Contents
- General Question Time
- First Minister’s Question Time
- World Asthma Day 2023
- Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time
- Portfolio Question Time
- Provisional Outturn
- Gender-sensitive Audit
- Decision Time
First Minister’s Question Time
A9 Dualling
The A9 is a main road in Scotland stretching from the central belt to the north. It is also one of the most dangerous roads in the country. The Scottish National Party promised to fully dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness in its 2007 manifesto—16 years ago. Yesterday, campaigners were in Parliament, raising the issue once more.
Recently, The Inverness Courier highlighted the Government’s broken promise on the issue with a tombstone on its front cover. After another death last month, the paper followed up with another sombre front page. It read—this is my question to the First Minister—
“the Scottish Government has no update on its delayed dualling project, leaving us all to ask: HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE?”
First and foremost, my thoughts are with every single person, family and community that have been affected by the tragic loss of life on the A9.
Douglas Ross, The Inverness Courier and others—including, I know, many MSPs from my party—who have raised the issue of dualling of the A9 are, of course, right to look at it through the prism of safety on our roads. It is a safety issue, which is why, since 2007 and the commitment to which Douglas Ross referred, we have taken action.
There has been £430 million of investment in the A9, and road users are already benefiting from dualled sections from Kincraig to Dalraddy and from Luncarty to the Pass of Birnam, which opened in September 2017 and August 2021 respectively. We—I and this Government—are absolutely committed to dualling the A9.
With regard to the timetable that is set out, Jenny Gilruth, when she was Minister for Transport, in February this year gave an update to Parliament—rightly—in relation to the Tomatin to Moy section. She made it clear that it could not go ahead because of our obligations in respect of public finance. During the update, she indicated that work was “on-going” and would conclude in “autumn of this year” to provide an “update” on the “renewed timescale for completion.” Of course, that does not preclude our taking action in relation to safety and road improvements on the A9, on which I can give some detail shortly.
However, I say to Douglas Ross that it is important in such infrastructure projects that we adhere to the obligation to provide value for money. We will give the update on the other side of the summer recess, in autumn 2023, but anybody who is listening should be absolutely assured that we have a cast-iron guarantee to continue the dualling work that we have already started and to ensure that we dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness.
That is perhaps one of the most disappointing answers that I have ever heard in the chamber. Last year, deaths on the A9 were at a 20-year high. The First Minister was trying to say that the millions of pounds of investment and the upgrades that we have seen are a success. In a decade, the SNP has upgraded 11 miles of the route—just over a mile a year—and somehow that is a success, while still too many families grieve the loss of a loved one.
During his leadership bid, Humza Yousaf claimed that dualling the A9 would be
“the first thing I will do”
in office. However, since his election, Laura Hansler, who has been campaigning for improvements on the A9, has said:
“Humza Yousaf made a lot of promises—so where are these promises?”
This week, Humza Yousaf’s Government lodged a question in order to announce the latest procurement timetable for the A9, but it was withdrawn at the last minute. We do not believe that that has happened before in this Parliament. Can the First Minister tell us why that announcement was withdrawn? Will he use the opportunity today, at First Minister’s questions, to tell us what his Government had planned to announce earlier this week?
The Government-initiated question was withdrawn. I do not know whether Douglas Ross was in the chamber this week or doing one of his other jobs, but, if he had been here in the chamber, he would have seen that we have a new transport team in place. It is only right, of course, that I have asked that transport team to look at the detail of dualling of the A9.
It is also incredibly important, for the Government in particular, that when we give information to Parliament it is the most up-to-date and accurate information that we can provide. Today, of all days, the Conservatives should understand the value of accurate statements being made to this Parliament.
I have already asked the new transport team to look at A9 dualling and, of course, to update Parliament in due course.
In terms of safety—because I always bring it back to the issue of safety, which is so important when it comes to dualling the A9—we have an on-going programme of road safety improvements, so the fact that we are taking time in relation to the timetable for the A9 this summer does not stop us from making those road safety improvements. For example, last year we spent approximately £100,000 to improve safety at three sites on the A9. We have also invested almost £400,000 to refurbish the average-speed system between Dunblane and Inverness. Since January, as part of a £5 million investment by 2024-25, we have delivered lining and signing improvements around Dunkeld. Additional signs are being installed at key locations, too, and we have made a number of other interventions.
