialists, Sir Iain Anderson. I welcome Sir Iain’s intervention to advance these issues, and the active participation of clinicians.
Mr Carson makes a strong point about the early intervention support that Alzheimer Scotland makes, particularly in community settings, which I suspect must be the context of the arrangements in Mr Carson’s constituency. I give him the assurance that I will take the issue away and explore it with the health secretary to see what steps we can take to ensure that there is continuity of service. It is obvious that any disruption to the care arrangements of individuals with Alzheimer’s is likely to be damaging to them.
Mansion Tax (Scottish Budget)
I welcome the announcement this week in the Scottish budget of a mansion tax on properties valued at more than £1 million. Although I am sure that he is not being singled out, it seems likely that the new leader in Scotland of Mr Farage’s party will be among the first to pay the tax. Does the First Minister agree that it is fair to ask the wealthiest to contribute to public services and that it will be good to see certain figures in the House of Lords doing so more evidently?
The Government has a foundation to its tax approach; it is based on the progressive principle. We have taken that principle and applied it to the council tax provisions at the higher end of the spectrum. Those policies will be brought forward as part of the Government’s budget process.
Violence Against Woman and Girls (Prostitution)
The latest Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service figures show a 43 per cent post-Covid rise in under-16s who are reported for rape and sexual assault. There is a crisis of violence against women and girls in Scotland. What we are currently doing is not working. Will the Government please do something different and start with what the Lord Advocate has described as root-cause offending: the violence against women of prostitution? Prostitution dehumanises women and girls, and that human rights abuse is currently state sanctioned. Will the Government take this opportunity to stand up for women and girls, protect them and support my unbuyable bill?
First, I acknowledge unreservedly the significance of the issue that Ash Regan puts to me and, in particular, the significant increase in sexual violence and the reporting of sexual violence in our society. That is evidenced in a lot of the data that we have wrestled with in Parliament and it has resulted in the Government’s actions to ensure that more cases are pursued, more cases are taken to court and more prosecutions are successfully achieved.
However, that is not to suggest in any way that there is not more that we need to do, which is about education, advice and intervention to create a different culture in the attitude towards women and girls in our society—an attitude that is being fuelled by so much of the unacceptable material that is floating around on social media. I welcome some of the steps that the United Kingdom Government has taken in the course of this week alone to apply greater regulatory force to many of these issues.
Ash Regan asked me specifically about her bill. The bill is at stage 1 consideration, and the Government has engaged with that process. We will listen with care to the conclusions of the Criminal Justice Committee when its report is available to us.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In relation to the question that I raised during First Minister’s question time, a supplementary question from Alexander Stewart contained the statement that Clackmannanshire has received £9 million or more. The truth, of course, is that Clackmannanshire has not received a single penny. I think that Mr Stewart may be confused with the award that is said to have been given to the whole of Forth Valley rather than Clackmannanshire.
It is also true that the money has not been paid yet and will not be paid for several months, and that the United Kingdom Government has allocated it to something called the Forth Valley regional partnership—a body that does not exist. Given the importance of those facts for jobs in my constituency, I wonder whether Alexander Stewart can be given the opportunity to apologise for his error in order that the facts can be put into the Official Report.
Thank you, Mr Brown. You will be aware that the content of members’ contributions is not a matter that the chair would ordinarily rule on.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Point of Order