I go back to what I said at the beginning of my response to Douglas Ross’s first question: a single loss of life on our roads is not acceptable. That is why we have very ambitious targets in relation to reducing casualties and fatalities on our roads. The longer-term trend for road fatalities in Scotland has been downward: since 2000, the number of people who are killed on our roads has decreased by 47 per cent.
However, I want us to go even further, which is why dualling the A9 is a priority for the Government. We will continue to make progress on that priority.
The First Minister is trying to say that the change of transport minister is the reason why his Government took what was, as far as we are aware, the unprecedented step of withdrawing an announcement. The question was lodged at 3:47 on Monday afternoon. It was just a little over 12 hours later that the new transport minister was in place. That was almost a week after the previous transport minister had resigned. Something happened between Monday afternoon, when Jim Fairlie, as a back-bench MSP, was asked to lodge the question in order to get an announcement from the Scottish Government, and the question’s being withdrawn. The fact that we were going to have a new transport minister was known to the First Minister, to the Cabinet and to the entire Parliament. Why did the question have to be withdrawn? What did the SNP want to tell Parliament and Scotland about the A9 that it now sounds like the First Minister is not going to tell us until the autumn? These are serious questions that need to be answered.
We also heard this week from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. It said:
“The civil engineering sector in Scotland have known for many years that the promise to dual the A9 2025 would not be met.”
It said that the SNP-run Transport Scotland is regarded by civil engineers as
“the worst client to work for in the”
United Kingdom.
Does the First Minister have full confidence in his agency to dual the A9 from Perth to Inverness, and will he tell us what he planned to announce in Parliament this week that now seems to be delayed for months?
I have already answered the question about withdrawal of the Government-initiated question. There is a new transport team in place and it is looking again at the timetable for A9 dualling. As I have said, it is very important and when we are ready to update Parliament with an announcement on the A9, we will absolutely do that. We will also ensure, of course, that any update that we provide in a statement to Parliament is accurate.
On the criticisms from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association—which I have seen—I take them very seriously. I have asked Transport Scotland, which has engaged with CECA before, to ensure that it continues to engage with the association to consider what improvements can be made to our contract delivery, which is important, but also to the procurement mechanisms that we have in place to maximise market interest in the new procurement. I think that there is a lot in the submission from CECA that we can reflect on. I expect Transport Scotland—as I have told it—to reflect on it.
On Transport Scotland’s ability to deliver infrastructure projects, I remind Douglas Ross that, under the SNP Government, we have seen delivery of the Queensferry crossing, the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvement projects and many other infrastructure projects—not only on roads but in rail, for example. We have a proud track record of investing in capital infrastructure in Scotland and of improving roads and rail across the country, and I will look to ensure that we build on that progress. [Applause.]
The “proud track record” that SNP politicians applaud has seen only 11 miles of the A9 being dualled in a decade, despite the SNP’s having said a decade and a half ago that it would be fully dualled.
The First Minister is getting annoyed about having to repeat answers about the withdrawn question. He must have known that he was about to appoint a new transport minister. I have said that, on Monday afternoon, his Government asked one of his back benchers to lodge a question. Will he pledge now to publish all details of communication between Government ministers, Transport Scotland and special advisers on what led to the decision—which is, I think, unprecedented in Parliament—to withdraw that Government-initiated question?
The fact is that the SNP has broken its promises to dual the A9 for 16 years, and there is still no end in sight, with devastating consequences for so many families. People from Perthshire to the Highlands are scathing about the Government’s record. They feel that they are being forgotten by SNP politicians at Holyrood. They say that failing to get the situation fixed is a dereliction of duty. Campaigners say that they fear that dualling the A9 will now take to 2050. Is it really going to take another 30 years to fulfil a promise that was made by the SNP more than a decade and a half ago?
I go back to my first question. How many more people have to die before that road is fully dualled?
It is not going to take until 2050 to dual the A9. As I have said, we will give an update to Parliament, as previous transport secretaries have said, once the work is done over the course of the summer.
One of our other challenges with capital infrastructure projects, of course, is the increasing costs because of high inflation. The Conservatives should know about that well, given that they are the architects of sky-high inflation because of their economic mismanagement of the public finances. The Conservative UK Government has, of course, repeatedly cut our capital budget over the years. That is why we have to make extremely difficult choices. However, even with those difficult choices, I reiterate once again our cast-iron guarantee on dualling the A9 and building on the progress that we have already made. [Interruption.]
I have already asked members to resist any temptation to contribute while members are putting questions or while they are being responded to.
On the GIQ, I have already made it clear that we have a new transport team in place, and I have asked that new transport team to look at the issue once again.
This is desperate stuff from Douglas Ross, who is no doubt trying to dodge and deflect from the serious scandal that his party is engulfed in, with Boris Johnson having not just lied to the House of Commons but having betrayed the people of this country and the UK. When people could not visit a loved one or attend the funeral of a loved one—[Interruption.] The Conservatives should not be shouting this down. When people could not attend the funeral of a loved one, Boris Johnson was breaking the rules and having parties in number 10. Douglas Ross can try to deflect and dodge, but nobody in this country will forget that he backed Boris Johnson to the hilt.
Cancer Strategy
Earlier today, the Government released its new cancer strategy. Cancer remains Scotland’s biggest killer, and it brings anxiety and misery to thousands of people across Scotland every year. Identifying and treating cancer quickly saves lives. However, the 62-day treatment standard has not been met in over a decade. Today’s 10-year strategy has given no indication of when it will be met, and the action plan does not mention it at all. When does the Government expect to meet the 62-day cancer treatment standard?
The worst challenge—it was there even pre-pandemic—is, as Anas Sarwar is right to say, in relation to the 62-day target. We had been achieving the 31-day target with consistency, but there are challenges because of the shock of the pandemic, which has of course further exacerbated the challenge with both the 31-day and the 62-day targets. In relation to the actions that we are taking, the cancer strategy is an important plan, which we know that many stakeholders have welcomed.
Anas Sarwar will understand the scale of the challenge that we are facing. Arguably, the most difficult decision that the Government had to take during the course of the pandemic was to pause cancer screening for a number of months. We are working through that backlog. As Anas Sarwar was right to say, we are not meeting the 62-day target. Challenges still remain and, although we are close to the 31-day target, we are not quite meeting it.
We have seen more patients in the past quarter than in the previous one, and we are seeing more people through both the 31-day and the 62-day pathways. We are taking a range of actions, because cancer treatment and the recovery of those waiting times and of the national health service are of the highest priority to the Government.
The First Minister has not answered the question about when the Government expects to meet the 62-day target. I remind him that Covid did not start a decade ago, which has been the length of time in which the Government has not met that standard.
Of course, we need a strategy and a plan, but we actually need the Government to deliver quality cancer care. Malcolm Graham is 76 and lives on Lewis. Last year, he had a tumour removed but, last month, he was told the devastating news that his cancer was back in his liver and lungs. He has been waiting anxiously to hear about when his treatment would start but, this week, he received this letter:
“We regret to inform you that currently we do not have an appropriate oncologist able to see you to supervise your ongoing treatment ... We are in discussion with the other cancer centres within Scotland but they also have a shortage of oncologists ... and as yet have not been able to offer any assistance.
This does sadly mean you are likely to experience some delay and disruption to your treatment until we can find a replacement.”
“Delay and disruption”—this is life and death for people across the country. There is a shortage of oncologists across Scotland when cancer remains Scotland’s biggest killer. After 16 years of Scottish National Party Government, why is there no oncologist available anywhere in Scotland to treat Mr Graham?
I do not have all the detail of the case, but I am, of course, happy to look at it if Anas Sarwar wishes to send those details across.
There is a global shortage of oncologists and we have been working over the past 16 years to increase the numbers of oncologists in Scotland. Since 2007, there has been an almost 100 per cent increase in consultant oncologists, from 69.5 whole-term equivalents in September 2006 to 137.2 whole-term equivalents in the most recent statistics, which are from December 2022. We have increased numbers of consultant radiologists by 60 per cent as well and we have a higher number of consultant radiologists per head in Scotland than there are in other parts of the United Kingdom.
However, given the case that Anas Sarwar has raised and the issues that have been raised—for example, around NHS Tayside breast cancer service—we know that there is still work to do. That is why I, in my role as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, set up a task force to look at what more we need to do to attract oncologists to our hospitals and cancer services.
I am happy to look into the detail of the individual case that Anas Sarwar has raised, but I want him to be assured that there has been, and will continue to be, action to increase the number of consultant radiologists and consultant oncologists working in Scotland.
I welcome the First Minister’s offer to look at the case and I suggest that he does so urgently. However, it should not take bringing individual cases to Parliament for people to get life-saving cancer treatment across the country. There is a shortage of oncologists across Scotland, and we have been raising the issue of the NHS workforce crisis for years.
The strategy that the First Minister published today states that the workforce review will not conclude until 2026. People with cancer cannot afford to wait. The crisis is now—the 31-day standard is repeatedly missed, the 62-day standard has not been met in more than a decade and staff shortages are putting people’s lives at risk. The SNP has been in government for 16 years and, today, it has published a 10-year plan. Why does Humza Yousaf think that people across Scotland have to wait 26 years to get adequate cancer care?
I do not think that. Pre-pandemic, we were consistently meeting the 31-day standard. Although we have dipped just below the 95 per cent performance target, the latest performance figure was 94.1 per cent, I think, which means that more than nine out of 10 people are being seen within the 31-day target. The median waiting time for treatment remains at five days for that pathway. I do not believe that people should have to wait longer.
I go back to the point that I made in response to Anas Sarwar’s first question, which is that we are treating more than 35 per cent more people on the 62-day pathway than was the case 10 years ago, for example. We are seeing more and more people through these pathways, and we are doing—I am doing—everything that we can to improve the performance on both the 31-day and 62-day pathways.
We are looking at how we can redesign our cancer services and what more we can do to add capacity. For example, we have mobile MRI and CT scanners, which provide additional capacity, often in hard-to-reach remote, rural and island communities. The Government and I are entirely focused on the NHS recovery, and of the highest priority is the recovery of our cancer services.
Rural Schools (Viability)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the future and viability of rural schools. (S6F-02250)
Rural schools play an important part in our communities. Like many western European countries, in particular, Scotland is facing a set of long-term population challenges, which are particularly acute in some remote, rural and island communities. That is why, in 2021, the Scottish Government published Scotland’s first population strategy.
In Scotland, there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools. When local authorities plan to close rural schools, they are required to undertake a thorough and lengthy consultation process. That includes demonstrating the educational benefit of a closure, considering the impact of a closure on the local community and school travel arrangements and consulting the community on alternatives to closure. The process ensures that the impact of any decision is properly considered and options are explored. Of course, no school closure decision is ever, or should ever be, taken lightly.
Last weekend, The Herald revealed that 40 mainly rural schools have been closed or mothballed in recent years. Colleagues across all parties in the Parliament have described that number as alarming and as evidence of the blatant disregard that this Scottish National Party Government has for the rural and remote areas of Scotland. Families with young children in rural Scotland are being left high and dry by the SNP’s neglect, and the SNP Government still has no plan for any of this.
Now there are 15 more schools at risk of closure, including Blackness school, in my constituency. Will the First Minister, like his predecessor, turn his back on rural Scotland, or will he take this opportunity to send a strong message of support for our rural schools?
I do not agree at all with Stephen Kerr’s characterisation of the situation. Let me take the issues in turn. First, these are decisions for local authorities to take. It is usually the Conservatives who are the first to complain if they perceive or believe that the Scottish Government is in any way interfering in local decision making. Let us allow and empower our local authorities to make decisions, in consultation with local communities, that they believe are right for them.
It is the SNP that brought in additional protections for rural schools. Those include the requirement that a local authority must clearly demonstrate that it has considered alternatives to closure, and there must be assessments of the likely impact on the community and the impact on school travel arrangements for local pupils. A local authority must set out the educational benefits of a closure. If the proposal to close a school is rejected, the local authority cannot repeat the process for another five years. The SNP brought in a whole host of protections.
Depopulation is a serious issue, which is why we are taking a range of actions to address the issue. As I said, in 2021, we published Scotland’s first population strategy, and the delivery of the strategy is overseen by a ministerial population task force. However, what has not helped the depopulation situation in remote, rural and island communities is the hard Brexit that has been imposed on Scotland against our will. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
The hard Brexit that has been imposed by Stephen Kerr and his colleagues has not helped with European migration to Scotland. If only Scotland had the powers to rejoin the European Union, perhaps we could reverse depopulation for good.
Many rural communities are facing complex and long-term population challenges. Schools need pupils in order to be viable, and school rolls rely on communities retaining or attracting families into their area. Many rural communities are dealing with a legacy of out-migration and depopulation, much of which predates the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Will the First Minister set out what benefits the Scottish Government’s rural visa pilot proposals could offer to schools in our rural communities?
I have to say that it is quite depressing to listen to the United Kingdom Conservative Party and, I am afraid, the UK Labour Party compete in a race to the bottom when it comes to migration. I state unequivocally that immigration to this country has been good for Scotland, for years and decades. We welcome migrants to Scotland.
Our rural visa pilot proposal, which was described by the UK Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee as
“sensible and clear in both scale and deliverability”,
would enable rural and remote communities to attract migrants in line with their very distinct local needs, which would include bringing family members with them. That would offer an opportunity to bolster school communities in pilot areas. Pilot areas would also be enabled to address discrete local public sector workforce needs—for example, around teachers—and further support communities to flourish.
We continue to urge the UK Government in the strongest possible terms to engage with us and to deliver the pilot scheme or, even better, to give us the powers over immigration so that we can do it ourselves.
Clean Air Day
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to mark clean air day. (S6F-02252)
We have the ambition for Scotland to have the cleanest air in Europe. Although there is always room for improvement, clean air day is an opportunity to highlight the great progress that Scotland is making in improving air quality. For example, for the first time outside recent lockdown periods, all monitoring sites in Scotland are meeting air quality objectives.
This year, clean air day will see a variety of activity taking place, from poster competitions for schools, run by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, to local authorities running vehicle island campaigns and businesses engaging with staff on eco-friendly commuting. The Scottish Government is supporting clean air day through funding Environmental Protection Scotland and a global action plan to provide the resources to organisations that are delivering clean air day activities.
Will the First Minister join me in thanking the healthy air Scotland coalition for its work, and does he share my enthusiasm for the low-emission zone in Glasgow and its help for people with respiratory problems? Will he also congratulate Glasgow City Council on that?
Does the First Minister share my concerns that the UK Government is potentially revoking the European air pollution regulations under the amended Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
I welcome the work of the coalition, and I congratulate Glasgow City Council on its work on the LEZ.
Disastrous implementation.
I hear Jackie Baillie—I think—opposing the LEZ. That was not Scottish Labour’s position, either at a local or a national level, when it voted for the LEZ. We know that the Scottish Labour Party will oppose anything that the Scottish National Party introduces, just for the sake of it. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
LEZs are being introduced to improve air quality and to support Scotland’s wider emissions reduction ambitions, as well as to protect Scotland’s health. That is the point—at its heart, it is a public health issue. That is why the likes of Asthma and Lung UK have supported the introduction of low-emission zones.
We are very concerned at the UK Government’s decision to revoke the UK-wide national air pollution control programme provisions through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, especially as it appears to have no plan to replace those crucial provisions. Scottish Government officials continue to engage with counterparts across the UK to resolve this; however, we will not hesitate to act to protect Scotland’s devolved interests and the health of the people of Scotland.
Reducing car travel is key to having clean air, but the Scottish Government cut funding for buses by £37 million by ending the network support grant plus, and it recently dismissed my campaign to reopen the stations at Cove and Newtonhill in order to slash the amount of traffic entering Aberdeen. When will the Scottish Government actually deliver a route map to the 20 per cent reduction in the number of car kilometres driven and stop discouraging people from taking public transport?
The money that we gave to the sector was Covid funding and was, understandably, given to support the sector during lockdown and over the course of the pandemic. It was the UK Government that unilaterally withdrew Covid funding—I know that because I was the health secretary here, in Scotland, when it took the decision to unilaterally withdraw any Covid funding.
We have a good record not only of helping the bus industry but of investing in public transport. It does not help that every measure that we look to bring forward to tackle the climate emergency is opposed, time and time again, by the Scottish Conservatives.
Heating Systems in New-build Homes
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reported concerns that its proposals to ban gas and other direct emission heating systems in new-build homes from next year could have a serious adverse impact on the housing sector. (S6F-02247)
That question comes right on cue.
The new-build heat standard will apply to all new buildings given warrants from next April and means that new homes will be fitted with climate-friendly heating systems from the outset and will be future-proofed against having to be retrofitted a few years later.
That standard is just one part of Scotland’s programme to meet our legal climate change targets, which every single party in this Parliament voted for. Lord Deben, a former Conservative secretary of state who is now chair of the Climate Change Committee, has highlighted that England will follow the same path a year later and has urged the UK Government to meet the same timescales as we have here, in Scotland. There has been extensive consultation and engagement with the industry on the proposals since 2019, and we will continue working constructively with the industry to overcome any remaining barriers to delivery.
The Scottish Government’s plan for zero-carbon heating is shaping up to be another Scottish Green-led mess. The housing sector is warning that fewer homes will be built and that prices will rise. The construction industry has serious doubts that the supply chain can produce even the 1 million heat pumps that the Scottish Government has pledged to retrofit by 2030 and that, even if it can, there are not enough people who are qualified to install them. The industry has told me that Scotland needs more than 20,000 new engineers and tradespeople by 2028 if we are to have even a hope of meeting that goal, but, instead of having thousands of new students in training, we have Patrick Harvie crowing about another world-leading target.
Big targets are no substitute for detailed plans, and it is obvious to everyone but the First Minister that his Green minister’s contribution to net zero is mostly hot air. What is more important to the Scottish National Party: a green Scotland or the Scottish Greens?
What is most important to the Scottish Government is making sure that we have a sustainable planet to hand on to future generations.
I will respond to Brian Whittle by giving the response from the industry, which he is wrong to categorise as universal opposition. That is not the case. Let us hear some of the reaction from those in the house-building industry. I can directly quote the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, which said
“SFHA is supportive of the need to improve the energy performance of new buildings and minimise the negative environmental impacts associated with heating our homes. Our members already build high-quality homes which exceed the minimum standard of the building regulations. We are therefore supportive of plans to regulate all tenures through changes to building standards.”
Let us look at what Barratt Developments plc has to say. It
“supports the Scottish Government’s efforts to meet its statutory climate change targets
and says that
“new buildings should be sustainable and fit for the future.”
Tulloch Homes says:
“From our direction within the Springfield Group, we have already embraced the shift away from direct emission heating systems and have been delivering ASHP and other associated technologies within the group across the country for over 15 years. We are supportive of the Scottish Government’s principal intentions on new-build heat standards and the net zero heating pathway.”
The trouble with the Scottish Conservatives is that they think that, when it comes to the climate emergency, we can just wish it away. They voted—quite rightly—for those ambitious, world-leading targets, but they oppose every single action that we bring forward to do something about it. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
The Tories have opposed measures to reduce city centre traffic, they U-turned on glass recycling and they now oppose new heating standards. The Scottish Conservatives should get off the fringes. They should join the consensus, in this Parliament and this country, on the need to take the serious action that is required to tackle the climate emergency in this country.
Does the First Minister agree that the many benefits of the new-build heat standard will be fully realised only when the United Kingdom Government does what it has been promising to do for many years now and rebalances fuel prices to stop electric heating, the price of which is over three times the price of gas, being penalised?
Willie Coffey is absolutely right. I believe that the new-build heat standards will deliver a range of benefits as they stand, and I agree with him on the importance of that particular issue. For some time, we have been urging the UK Government to deliver on its commitment to publish proposals to rebalance fuel prices, which would make the running costs of zero-emission heating systems lower than those of gas boilers. However, I am afraid that, time and time again, when it comes to serious action, bold action and radical action, all that we see from the UK Government is inaction.
In recent years, several housing estates in my constituency have had gas boilers installed in them, which I think is idiotic, especially when we are trying to deal with climate change. Will the First Minister agree to send his minister to discuss with the sector its concerns about the installation of gas boilers? It is important that we use new technologies such as air-source heat pumps to try to deal with the big challenge that we face. It might be hard, but we need to get on with it.
I am absolutely happy to engage on that. Willie Rennie is right: it will be hard. The action that we have to take in tackling the climate emergency is not easy. We can take the path that the Conservatives choose to take, which is to not take that tough action, or we can take the tough action that I know is supported by Willie Rennie and the mainstream—and, I think, most of this Parliament.
There are real challenges in relation to the ambitious targets that we have for climate-friendly heating systems. For example, one issue is the skills that are needed to install those heating systems and the supply chain that is required.
These are very serious issues and they have been well raised by Willie Rennie. We will engage with him and the sector, as we have already done, to ensure that we overcome the challenges together.
Scottish SPCA
I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish SPCA and convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare.
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Scotland’s leading animal welfare charity, the Scottish SPCA, is in financial crisis. (S6F-02243)
The Scottish Government takes the issue of animal welfare very seriously, and I thank Christine Grahame for drawing this important matter to my attention and the Parliament’s attention. I think that everybody recognises that she has a long-standing record on the matter, having raised animal welfare issues for many years in this Parliament and indeed outwith it.
I am afraid to say that, sadly, the often callous approach by the Conservative Government, which is failing to help people, communities and charities to cope with unacceptably high inflation levels, is all too pervasive. Charities such as the Scottish SPCA, which are on the front line of the impact of the cost of living crisis, are no exception.
I share Christine Grahame’s concerns. I have asked officials to liaise with the Scottish SPCA to provide support and to fully understand the issues that it faces.
I thank the First Minister for his answer. Companion animals in particular play a huge role in helping people’s mental wellbeing, but inflation, which the First Minister referenced, has put huge pressures on the cost of providing them and caused heartbreak for those who find that they simply do not have the resources to keep them. That puts more pressure on the Scottish SPCA and other animal welfare charities. At the same time, those charities have to cope with inflation themselves. For example, it costs £56,000 a day to run the Scottish SPCA, which is 14 per cent up on last year.
Will the First Minister, following the discussions that his officials are having with the charities, report back and let us see where those discussions have gone?
While I was giving my response to Christine Grahame’s initial question, I heard the Conservatives mumbling, “What has this got to do with the UK Government?” If they have not figured out what the cost of living crisis has to do with the Conservative Government, I suspect that they will find out in a pretty brutal fashion when it comes to the next general election. [Interruption.]
Thank you, members.
Nobody should have to give up a loved family pet. Keeping pets and people together is the best way to protect animal and human welfare. I therefore take the opportunity to highlight the work that is delivered by the Scottish SPCA’s pet aid scheme. That initiative aims to support people and pets who are struggling by providing essential food supplies for animals through a network of food banks across most of Scotland.
Officials hold regular meetings with the Scottish SPCA to discuss current issues and to provide support, where appropriate, through policy advice and the sharing of wider communications. I will update Christine Grahame on the latest discussions that I have asked officials to have.
Finally, I urge anyone who is struggling to care for their pet to call the animal helpline in the strictest confidence, because help, advice and support are available.
We move to general and constituency supplementary questions.
World Blood Donor Day
Yesterday was world blood donor day, and I will be delighted to host the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service in the Parliament immediately after FMQs. Does the First Minister share my view about that immense NHS service, thank all those who give blood to save lives and encourage others to consider doing so? [Applause.]
I absolutely agree with Russell Findlay. I will come down to the photo call and try to do my bit to raise awareness of world blood donor day.
The Government has a proud track record of extending and increasing the eligibility of those who can give blood—something that I, personally, am very proud of and that we should all be proud of, as a Parliament and as a country. Anything that we can do collectively to raise and promote awareness is exceptionally important.
Many of us—most of us, I suspect—in the Parliament have given blood at some point or other. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves that we should continue that very good habit.
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Polmadie Station)
The First Minister will be aware that I have been contacted—as he will have been—by constituents and firefighters in Glasgow regarding the proposed cuts by the fire service to facilities and provision in the city. As well as the withdrawal of three fire engines, it is proposed that Polmadie station’s dedicated rescue boat crew, which covers the River Clyde, will be removed, and 15 positions will be lost from the station so that, rather than having dedicated 24-hour rescue boat crew cover for the River Clyde, there will be only one crew at Polmadie to cover both the fire engine and rescue boat simultaneously.
Last year alone, 22 river rescues were carried out by the dedicated boat crew. Next week is drowning prevention week. In that spirit, will the First Minister commit to keeping the dedicated life-saving Clyde rescue boat?
I am happy to look in more detail at the issue that Paul Sweeney has raised, albeit that many of the matters that he has raised are operational.
We have continued our commitment to supporting the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s delivery and reform, with a further uplift of £10 million in resource this financial year—2023-24—in recognition of the pay and inflationary pressures that I have already referenced. We have provided the SFRS with additional budget cover of up to £4.4 million on top of the allocation.
We remain supportive of the reform of our public services, which include the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. It is right that, in common with all public bodies in Scotland, the SFRS continues to review its operations and ensure that what it does is effective in delivering value for money. Of course, the SFRS would ensure that it does that in collaboration and in conjunction with communities—and safety is its highest priority.
Notwithstanding all that I have said, I will look at the issue again in further detail, as Paul Sweeney has asked me to do.
Child Poverty
It is estimated that 90,000 fewer children will live in relative or absolute poverty this year, as a result of Scottish Government policies. That is a significant achievement, given that the Scottish Government has limited powers and a fixed budget. What further actions could the Scottish Government take to tackle child poverty if key welfare, tax and employment powers were held by this Parliament?
Collette Stevenson makes an incredibly important point. I have mentioned on many occasions in this chamber that the defining mission of the Government that I lead will be reducing poverty, including child poverty in particular, building on the excellent progress that was made by my predecessor.
The progress report published this week shows that our focus on tackling child poverty is making a significant and tangible difference. However, as Shirley-Anne Somerville said earlier this week, it is like having one hand tied behind our back. There is only so much that the Scottish Government can do. We can take all of the action that we possibly can, and we will, to pull people out of poverty, but we have a, frankly, cruel Conservative Government at Westminster that is overseeing not only a hard Brexit and the mishandling of our economy but regressive welfare cuts that have, over years and years, plunged people into poverty.
To take just one example, if the Tories reversed the welfare reforms that they have already imposed since 2015, they would lift an estimated 70,000 people, including 30,000 children, out of poverty. There is no doubt that our ambitions to tackle child poverty are restricted, which is why we continue to argue for the full powers to tackle inequality to be in our hands as opposed to the hands of a Conservative Westminster Government.
Bracken Control
Will the First Minister update the chamber on the Scottish Government’s actions to campaign for the approval of emergency use of Asulox for bracken control in Scotland?
Will he also commit to reversing the appalling decision to remove support for bracken control through the agri-environment scheme? If reinstated, it will improve biodiversity, protect heather with regard to pollination, and protect walkers and workers against Lyme disease, which the ticks carry.
As I have said previously, we are willing to look at the issue, but we are of course following the agreed process, which has been followed for many years. As a Scottish Government, we have provided a submission to the Health and Safety Executive. I think that we are waiting for other Governments across the United Kingdom to do similar.
I will look at the issue, because it is an important issue that has been raised by many members right across the parliamentary chamber. We know about the potential risk of uncontrolled bracken. If there is an update from the Health and Safety Executive, I will ensure that Parliament is informed expeditiously.
Abortion Services Safe Access Zones (Scotland) Bill
Today, I lodged the final proposal for my abortion services safe access zones (Scotland) bill. I thank campaigners, those who contributed to the consultation and MSPs across the chamber for their support.
Could I invite the First Minister to take this opportunity to reaffirm his support for the bill and to encourage others to sign the final proposal this afternoon to show that this Parliament will not only stand up for reproductive rights but advance and strengthen them?
I agree with every single word of Gillian Mackay’s question. I am very happy to reaffirm my support. Women should be able to access abortions without judgment. It is simply not acceptable for anyone to experience harassment, intimidation or unwanted influence as they access essential healthcare.
I will not have been the only one moved by the video made by Dr Greg Irwin, one of the doctors at the Glasgow facility, in which he talked about our own mothers, sisters and nieces trying to access healthcare in the face of that intimidation.
I am delighted to see that Gillian Mackay has published the consultation analysis and final bill proposal on safe access zones, which represents the next stage in bringing forward that essential legislation. I congratulate her on putting in the amount of work that she has to get to this point. She can be absolutely assured of the Scottish Government’s commitment to giving her our full support. I urge members across the chamber to back her proposals.
Car Wash Licensing Scheme (Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery)
In February this year, the Minister for Community Safety confirmed that the car wash sector was high risk for labour exploitation. The minister also confirmed that 39 premises were attended by police across the country and that a number of offences were detected, and persons safeguarded.
In light of that, will the First Minister advise whether the Scottish Government would consider implementing a licensing scheme for car washes in Scotland to ensure that practices such as human trafficking and modern slavery are prevented in that trade?
I thank Foysol Choudhury for raising that incredibly important issue. I know that it is very close to his heart and that he has raised it publicly with this Government on a number of occasions. I am pleased to say that I know that all of this Parliament shares our ambition to eradicate human trafficking. We will work right across the United Kingdom—including with other Governments where necessary, where some of those powers are reserved—to do what we can to eradicate human trafficking.
On the very specific issue of looking at a licensing scheme that Foysol Choudhury raised with me, I will take that away and give it the due consideration that he asked me to give it. I will make sure that the appropriate minister writes back to him in due course.
That concludes First Minister’s question time.
The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Emma Harper. There will be a short suspension to allow those leaving the chamber and public gallery to do so.
12:50 Meeting suspended.12:51 On resuming—
Previous
General Question Time